MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS KAMPALA CITY, UGANDA CASE STUDY OF NATEETE PARISH, RUBAGA DIVISION

By

NAKANDI ZAINABU 2012/HD02/4291U

SUPERVISOR DR. BOB NAKILEZA

A RESEARCH DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE TRAINING IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

AUGUST 2017 DECLARATION

I, Nakandi Zainabu, declare that the work presented is my own and an original work that has not been submitted for any other Master’s degree in Makerere University or in any other University.

Signature………………………………….. Date…………………………… NAKANDI ZAINABU

i APPROVAL

This work was submitted with my approval as the supervisor during the research work

Sign ……………………………………….Date ………………………………………… DR BOB NAKILEZA

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work has been realized with the great support and encouragement of many individuals. I am so grateful for the support accorded to me in form of time and attention to respond to issues that I had to discuss in order to complete this work.

I acknowledge my supervisor Dr. Bob Nakileza who provided me guidance, encouragement and commitment through the study , I also thank my mother Mrs Ssanyu Nalongo Florence for all the support she has given me and my sisters Aisha Nabbale and Babirye Nagguja and brother Kato Hassan for their assistance.

iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SW Solid waste 3R Waste Reduction, Re-Use and Recycling CBD Central Business District GoSA Government of South Africa H/H Household KCC Kampala City Council KCCA Kampala City Council Authority Kgs Kilogrammes KKC Keep Kampala Clean NKPK Nakulabye Recycling Project Kampala Pa Per annum SRS Simple Random Sampling SWM Solid Waste Management UNEP United Nations Environment Programme US United States WHO: World Health Organisation

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ...... i APPROVAL ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... iv LIST OF TABLES ...... vii LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii ABSTRACT ...... ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Problem Statement ...... 2 1.3 Research Objectives ...... 3 1.3. General objective ...... 3 1.3.1 Specific objectives ...... 3 1.4 Research Questions ...... 3 1.5 Significance of the Study ...... 4 1.6 Scope of the Study ...... 4 1.7 Conceptual Framework ...... 5 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 7 2.0 Introduction ...... 7 2.1 Solid Waste Composition and Quantities ...... 8 2.2 Current solid waste management practices ...... 10 2.2 Perceived Barriers of Solid Waste Management ...... 13 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 18 3.1 Introduction ...... 18 3.2 Study area ...... 18 3.2 Economy ...... 20 3.3 Research design ...... 20 3.4 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size ...... 20 3.5 Data Collection Methods and Instruments ...... 21

v 3.3.1 The Current Composition and Quantities of Solid Waste Generated by Households in Nateete parish ...... 21 3.3.2 Effectiveness of Current Solid Waste Management Practices Used in Nateete Parish 22 3.3.3 Perceived Barriers to Solid Waste Management and Alternative Approaches ...... 23 3.4 Data Analysis ...... 25 3.5 Validity of the research instruments ...... 25 3.6 Reliability of the instruments ...... 26 3.7 Ethnical consideration ...... 26 3.8 Constraints Encountered ...... 26 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 28 4.0 Introduction ...... 28 4.1 Socio- demographical Characteristics of the respondents ...... 28 4.2 The Composition and Rate of Solid Waste Generation in Nateete parish ...... 30 4.2.1 Composition of the Solid Waste Generated in Nateete ...... 30 4.2.2 Solid waste generation rates per household in the study area ...... 33 4.3 Effectiveness of Current Solid Waste Management Practices in Nateete Parish ...... 35 4.4 Perceived barriers to solid waste management in Nateete parish ...... 43 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 49 5.1 Conclusion ...... 49 5.2 Recommendations ...... 50 REFERENCES ...... 52 Appendix II: Respondent Questionnaire ...... 57 Appendix III: Key Informants Interview ...... 61

vi LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Socio-demographical characteristics of the respondents ...... 29 Table 2: Comparison of solid waste composition between Nateete and Dar es Salaam .. 30 Table 3: Relationship between solid waste composition elements for different solid waste generation rates per household in the study area ...... 31 Table 4: Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients of Social-Demographical Characteristics and Solid Waste generation composition in Nateete Parish ...... 32 Table 5: Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients between selected Social-Demographical Characteristics and Solid Waste generation rates in Nateete Parish ...... 34 Table 6: The relationship between Educational level and solid waste rates of solid wastes generated in the study area ...... 35 Table 7: Statistical analysis of perceived barriers to solid waste management in Nateete parish ...... 44

vii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of Solid Waste Management in Informal Settlements .. 5 Figure 2: Location of the study area in Nateete Parish, Rubaga division-Kampala district ...... 2 Figure 3: The Composition of the Solid Waste Generated in the study area ...... 30 Figure 4: Solid waste generation rates by Kg in the study area ...... 33 Figure 5: (a) Solid waste stored in plastic bags and (b) solid wastes stored in sacks...... 38 Figure 6: Illegal dumping of solid wastes along the streets, roads, unused land and drainage channels) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 7: Graphical plot of the perceived barriers to sustainable solid waste management in Nateete parish ...... 48

viii ABSTRACT . Solid Waste management is informal settlements is a growing challenge that must be tackled. This study aimed at understanding the solid waste management practices and generating information toward its sustainable management for improved living conditions in Kampala city. The specific objectives of the study were to examine the current composition and rate of solid waste generated by households, identify and evaluate the effectiveness of current solid waste management practices used and establish the perceived barriers to solid waste management and alternative approaches. Door-to-door household survey approach was used to determine the rate of solid waste generated through sorting and weighing. Structured questionnaires were administered. Interviews and focus group discussion methods were used to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of SWM practices and identify the perceived barriers to sustainable SWM. Stratified random sampling design was used based on willingness to participate. The data was analysed using Statistical package for social science (SPSS). The results showed that 89% of the total weight of SW generated was organic in nature followed by plastics (6%), metal (3%) and paper (2%). On average the SW generated in Nateete was 0.27kg/person/day. In the upper part of Nateete, the average of SW generated was 0.3kg/person/day; in the middle part it was 0.3kg/person/day while the lower part it was 0.2kg/person/day. Results indicated that the Solid Waste Management practices in Nateete Parish were ineffective. The biggest barriers to effective solid waste management in Nateete Parish are limited funding and population increase. Income level, family size, marital status and education level were the main socio-economic factors affecting solid waste generation and composition in Nateete parish (P<0.05). The study recommends increased frequency of solid waste collection, promotion of payment for solid waste collection services among households, awareness creation and formation of accessible solid waste collection points.

ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Solid waste management in informal settlements in urban cities of African countries is a challenging issue due to limited infrastructure like roads, collection points, poor housing construction and weak legal and institutional framework governing the solid waste management system (Afon, 2007). According to Vidanaarachchi et al. (2006) in East African countries, urban authorities are major stakeholders responsible for managing wastes as per national constitutions. However, this has caused increased concerns from different stakeholders such as scientists, urban authorities, environmental managers and the public.

The management of solid waste is however, increasingly becoming a great challenge to the public and urban authorities as the solid waste generation have increased beyond the natural capacity to absorb or cope up with (Karanja, 2005). Due to the driving factors such as inadequate infrastructure, weak legal framework, low education awareness concerning solid waste management, poverty and rapid population growth are paramount. Open dumping is common in African cities where by solid wastes are dumped along the roads, streets, drainage streams and empty plots of land which has resulted into environmental degradation through pollution (air, water and soil) and risks to public health (Kaseva and Mbuligwe, 2005).

Solid waste is considered as man’s unwanted materials in form of matter both non-liquid and non-gaseous wastes consisting of both organic matter (biodegradable) and inorganic waste non-biodegradable like metals, plastic-bottles and broken glasses (Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011; Kassim, 2014). The several sources of wastes include residential wastes (household), commercial (markets),institutional (universities, hospitals, buildings) construction demolition and industrial wastes (Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011). Municipal wastes include materials discarded by households, industrial wastes from canteens and restaurants, hotels and motels. Commercial and industrial wastes are all being managed by selected authorities (Okot- Okumu and Nyenje, 2011). Such wastes are considered to have problems related to both public health and the environment if not properly managed (Kaseva and Mbuligwe, 2005). However, the quantity generated, density and the proportion of wastes widely differ from one place to another depending on the culture and tradition, lifestyle, level of income, geographical location and dominant weather conditions (Kassim, 2014); For example, in developing countries, solid waste generated annually range between 0.3 – 0.9 kg/capita/day

1 while for developed countries it ranges from 1.4-2.0 kg/capital/day, but only a half of it is collected by government institutions since solid waste management is considered to be a public good (Brenner, et al., 2010).

Due to the current rapid population growth in urban areas of developing countries, the volume of solid waste has increased, beyond the capacities of local authorities to handle (Kaseva and Mbuligwe, 2005). This has negatively impacted on the effectiveness of the solid waste management sector thus grading it as less priority among other national sectors especially in the informal settlements (Scheinberg et al., 2010). Currently most developing countries are facing serious development challenges (Scheinberg, 2011). This has greatly affected the notion of sustainable development as these developing countries treat the concept in a different way compared to developed countries (Kassim, 2014).

Solid waste has severe impact on environmental sustainability; resource and energy use, greenhouse gases emissions and pollution (Ezeah, 2010). Continuous increase of greenhouse gas emissions in the process of managing solid wastes has contributed to global climate change. This has exacerbated the impacts of floods, cyclones, drought and heavy thunder stones (Ezea, 2010, 2012). According to Al-Yousfi, (2002) this has resulted into biodiversity loss, increased death rate and low agricultural productivity. In developing countries, the urban population is estimated to account for over one-third of a country’s total population (Kampsax, 1998). For Kampala, the urbanization rate stands at 5.1% per annum compared to the National population growth rate of 3.03% per annum (UBOS, 2014). The rural-urban migration has increased due to the availability of more job opportunities, better health and educational facilities among others in urban centres. This has led to high population growth forcing many people to seek shelter in informal housing settlements and yet these lack social basic facilities including proper solid waste management services and physical amenities (Scheinberg, 2011). knowledge about SWM in informal settlements is still inadequate. This study examined the intensity of SW generated and perceived socio-economic barriers affecting the adoption of sustainable solid waste management

1.2 Problem Statement Poor management of solid wastes is an emerging issue in many parts of Kampala city particularly in the informal settlements. A sustainable system for managing solid waste is lacking within the informal settlements due to poor sanitation, inadequate administrative

2 structures and funding, limited mechanization and inefficient legislative frame work governing solid waste management (Obirih, 2003; Agunwamba, 2003; Karanja, 2005; Ezeah, 2010). There is thus rampant littering, inadequate garbage skips and trucks for transporting garbage. Despite the existing regulations, wastes are illegally dumped along roadsides, in wetlands and empty or open plots of land. This pauses a great risk to people’s health and the environment particularly in the informal settlements. The official existing solid waste disposal practice is land filling. However, most landfills in East Africa are poorly located, designed and not well controlled thus turning into open and unhygienic dumpsites (Kassim, 2014). Indiscriminate dumping of solid waste along street roads and drainage channels contributes to flooding thus leaving residents in the poor settlements to suffer from life threatening conditions like diseases. The available data on solid waste generation and management in informal settlement such as Nateete is scanty. This impedes the development of programs that promote efficient management of solid waste in the area. Despite the efforts made by KCCA to manage solid waste in the municipality, solid waste management particularly in Nateete Parish is still inadequate. Thus, the need to investigate the state of solid waste management, its barriers and possible impacts on the community.

1.3 Research Objectives 1.3. General objective This study aimed at understanding the solid waste management practices and generating information toward its sustainable management for improved living conditions in Kampala city. 1.3.1 Specific objectives 1. To examine the current composition and rate of solid waste generated by households in Nateete parish. 2. To identify and evaluate the effectiveness of current solid waste management practices used in Nateete parish. 3. To establish the perceived barriers to solid waste management and alternative approaches.

1.4 Research Questions 1. What is the current composition and rate of solid waste generated in Nateete parish? 2. How effective are the solid waste management practices in your community? 3. What are the perceived barriers to solid waste management and alternative approaches?

3 1.5 Significance of the Study Solid waste management has become a major development challenge in Kampala city. This deserves not only the attention of KCCA and the waste management institutions but also concerns corporate organizations and individuals to find a lasting solution to the problem. The study therefore intends to determine the quantity of solid waste, challenges faced in managing it and how best these challenges can be solved. This will help all concerned stake- holders in future budgeting and devising means of effectively managing solid waste in Kampala city.

The study will serve as a reference point for KCCA and waste management institutions regarding solid waste management. In this case, it gives them an in-depth understanding on why solid waste still proves to be a problem in the city and what strategies to use to tackle the problem. Additionally, the study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on solid waste management and also stimulates further research on the subject in other developing urban cities and Municipalities.

1.6 Scope of the Study The study focused on assessing the effectiveness of the existing solid waste management practices in the informal settlements using a case study of Nateete Parish in Rubaga Division of Kampala city. The study was limited to solid waste management and involved local citizens in solid waste management. It was carried out between February to October 2015.

4 1.7 Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework applied in this study is illustrated in Figure 1.

Waste characteristics  organic(peelings, greens  Nonorganic(Plastics, Metals

Solid waste management techniques 1. Waste to landfill 2. Open dumping 3. Waste 3Rs 4. Waste composting

Aesthetic problems Effects of SWM  Climate change Improved sanitation condition Barriers to SWM  Bad odour Sustainable environment  Legal framework is weak  Soil contamination High agricultural production  Unplanned city aspects  Air pollution  High waste density and moisture conditions  Health risks  Limited funds  Low level of public education on waste management  Poorly paid and trained waste workers  Obstacle and insufficient equipment

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of Solid Waste Management investigation in Informal Settlements in Nateete parish

Solid waste management involves stages like generation, on site storage, collection, transfer and transportation of wastes by different stakeholders involved at each stage. This makes solid waste management so complex (Okot-okumu and Njenye, 2011). However, there are processes which aim at reducing economic costs and impacts such as recycling and recovery depending on the characteristic of the wastes of Nateete. Solid Waste Management (dependent variable) is hindered by different factors also referred to as social and economic barriers (independent variables); these are less understood in the area and therefore needed to be underpinned. Without such understanding it is of rather hard for the authorities to work effectively in disposing wastes. Intervention by KCCA has involved privatization of solid waste management but problems still remain. Private contractors have not adequately

5 collected the wastes effectively as many people in informal settlements are not willing to pay for the collection of wastes. These are some of the factors that force the residents to illegally dump solid wastes along the streets, road sides, open land and burning. Thus there is high health risks associated with poor sanitation in the study area.

6 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction The management of urban solid waste constitutes one of the most immediate and serious environmental problems facing governments in African cities (Ezeah, 2010; Scheinberg, 2011). The convectional municipal solid waste management approach which has a limited goal of collecting, transporting and disposing off waste out of sight for city residents, has failed to provide efficient and effective services to most urban areas due to the fast growth of Africa’s urban population (Scheinberg, 2011).

According to the Kampala City Council Authority (KCCA, 2014), garbage collection rates increased up to 2954 tons in June 2012 from 16,000 tons in March, 2011. Over 815 litter bins were distributed in the Central Business District (CBD) and schools. Also recycling centres were set up such as Nankulabye Recycling Project Kampala (NRPK). Monthly cleaning programmes were set like “Keep Kampala Clean (KCCA)”. The landfill in Mpererwe on average receives 900-1100 tons/day from KCCA (65%) and (35%) private companies (KCCA, 2013-14). It can therefore be concluded that inadequate administrative and financial resources are one of the main challenges hindering proper solid waste management in Kampala city due to the fact that there is no clear reliable framework on which the solid waste sector is administered coupled with limited funds allocated to the sector.

According to UNEP (2009) due to increasing and continuous urbanization, economic growth and development, the volumes and types of solid wastes have increased going beyond the local and national government capacity to effectively and sustainably manage (Obirih, 2003; Agunwamba, 2003; Karanja, 2005; Ezeah, 2010). Wealthiest countries generate less solid wastes compared to low income countries. This depends on the fact that municipal solid waste generation and income varies with respect to the development stage of a nation (Oberlin, 2011; Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011).

The rates and qualities of solid waste generated, composition and disposition differs in Africa and all these are linked to factors like local economies, level of industrial development, waste management systems and life styles of the country concerned (Scheinberg, 2011; Kaseva and Mbuligwe, 2005). Kampala City gives a good image of this phenomenon (Okot-Okumu, 2012) of very densely populated urban areas where the solid waste generation rate is

7 estimated between 0.22 and 0.3kg/cap/day for low income earners and for higher income earners is estimated between 0.66 and 0.9kg/cap/day on average (Kaseva and Mbuligwe 2005; Oberlin 2011;Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011). Since 1969, there has been a big increase in the volume of solid waste generated due to the rise in population. In 1969, 198 metric tons were generated every day and currently 800 tons (800,000kgs) is being generated every day.

The public has not taken any positive steps in solid waste management practices like source reduction, re-using, recycling or properly disposing off the portion that cannot be reclaimed (Al-Yousfi, 2012). Instead the public has for the most part maintained an “I don’t care” attitude of generating as much waste as possible unconscious of the implications for its collection and disposal (Felix, 2010).

The waste sector alone in Africa accounts for 5% of national urban employment and spends annually over US $46 billion on managing solid waste and it is expected to increase to US $ 150 billion per year by 2025 (KCCA, 2012). In Uganda, it is estimated that KCCA spends US$ 3.4 million per year to collect only 40% of the total solid wastes generated in the Kampala city (Scheinberg, 2011; Okot-Okumu and Njenye, 2011). This has become too expensive for public authorities to raise the necessary finance to meet the costs (KCCA, 2010; Faccio et al., 2011). Solid waste management, in Uganda will still be a major challenge in years to come despite its negative external impacts including its impacts on the environment and public health as open illegal dumping remains a dominant waste management practice in East Africa (Oberlin 2011; Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011) and these impacts are severe mostly to people living in informal settlements of urban cities (Obirih, 2003; Karanja, 2005; Ezeah, 2010).

2.1 Solid Waste Composition and Quantities Composition of municipal solid waste provides a description of the components of the solid waste and it differs widely from place to place (Kaseva and Mbuligwe, 2005; Okot-Okumu, 2012). The common striking difference is in organic contents which are much higher in the low income areas than the high income areas. The paper and plastic content is much higher in high income areas than low income areas (Okot-Okumu 2008; Scheinberg et al., 2011). This reflects the difference in consumption pattern, cultural and educational differences (Rotich, 2014). In higher income areas, disposable material and packed food are used in higher

8 quantities; this results in the waste having higher calorific value, lower specific density and lower moisture content (Okot-Okumu, 2008). In the case of lower income areas, the usage of fresh vegetables to packaged food is much higher (Rotich, 2014). This results in a waste composition that has high moisture content, high specific weight and low calorific value (Scheinberg, 2011). The changing composition makes waste management intricate and problematic as the waste treatment technology needs to adjust to the new waste material (Kassim, 2014). According to IPCC (2006); Shekdar (2009) and Scheinberg, (2011), in African and Asian countries, solid waste generation rates are less (1.0kg/cap/day) compared to developed economies (>1.5kg/cap/day).

The quantity and composition of waste generated are the basic information for designing a sustainable waste management system hence they are fundamental for the selection of most suitable technology for treatment (Kassim, 2014) enchanting essential health precautions and space needed for the treatment facilities. Moreover, technology that seems to work for developed countries may not work for developing countries since waste composition varies from country to country (Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011).

Despite this recognition, there has been less research on the analysis of municipal waste composition in most developing countries like Uganda. The ‘blind technology transfer’ of machinery from developed countries to developing countries and its subsequent failure has brought attention to the need for appropriate technology to suit the conditions in developing countries that is; type of waste and composition (Braxton, 2014). According to Kassim, (2014), solid waste composition is broadly categorized into different levels. Since the community is commonly related to many aspects of residential units, the following are the categories of waste sources; i. Residential solid wastes: these are from single family and multi-family detached dwellings, low-medium and high nice apartments such as food waste, paper, cardboard, plastics, textiles, leather, yard wastes, wood, glass, tin cans, aluminium, metals ashes, street leaves, special wastes and house hold hazardous wastes. etc. (Kwarteng, 2011). ii. Commercial sources: are commonly wastes from stores, restaurants, markets, office buildings, hotels, motel, print shops services, stations auto repair shops etc. These wastes include paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, food wastes, glass, metals, special wastes, hazardous wastes etc.

9 iii. Institutional sources: these are from schools, hospitals, prisons, universities. Govern-metal centers among others and these include waste like for commercial wastes. iv. Municipal sources: are from street sweeping, landscaping, catch basin cleaning, parks, beaches and recreational areas. Such wastes include special waste, rubbish, street sweepings, landscaped tree trimmings, catch basin debris and general wastes from parks, beaches and recreational centers.

In Uganda, the solid waste generated in Kampala comprises of 73% organic waste; 5.3% paper; 1.7% saw dust; 1.6% plastics; 3.1% metals; 0.9% glass; 8% tree cuttings and 5.5% street debris (Okot-Okumu 2008; Oberlin,2011). however, the generation rates in the informal settlements are less understood. This research will contribute to filling this gap.

2.2 Current solid waste management practices According to Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, (2011), waste collection has three methods that can be acknowledged as the informal primary phase mainly from households to community collection points (e.g. skips, bunkers or open roadside) mostly by households or hired labor. The secondary phase collection is from community transfer points to landfills and is commonly done by urban councils and private operators (Kassim, 2014). Private operators mostly collect wastes directly from generating sources (door to door). At household level residents are known to dispose off their wastes discriminately in open space like wetlands, along the roads and into drainage channels causing flooding in Kampala.

Central Communal collection Method Solid wastes are transported to transfer points (skips, buckets, standby trailers and open plots) Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011 and such wastes are generated from households, commercial premises and institutional places usually done by urban council workers or private operators. The frequency of solid waste collection differs in between high income and low-income groups according to Mbuligwe and Kaseva, (2005), high income earners dispose wastes usually 3-4 times a week that is determined by the number of times the waste collectors who collect wastes in their areas (2-3 times/week). Low income earners can generate and dispose waste about1-2times per week and this explains the frequency of waste collection in such areas.

10

Open Dumping It is a commonly used method to dispose off solid waste in Uganda like in many other African countries like Kenya and Nigeria (Karanja, 2005; Kaseva and Mbuligwe, 2005). However, some people employ the public service to dispose off their solid waste as others dump their wastes along the roads, drainage channels, at the backyard and in low lying areas on the city outskirts. In Uganda the government has allocated most wetlands for industrialization exposing such areas to open dumping by residents who can’t access provided government solid waste management services (NEMA, 2005).

Burning It is a disposal method involving the burning of wastes sometimes referred to as thermal treatment. This method is not commonly used in Uganda. It is used to transform waste into heat, gas, steam and ash. The advantage of this is to reduce waste volume by half or more and it requires little usage of land (Braxton, 2014).

According to Kinnaman (2005), if the waste hierarchy (waste reduction, recycling, incineration and land filling) is justified, this means that all externalities accounted for like marginal costs for recycling will be less than disposal costs. In Uganda, the principle of 3R (waste reduction, re-use and recycling) is not highly prioritized by most people for effective sustainable waste management in Kampala city Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, (2011). Many solid waste managers in developing nations tend to pay less attention to the issues of sustainable solid waste management like reducing the rates of organic wastes which account for the largest portion of wastes generated (80%) (Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011).

Recycling According to Rotich, (2014), recovering and recycling takes place in all elements of solid waste management systems. It is widely practiced by informal sector people (Kaseva and Mbuligwe, 2005) where by recovered and recyclable products enter a chain of dealers or processing before they are finally sold to manufacturing enterprises. Such work is done in a very intensive and unsafe way for very low-income earners. Recycling in low and middle developing countries only accounts for 15-35% of the waste generated and yet recycling enhances standards of living to the people living in informal settlement (Scheinberg et al., 2010). In Africa, the rise of plastic increase, many individual and family-based entrepreneurs

11 have a long-term recycling chain pyramid (Mwiinga, 2014). Such a situation is different from that in developed countries since resource recovery is undertaken by the formal sector, driven by law and a general public concern for the environment and often at a considerable expense.

In developed countries, recycling has increasingly become a practical strategy in response to the increasing disposal costs and waste toxicity. Recycling is also an emblematic antidote to over consumption and a throw-away society (Mwiinga, 2014). In Africa, historically the role of the informal sector in solid waste management had hardly been recognized by responsible authorities and activities of recycling have been hindered by the municipal authorities. This explains why in Uganda recycling is not considered to be so crucial in solid waste management but largely looked at as a private investment (Scheinberg, 2011). However, currently in most African countries, recycling activities have been acknowledged due to its importance in reducing waste volumes, recovering resources and its economic benefits (Guerrero, 2012).

Re Use/ Sorting Waste reduction is being promoted as a means of reducing disposal costs, reducing the burden on landfills and reducing environmental impacts hence increasing environmental benefits like reduction of greenhouse gases, reduction of pollution (water, land and air), conservation of water and energy resources and also reduction of solid wastes disposed off. In East African countries, sorting is not commonly done by people, however, those who do it attach little value to it as they sort solid wastes which have value according to them e.g. peelings for animal feeds though sometimes are given for free or for sale (Okot-Okumu, 2012). In Uganda, communities have come up with different recycling projects as many females and children are observed in Rubaga division picking plastic wastes for recycling. Projects in Rubaga division such as Kasubi community development association (KACODA) and Nankulabye community-based health workers association; these mainly deal in rubbish sorting (briquette making).

12 Compositing It is an excellent method of recycling biodegradable waste from an ecological point of view. However, in Uganda such composition schemes have been given less attention. This is because marketing and quality of the recyclable products was initially ignored but of late, there are promising developments observed in urban centers where compositing of waste is encouraged. However, there is a challenge to establish the market and demand for the composite has not yet been tackled by the government (Okot-Okumu and Njenye, 2011). There is an increased concern on production of organic fertilizer and biogas as the increase of biodegradable solid waste production at national level (54%) the total solid waste generated is organic in nature, 36% accounts for other waste composition. Like in Nigeria, researchers have studied a great potential for solid wastes to produce enormous amounts of bio gas and manure (Mwiinga, 2014).

Recovery Solid waste collection and recovery from different waste sources are carried out by many agents both in the public and private sectors. Under private formal sector like private contractors, small and large processing enterprises, Non-governmental and Community Based Organizations help the municipal authorities in collecting, treating and disposing waste (Faccio et al., 2011).

2.2 Perceived Barriers of Solid Waste Management Barriers of solid waste management are a set of factors that hinder the effective collection and disposal of solid waste in any given community. Such barriers include; high population growth, limited funding, obsolete and insufficient equipment, poorly and under paid solid waste workers, weak capacity building, weak legal solid waste management framework, inadequate solid waste coverage, poor urban planning, poor public co-operation concerning solid waste management and low level of solid waste management education (Ezeah,2014).

In many ways Uganda exemplifies sub-Saharan African countries with protracted solid waste management problems. However, though governments have embarked on ambitious environmental reforms, the Solid Waste Management sector is still lagging behind due to the following perceived barriers to achieve the adoption of sustainable Solid Waste Management by all stakeholders.

13 The existing polices on solid waste management are not well implemented (Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011) due to limited funding and less attention given to the solid waste management by many government institutions. This is due to lack of effective legislation on solid waste management by the authorities in charge of waste sector and poor coordination among the relevant national agencies (Ezeah, 2014).

The rapid population growth (UBOS report, 2014) coupled with the lack of inspectorate staff has contributed to the ineffective regulation of environmental laws and sanitation which are out dated and are prescribed to be breaching and not deterrent enough for residents to be environmentally conscious. The existing legislation and by-laws governing solid waste management are inadequate to change the increased domestic solid waste generation and the policies pay less attention to households in different respects like time of collection, way of paying service fees, prevention of bad odour and nuisance among others.

According to Scheinberg, 2011, all East African countries have legal and institutional frameworks for waste management where the central Government is charged with activities for managing wastes with the help of local councils and NGOs, legislation related to solid waste management (Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011). In Uganda, solid waste management is fragmented in the public health Act, local Government Act /rules and regulations and the Environment Act. The increased corruption in many government agencies alongside many duplications of responsibilities involved and the gaps in the regulatory provisions for the development of sustainable solid waste management is common (Afon, 2007; Braxton, 2014). However, this is largely because the solid waste management sector is given less priority compared to other sectors and high levels of corruption in the Country thus making the existing laws on waste management not effectively enforced (Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011), that is why the informal and community sector still operates within little or no regulation at all.

Most people in the informal settlements are not aware of the dangers of poor solid waste management to their community and environment (Braxton, 2014). However, the Government has put less effort in creating environmental awareness among the citizens about the dangers of throwing wastes any how hence the reason as to why people still have the “I don’t care attitude” towards proper solid waste management and limited participation (Al- Yousfi, 2012) in source separation and other environmental actions (Kassim, 2014). Even

14 with such common problems like energy consumption reduction, still many people do not know which conservation actions are most effective. Lack of knowledge about waste hierarchy is really an issue at hand which needs an immediate support (Karanja, 2005).

Okot-Okumu (2011), observed that KCCA spends only 20% of its budget on solid waste management as most of the operational funds are from the external sources and it is a least preferred activity for the urban authority. Decentralized environmental management activities are not sufficiently evaluated by the Central Government economically (Scheinberg, 2011) a case study of Kisumu (Kenya), Mwanza (Tanzania) and Jinja (Uganda) clearly shows the solid waste management financing dilemma (Scheinberg, 2011).

Almost 60% of residents living in Kampala reside in informal settlements KCCA, (2013-14) therefore have difficulties in accessing solid waste infrastructure and services. Such prevailing physical and social conditions don’t allow residents to use the municipality’s prescribed collection centers. According to Kaseva and Mbuligwe (2005), the frequencies of household waste collection differs socially and economically that is to say collection rates in high income groups are higher compared to those for low income groups, high income earners dispose of wastes 3 times a week and it is collected twice a week. In Uganda, the poor urban people receive very low or no waste collection services due to inaccessible roads, unplanned facilities and less attention given by urban councils (Okot-Okumu, 2011).

Rapid increase in solid waste generation is mainly due to the high population growth in Uganda (UBOS, 2014). Most wastes generated are mainly organic in nature (80%) which pose a lot of health risks as they act as breeding grounds for disease vectors. Humans also become vectors when they contract and transmit diseases through improper management of their excreta. In Africa, 80% of solid waste generated is organic in nature (Xiangbin, 2014).

In Uganda, only few dumping sites are constructed which explains the existing illegal dumping of solid wastes. Since there is limited space for the location of these dumping centers most governments in Africa have resorted to constructing landfills in highly sensitive areas namely wetlands, like in Uganda Kiteezi landfill is allocated in a wetland (Okot- Okumu, 2012). According to Xiangbin, 2014, most landfill sites are located in environmentally sensitive areas especially in low areas like wet lands, forest edges and near

15 water bodies. This explains the current typhoid outbreak in Uganda due to underground water contamination through improper solid waste management.

Insufficient capacity is a fundamental impediment (Xiangbin, 2014) to sound waste management in most developing nations. Most people in the waste sector are not professionals in environmental management; thus, giving a clear view of high levels of incapacity in solid waste management activities in Kampala district. There is much duplication of waste workers as a result of corruption in social service sector.

Open dumping is a common solid waste management practice in urban areas (Oberlin, 2011; Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011); where people can’t access the nearby skips and waste buckets in their communities they opt to dumping indiscriminately resulting into public health and environmental problems. Others opt to burning and burying of wastes. Waste workers are poorly paid and trained (Felix, 2010) this has resulted into low motivation among them. Most waste workers employed by the government sectors are poorly paid due to a lot of corruption within the institutions.

The poor waste infrastructures within the city have greatly hindered the solid waste management services. As it was noticed in Kampala city, 65% of its population stays in slum areas making it hard for the local councils to access such areas Xiangbin, 2014 and this leaves most residents with no option but to openly dump waste along roads, wetlands and empty plots (Scheinberg, 2011).

Conclusion From the literature reviewed above, it is realised that solid waste management is among the top challenges many municipal authorities are often faced with, both in developed and developing countries. It is further realised that solid waste management is viewed as a social and economic problem in most cities around the world. From the literature it is also observed that rapid population growth, poverty, urban growth rates, poor infrastructures, weak legal framework, low awareness levels concerning solid waste management, insufficient technologies and lack of reliable data hinder solid waste management. The literature also shows that in Africa, solid waste management problems are associated with waste generation; disposal, transport and treatment. Further, it is observed that a lot of research has focused on documenting the composition and rates generated in the world. However, there is still scanty

16 information that relates the current solid waste management challenges to the various barriers that have been highlighted above which make the solid waste collection systems ineffective.

It is evident that previous studies have not adequately addressed the issues related to composition of solid wastes in informal urban settings. In addition, the rate of solid waste generation is less covered by most studies reviewed in the literature above. Furthermore, the effectiveness of current solid waste management practices is not adequately researched yet this is the engine of change in solid waste management. It was therefore necessary to conduct a research on solid waste management in informal settlements to address these gaps.

17 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction This chapter presents data collection methods and tools, analysis and presentation of data. It describes details of the research design used, the survey population, sampling design, sampling size, data analysis and possible limitations to the study.

3.2 Study area Location Nateete parish lies between 00 17 50N, 323137E (Latitude, 0.2972, Longitude, 32.5268) at elevation of 1158m (3800ft) above sea level (KCCA, 2014). The road distance between Kampala’s central business district and Nateete is approximately 8 kilometres. It comprises eleven zones namely, central A, central B, central C, central D, Nafuka, Kigaga, Kajubi, Kivumbi, church, Kitooro and factory zone. The area is bordered by Busenga parish to the north, Lungujja to the northeast, Rubaga to the northeast, Ndeeba to the south east, Mutundwe to the south and Buloba to the west.

Climate According to KCC (2008), Kampala city is located in a modified equatorial –tropical type of climate. The relative humidity is typically high in all the months throughout the year and evaporation rates are relatively low. The rainy season peaks generally are between March and mid-May every year. However, due to global climate changes the rainy season peaks have changed to between April and July (NEMA, 2011/13). The average annual rainfall is about 12000-15000mm and temperatures (21.90). Rainfall and temperature are very curial factors in managing solid wastes.

18

Figure 2: Location of the study zones in Nateete Parish, Rubaga division-Kampala district

19 Population According to UBOS (2014), Kampala’s population has increased to 1,723,300 and growing at a rate of 3.8%. In Kampala the population is unevenly distributed across the whole city with Makindye Division having the largest total population numbers (25.2%) and Rubaga division, second (24.8%) followed by Kawempe division (22%), Nakawa division (20.2%) then Central division with 7.4 % (UBOS, 2014). Nateete has a total population of 90000, thus the rate of solid waste generated is increasing for nature to absorb and urban council to cope up with its management (KCCA report, 2013-14).

Economy The social economic activities of the residents of Nateete are largely informal. They include; small scale retail businesses, hawking, sale of metal scraps, craft making, small scale maize factories, Boda-boda cycling, among others. The population is highly dominated by low income earners and the settlements are manly informal.

3.3 Research design This study employed both qualitative and quantitative approach. Nateete parish was selected because the situation of solid waste management was poor as compared to the rest of the parishes in Rubaga Division (KCCA, 2014).

3.4 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size

To ensure proper representation of the study total population of Nateete parish is 45000 according to KCCA report of 2013-2014. Using the formula of Krejcie and Morgon, (1970), the researcher sampled 177 respondents including 140 household heads/adults, 11(local leaders), 20 waste collectors and 6 waste officials from the division; 140 households were selected based on a formula by Krejcie and Morgon, 1970. Amongst the 140 households selected; 30 were high class HH, 30 medium Class HH and 50 from lower income HH. Thus, the sample population was selected from a cross section of the socio-economic groups in the parish depending on the level of willingness to participate.

Three strata were considered that is the lower Nateete consisting of Kajjumbi Zone, Central C, Nafuka Zone, Central A and Musoke Zone. The second strata consisted of Central B Zone, Central D Zone, Kivumbi Zone and Kiggaga Zone. The third strata consisted of Factory Zone

20 and Church Zone. The strata were depending on the variations in the economic status among the three zones. The basis of selecting the zones was based on the current administrative boundaries. Household respondents were selected randomly from each stratum. From each zone, 46 households were randomly selected basing on the level of willingness to participate.

Purposive sampling was applied to select key informant respondents namely waste workers, Town council clerk, cleaning development Committees in each zone, local leaders and health Department at the division. According to Sekaran, (2005) purposive sampling is confined to specific types of people who can provide the desired information because they are the only ones who possess it.

3.5 Data Collection Methods and Instruments Different approaches and instruments were used to collect data. The methods and instruments are described below based on the specific objectives namely (i) to examine the current composition and quantities of solid waste generated in Nateete parish, Rubaga Division, (ii) to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of solid waste management practices; and (iii) to establish the perceived barriers to SWM and alternative approaches to sustainable SWM .

3.3.1 The Current Composition and Quantities of Solid Waste Generated by Households in Nateete parish This involved use of household door to door survey, questionnaire administration, transect walk, focus group discussions, interviews and documentary review. Data was collected on the composition and quantities of solid wastes generated in the area.

Household door to door survey was used in eleven (12) zones of Nateete parish covering 140 households to determine the composition and the rate of solid waste generated in Nateete parish. The researcher distributed different coloured polythene bags to each selected household for sorting their solid wastes. Weighing of solid wastes generated was done and recorded by the researcher. The total per capita generated was obtained by adding the rates generated per household/day. The total average was obtained by adding up the individual amounts generated per household then divided by the total number of households used in the case study.

21 One hundred and forty (140) questionnaires were administered to respondents to collect data on the composition of solid waste generated in Nateete parish. Both open and closed-ended questionnaires were used. Questionnaires are the most popular method of data collection since it can be posted to the targeted people no matter how far they are (Kothari, 2004). The questionnaires had a section on requiring the respondents to answer whether or not they were willing to pay for SWM services.

Interviews (structured and semi-structured) were used mainly with the key informants i.e. local leaders, H/H heads and persons in charge of the solid waste sector at the division using interview guides. The focus was on generating data on how much solid waste is generated per person/day/tonnes.

Focus group discussions (3 groups) mainly focused on gathering information on how much solid waste is generated per household/day. The respondents included local leaders, waste policy makers and community health workers. Each group consisted of 10 people. The first group had 8 females and 2 males, the second group (5 females and 5 males) and the third group had 7 females and 3 males. Women dominated the groups because they had keen interest and the work of SWM was their responsibility.

Transect walks were undertaken to critically observe the composition of wastes generated in each zone selected. This helped the researcher to gain more in sights concerning the solid waste management system in Nateete parish.

Documentary review of relevant literature in journals was used to gather data from the secondary sources on the composition and rates of solid waste generated.

3.3.2 Effectiveness of Current Solid Waste Management Practices Used in Nateete Parish Questionnaire survey, transect walk, focus group discussions, interviews and documentary review were employed to collect data on effectiveness of the existing solid waste management practices in Nateete parish.

22

Questionnaires (177) were administered to collect data from the three respondent categories (household heads, local leaders and waste policy makers) on practices used to manage wastes and how effective the practices were in the area.

Direct door to door stepping was used in order to enhance the rate of return, since they were directly delivered by hand to the respondents and taken immediately after completion (Phillips et al., 2002). Each questionnaire took the researcher 5-10 minutes to fill. The researcher hired two assistants to help out in administering the questionnaires to the respondents.

Three Focus group discussions (one in each strata) mainly focused on gathering information in the area on how effective solid waste management practices were and on the current solid waste management practices. FDG involved the main actors like community leaders and local council leaders.

Direct Observation was also used to gather data on the existing solid waste management practices like how residents store, disposal off and transport their wastes. The researcher moved around the parish to locate transfer points of solid waste collection and examined the general sanitation conditions in the study area.

3.3.3 Perceived Barriers to Solid Waste Management and Alternative Approaches Questionnaire surveys, focus group discussions, interviews and documentary reviews were employed to collect data on perceived barriers to solid waste management and suggestions on sustainable solid waste management in Nateete parish.

One hundred and seventy-Seven (177) questionnaires were administered (structured and un- structured) to collect data from the three categories of respondents (household heads, local leaders and policy makers) on perceived social cultural and economic barriers to solid waste management system. The approach followed that of Phillips et al., (2002). During interviews, respondents were asked to rank the challenges ranging from very serious, serious, not so serious, not serious and not sure (Appendix 1). A Likert scale based on Foday et al., (2014) was applied to measure the response to perceived barriers affecting the adoption of

23 sustainable SWM. A likert scale of 1-5 was used Where Very serious = 1, Serious =2, Not sure/Neutral = 3, Not so serious = 4 and Not serious = 5. The responses were quantified under each of the perceived barriers (high population growth in the parish, limited funding resources, poorly and under paid solid waste workers, obsolete and insufficient equipment, poor public co-operation concerning solid waste management, poor urban planning, weak legal solid waste management framework, inadequate solid waste vehicle collection vehicles and low level of solid waste management education). A table for percentages was generated (chapter 4, section1).

Focus group discussions were conducted further to gather information on the perceived barriers to solid waste management and how such barriers could be addressed for sustainable solid waste management. Of the 3 groups, the first group had 4 males and 6 females, the second had 9 females and 1 male while the third group had 5 males and 5 females.

Documentary reviews of relevant literature in journals, archives of records containing waste management reports, published books and records on solid waste management were used to collect supplementary data.

24 3.4 Data Analysis Data generated from the questionnaire survey was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Both qualitative and qualitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Rating of data was performed using parametric statistical tests like analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi square to establish inferential statistical significances on whether there was any association between variables. Most data were ordinal and thus initially subjected to a test for normality. Some data from questionnaires was nominal in nature and such data was analysed using inferential statistics. Illustrative methods like bar graphs, pie charts, maps and tables were also used.

To analyze the effectiveness of the current solid waste management practices used in Nateete parish the approaches of Maluleke, (2014) and Puopiel, (2010) were adapted. The judgment on effectiveness was derived by comparing the obtained results (frequencies) from the respondents to the local and international solid waste management guidelines, regulations and standards (GoU, 1998; WHO, 2011; UNEP, 2010; GoSA, 2011). The level of effectiveness was based on what majority of the respondents indicated and what the solid waste management standards require (ideal requirements). The scale of judgment was indicated as: Very Ineffective = 0-25%, Ineffective = 26-50%, Effective = 51-75 and Very Effective = 76- 100 (Maluleke, 2014 and Puopiel, 2010).

3.5 Validity of the research instruments For validity, the researcher assessed the questionnaires at the stage of constructing them through pre-testing on fellow students on masters and PhD programme who gave a very constructive criticism. Necessary adjustments were made after consultations with the researcher’s supervisor. Four statisticians were asked independently to evaluate each item constructed with respect to its relevance of the objectives and research questions using a four- point rating scale (Likert measurement scale).

Very serious = 1 Serious = 2 Neutral = 3 Not Serious = 4 Not so serious = 5

25 Therefore, the computation of the content validity index was carried out using the four-ratio expressed in percentages (Lawshe, 1975). The content validity index indicated serious/very serious (3 and 4) for each item therefore the content validity was determined using a formula of CVR. CVR = n (3/4)-N/2 N/2 Where n (3/4) = sum of agreement on serious/very serious N = total number of items (questions) The researcher was helped by statisticians to compute the content validity for each item judged serious/very serious. The average content validity index was found to be 0.72 and since this value is far greater than 0.5, nearer to 1 or far from 0 the tool (questionnaire) was valid.

3.6 Reliability of the instruments To ensure reliability of the questionnaires, they were statistically designed in accordance with the research objectives and the survey was conducted in a way that ensured high responses and reduced non-sampling errors to the minor level.

3.7 Ethnical consideration The researcher obtained a letter of introduction from the head of department of environmental management, Makerere University. Then the letter was presented to Kampala city council authority Rubaga division to the waste department who allowed the researcher to conduct a study in Nateete parish. In the process of data collection, the identity of the respondents was kept confidential thus the results/findings were accurately reported and presented without bias and falsification of the data collected

3.8 Constraints Encountered 1. There was a problem of time shortage as allocated to complete the whole research especially in the field. Some respondents took 5days to 1 week in completing one questionnaire and thus research was delayed. 2. Some respondents were hesitant to allow the researcher to conduct interviews due to their political motivations. In such areas, respondents had a negative attitude to answering questions as they were mainly focusing on failures of the government in terms of social public service provision.

26 3. Sustainable solid waste management was not known by many people and some suggested that KCCA should organise a workshop for awareness on the solid waste management. To overcome this, the researcher had to first brief the whole system in order for the respondents to understand well the relevance of their information. 4. The research study proved to be expensive in terms of costs such as printing, photocopying transport and paying the research assistants .to overcome all the expenses, the researcher had to use her salary to meet all the costs. 5. The housing construction and jobless respondents also acted as a great constraint as the area was so slummy with poor sanitation facilities which exposed the researcher’s health at risk at one point in both dry and rainy seasons. The jobless respondents accompanied by high levels of drug abuse made research difficulty for the researcher.

27 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.0 Introduction This chapter presents and discusses findings based on the study objectives namely (i) To examine the composition and generation of solid waste rates in Nateete parish, (ii) to identify the current methods of solid waste management and their effectiveness and (iii) to establish the perceived barriers to solid waste management and alternative approaches to sustainable solid waste management.

4.1 Socio- demographical Characteristics of the respondents A summary of the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents is presented in Table 1. The results revealed that majority of the respondents (58%) were female and only 42 % were male. This is because women commonly stay at home compared to male respondents who had gone for work. It should be noted that women play a crucial role in the domestic affairs in the community. Slightly a half of the respondents were of age group 21-30 years (36%), 25% were 41years and above, 22% were 31-40 years and lastly 16% belonged to age below 20 years. Most of the respondents were either married (45%) or single (45%) and few were found to have divorced, separated, widowed and widower (9%). Table 1, results also reveal that majority of the respondents (77 %) were permanent residents of the area while the rest were not permanent residents (22 %). However, the majority (60%) had stayed for 1-15 years. A large percentage of the respondents (46%) had attended secondary school while 27% had attained primary education and only 10% had informal education. It was found that majority of the respondents (36%) were self-employed, those who were un-employed were only (25%); while the rest were either students (18%), privately employed (9%) or employed in public service (12%).

28 Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents Variables Frequency Percentage Sex Female 81 58% Male 59 42 % Total 140 100.00 Age of the respondent Below 20 years 23 16% 21-30 years 50 36% 31-40 years 31 22% 41 years and above 36 25% Total 140 100.00 Marital Status Married 64 45 % Single 63 45% Others (divorced, separated, 13 9 % widow and widower) Total 140 100 Educational level No education 14 10 % Primary 38 27% Secondary 64 46% Tertiary/diploma/degree/PhD 24 17% Total 140 100 Employment Type Public employment 17 12 % Private employment 12 9 % Self-employment 51 36 % Student 25 18 % Unemployed 35 25% Total 140 100 Household size 2 to 3 68 49% 3-5 members 40 29% More than 5 members 32 23 % Total 140 100 Residential status Usual 75 75.0 Regular 25 25.0 total 140 100 Residing period of stay Less than a year 30 21 % 1-5 years 52 37% 6-15 years 33 24 % More than 15 years 25 18 % Total 140 100

29 4.2 The Composition and Rate of Solid Waste Generation in Nateete parish 4.2.1 Composition of the Solid Waste Generated in Nateete The results in Figure 3 shows that much of the solid wastes generated are organic in nature (89%). Only 6% were plastic wastes, 2% paper and 3% metal and glass. This is in agreement with the findings by Okot-Okumu, (2011) who found that most of the solid wastes generated in the east African urban centres are mainly composed of organic wastes (80%). It is also related to the findings of Oberlin (2011) which established that communities mainly generate kitchen wastes, compound wastes and floor sweeping wastes.

Figure 3: The Composition of the Solid Waste Generated in the study area

A comparison of solid waste composition between two cities in East Africa, Kampala and Dar es Salaam, is given in Table 2.

Table 2: Comparison of solid waste composition between Nateete and Dar es Salaam Solid waste composition (%) Kampala (Nateete) Dar es -salaam Nateete Peelings (banana, potatoes etc.) 89 71 89 Plastics 6 9 6 Paper 3 9 1 Glass 1 3 3 Metal 1 4 3 Source: Kassim, 2006 and the field. In developing countries, solid waste management is one of the greatest challenges urban authorities are facing today due to high solid waste generation rates and changing waste composition. High waste generation is linked to increased population growth (Xiangbin, 2014), inadequate solid waste coverage services and limited resource funding towards the environmental sector. Table 3 shows results of analysis (the mean, standard deviation and percentages) for different solid waste composition in the study area.

30

Table 3: Relationship between solid waste composition elements for different solid waste generation rates per household in the study area Solid waste composition per household Mean Standard Percentages deviation (%) Decomposable (organic) 0.05-0.5 1.15 0.366 18 0.5-1.5 1.00 0.000 52 1.5-2.0 1.00 0.000 21 2.0-2.5 1.00 0.000 8 2.5-3.0 1.00 0.000 2 Total 1.03 0.171 Plastics 0.05-0.5 1.10 0.308 90 0.5-1.5 1.04 0.198 96 1.5-2.0 1.00 0.000 100 2.0-2.5 1.12 0.354 88 2.5-3.0 1.00 0.000 100 Total 1.05 0.219 Paper 0.05-0.5 1.45 0.510 55 0.5-1.5 1.22 0.418 78 1.5-2.0 1.15 0.366 85 2.0-2.5 1.00 0.000 100 2.5-3.0 1.50 0.707 50 Total 1.24 0.429 Others(glass and metal) 0.05-0.5 1.70 0.470 30 0.5-1.5 1.58 0.499 42 1.5-2.0 1.60 0.503 40 2.0-2.5 1.50 0.535 50 2.5-3.0 1.50 0.707 50 Total 1.60 0.492

Using analysis of variance (ANOVA), a statistically significant difference between organic and paper wastes was established (P<0.05). This is in consistency with findings by Thompson, 2011, which found that there was significant relationship between solid waste generation rates per household and variables like seasons, income levels and locations.

In Table 4, the results show that there were positive correlations between independent variables (age, gender, average family size and the residing period of time) and solid waste composition (P<0.05). However, there was no significant correlation between employment status, marital status and highest level of education and solid waste composition (P>0.05).

31

Table 4: Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients of Social-Demographical Characteristics and Solid Waste composition in Nateete Parish Independent variables Correlation (R) Significance Age +0.051* significant Employment status -0.056 Not significant Gender +0.039* significant Marital status -0.137 Not significant Highest level of education -0.122 Not significant Average Family size +0.007 significant Residing period of time +0.087** significant *, ** Significant (p< 0.05) There was a positive relationship between average family size (r = +0.007), gender of the respondents (r =0.039), residing period of stay (r = +0.087) and age (r =+0.051) and solid wastes composition. However; there was no significant correlations amongst marital status, educational level and employment status (r = -0.034, r = -0.039, r =-0.008). This is in consistency with Foday et al., (2014) who observed that age and income size doesn’t impact on the kinds of solid wastes generated.

Results revealed that residents who had stayed in Nateete parish for 1-5 years accounted for 40% of the total solid waste generated. This means that respondents who have stayed between 1-5 years generate more organic wastes as compared to those who have stayed for more than 5 years. This could be due to the age difference meaning respondents aged 41- 50years generate more of organic, metal and glass solid wastes compared to the age group 21-30 years. Elderly people tend to consume more of traditional meals (African food) compared to the youth who prefer to consume relatively more of packed materials.

Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA), no significant difference in solid waste composition between different employment levels was found. This confirms the homogeneity in the solid waste composition variations across employment status. This is in agreement with Kassim, 2014 who pointed out that ANOVA technique can be used to find a statistically significant relationship between solid waste composition and variables like income level, season, location and marital status.

32 4.2.2 Solid waste generation rates per household in the study area A summary of solid wastes generated by the respondents in Nateete parish is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Solid waste generation rates by Kg in the study area

The data revealed that a half of the respondents (50%) generate 0.5 to 1.5kg/hh/day, 20% generated 1.5 to 2 kg/hh/day, 20% generated 0.05 to 0.5 kg/hh/day and only 10% of the respondents generated more than 2 kilograms/day respectively. Thus the average rate of solid waste generated in Nateete parish was 1.2kg/hh/day.

A detailed analysis revealed that on average, solid waste generated in upper zone of Nateete’s was 0.3kg/person/day: the middle zone had 0.3kg/person/day; while the lower zone had 0.2kg/person/day. This is in line with other findings of (Rotich, 2014; Okot-Okumu and Nyenje, 2011; Scheinberg, 2011) who found out that households in densely populated urban areas (informal settlements) with low income, generated between 0.22 and 0.3kg/cap/day compared to those of high income which generated between 0.66 and 0.9kg/capita/day. This is because low income earners consume less or no processed food products since they can’t afford. This is in agreement with other findings by Scheinberg, (2011) and Oyoo et al. (2011).

Table 5 below reveals that there is a positive relationship between average family size (r = 0.128), highest educational level of the respondents (r =0.80), employment status (r = 0.114) and marital status (r =0.042) and solid wastes generation rates. However, there was no

33 significant relationship between age, gender and residing period or stay (r = -0.034, r =-0.039, r = -0.008).

Table 5: Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients between selected Social-Demographical Characteristics and Solid Waste generation rates in Nateete Parish Social demographical characteristics Correlation (R) significant test Age -0.034 Not significant Gender -0.039 Not significant Marital status +0.042 significant Consumption habits +0.051 significant Education highest level + 0.080 significant Family size +0.128* significant Residing period of stay -0.008 Not significant Employment type +0.114 significant *, **Significant (p< 0.05) Family size affects the amount of solid wastes generated in the area; the larger the family, the higher the amount of solid wastes generated by the household. Households with 2-3 members generated less amount of wastes compared to those households with more than 5 members. This significantly impacted on how much is generated as respondents. This result is in agreement with Foday et al., (2014) who found that the higher the income of respondents the higher the demand and consumption of goods and services and therefore the higher the amount of solid wastes generated.

Additionally, most youths are self-employed and obtain average income of 10,000 per day compared to elderly residents who obtain less than 10,000 per day. This explains the difference in the consumption habits (Table 5) and confirms the findings of Karanja, 2005 that the higher the income, the higher the solid waste generation rate.

Results in Table 6 also revealed that respondents who are educated generate more solid wastes compared to un-educated people. This shows that educated people demand and consume more goods than their uneducated counter parts.

34 Table 6: The relationship between Educational level and solid waste rates of solid wastes generated in the study area Variables Rates of solid waste generated per household Total Level of education 0.05-0.5 kg 0.5-1.5 kg 1.5-2.0kg 2.0-3kg No education 2.2 5.5 2.2 1.1 11 Primary 6.0 15.0 6.0 3.0 30 Secondary 9.0 22.5 9.0 4.6 45 Degree/PhD 2.8 7.0 2.8 1.4 14 20 50 20 10 100 X2 = 0.252, DF = 12, r = 0.080

4.3 Effectiveness of Current Solid Waste Management Practices in Nateete Parish The results from the evaluation of effectiveness of the current solid waste management practices used in Nateete Parish are summarised in Table 7. The judgement on effectiveness was derived by comparing the obtained results (frequencies) from the respondents to the local and international solid waste management guidelines, regulations and standards (GoU, 1998, WHO, 2011, UNEP, 2010, GoSA, 2011). Effectiveness was based on what majority of the respondents indicated and what the solid waste management standards require (ideal requirements).

35 Table 7: Summary of responses on effectiveness of solid waste management practices Elements of Requirement based on GoU, WHO, Percentage Judgement effectiveness UNEP and GoSA Denoting on effectiveness Effectiveness (%) in Nateete Parish Methods of solid Solid wastes should be stored in 18 Very ineffective waste storage containers that minimize their exposure to the external environment such as closable bins and pits Sorting of wastes Solid wastes should be sorted into 30 Ineffective before disposal biodegradable wastes, recyclable materials, inert wastes, electrical wastes, hazardous wastes and toxic wastes before being disposed off. Recycling or re-use Disposal of wastes should be done to 16 Very ineffective of wastes only wastes materials that cannot be re- used, or recycled Methods of disposing Use of unauthorized dumping sites, burning 4 Very ineffective solid wastes and throwing in the backyard are discouraged Solid waste collection The collection methods should be those 2 Very ineffective methods used approved by the local authorities in consultation with the municipal authorities such as door to door collection and approved sites Availability of Every urban suburb should have an 13 Very ineffective approved waste approved waste collection point known collection points by all residents Distance from the Waste collection points should not 25 Ineffective approved waste exceed 500 meters from households and collection point should be accessible to garbage trucks Provision of Local governments and or municipal 27 Ineffective extension services by authorities should have representatives to relevant authorities guide the local residents into complying with Solid waste management standards Frequency of waste Depending on the generation rates and 45 Ineffective collection from the population, solid wastes should be gazetted collection collected on a daily basis but not points exceeding a week (7 days) Availability of private Solid waste management systems should 23 Very ineffective waste collection be managed through public private service providers partnerships to allow for participation of private sector

36 Elements of Requirement based on GoU, WHO, Percentage Judgement effectiveness UNEP and GoSA Denoting on effectiveness Effectiveness (%) in Nateete Parish Frequency of solid The frequency of solid waste collection 45 Ineffective waste collection by by private providers should be demand private service driven and should follow the schedules providers set by the communities who pay them Provision of solid Where the communities are in contract 43 Ineffective waste collection with private solid waste collectors, the equipment by private contracted parties should provide waste contractors or collection equipment government authorities Willingness to pay For the solid waste collection systems to 58 Effective for waste collection be cost effective and sustainable, the services communities should contribute reasonable fees to support the system Involvement of Solid Waste management framework 22 Very ineffective local communities should be based on Bottom-up approach in solid waste management planning Availability of Effective solid waste collection systems 46 Ineffective environment at community level should be supported management with environment education services education campaigns in the communities Very Ineffective = 0-25%; Ineffective= 26-50%; Effective = 51-75; Very Effective = 76-100 (See Section 3.4)

As shown in the Table above, in general the current solid waste management practices used in Nateete Parish are ineffective. Only 18% of the respondents use proper solid waste storage methods such as waste bins. According to the scale of judgement (0-25%) was considered very ineffective and the rest (82%) used poor solid waste storage methods such as plastic bags (sacks), open buckets, back yard and polythene bags (Figure 5a and 5b). This denotes that the methods of storage of solid wastes are very ineffective among majority of the respondents interviewed. According to UNEP, (2012), solid wastes should be stored in containers (e.g closable bins and pits) that minimize exposure to the external environment. This was, however, missing among majority of the respondent’s areas of residence. WHO (2011) points out that poor storage of solid wastes could attract insects such as flies which

37 visit the open solid waste dump sites and the households. This was observed to be a risk to public health outbreaks such as diarrhoea, dysentery and a range of gastro-intestinal infections in the communities.

(a) (b) Figure 5a: Storage of solid wastes in plastic bags; 5b: Solid wastes stored in sacks Photos by author (2015).

Pertaining to sorting of wastes before disposal, only 30% of the respondents indicated that they sort their wastes before disposing them off. This denotes ineffectiveness. The rest of the respondents (70%) did not sort their solid wastes before disposing off. Those who sorted their wastes were mainly interested in isolating the valuable items so that they can sell them. This means that the sorting was not intended to comply with the solid waste management requirements, but rather to make financial gains. Domestic solid wastes should be sorted into biodegradable wastes such as kitchen food wastes and green wastes (GoSA, 2011). Recyclable materials such as paper, glass, bottles, cans, metals, plastics, fabrics, clothes and batteries can be put in one category while inert wastes such as construction and demolition waste, dirt, rocks and debris should be put together. In addition, electrical wastes such as electronic appliances, TVs, computers and screens; composite wastes such as waste clothing and tetra packs should be categorised together. Hazardous wastes such as paints, chemicals, light bulbs, fluorescent tubes, spray cans, fertilizers and containers as well as toxic wastes such as pesticides, herbicides and fungicides should be grouped separately before disposal (Momoh and Oladebeye, 2010). Failure to sort solid wastes before disposal complicates the

38 disposal process and increases the cost of managing wastes. A key informant from KCCA indicated that they spend over 40% in extra costs to manage unsorted solid wastes.

Pertaining to recycling and re-use of solid wastes, only 16% of the respondents indicated that they recycle or re-use wastes. This denotes that this practice is very ineffective. According to UNEP regulations, disposal of solid wastes should be done to only those waste materials that cannot be re-used, or recycled. This was however, not the case as 84% of the respondents indicated that they did not sort their solid wastes. Most of the solid waste collection sites were observed with recyclable materials such as plastic bottles, polythene bags, kitchen wastes, wood materials and metals. This means that residents just dispose off their solid wastes without considering the possibility of recycling/re-using some of the useful materials. According to Maluleke, (2014), failure to recycle/re-use valuable materials only increases the load for the solid waste collection authorities and complicates costs for the services. This calls for sensitization of the communities about the benefits of recycling or re-using the solid wastes and introduction of simple technologies to aid the communities to adopt recycling and re-use practices.

Most of the methods used by the communities to dispose solid wastes were very ineffective. Majority of the respondents (96%) either burnt the solid wastes, or dumped them in open places or behind their yards. This is partly responsible for the current solid waste management crisis in the parish. Residents do not follow prescribed solid waste disposal guidelines while disposing off their wastes. According to GoU (1998), use of unauthorized dumping sites, burning and throwing in the backyard are discouraged and attracts a monetary fine that should be determined by the health and environment inspectors. Hatibu, (2008), also reported that, burning of wastes and open dumping were the most commonly used practices in Temeke Municipal council in Tanzania.

39

a) b)

c) d) Figure 5: Illegal dumping of solid wastes along the streets, roads, unused land and drainage channels; photos by author, (2015)

As for solid waste collection methods, 41% of the respondents either used door to door collection or communal collection at solid waste collection points. This denotes ineffectiveness. It was confirmed by 87% of the respondents who did not use approved waste collection dumping sites. According to UNEP 2010 regulations on solid wastes, the collection methods for solid wastes should be those approved by the local authorities in consultation with the municipal authorities such as door to door collection and use of approved dumping sites. The regulations further indicate that every suburb should have approved waste collection points known by all residents and residents should adhere to the approved solid waste collection points. However, the distance to the approved solid waste collection points was over 2km for most respondents (75%) thus denoting ineffectiveness. Respondents

40 indicated that they are tempted to dump their wastes in unauthorized sites near their households to avoid the inconvenience of long distance to the authorized collection sites.

This was further confirmed through focus group discussions (FGD), when respondents revealed that they were tempted to dump their solid wastes in unauthorised sites near their households to avoid the inconvenience of travelling to distant authorised collection site. The World Health Organization’s technical guidelines on solid waste management require that waste collection points should not exceed 500 meters from households and should be accessible to garbage trucks (WHO, 2011). This was, however, not the case in the study area as indicated above. According to a key informant from KCCA, the approved methods for collecting solid wastes include door-to-door, use of approved solid waste collection sites and use of gazetted waste collection. The informant indicated that if a resident cannot afford to meet the cost of taking the solid wastes to the authorized collection point, they should keep their solid wastes in closable equipment and register for door-to-door waste collection services where they pay a small fee to sustain the services.

KCCA has waste collection trucks which pass around accessible places and residents take advantage of the trucks to bring wastes so that they are taken for free. However, during focus group discussions, most residents (76.3%) indicated that these trucks do not wait long enough for them to access their locations and the truck operators abuse them. Mukisa, (2009) also found out that most residents in Kira Town Council did not use approved methods for collecting solid wastes from their households. This left the town council with no option but to foot a huge bill for collecting the solid wastes from illegal locations.

A small percentage of the respondents (27%) indicated that they had ever interacted with an extension worker from KCCA on issues of solid waste management. This denotes infectiveness given that the majority of the respondents (73%) had not got extension worker services. According to the regulations issued by GoSA, (2011), local governments and municipal authorities should have representatives to guide the local residents into complying with solid waste management standards. This calls for regular meetings with residents to explain to them about the existing guidelines as well as their roles and responsibilities in solid waste management. Results by Matovu, (2002) also indicated that the residents of Kawempe Division had no extension services on solid waste management in their area. He attributed this to reluctance from the Public health department at division level which does not execute

41 its roles. This further explains the inconsistences in the solid waste management practices at household level. Frequency of waste collection from the gazetted collection points was also found to be low thus ineffective SW collection (Table 7). The results indicate that only 45% of the respondents had seen local authorities collecting the solid wastes from the defined points at least once a week. Most of the respondents who attended the focus group discussions pointed out that most of the gazetted collection points filled up quickly. It is not until the residents complain to their leaders and sometimes threaten to demonstrate that action is taken. According to UNEP guidelines of 2012 on solid waste management, depending on the generation rates and population, solid wastes should be collected on a daily basis but not exceeding a week (7 days). Key informants from Rubaga division council offices indicated that sometimes their vehicles break down which delays their response. The informants reported that at times the private waste collectors do not do their job but instead blame KCCA.

The private solid waste collection services in the parish are weak and very ineffective. The private waste collection service providers are often unavailable even when residents are told to pay for their services. This further illustrates the level of ineffectiveness of solid waste collection practices in Nateete parish. However, it is also important to note that there are informal waste collectors who contribute significantly to SWM chain in Nateete parish. Only 23% of the respondents indicated that the private waste collectors come to take the solid wastes in their area denoting that this is very ineffective. This ineffectiveness of the private solid waste collectors was further illustrated by failure to provide solid waste collection equipment to their clients as reported by 57% of the respondents who pay for their services denoting. This means that majority of the places are not reached by private solid waste collectors. The UNEP guidelines on solid waste collection services indicate that solid waste management systems should be managed through public private partnerships (PPPs) to allow for participation of the private sector. This increases efficiency and improves service provision. The regulations of UNEP further point out that the frequency of solid waste collection by private providers should be demand driven and follow the schedules set by the communities who pay them.

Most of the respondents (58%) indicated that they were willing to pay for solid waste collection services. This is a good indication that door-to-door solid waste collection methods

42 have potential to boost the overall effectiveness of the solid waste management practices in Nateete parish. According to GoU, (1998) and GoSA, (2011), for the solid waste collection systems to be cost effective and sustainable, the communities should first be willing to contribute reasonable fees to support the system. This should however be backed by effective service provision if the people are to continuously pay for the services.

Concerning involvement of local communities in solid waste management and planning, a small percentage of the respondents (22%) pointed out that they had ever participated in communal solid waste collection activities but much less in planning meetings. This denotes that community involvement is very ineffective as 78% of the respondents had not participated in any solid waste collection exercise. According to WHO (2011), a good solid waste management framework should be based on bottom-up approach. Authorities should be seen to consult and listen to the concerns of the local residents, and the local residents should be seen to voluntarily comply with solid waste management guidelines issued by the local authorities. This should be supported by environmental education campaigns in which the communities are gathered into learning groups guided by the technical persons. This was however missing in the community and was not effectively done as reported by 54% of the respondents. According to UNEP, (2012) effective solid waste collection systems at community level should be supported with environment education services.

4.4 Perceived barriers to solid waste management in Nateete parish Descriptive statistics on responses to perceived barriers to solid waste management in Nateete parish are presented in Table 8. The perceived barriers included high population growth in the area, limited funding, poorly and under paid solid waste workers, obsolete and insufficient equipment, poor public co-operation concerning solid waste management, poor urban planning, weak legal solid waste management framework, inadequate solid waste collection vehicles and low level of solid waste management education.

Results from Table 8, column 1 lists the 9 identified barriers affecting solid waste management in Nateete parish, column 2 is the corresponding mean, and column 3 is the standard deviation while column 4 is number of corresponding respondents. The values describe the perceived barriers affecting solid waste management on a measurement scale response by Likert 5 points scoring method, where 1 implies not serious, 2 not so serious, 3 neutral, 4 serious and 5 very serious. A t-test analysis of responses from the two groups on

43 the barriers affecting solid waste management in Nateete parish was carried out. Each item was tested for its ability to account for variation on the dependent. Sample size is denoted by N, total degree of freedom (df) =N-1 while the significance is denoted by the P-value taking 0.05 as the alpha value. The means are different because of the wide range of different views given by the respondents and this also explains the differences in standard deviation.

Table 7: Statistical analysis of perceived barriers to solid waste management in Nateete parish Perceived Buriers Mean Standard No of deviation respondents Limited funding Household 1.168 0.611 140 Local Authority 0.551 0.254 26 Total 1.719 0.86 166 Poorly and under paid solid waste workers Household 1.628 0.601 140 Local Authority 0.85 0.311 26 Total 2.478 0.912 166 Weak legal solid waste management framework Household 1.081 0.571 140 Local Authority 1.29 0.69 26 Total 2.371 1.261 166 Obsolete and insufficient equipment Household 1.085 0.509 140 Local Authority 1.014 0.662 26 Total 2.099 1.171 166 Inadequate solid waste collection vehicles Household 1.081 0.499 140 Local Authority 0.411 0.632 26 Total 1.492 1.131 166 Low level of solid waste management education Household 1.001 0.407 140 Local Authority 0.701 0.278 26 Total 1.702 0.685 166 Poor urban planning Household 0.862 0.386 140 Local Authority 1.136 0.453 26 Total 1.998 0.839 166 Poor public co-operation concerning solid waste management Household 0.802 0.339 140 Local Authority 0.537 0.458 26 Total 1.339 0.797 166 High population growth in the parish Household 0.522 0.176 140 Local Authority 0.954 0.342 26 Total 1.476 0.518 166

44 From the study, it was realized that Nateete parish has a range of barriers that have greatly limited solid waste management in the area. A t-test analysis was carried out between the households’ analysis of the barriers limiting solid waste management and the perceptions of local authorities about the problems in Nateete parish to determine if their perceptions were significantly different; the results showed a significant difference (P<0.05). Table 8 is an output analysis showing the mean, standard deviation as the two key descriptive parameters for the listed problems affecting solid waste management in Nateete parish.

Results showed that weak legal solid waste management is one of the greatest barriers in the area which inhibits authorities from taking legal action against offenders such as those who illegally dump solid wastes. When interviewed, the health inspector of KCCA in Lubaga Division also indicated that even if the culprits are brought to justice, the punishments for them are usually unclear or too weak to deter the occurrence of similar incidents. This resonates with the findings of Karanja, 2005.

Insufficiency of solid waste management machinery especially waste collection vehicles is a big challenge in Nateete. Even where they are available, most of them are usually in a poor state of repair and when they completely breakdown, it takes long to repair them or are never repaired. They are thus left unused in the parking yards. According to the LC1 chairperson of one of the villages in Nateete parish, inadequacy of solid waste collection vehicles results into inconsistent collection of solid wastes from communities. This accounts for the accumulation of wastes in most suburbs in other parts of the city such as Kasubi, Busega, Bwaise, Kyebando and Nateete inclusive. An LC1 chairperson of Musoke zone revealed that:

“The vehicle takes long to come. Sometimes it comes after 2 weeks and at times even after a month. When it comes, everyone rushes to have their waste taken. Unfortunately, the vehicle cannot take all the waste. They over fill it such that even as it moves some waste falls off back to the road. In fact, some people remain at the pickup point with their waste. So, what do you expect? Do you expect residents to carry back the waste and keep it in their home for another two to three weeks? All that residents can do is to leave it at the pick-up point.”

The analysis of the results also showed that the problem of low level of solid waste management education was perceived to be very serious among most of the respondents

45 (67%). Low level of solid waste management education affects attitudes of the residents towards solid waste management. The fleet manager of Nabugabo waste collectors, one of the private companies operating in the Nateete pointed out that “due to ignorance, the population fails to foresee the likely problems of poor management of solid wastes and see no reason to effectively collect and dispose-off solid wastes”. Similar observations were made by Guerrero, 2012). Such attitude limit participation of the communities in solid waste management and has been attributed to the low level of education (Mwiinga, 2014). The level of education and the gender of the respondents were found to significantly influence (P<0.05) their perceptions towards the level of solid waste management as a barrier. This means that the lower the level of education the more likely the respondents were to perceive a low level of solid waste management education as a barrier.

Nateete parish experiences the problem of poor urban planning as reported in other parts of the city in State of Environment Reports issued by NEMA (2010-2014). Poor urban planning results in congestion, upsurge of shanty structures, poor access to most urban locations and poor waste collection and disposal plans (Mwiinga, 2014). According to the LC2 chairman in Nateete parish, this contributes to ineffective waste collection systems. This is worsened by poor co-operation among the service providers, local authorities and the local people concerning solid waste management.

Public co-operation concerning solid waste management was found to be poor in the study area. Poor public co-operation discourages investment in solid waste management since there are minimal chances of sustainability (Kassim, 2014). This is because the government fears to invest where there are no returns on investment (Faccio et al., 2011). In addition, there is high population growth in Nateete parish as depicted by the overall increase in Kampala which is now going to over 5 million during day (UBOS, 2015). Population growth results into congestion and mushrooming of low-cost shanty structures on the outskirts of urban areas. Such areas are often very populated and poorly planned. They cannot pay for waste collection services such as door-to-door (Rotich, 2014).

Nateete parish also lacks sufficient equipment. According to Kassim, 2014 insufficient equipment hinders management of wastes. The equipment is supposed to facilitate waste collection practices in the communities. Absence of such equipment results into inconsistent collection of solid wastes hence accumulation of wastes in the communities (Foday et al.,

46 2014). In an interview with Nabugabo solid waste collectors and the Lubaga division Health inspector, it was pointed out that it is important to ensure adequate equipment such as waste bins and skips if management of solid waste is to succeed in the communities. Poorly or under paid solid waste workers was reported to be another serious barrier to effective solid waste management in Nateete parish. Poor payment of solid waste collection workers hinders their commitment to collect solid wastes. According to Thompson, 2011 workers should be remunerated. Poor payment leads to excuses among the workers. There are thus common reports of absence from work (Felix, 2010). As a result, wastes accumulate in the communities as the responsible authorities/personnel are not there to collect it (Xiangbin, 2014).

Limited funding constrains waste collection activities in the study area. Limited financing was reported to result in postponement of most solid waste management activities such as awareness creation, establishment of waste collection infrastructures, operation and maintenance of equipment, payment of salaries to workers and proper treatment of collected wastes (Kassim, 2014). Related findings were reported by Afon, 2007). They found out that most urban authorities lack enough resources to manage the volume of wastes generated by the urban dwellers. As a result, they resorted to cost sharing with the communities. However, the communities are often unwilling to pay for solid waste collection services. According to Ojok et al., (2012), unwillingness to pay for solid waste collection services fails cost sharing. This explains the haphazard in solid waste management practices.

A graphical plot (Figure 7) was used to estimate marginal means and standards errors at 95% confidence interval. Both upper and lower boundaries for each variable as well as mean value were calculated against the dependent variables (describing respondents’ perception of magnitude of barriers perceived to sustainable solid waste management).

47

Figure 6: Graphical plot of the perceived barriers to sustainable solid waste management in Nateete parish Results from figure 7 shows that poorly and under paid solid waste workers is the most serious barrier affecting sustainable solid waste management followed by weak legal solid waste management framework, obsolete and insufficient equipment, poor urban planning low level of solid waste management education, weak capacity building, inadequate solid waste coverage and poor public co-operation concerning solid waste management. Broadly, these problems fall into four main categories: Environmental/socio-economic, Financial/ economic, Technical/ institutional and political/ legal/ policy problems.

The above findings also reflect the status of solid waste management in other parts of Kampala and the cities in the East African region .this could be explained by cities in most developing countries (Banga et al, 2009 and Ezeah,2010).

48 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion The study set out to examine the current composition and rate of solid waste generated by households, the effectiveness of current solid waste management practices used and the perceived barriers to solid waste management and alternative approaches. The study found out that in general household solid waste generation and composition varies across the study area. The solid waste management practices in Nateete parish are very ineffective and the biggest barriers to solid waste management are limited funding and high population. Average family size, income level, marital status and educational level were the main socio-economic factors affecting solid waste generation and composition in Nateete parish.

The largest portion of solid wastes in Nateete parish was composed of organic biodegradable material. When addressing SWM problem, composition should be taken into consideration because it points to the kind of livelihoods and the consumption patterns existing in the households. The composition of organic wastes as the major ingredient shows that households have a high dependence on raw agricultural food stuffs that are supplied by the farmers to the markets in their neighbourhoods. Most of the households generated between 0.3kg/person/day of solid wastes. However, this study did not go into determining the water content of the solid wastes. These findings relate to Okot-Okumu and Nyenje (2011) who found out that average generation of solid wastes was over 0.3kg/person/day. In cities of other countries such as Kenya and Tanzania, the rate is not any different as the generation per capita is over 0.5kg per day (Oberlin, 2011).

The methods of solid waste management in the study area are poor. Sorting, recycling, re-use of wastes is still minimal. The methods used to dispose-off wastes are not in conformity with the requirements as stated out in the waste management regulations of 1998. The community lacks adequate approved solid waste collection points and the waste collection service providers do not carry out their jobs effectively. Even though majority of the respondents (63%) were willing to pay for solid waste management services, they are not involved in planning and education on solid waste management. These findings relate to what Ojok et al., (2012) also found out that majority of the respondents in Kampala city were willing to pay for solid waste management services. In other cities outside Uganda such as Durban city in

49 South Africa willingness to pay was also found to be high among low-income housing areas (Carina, 2003).

Population increase has resulted in congestion and increase in solid waste generation per day. Due to limited funding, solid wastes lay uncollected in most parts of Nateete parish. Limited funding resulted in minimal coverage of the area during solid waste collection. Similar barriers were reported in Ghanaian cities in which public administration of solid waste collection structures were reported to be weak due to population increase, congestion and underfunding (Awortwi, 2004).

5.2 Recommendations Based on the findings of the research, the following is recommended: A key finding from the study shows that solid waste generated in the area is mainly organic in nature. Therefore, the frequency of solid waste collection should be increased by KCCA as they decompose very first. This should be supplemented with encouraging households to recycle and reuse these wastes where applicable in instance composting them to get fertilizers for flower gardens and urban crop gardens. poorly and under paid solid waste workers for KCCA emerged as one of crucial barriers hindering sustainable solid waste management. There is need to promote payment for solid waste collection services by the residents. Households should be encouraged to contribute towards funding for solid waste collection services. This will solve the problem of limited funding and shall boost the frequency and effective disposal of solid wastes generated by the households.

To boost the effectiveness of solid waste management practices, there is need for awareness creation at household level by KCCA and existing NGOs. This should be based on the methods of behaviour change communication (BCC) to change the perceptions and attitudes of the residents in Nateete parish.

50 Since some areas in the parish are very congested due to population increase, solid waste collection points which are accessible to trucks should be designated and publicised among the residents. This will reduce on the solid wastes which accumulate in congested areas due to lack of access.

Further studies should be conducted to explore the energy content of solid wastes generated by households and their willingness to recycle.

51 REFERENCES Afon, A. O. (2007). Informal sector initiative in the primary sub-system of urban solid waste management in Lagos, Nigeria. Habitat International 31, 193-204. Agunwamba, P.H. (2003). A Review of Solid Waste Management Practices in Polokwane City. MSc thesis, Department of Environmental Management Polokwane University. Ahmed, S.A. and Ali, M. (2004). Partnerships for solid waste management in developing countries: Linking theories to realities. Habitat International 28, 467-479. Ally, H. (2008) Solid Waste Manager Temeke Municipal Council, (Interview 23/04/08) Arusha Municipal Council. United Republic of Tanzania. http://www.arushamunicipal.go.tz/web%20pages/waste_mgt.htm accessed 09/05/08. Al-Yousfi H.M. (2012). Public and private service provision in solid waste management in Kampala, Uganda. PhD-Thesis Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Awortwi, N. (2004). Getting the Fundamentals Wrong: Woes of Public-Private Partnerships in Solid Waste Collection in three Ghanian Cities. Public Administration and Development. Public Admin. Dev. 24, 213-324. Awortwi, N. (2004). Technology and Institutional Arrangements in the Delivery of Public Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Ghanaian Cities. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 5 (3), Intellect Ltd. Baud, I. (2004). Markets, partnerships and sustainable development in solid waste management; raising questions. In “Solid waste management and recycling: Actors, partnerships and policies in Hyderabad, India and Nairobi, Kenya” (Isa Baud, J. Post and C. Furedy Eds.), London, Kluwer Publishers. Braxton, A.J. (2014). Domestic Waste Disposal and Recycling in the Tshwane Metropolitan Area: An Environmental Education Perspective, UNISA, South Africa. Brenner, J., Frost, A. Haub, C. Mather, M. Ringheim, K. and Zuehlke, E. (2010). “World population highlights: key finding from PRBs 2010 World Population Data sheet” , population Bulletin,65,2,Population Reference Bureau Publications. Carina, W. K. (2003). "Towards Integrated solid waste Management in Low-Income Housing Areas in Durban, South Africa: Msc Thesis." 80. Cointreau-L, S. (1994). “Private Sector Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Services in Developing Countries.”The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Daskalopoulos, E., O. Badr. and Probert, S. D. (1998)."An integrated approach to municipal solid waste management." Resources, Conservation and Recycling 24(1): 33-50. Ezeah, G. (2010). An Analysis of Public Perceptions of Domestic Solid Waste Management: the Case of the Make Zambia clean Campaign and Healthy Program in Livingstone,

52 in Internal Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences, vol. 4, no1, ISSN 2231-4490, Accessed at www.IJpaes.com, (11/2015). Faccio, D., Li. B., and Loeto. P.T. (2011). Household Perceptions on Solid Waste Management Practices in Developing Countries; the Experience of the Northern part of Botswana-Donga Area, in Environmental Research Journal, 6 (4) pgs 246-253, ISSN:1994-5396. Felix, P. (2010). Solid Waste Management in Ghana: The Case of Tamale Metropolitan Area. MSc thesis in Development Policy and Planning, Faculty of Planning and Land Economy College of Architecture and Planning. Foday, F.M. Koech. M.K., Tole.M. (2014). Innovative landfill bioreactor systems for municipal solid waste treatment in East Africa aimed at optimal energy recovery and minimal greenhouse gas emissions. PhD- thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Governent of South Africa (GoSA). (2011). National Domestic Waste Collection Standards. Department of Environmental Affairs. Republic of South Africa. Guerrero, A.S. (2012). The role of households in solid waste management in East Africa capital cities. PhD- thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Kampsax, L.C. (1998). Modernizing solid waste management at Municipal level, Institutional arrangements in urban centres of East Africa. PhD- thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Karanja, A. (2005). “Solid Waste Management in Nairobi: Actors, Institutional Arrangements and Contributions to Sustainable Development.” A Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Development Studies of the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, and The Netherlands. Kaseva, M. and Mbuligwe, S. (2005). Appraisal of solid waste collection following private sector involvement in Dar essalaam city, Tanzania. Habitat International 29, 353- 366. Kassim, M. S. (2006). “Sustainability of Private Sector in Solid Waste Collection: A Case of Dar- es-Salaam Tanzania.” A Doctoral Thesis in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the award of the Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University. Kassim, M. S. (2014). “Sustainability of Private Sector in Solid Waste Collection: A Case of Dar- es-Salaam Tanzania.” A Doctoral Thesis in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the award of the Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University. Kinnaman, T. (2000). “Explaining the Growth in Municipal Recycling Programs: The Role of Market and Nonmarket Factors.” Public Works Management and Policy, 5(1), 37- 51. Kwarteng, S. (2011). “Private sector involvement in urban solid waste collection: Performance, capacity and regulation in five cities in Ghana.” PhD Thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

53 Majale, C. L. (2011), “Modernizing solid waste management at municipal level: Institutional arrangements in urban centres of East Africa,” Environmental Policy Series (3), Wageningen Academic Publishers. Maluleke. P.H. (2014). A Review of Solid Waste Management Practices in Polokwane City. MSc thesis, Department of Environmental Management Polokwane University. Matovu, G. (2002). City Consultation on solid Waste Management and a Strategic Plan. A Case of Kawempe Division, Kampala City Council-Uganda Medina, M. (2002).Globalization, development and municipal solid waste management in third world cities; El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana, Mexico. Medina, M. (2005). Serving the un served: Informal refuse collection in Mexico, Waste Management Research 23, 390. Momoh, J.J. and Oladebeye, D.H. (2010). Assessment of Awareness of Attitude and Willingness of People to Participate in Household Solid Waste Recycling Programme in Ado-Eketi, Nigeria, in the Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation. Jakarta, Indonesia. Mrayyan, M., and Hamdi, N. (2013). Community Attitude, Perception and Willingness towards Solid Waste Management in Bangalore City, Karnataka, India in International Journal of Environmental sciences, Vol. 4, no1, ISSN 0976-4402 pgs 87-95. Mugenda, O. M., and Mugenda, A.G, Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Nairobi: Acts Press., 1999). Mukisa, P.K. (2009). Public Participation in Solid Waste Management: Challenges and Prospects. A case of Kira Town Council, Uganda Mwiinga, F. (2014). Perceptions of Solid Waste Management and the Role of Environmental Education among Selected Residents of Choma Township of Southern Zambia. MSc thesis, University of Zambia. Ndandiko, C. (2010). “Private provision of public services in developing countries.” University of Twente, the Netherlands PhD dissertation NEMA. (2001). State Of Environment Report for Uganda 2000/2001, Kampala Uganda. Oberlin, A. S., (2011), „The role of households in solid waste management in East Africa capital cities,‟ Environmental Policy Series (4), Wageningen Academic Publishers. Obirih, O. (2003). Solid Waste Collection in Accra. Assessing the impact of decentralization and privatization on urban environmental management. Amsterdam: municipal university, PHD.

54 Ojok, J., Koech. M.K., Tole.M., and Okot-Okumu. J. (2012). Households’ willingness to pay for improved municipal solid waste management services in Kampala, Uganda. Science Journal of environmental Engineering Research. 143 PP8. Okot-Okumu, J. and Nyenje, R. (2011) Municipal solid waste management under decentralisation in Uganda: Habitat International Volume 35, Issue 4, October 2011, Pages 537–543. Raymond, A.S.B. AND MURRAY, H. (1999). Reusing Organic Solid Waste in Urban Farming in Africa cities ,A challenge for urban planners, third world planning review, Liverpool university press,vol 21 number 4. Republic of Uganda. (1998). The Water (Waste Disharge) Regulations. Statutory Instrument No.32. 1998, Kampala Uganda. Rotich, J. M. (2014). Governance and community participation in Municipal Solid Waste management, case of Arusha and Dar es Salaam Tanzania. Master’s Thesis at Department of Development and Planning, Dar es Salam University. Scheinberg, A. (2011). “Value Added: Modes of sustainable recycling in the modernization of waste management systems.” PhD Thesis, Wageningen University. Schubeler, P., Wehrle, K. and Christen, J. (1996). “Conceptual Framework for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Low-income Countries.”UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat)/World Bank/SDC Collaborative Programme on Municipal Solid Waste Management in Low Income Countries, Working Paper (9). Tadesse, T.T, Ruijs, A. and Hagos, F. (2008). Household waste disposal in Mekelle city, Northern Ethiopia. Waste Management 28, 2003-2012. Thompson, A. A. (2011). Domestic Waste Management Strategies in Accra, Ghana and other Tropical Developing Nations. Date accessed (May, 2011). Tukahirwa, T.J, (2011). Civil society in urban sanitation and solid waste management: The role of NGOs and CBOs in metropolises of East Africa. Doctoral Thesis, Wageningen University. UHDR. (2005). Uganda Human Development Report Uganda. UNEP. (2002). Industry as a partner for sustainable development; Waste Management; Developed through a multi-stakeholder process facilitated by UNEP. UNEP. (2003).The Ecosystems Approach to Urban Environmental Management, Operationalizing the Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems (CASE) Initiative (HariSrinivas). UNEP. (2005). Integrated Waste Management Score Board, A tool to measure performance in Municipal Solid waste Management.

55 UNEP. (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. UNEP. (2012). Solid Waste management guidelines. Geneva Switzerland. 3(8) pp23-41 UN-HABITAT. (2007). Cities can achieve more sustainable land use if municipalities combine urban planning and development with environmental management; Chapter 5: Nairobi and its Environment. United Nations Environment Programme, (2003). Environmental Pollution and Impacts on Public Health: Implications of the Dandora Municipal Dumping Site in Nairobi, Kenya. United States Environment Protection Agency. (2009). Municipal Solid Waste in The United States Office of Solid Waste (5306P). WHO. (2011). Solid Waste Management Guidelines. Water, Engineering and Development Centre Loughborough University Leicestershire. 4(7). pp4. Xiangbin, J. (2014). Managing Solid Waste in Nigeria: Social and Health Implications in Nasara Journal of Humanities, vol. 5, no1, Nasarawa state university.

56 Appendix II: Respondent Questionnaire QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESPONDENTS ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Dear Respondent, I am a Masters student of Makerere University carrying out a research on SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN KAMPALA CITY”. The individual responses will be treated with utmost confidentiality and will be for academic purposes only in fulfilment of my research thesis. I humbly request to take some of your time to fill this questionnaire. Your assistance will be of great value in the success of this study. Thank you in advance. (Please use a tick in the space provided) Section A: RESPONDENT’S IDENTIFICATION

1. What is your age?

 Below 20  21-30  31-40  41-50  51-60  Above 60

2. What is your gender?

 Male  Female

3. What is your marital status?

 Married  Single Others

4. What is your highest level of education you have fully completed?

 No Formal Education  Primary School  Secondary School

 Diploma  Degree  Post Graduate

5. What is your residential status?

Usual Resident  Regular Resident Guest or Visitor

6. How long have you been residing there?

 Less than 1 year  1 to 5 years  6 to 15 years  More than 15 years

7. What is your employment type?  Public employment  Private employment  Self-employment

 Student  Unemployed

57 SUB SECTION A The Current Composition and Quantities of Solid Waste Generated by Households in Nateete parish

1. List down the kinds of solid wastes generated in this area.

 Peelings  Paper  polygene bags  Debris  Glass  Metal  Ash  Others

2. How much solid waste do you think you generate per day in kilograms?

1/2kg 1/4kg 1kg 2kg 3kg  above 4kg.

SUB SECTION B To identify and evaluate the Effectiveness of Current Solid Waste Management Practices Used in Nateete Parish

1. How do you store your wastes?

 Plastic bags buckets  behind the yard  Polythene  dust bins  others

2. Do you sort solid waste before disposal them off?  Yes  No

3. Do you recycle or reuse your wastes

 Yes  No

4. How do you dispose of your solid wastes?

 Open places  Authorized Dumping sites

 Burn  behind garden yard  others

5. What is the collection methods used in managing solid wastes?

 Door to Door collection  communal collection point

6. Do you have any waste collection point in your area? Yes no

7. If yes, how far are you from it?  0.1km -1km 1km- 2km  2kmto 5km  More than 5km

8. Is there any government solid waste management service provided in this area?

 Yes  No 9. How often does the public service provided operate?

Everyday  Once a week  twice a week once a month

58 Twice a month others (Specify) …………………………………………….. 10. Is there any private contractors managing solid waste in this area?

 Yes  No

11. How often do they operate?

Everyday  Once a week  twice a week once a month

Twice a month others (Specify) ……………………………………………..

12. Are there any provided collection bins by the council and private contractors?

 Yes  no

13. Do you pay for any collection of the wastes?

 Yes  No

14. How much do you pay for waste collection, transportation and storage?

1000-2000 per month  2000 - 5000 per month  5000 - 20000 per month

12000 – 30000 per year  30000 – 50000 per year  not willing to pay  Others (Specify) ………………………………………………………………...

15. Are there any waste management groups in your area?

 Yes  No

16. Have you ever been involved by the authorities in solid waste management planning?

 Yes  No

17. Are you satisfied with the overall solid waste disposal management in your area?

 Yes  No 18. Are there any environmental education campaigns concerning solid waste management in your area?

 Yes  No 19. Are you aware of proper environmentally friendly solid waste management methods?  Yes  No

59 SUB SECTION C: The Perceived social cultural and economic barriers to solid waste management in Nateete parish.

What are the social cultural and economic barriers perceived to solid waste management service? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Indicate the Seriousness of the Following Barriers as Concerns Solid Waste Management

No. Question

Serious

No opinion No

Not Serious Not

Very Serious Very Not So Serious So Not 1 Inadequate Service Coverage 2. Weak legal framework 3 Lack Of Vehicles/Equipment 4 Lack Of Trained Personnel 5 Poor Urban Planning 6 Low level of education towards solid waste management 7. Poorly paid and trained waste workers 8 Limited funding resources to SWM 9 Poor Public Cooperation 10 Lack Of Strong Legislation 11 Obsolete and insufficient equipment 12 Weak Institutional Set-Up For Solid Waste Management

Suggest what would be done to solve the mentioned constraints to solid waste management in your parish. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… What are the best ways for authorities to inform the people on proper solid waste management? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!!!

60 Appendix III: Key Informants Interview Interview guide for local leaders and waste policy maker of solid waste management

1. Name of respondent:

2. Position:

3. Gender: male  female

4. Education level:

5. How long have you worked in this position?

6. What kinds of solid wastes are generated in Nateete parish, list them down. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7. What are the factors that contribute to the solid waste generation in Nateete parish? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

8. How much solid waste generated per household per day in kilograms? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

9. What are commonly used solid waste management methods in Nateete parish, list them down? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………

10. Are there any provided solid waste management services provided by the division? Yes  No

11. If yes, which services and how often are they provided? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12. If no, mention any available services and how often are they provided? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13. How far is the location of communal transfer point from the households?  0.5meters  1meter  5meters

14. Do you think citizens are satisfied with the overall solid waste disposal management system in your area?

 Positive  Negative

61 15. What are the perceived barriers to solid waste management system in Nateete parish? ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16. Are there any solid waste management based groups in your area?

 Yes  No

17. Are you aware of their contributions to the communities in Nateete?

 Yes  No

18. Are there any proposed solid waste management work and action plans for Nateete parish?

 Yes  No

19. Are residents involved in decision making or planning concerning solid waste management?

 Yes  No

20. What are the suggestions for proper sold waste management in Nateete parish? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21. What are the best ways for authorities to inform the people on proper solid waste management?

………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22. Are there education campaigns for citizens on solid waste management?

 Yes  No

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!!!

62