An assessment of the evolution of Kenya’s solid waste management policies and their implementation in Nairobi and Mombasa: analysis of policies and practices

Abstract

This paper provides a summary of the priorities and strategies stipulated by the major solid waste management (SWM) policies in Kenya. It also provides a brief assessment of their implementation in Nairobi and Mombasa, drawing on data from a 2016 community-based study. We found that SWM policies have evolved to specificity in terms of focus, functions and scope. There was a shift from criminalizing solid waste action or inaction to promoting good practices; from generic acts to specific ones; and from centralized mandates to more decentralized responsibilities. However, SWM remains a critical concern and a major challenge in Nairobi and Mombasa as a result of weak institutional structures and capacity, weak enforcement of regulatory frameworks, and the control of the sector by criminal cartels.

I. Introduction

Kenya, like many other low- and middle-income countries, is keen to ensure that it accelerates the pace of its industrial development, much of which is occurring in its major urban centres. Increasing urbanization, rural–urban migration, rising standards of living, and rapid development associated with population growth have resulted in increased solid waste generation by industrial, domestic and other activities.⁽¹⁾ It has been noted in other contexts too that increasing population, changing consumption patterns, economic development, changing income, urbanization and industrialization all contribute to the increased generation of waste.⁽²⁾

With the increasing urban population in Kenya, which is estimated to be growing at a rate higher than that of the country’s general population, waste generation and management will be a major challenge. The industrialization and urbanization process in the country, dominated by one major city – Nairobi, which has around four times the population of the next largest urban centre (Mombasa) – has witnessed an exponential increase in the generation of solid waste. The country’s urban population in 1999 was 5.4 million. By 2009 this had grown to 12.5 million, with 3,233,788 and 870,381 residing in Nairobi and Mombasa respectively. This translates to 299,439 households in Mombasa and 1,128,693 in Nairobi. It is projected that by 2030, about 50 per cent of the Kenyan population will be urban.⁽³⁾

Solid waste technically includes refuse from households, non-hazardous solid waste from industrial, commercial and institutional establishments, market waste, yard waste and street sweepings. Although it specifically excludes medical waste, hazardous waste and sewage, in the context of many low- and middle-income countries, municipal solid waste is often mixed. Its management aspect encompasses the functions of collection, transfer, treatment, recycling, resource recovery and disposal of municipal solid waste.

The first goal of solid waste management (SWM) is to protect the health of the population.

Decomposing organic waste is a rich medium for the growth of numerous micro-organisms, many of which can cause disease if not well handled and then passed on to humans.⁽⁴⁾ Gastro-intestinal infections such as gastro-enteritis, typhoid fever, and helminths are commonly linked to poor SWM.⁽⁵⁾ Medical waste is a recognized source of both viral and bacterial infections, such as hepatitis B, transmitted through skin cuts, mucous, needlestick injuries and contaminated surfaces.⁽⁶⁾ Along with the population growth and rapid urbanization, poor solid waste management is emerging as a key risk for health in Kenya. Other SWM goals include the promotion of environmental quality and sustainability, support of economic productivity and employment generation.⁽⁷⁾

To address the potential risks associated with solid waste and its management, as well as addressing other secondary goals, Kenya has enacted a number of policies and legal provisions, as well as creating institutions and systems at different levels of governance. However, the chronological and progressive development of these policies and legal provisions has not been systematically investigated. The study reported in this paper described the evolution, devolution and segmentation of the SWM policy architecture over time, and assessed the evolution of institutional mechanisms for SWM policy implementation. It also described important global and regional SWM policies that might have influenced the development of SWM policy architecture in Kenya. The evidence presented could be useful in informing both the implementation of existing policies and the formulation of new SWM policies in the future.

II. Methods

a. Scope

This study focused mainly on country-level SWM policies in Kenya. To illustrate county-level SWM policies and the devolution of national-level SWM policies to the county level, SWM policy contexts in Nairobi and Mombasa were also included in the analysis. These cities represent a significant portion of solid waste generation and SWM problems in the country. The primary data used to supplement this study’s examination of the implementation of SWM policies were collected from communities living close to dumpsites in Nairobi and Mombasa.

The timeframe considered here is from the inception of SWM policy frameworks in Kenya (marked by the oldest SWM policy text in 1948) to July 2015. This makes the study the most comprehensive in this regard as compared to previous reviews of SWM policies in Kenya.⁽⁸⁾ The primary data were from a cross-sectional survey and qualitative interviews conducted in 2016. Definitions of key concepts used in this paper are given in Table 1.

Table 1

Definitions of concepts/constructs

Concept	Definition
Evolution	The chronological and progressive development of SWM policy architecture, policy priorities and strategies (temporal development)
Devolution	The decentralization of SWM policy processes and policy implementation from country to county levels (vertical – top-down – devolved)
Implementation	The extent to which SWM policies are implemented, as evidenced by key outcomes of SWM practices in Nairobi and Mombasa
Segmentation	The tailoring of SWM policy frameworks and implementation processes to relevant sectors (horizontal development)
Coordination	The organizational frameworks and coordination mechanisms for SWM policy formulation, implementation and evaluation
External influence	Global and regional (sub-Saharan African) conventions, agreements, declarations, policies and strategies, addressing SWM in developing countries (external policy pressure)

b. Data sources and search strategy

The main policy data sources for this study were SWM policy documents and SWM policy reviews in Kenya (national-level and for Nairobi and Mombasa), as well as some global and regional-level policy content. Electronic SWM policy documents were accessed through a general search engine and the websites of relevant organizations. The active involvement of an SWM policy expert in Kenya, who was familiar with most of the SWM policy documents, made it possible to identify most of the remaining SWM policy documents.

For the policy implementation component of the study, key indicators of SWM practices were drawn from a population-based household sample survey conducted with 1,158 (93 per cent response rate) households in Nairobi and 1,225 (99 per cent response rate) households in Mombasa between March and June 2016. The study focused on communities living closer to dumpsites – Korogocho/Dandora, Saika and Makadara in Nairobi, and Bamburi and Kisauni in Mombasa. These communities were selected based on the following criteria: Dandora/Korogocho are slum⁽⁹⁾ locations primarily bordering the main municipal dumpsite (Dandora), which is the only official dumpsite in Nairobi; Saika is located farther from the dumpsite but is exposed to SWM-related secondary hazards such as pollution and flooding; and Makadara is a non-slum comparison study site. In Mombasa, Bamburi is next to one of the city’s dumpsites (Mwakirunge), located 15 kilometres from the city centre, and Kisauni is an area prone to secondary hazards such as flooding. All the study communities were selected purposively on the basis of their exposure to the risks associated with solid waste management.

There were two stages of sample selection in the survey. At the first stage, primary sampling unit clusters were selected. At the second stage, the households were selected for the interviews, using the systematic sampling method, proven theoretically to be identical to the simple random sampling method. Wherever possible, the head of the household was the survey respondent. In the absence of the household head, the next most senior household member was interviewed.

This survey was complemented between March and July 2016 by focus group discussions (FGDs), in-depth interviews and key informant interviews. FGD and in-depth interview participants were purposively selected on the basis of their residency within the target area and capacity to provide us with rich information on the issues that were being explored. Selection of key informants for interviews was based on the key role particular offices play in the management of SWM in the city or locality. They included officials from the county government and other national government agencies, such as the National Environmental Management Agency (NEMA), involved at technical and policy levels. Interviews were also conducted with private sector actors, especially those involved in waste recovery and recycling, as well as with representatives of community-based organizations (CBOs) and youth groups involved in waste management activities. The intention was to understand their activities, capacities, relationship with government, and views on SWM practices, as well as their knowledge, attitudes and practices in relation to the impacts of exposure to waste on health and local communities. In all, 15 key informant interviews, 15 in-depth interviews, and 10 focus group discussions were conducted.

c. Data extraction and analysis

Before actual extraction of information, a profile of SWM policy architecture was developed using a matrix that lists the identified SWM policy documents in chronological order. Relevant information from the identified policy documents was extracted by two experts based on its relevance to the main themes of the analysis, and using a matrix that provides the year, type and title of policy documents.

For the policy implementation component, indicator data were computed from household survey data. Data were extracted from the qualitative component of the study on the challenges of implementing SWM policies.

d. Analysis

Solid waste management policies can potentially be analysed from a health perspective (protecting the health of a population), but also, as noted, from environmental (promotion of environmental quality and sustainability) and economic (enhancing productivity and employment generation) perspectives. As these perspectives are interlinked, this study presented an integrated account of the evolution and implementation of SWM policies in Kenya. The information extracted from the SWM policy documents underwent an integrative synthesis (a qualitative evidence synthesis method that integrates themes across primary sources of information to build a “storyline” of an event, phenomenon or experience). Findings are presented in narrative summaries and tables, and the list of relevant SWM policy frameworks is provided in the annex.

III. Findings

a. Evolution of SWM policy architecture at country level

The first policy text relevant to solid waste management in Kenya is the Penal Code of 1948, which made it an offence for anyone to voluntarily “vitiate the atmosphere” in any place, to harm the health of persons dwelling or carrying on business in the neighborhood or passing along a public way (in Section 192); and to “corrupt or foul the water” of any public spring or reservoir, to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used (in Section 191).⁽¹⁰⁾

The next major development in SWM policy architecture was the Local Government Act, Chapter 265 (1963), which vested in local authorities (i.e. municipal/town/urban councils) powers to establish and maintain sanitary services for the removal and destruction or management of refuse and effluent, and where such service was established, to compel its use by persons to whom the services is available (Section 160a).⁽¹¹⁾

The next major landmark policy framework was the Public Health Act, Chapter 242 (1986), on securing and maintaining health. It contains provisions regarding sanitation and housing. Section 115 of the Act states that no person shall cause a nuisance or cause to exist on any land or premises any condition liable to harm or endanger human health. It defines such nuisance or conditions under Section 118 as waste pipes, sewers, drains or refuse pits whose condition, placement or construction, in the opinion of the medical officer of health, would damage health. Other nuisances are any accumulation of materials or refuse that in the opinion of the officer is likely to harbour rats or other vermin.⁽¹²⁾

In order to provide a structured approach to environmental management in Kenya, the Environmental Management and Coordination Act 1999 (EMCA) was enacted as a framework law on the environment. The EMCA did not supersede the environmental provisions within the sectoral laws; instead these provisions were reinforced to better manage Kenya’s ailing environment. The EMCA provided for the development of several subsidiary laws and guidelines to govern environmental management and SWM.⁽¹³⁾

In 2007, Vision 2030, the long-term development plan for Kenya, included among its flagship projects the development of SWM systems in five major cities.⁽¹⁴⁾

The 2010 Constitution of Kenya in Article 42 states that every person has the right to a clean and healthy environment, which includes the right to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through legislative and other measures; and to have obligations relating to the environment fulfilled under Article 70, which guarantees a clean environment as a claimable right by any citizen who feels that this right has been infringed.⁽¹⁵⁾

The National Environment Policy (2013), formulated by the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Natural Resources, contains policy statements on waste management. According to these statements, the government will develop an integrated national waste management strategy; promote the use of economic incentives to manage waste; and promote establishment of facilities and incentives for cleaner production, waste recovery, recycling and reuse. This policy further states that the government will promote environmental health impact analysis (EHIA) as a component of environmental impact assessment (EIA) for all development projects; enhance the provision of occupational health and safety services; and promote capacity building in the field of health impact analysis.⁽¹⁶⁾

The National Solid Waste Management Strategy (2014) by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) is the most recent government action establishing a common platform for action between stakeholders to systematically improve waste management. It introduces a new approach for improved waste management in Kenya to create wealth and employment and reduce pollution of the environment. This strategy presents 10 minimum points for management of the existing waste management facilities so as to continuously promote compliance with the waste management regulations within the counties.⁽¹⁷⁾

Building on the series of SWM policies in Kenya, we identify four distinct categories of solid waste management policy frameworks in the country across the years under review, ranging from national frameworks, through legal and regulatory frameworks, to implementation guidelines, as summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Categories of SWM policy frameworks

In Figure 2, we present our summary of how national, sectoral and local SWM frameworks apply to the cities of Mombasa and Nairobi over the observation years of our review.

Figure 2

Hierarchy of SWM policy frameworks in Kenya

Through the chronological evolution of SWM policies, there has been a shift in the main focus. The first set of policy documents (e.g. the Penal Code) was punitive, making it an offence to vitiate the environment – focusing on “what not to do” regarding SWM. The next set of policies (e.g. the Local Government Act) focused on “who will control” SWM activities – vesting powers to responsible bodies. The main EMCA and its regulations included provisions on “what needs to be done” to address the problem of SWM. The more recent policy documents emphasize “how to manage/address” the challenges of SWM. However, they give little indication of how solid wastes can best be used as resources to drive economic development that is compatible with the health of the population and the environment.

b. Devolution of SWM policy frameworks to county levels

The first set of City of Nairobi by-laws that address solid waste management emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. These included by-laws on Nursing Homes and Maternity Homes (1950); and on Restaurants, Eating Houses and Snack Bars (1961); General Nuisance By-Laws (1960); and Part II of the City Council of Nairobi Conservancy By-Laws (1961).

The next set of Nairobi City County by-laws were published between 2006 and 2007, and included by-laws on medical facilities (2006); banning polythene bags (2007); wastewater conservancy (2007); and more general nuisance and SWM by-laws (2007).⁽¹⁸⁾

The City of Nairobi’s Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (2010-2020) envisions a healthy, safe, secure and sustainable solid waste management system fit for a world-class city, in a time of increasing resource scarcity. Clean, healthy city environments form as much a part of this vision as resource-efficient processes of production and consumption. This plan aims to improve and protect the public health of Nairobi residents and visitors, to protect ecological health, diversity and productivity, and to maximize resource recovery through a participatory approach.⁽¹⁹⁾

The Nairobi City County Solid Waste Management Bill (2014) provides a county legal framework for solid waste management function, as spelt out in Part II of the fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya; a framework for promoting public participation in the management, protection and conservation of the environment; and a legal basis for the implementation of the county’s integrated solid waste management plan and for the participation of the various actors involved in solid waste management in the county.⁽²⁰⁾ A comprehensive plastic waste management strategy for the City of Nairobi (2006) was also developed and piloted.⁽²¹⁾

The Nairobi Metro 2030 Strategy (2008), developed by the Ministry of Nairobi Metropolitan Development and envisioning a world-class African metropolis, estimates that the generation of solid waste in the city will increase to 1.83 million tons per year in 2030. This strategy indicates that employing waste in energy mechanisms and technology presents a useful opportunity for SWM.⁽²²⁾ The City of Nairobi Outlook (2007) presented a similar prospect.⁽²³⁾

The Municipal Council of Mombasa issued its first Environmental Management By-laws in 2008, in line with the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) 1999. This is the only standalone policy framework that addresses solid waste management in Mombasa.⁽²⁴⁾ However, the National Solid Waste Management Strategy (2014) considered Mombasa as one of the five cities for the flagship projects specified in Vision 2030. The project is intended to create a fully functional and compliant waste management system by developing strategies towards achieving sustainable waste management and a clean, healthy environment for all.⁽²⁵⁾

Besides the county-specific SWM policy frameworks for Nairobi and Mombasa, there are additional generic policies with policy content primarily relevant to cities and urban areas. Among these is the Urban Areas and Cities Act (2011), which requires cities to have the ability to effectively manage and dispose of waste,⁽²⁶⁾ and the County Government Act (2013), which identifies solid waste management as a devolved service under each county government and assigns to it the specific task of implementing nationwide policies within its jurisdiction.⁽²⁷⁾

c. Sector-specific SWM policies

Among the policies for solid waste management are functional acts that streamline solid waste management into specific sectors (Table 2).

Table 2

Segmentation of SWM policies into functions

Act (year)	What the policy addresses
Factories Act (1987)	Generation of waste in factories: Every factory owner to ensure that the factory environment is kept in a clean state, free from effluvia arising from any drain, sanitary convenience or nuisance. Subsections a and b require accumulations of dirt and refuse to be removed daily. (a)
Radiation Protection Act (1985)	Generation and disposal of radioactive material: Prohibits manufacturing, possessing, selling, disposing of, importing or exporting any irradiating device or radioactive material, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. (b)
Building Code (1987, 1995)	Handling construction and demolition waste: Dealing with the depositing of debris on streets. The Building Code of 1995 serves as an enhanced framework and revised building regulation. (c)
Food, Drugs and Chemical Substances Act (1992)	Disposal of Solid Waste: Makes it an offence to use or dispose of any chemical substance in a manner likely to cause contamination of food or water for human consumption or in a manner liable to be injurious or dangerous to health. (d)
Physical Planning Act (1996)	Waste disposal sites: Makes provision for development control and as such provides for waste disposal at designated sites only. (e)
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (2007)	Operation of plant machinery and incinerators: Deals with chemical safety and the securing of dangerous parts of machinery. (f)
Birth and Death Registration Act (2012)	Disposal of cadavers: Prohibits burying, cremating or otherwise disposing of the body of a deceased person without a permit. (g)

SOURCES:

(a)

Republic of Kenya (1987), Factories Act, Nairobi.

(b)

Republic of Kenya (1985), Radiation Protection Act: Chapter 243, Nairobi 1985.

(c)

Republic of Kenya (1995), Building Code 95, Nairobi.

(d)

Republic of Kenya (1992), Food, Drugs and Chemical Substances Act: Chapter 254, Nairobi.

(e)

Republic of Kenya (1996), Physical Planning Act: Chapter 286, Kenya National Council for Law Reporting, Nairobi.

(f)

Republic of Kenya (2007b), Occupational Safety and Health Act, Nairobi.

(g)

Republic of Kenya (2012b), Births and Deaths Registration Act: Chapter 149, Nairobi.

d. Issue-specific regulations

The generic Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) was segmented into issue-specific regulations (Table 3).

Table 3

Segmentation of EMCA into specific regulations

Legal notice number (LNN)	Year	Issue addressed	Description
101	2003	Impact Assessment and Audit	Impact assessment: Establishes rules and procedures for licensing, conducting and reporting environmental impact assessments. (a)
121	2006	Waste Management	Procedure and criteria for handling categories of waste: Establishes a number of rules for the management of municipal waste. (b)
120	2006	Water Quality	Protection of water quality: Every trade or industrial undertaking must install on its premises anti-pollution equipment for the treatment of waste emanating from such trade or industrial undertaking. (c)
73	2007	Controlled Substances	Disposal of controlled substances: Describes classification of controlled substances and provisions on licensing and permit provision, as well as monitoring provisions for manufacture, packaging, import and export of controlled substances. (d)
60	2007	Hazardous Substances	Disposal of hazardous wastes: Requires among other things that all unused, obsolete or expired chemicals be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. (e)
61	2009	Noise and Excessive Vibration Pollution	Regulation of noise and vibration: No person shall make or cause to be made any loud, unreasonable, unnecessary or unusual noise that annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of others and the environment. (f)
34	2009	Air Quality	Protection of air: No person shall act in a way that directly or indirectly causes immediate or subsequent air pollution. (g)

SOURCES:

(a)

National Environment Management Authority (2003), Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, Nairobi.

(b)

Republic of Kenya (2006a), Waste Management Regulations, Nairobi.

(c)

Republic of Kenya (2006b), Environmental Management and Coordination (Water Quality) Regulations, Nairobi.

(d)

Republic of Kenya (2007c), Environmental Management and Coordination (Controlled Substances) Regulations, Nairobi.

(e)

Republic of Kenya (2007d), Environmental Management and Coordination (Hazardous Substances) Regulations, Nairobi.

(f)

Republic of Kenya (2009a), Environmental Management and Coordination (Noise and Excessive Vibration Pollution) Regulations, Nairobi.

(g)

Republic of Kenya (2009b), Environmental Management and Coordination (Air Quality) Regulations, Nairobi.

e. Coordination mechanism for SWM policy processes

The institutional mechanisms for the implementation of SWM policies (Table 4) have also evolved through several developmental stages. Before 1990, the two main institutional mechanisms were local authorities (municipal/urban/town councils) and public prosecutors (for the Penal Code). Between 1990 and 2010, additional institutional mechanisms were established, including the National Environmental Management Authority, National Environment Council, Provincial and District Environment Committees, and Public Complaints Committee. In the post-2010 period, other institutions were added: the Environmental and Land Court; land, physical planning and environmental departments (country level); national ministries of environment and health; county governments; and the Kenya National Cleaner Production Centre. Further evidence would be needed to describe the capacity of these entities and how well the coordination within and among these mechanisms is progressing. The roles of private sector actors in the waste management cycle are not clearly outlined in the major policies.

Table 4

Description of the main institutional mechanisms for SWM policy processes

Institutional mechanism	Description and responsibilities
National government	Mandated by the Constitution of Kenya (2010) to protect the environment and responsible for formulating and enforcing national-level policies.
National Environment Council	Policy formulation and directions for the purposes of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act. It also sets national goals and objectives.
National ministries for environment and health	The main stakeholders at the national level responsible for establishing national healthcare and waste management policies.
National Environmental Management Authority	Responsible for developing and enforcing environmental standards and regulations nationwide in close collaboration with the state environmental management authorities at the state level.
Kenya National Cleaner Production Centre	Responsible for undertaking research and identifying good practices relevant to wider scale-up.
Environment and Land Court	Tasked with interpretation of laws relating to the environment and land.
Land, physical planning and environmental departments	Mandated to implement policies relevant to land, physical planning and the environment in the respective counties with precautions to protect the environment.
Local authorities and county governments	Key local stakeholders responsible for local governance, including managing waste and providing financing for waste management vehicles, crews and other equipment, and responsible for the entire process.
Provincial and district environment committees	Decentralization of environmental management and enabling participation by the local communities.
Public Complaints Committee	Administrative mechanism for addressing environmental harm.
Public Prosecutors	Responsible for prosecuting individuals and organizations who commit offences under one or more provisions of the legal frameworks.

f. Implementation of SWM policies

Despite the range of SWM policies developed in Kenya over the last decades, the problems with SWM remain a critical concern. In Nairobi, according to the City County, only half of the estimated 3,000 tons of waste generated daily is collected.⁽²⁸⁾ Our study found that 76 per cent of surveyed households in Nairobi had regular collection of household waste. However, the amount of waste generated and collected could vary in different parts of the city. The city has no means of safe waste disposal. As a result, about two-thirds of the waste generated in the city cannot be accounted for.⁽²⁹⁾ The risk associated with unsafe disposal and exposure to waste is also a concern, as more than 2,000 people earn their living through engagement in waste-related resource recovery.⁽³⁰⁾

The evolution of SWM policies in Kenya is not matched by corresponding improvements in SWM practices. Until the mid-1970s, in Nairobi, over 90 per cent of the waste was being collected.⁽³¹⁾ As years went by, and waste generation increased, there was a decrease in the number of vehicles used to collect waste. In the mid-1980s, the city authority collected only 20 per cent of the municipality’s total solid waste.⁽³²⁾ In 2010, the rate of municipal solid waste collection was about 33 per cent.⁽³³⁾ Over the same period the rate of waste reuse/recycling was reported to be only 3.7 per cent.⁽³⁴⁾ Over and above these figures, it should be kept in mind that the Dandora disposal site, Nairobi’s main dumpsite, is an open site and there are, in addition, more than 70 illegal dumping sites scattered throughout the city.⁽³⁵⁾

In the city of Mombasa, approximately 700–800 tons of solid waste are generated per day. According to an independent assessment, only 68 per cent of this waste is collected, leaving 32 per cent to be burnt, thrown into streets or disposed of in open fields. What is collected includes that managed by many private companies registered to collect wastes. However, they are business oriented and the control mechanisms are weak.⁽³⁶⁾

Our study showed that only about half of the waste in Mombasa communities living closer to dumpsites is being collected – less than the amount reported for the city as a whole. For Nairobi, we found a much higher rate of collection than that reported for the city (33 per cent for the city). In both cases, the key SWM indicators from our study’s Nairobi and Mombasa communities living closer to dumpsites, as shown in Table 5, indicate that the gaps and challenges in solid waste management are significant and opportunities for further action are immense.

Table 5

Key indicators of SWM practices in Nairobi and Mombasa from the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) household survey of communities close to dumpsites, 2016

Key indicator	Nairobi	Mombasa
Household receives ANY garbage collection services	76.2%	54.5%
Household stores wastes in an open container	10.9%	35.1%
Household uses other (informal) waste disposal avenues	12.0%	16.7%
Household does not take measures to reduce waste	56.8%	68.5%
Household disposes of toxic substances (e.g. batteries, bulbs, etc.) with other trash	65.6%	60.5%
Household routinely burns some household waste	18.5%	47.1%
Household perceives the overall environment as dirty	44.9%	38.2%
Household rates the overall health risk from waste as moderate or high	73.0%	58.5%
Reported health issue (a) due to poor SWM in the last 12 months	28.2%	14.4%
Household perceives that communities can address the risks	28.8%	33.6%

NOTE:

(a)

Including self-reported infections, injuries and chronic diseases.

The qualitative component of the study revealed a number of challenges that could explain the policy–action gap in both cities. The main ones were weak institutional structures that complicate coordination between county-level agencies, the mixing of wastes that makes reuse/recycling difficult, barriers related to moving dumpsites to another place, weak enforcement of new regulatory frameworks, inadequate staffing of implementing agencies, and rapid urbanization. Though these challenges are most severe in informal settlements and communities living closer to dumpsites, they are not limited to these residential domains. The challenges are unquestionably intensified by the crime associated with SWM, which is dominated in both cities by cartels that are more focused on profit and extortion, often through violent means, than on delivering the services contracted out by the municipalities. These practices are particularly prevalent at Nairobi’s official dumpsite in Dandora.⁽³⁷⁾

In the Nairobi study sites, storage within the household is still rudimentary, with both organic and non-organic wastes mixed in layers of plastic bags. Collection and transportation are among the most visible aspects of SWM and are characterized by different models and strategies. Treatment of waste is still nascent, with an insignificant amount of SWM being processed. Disposal is still primarily at the open dumpsite at Dandora, which becomes impassable during the rains, giving rise to illegal dumping in other parts of the city.

All the respondents from the qualitative study in Nairobi confirmed that the Nairobi City County (NCC) provides a range of SWM services, either alone or with partners from government agencies and private sector organizations. These private sector organizations include CBOs, private companies, and youth groups. Despite the county government being considered the key actor in SWM, including working in concert with other players offering complementary services, its overall reach is considered inadequate. Its control over SWM is also further constrained by the powerful hold that some of these other players have over SWM. The county government lacks operational capacity in both staff and equipment to undertake SWM in the city. The regulator NEMA is equally challenged and cannot effectively supervise SWM in the city.

In addition to the environmental health concerns that inadequate collection poses for the public, there are specific health challenges for people engaged in waste collection and transport. Overall, there is a weak culture of using protection gear among SWM workers, and the cost of SWM protective gear is a concern that has yet to be addressed.

Waste reduction strategies either have been attempted or already exist – with some continuing, albeit at small-scale levels, across the city. There is an appreciation that separation of waste at source is possible, although waste pickers fear this may hurt their bottom line. There is also heavy use of organic recovered materials from Dandora as animal feed (for chicken, pigs and cattle), which is sold in the area and even in other parts of the city. Also common is unsafe and informal recycling by actors within the informal sector who are also selling recovered materials to third parties. This business is controlled by the cartels.

Mombasa’s SWM system, less extensive than that in Nairobi, also suffers from weak governance. It is also controlled by players who are not primarily driven by policy imperatives. Barely more than half of the surveyed households receive any form of waste collection, and close to half of those households routinely burn their wastes. This adds significantly to the negative health impacts. Despite the higher environmental health risks among the sample households in Mombasa, fewer respondents perceive a health risk as compared to those in Nairobi. In Mombasa too, there is hardly any sorting at the source. Scavengers and collectors noted that sorting at source would disadvantage them, leaving valuables in the hands of the generating households. There is also a lack of designated areas and equipment such as bulk containers to store waste at the community level. Most of the solid waste collection points are poorly located and are mainly along spaces reserved for road construction. Others are situated next to major markets, some of which sell food products. Residents and businesspeople complain about the bad smell and unsightliness of the garbage. As in Nairobi, waste pickers lack protective/safety materials and equipment and are exposed to health risks, and most of them have indicated being bruised by sharp objects.

IV. Discussion

Solid waste management policies in Kenya have evolved from a few policy statements in other, more general, policy frameworks to standalone environmental policies that give substantial focus to solid waste management, and later to solid waste management policy/strategic frameworks at national and county levels. Overall, there has been an expansion in the breadth and depth of solid waste management policy frameworks over the last two decades in Kenya. The EMCA (1999) was the landmark policy framework in the evolution of the SWM policy architecture in Kenya. It laid the main foundation for the development of other policies and strategies relevant to the environment and population health.⁽³⁸⁾ However, the emphasis has been more on ecological issues, such as cleanliness of the environment, than environmental health outcomes. Besides, the evolution of the SWM policies has not actually delivered regular collection services for all residents, or integrated management of various forms of wastes. The gap between policy and adequate action remains very large.

The devolution of national-level SWM policy frameworks has had mixed features. The devolution took longer in general but has been stronger in Nairobi County as compared to Mombasa County. In Nairobi County, SWM by-laws, a plan and a bill are well in place. In Mombasa County, SWM interventions rely heavily on national-level policy frameworks and a few SWM by-laws developed in the recent past. While the national-level policy frameworks could be relevant to overall guidance of SWM in the country and specifically in the counties, their utility as county-level policy frameworks requires the translation of national policies into county-level governance and administration systems. Local policies also need to focus on effective implementation, emphasizing ways to avert SWM problems that are fuelled by inadequate capacity in local governments, the poor economic status of a substantial proportion of the population, and high rural to urban migration in Kenya.⁽³⁹⁾

This study has also described sector-specific segmentation and issue-specific segmentation. However, these two categories of policy frameworks have not been strongly linked and the segmentation process left aside how the two outputs of segmentation would work together. This has resulted in a gap in the implementation of the policies.

The description of institutional mechanisms has also shown that the evolution of institutional mechanisms for SWM policy processes and implementation at the national level are well aligned with the national-level policy frameworks. These governance bodies at county level would therefore be responsible for implementing several policy actions that emerge from several ministries at the national level. In the absence of a clear model of integrated policy implementation, this would challenge the capacity of county-level authorities. As evidenced by a study conducted in health care settings, provision of trainings and inclusion of SWM in training curricula are needed to enhance capacity at local institutional levels.⁽⁴⁰⁾

More importantly, there is a need to change the views of the policymaking bodies towards solid waste. The policies put little emphasis on solid waste as a potential resource. Consequently, policy interventions are inclined towards collection, transportation and disposal, with little attention to recycling and reuse.

While the importance of roles of various stakeholders and actors in SWM is clearly articulated in the policy frameworks, these roles are not well operationalized and coordination mechanisms are not well stated in the policy guidelines. Moreover, the model of public–private partnership that should be applied for the management of solid waste in Kenya is not clear from the reviewed policy frameworks. A study from Lagos, Nigeria provides evidence from the region of the feasibility of this model.⁽⁴¹⁾

Furthermore, the evolution of SWM policies in Kenya has not been associated with a corresponding improvement in SWM practices. Data from our community-based quantitative and qualitative study suggest that the challenge of SWM remains a major problem in both Nairobi and Mombasa, the two biggest cities in Kenya. The qualitative analysis has found a range of challenges that are amenable to change. Among these are the challenges of patronage, corruption and crime that pervade SWM practice in both cities. Therefore, coordinated efforts are needed to translate the existing policy frameworks into practice in order to avert the risks and problems associated with poor solid waste management.

V. Conclusions and Recommendations

There has been a progressive development of solid waste management policy priorities and strategies in Kenya over time. While the prevailing focus on ecological outcomes is welcomed, health outcomes need to become a more central principle of solid waste management policy frameworks. As poor SWM is a critical risk factor for health, policies need to address health and the environment (or environmental health) in a more balanced manner.

The devolution and segmentation of the policy frameworks are not well aligned, and the institutional mechanisms converge in a top-down approach thematically, although they diverge geographically. Further analysis is needed to disentangle the real impacts of these processes and arrangements. However, current evidence suggests that fewer than 50 per cent of Kenyan households are served by solid waste management, and that major changes need to occur in the structure and oversight of implementation.

Despite the progressive evolution of SWM policies in Kenya, the SWM practices, as evidenced by the key indicators of SWM processes and risks, still pose a critical challenge in the development landscape of the country. Intensified efforts are thus needed to strengthen the implementation of the policies to improve SWM in Nairobi and Mombasa.