INTERIM
PROGRAMME
REVIEW Final Version - March 2015
ABSTRACT This document covers the findings and
recommendations of an interim external
review of the ‘Support to the Waste
Management Sector of Bo City’ project,
funded by DfID and implemented by
WeltHungerHilfe & Bo City Council.
Will Tillett Independent Consultant
Acknowledgements
The consultant wishes to extend his sincere appreciation to all those who contributed their time and ideas in
this review process. This includes the Honourable Mayor of Bo City Council, Chief Administrator, councillors, and
many other staff of the council who contributed valuable insights and suggestions. Thanks also to the external
stakeholders like the Ministry of Health & Sanitation, PPP Unit of State House, Klin Bo, the ‘Waste to Wealth’
businesses, DfID, the Youth Employment Scheme and others for their comments. Finally thanks to WHH team
for all their time, energy and honesty in this assignment, and for the organisational and logistical support to
allow the assignment to run efficiently.
Disclaimer
This report has been developed by Will Tillett, an independent consultant, on behalf of WeltHungerHilfe (WHH)
and the Bo City Council (Bo CC), financed by the project funds from the UK Government’s Department for
International Development (DfID).
The content, views and recommendations contained in this report are those of the consultant, and do not
necessarily reflect those of DfID, WHH or Bo City Council.
List of Acronyms
Acronym Full Description
Bo CC Bo City Council
CA Chief Administrator
CBD Central Business District
DfID Department for International Development
EHO Environmental Health Officer
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ERC Ebola Response Committee
ESICOME Expanded Sanitary Inspection & Compliance
FSM Faecal Sludge Management
HRMO Human Resources Management Office
IRC International Rescue Committee
KAP Knowledge Attitudes & Practices
LGFD Local Government Finance Department
LGSC Local Government Service Commission
MoHS Ministry of Health & Sanitation
MoLGRD Ministry of Local Government Rural Development
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MoYA Ministry of Youth Affairs
OSR Own Source Revenue
PHA Public Health Aide
SALWACO Sierra Leone Water Company
SLRA Sierra Leone Roads Authority
SME Small-to-Medium sized Enterprises
SWM Solid Waste Management
SWOT Strengths, Opportunities, Weaknesses & Threats
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services
WASH Water Sanitation & Hygiene
W2W Waste to Wealth
WHH WeltHungerHilfe
WIZ Waste Industrial Zone
WMD Waste Management Department
WMIIZ Waste Management Industrial Investment Zone
YES Youth Employment Scheme
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose, Methodology & Limitations of the Review .......................................................................... 1
Overall Project Review ........................................................................................................................ 1
Appraisal of Specific Project Components .......................................................................................... 3
The Waste Management Department (WMD) ............................................................................... 3
The Waste Management Industrial Investment Zone (WMIIZ) ...................................................... 3
Door-to-Door Collection Services & Klin Bo .................................................................................... 4
Waste-to-Wealth Small-Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) ............................................................ 5
Organic Waste ................................................................................................................................. 5
Skips, Waste Transport and the Dumpsite/Landfill ........................................................................ 6
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction & Background ............................................................................................................ 7
2. Purpose, Objectives & Methodology of the Review ....................................................................... 8
2.1. Purpose & Objectives .............................................................................................................. 8
2.2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.3. Limitations of the Review ....................................................................................................... 9
3. Overall Programme Review .......................................................................................................... 10
3.1. Project Changes .................................................................................................................... 10
3.2. Progress Summary ................................................................................................................ 11
3.3. Overall Challenges on the Delivery of the Project ................................................................ 13
3.4. Strengths & Key Achievements ............................................................................................. 16
3.5. Further Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 17
3.6. Possible Risks ........................................................................................................................ 22
3.7. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 26
4. Detailed Review on Key Project Areas .......................................................................................... 27
4.1. Waste Management Department (WMD) ............................................................................ 27
4.1.1. Observations & Possible Challenges to Current Design ................................................ 27
4.1.2. Recommendations for the WMD .................................................................................. 34
4.1.3. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 35
4.2. Waste Management Industrial Investment Zone (WMIIZ) ................................................... 36
4.2.1. Observations & Possible Challenges to Current Design ................................................ 36
4.2.2. Recommendations for the WMIIZ ................................................................................ 40
4.2.3. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 41
4.3. Klin Bo / Door to Door Collection .......................................................................................... 42
4.3.1. Observations, Challenges & Recommendations ........................................................... 42
4.3.2. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 47
4.4. Waste-to-Wealth Initiatives / SMEs ...................................................................................... 48
4.4.1. Observations ................................................................................................................. 48
4.4.2. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 49
4.4.3. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 51
4.5. Organic Waste ....................................................................................................................... 51
4.5.1. Observations ................................................................................................................. 51
4.5.2. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 52
4.5.3. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 53
4.6. Skips, Transporting & Landfill/Dumpsite .............................................................................. 54
4.6.1. Observations ................................................................................................................. 54
4.6.2. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 54
4.6.3. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 56
5. Conclusions & Recommendations ................................................................................................ 57
6. Annex ............................................................................................................................................ 60
6.1. Documents Consulted in the Review .................................................................................... 60
6.2. List of Persons Interviewed / Participated in Focus Group Discussions ............................... 61
6.3. Terms of Reference for the Interim External Review ........................................................... 62
Executive Summary
Background
The ‘Support to the Waste Management Sector of Bo City’ project aims to establish a well-organised
and efficient waste management sector in Sierra Leone’s second city. The project, funded by the UK’s
Department for International Development (DfID), started with a pilot phase (£0.2m) in 2013, which
was scaled into a four-year project (£3.2m DfID funding) in February 2014. The project is being
implemented by WeltHungerHilfe (WHH) in partnership with Bo City Council (Bo CC). Other project
partners include a UK local council-affiliated charity named One World Link, and a Dutch non-
governmental organisation named WASTE. The main focus of the project is to develop the capacity of
the Bo CC to manage and regulate waste services, and to build the capacity of the private sector to
engage in and expand in waste management services, recycling and waste conversion. It is expected
the project will create employment opportunities, whilst improving the public health and
environmental status of the city.
The ‘scale-up’ phase of the project has now been running for one year, and is at the juncture of making
key decisions in the future direction of certain project activities. There is also a DfID annual project
review on-going.
Purpose, Methodology & Limitations of the Review
It was considered that an interim external project review would be useful at this stage, to help appraise
progress, and add external verification and recommendations to some of the key project activities.
This review was conducted with these objectives, undertaken by an independent consultant over a
period of fifteen days in February and March 2015. The information was collected through desk review
of project and sector documents, together with site visits, focus group discussions, and interviews
with over 35 stakeholders. Provisional findings were presented to the project stakeholders in Bo in
early March, and their feedback is incorporated into this report.
Whilst care was taken to triangulate information received, the time available and qualitative nature
of the review means there may have been opportunity for misinterpretation. Information from
stakeholders could not always be verified through direct data collection. The project is complex in
activities and context, and there may be risks of oversimplifying challenges and possible solutions. Of
significance is that the project strategies for activities are evolving daily, with this review representing
a ‘snapshot in time’ of plans at the time of data collection, which may since have evolved.
This review was undertaken to be as utilitarian as possible, with recommendations provided where
possible for any challenges and risks that were identified. This report is structured into two
components. The first is an overall project level review, appraising overall progress, achievements,
challenges and possible project-level risks. The second section provides a more detailed review of
specific project components, appraising progress and upcoming plans, and providing
recommendations on how they could potentially be further strengthened.
Overall Project Review
Overall the project has made significant progress, and is broadly on track according to milestone
targets of the Logical Framework. Where delays exist, many are due to Ebola, and are now in the
process of being initiated. Certain activities and targets as defined in the work plan may be subject to
modifications (such as moving from ‘large’ to ‘medium’ scale PPPs, and approaches to private sector
financing), and such changes are quite understandable one year into a project, which is innovative and
adaptive in nature.
Some key challenges to implementation relate to the design of the project as embedded within
council, with one partner relatively well resourced and holding financial accountability for project
funds, and the other relatively resource poor, with many competing demands for sectors to fund. The
co-funding from Bo CC has reportedly been a challenge, particularly in spite of reductions in council
revenues from residents and central government during the Ebola period. External support from DfID
to mediate and/or reinforce donor requirements on the project has previously helped in addressing
some of these challenges, and there may be benefit in resuming this aspect of project support.
Another challenge is the relatively limited capacity of the local private sector for waste management
activities, and difficulties to encourage larger-scale PPP investment, particularly given the Ebola
context.
Whilst the embedded approach may have challenges, it is still an impressive model of project delivery
where Bo CC is demonstrating strong ownership and leadership, and the daily capacity building creates
good prospects for longer-term sustainability. The project is a national flagship for managing solid
waste effectively, and is perceived by many as a clear demonstration of positive decentralisation and
good governance. The commitment of WHH and Bo CC is impressive, and the project remained
functional even through the peak of the Ebola crisis, adapting quickly to the context. The project has
also stimulated replication elsewhere (Bo district, Makeni, Freetown) and has leveraged additional
finances.
At the project level, there may be opportunities to maximise and further expand on the project
impacts. These include:
Increasing the national level profile of the project, and improving local and national level
coordination with other sector initiatives (e.g. ERC, SALWACO, YES)
Increasing the health impacts of the project, by considering expanding activities to a certain
extent into medical waste, liquid waste management, encouraging the SMEs to produce
WASH related products, and incorporating the Environmental Health function of MoHS within
the WMD structure. It is appreciated that these aspects are outside the current scope of the
project/budget.
Considering environmental, health and safety and social inclusion considerations as pre-
requisites for supporting Small-Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) or awarding Public-Private
Partnership contracts, and pushing for equity in access to basic services (e.g. the distribution
of skip points)
Further reviewing mechanisms for supporting the growth/access to assets by the private
sector, where alternatives may exist to ‘matching grants’ in some contexts
Identifying ways to minimise overhead costs in the waste management sector in structures
that are being established (e.g. the Waste Management Industrial Zone-WMIIZ, Waste
Management Department, umbrella organisations, and landfill design)
There are some possible risks related to the current design of activities. These relate to delays with
the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the landfill, some autonomy and financing aspects of
the Waste Management Department, and guaranteeing the land-use purpose, rental agreements and
operational financing of the WMIIZ. However the project team are already looking into these, and the
report proposes some recommendations for small adjustments in their design to mitigate the risks.
Appraisal of Specific Project Components
The Waste Management Department (WMD)
There is a clear need and benefit for the establishment of the WMD. The current design appears to
have strong stakeholder support and has been subject to considerable consultation within Bo. The
design of the WMD aims to address some key challenges in the Bo CC management of waste services.
These include the tracking and ring-fencing of waste mandated funds, and the decision making control
by the waste function of Bo CC on the expenditures and activities of waste management. The design
also seeks to increase funding to the Bo CC WMD by generating own source revenue, and to use some
of these funds for the salaries of department staff, to reduce the risk of them being transferred to
other councils as they would be on the central government payroll.
The objectives of ring-fencing, tracking and control of funds and activities are essential parameters for
the department, and should be clear in the operating documents to which Bo CC and WMD sign. There
may be some challenges in the ‘semi-autonomous’ aspects of the current plans, such as risk of mis-
interpretations of autonomy, shifting ultimate accountability for services and funds, institutional
fragmentation, and coherence with standard government processes. It could be further reviewed
whether the objectives of the WMD could be achieved without titling the department as ‘semi-
autonomous’. Relevant central authorities (such as MoLGRD, LGSC, LGFD/DSDP, HRMO) should be
engaged to review plans and ensure coherence with official procedures or formal acceptance of
adapted arrangements. Opportunities could be sought to get staff of WMD to be included in the
organogram of Bo CC and financed by GoSL/HRMO from 2016 onwards.
Having the WMD operating efficiently is essential and a key feature of the current design. Having the
WMD operate ‘like a business’ however may pose a number of risks. The original project intents were
around enabling and growing the local private sector, with WMD becoming more of a facilitator,
contractor and regulator. An over-focus on the need to meet the recurrent costs of the department
may lead to less focus and funds placed on subsidising services. Careful consideration should be made
around where council is directly implementing services or competing for services that are also being
tendered to the private sector. The WMD should maintain a continual focus on ensuring a basic level
of service to all (particularly in the less commercially attractive market segments, such as poor
communities).
There may be opportunities to broaden the mandate (and title1) of the WMD to encompass other
environmental health activities, potentially taking the opportunity of absorbing Ministry of Health &
Sanitation (MoHS) environmental health staff within the council structure (but paid by MoHS), and
incorporating sanitary inspection and compliance activities.
The Waste Management Industrial Investment Zone (WMIIZ)
The WMIIZ is highly innovative, is expected to address a significant number of challenges in the project
and waste sector in Bo, and create a wide range of opportunities. The main weakness is around it not
catering for all needs (such as waste sorting/trading, and ‘dirty’ SME production), however this is
1 Ideas for the title would depend on the ultimate function of the department, and inclusion or not of the Environment and Social Officer, but could consider ‘Environmental Health Management Department’ or similar
currently proposed to be done at the dumpsite instead. There are a number of possible risks with the
WMIIZ in it’s present design, with the major ones being around the ability to self-finance running costs,
and the risk of land re-purposing or increase of rents post project. Mitigation strategies are proposed,
and are already being looked into by the project team to address these risks.
It is suggested that the potential benefits and opportunities outweigh these (mitigated) risks,
particularly as the project is ‘pilot’ in nature, and is therefore worth undertaking. DfID should
favourably consider the use of project funds to procure/30+ year lease and build-up the site.
The following recommendations are proposed to reduce some of the risks identified, and maximise
the impact of the site. The design is aiming to minimise the future operating costs, and if there are
potential shortfalls in income from tenancy, there could be consideration to cross-subsidise the site
with a ‘cash cow’ activity which may not necessarily be directly SWM related, in a defined and non-
expandable area of the WMIIZ. The legal agreements for land purpose, and around tenancy and rate
arrangements should be strengthened utilising strong legal expertise. Further consideration could be
made on the use of matching grants for building infrastructure on the site, and what this may mean
in terms of ownership. Given the city centre location, it should be clearly defined what can, and cannot
be done on the site to avoid creating environmental health issues, and further review/fast-track
mechanisms to cater for ‘dirty’ activities such as waste sorting, composting, and production of
briquettes/plastic paving slabs that may not be catered for in the WMIIZ. The current design could
further consider opportunities for compost/urban agriculture demonstration, and to promote the site
also as a customer service point for WMD and Klin Bo.
Door-to-Door Collection Services & Klin Bo
Klin Bo youth groups are continuing to operate and play a key role in SWM in Bo City, despite
considerable challenges such as Ebola, and high costs of vehicle maintenance. Presently only around
10% of households are subscribed to their services on a regular basis, but it is expected that the
recently imposed bylaw against burning or illegal dumping, and the post-Ebola context will improve
this. Involving the MoHS Sanitary Inspection and Compliance programme in future could also boost
subscriptions.
The current Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Bo CC is up for renewal, and offers a
chance to reconsider former terms and conditions, and also encourage competition between the
groups, allowing growth, mergers and attrition. It is proposed to undertake a subsidised ‘quick fix’ of
the tricycles, and extend the existing MoU and monitoring period, to allow the groups to ‘perform’ in
relatively favourable conditions. This would also allow time to develop a strong contract, to consider
alternative arrangements to ‘matching funds’ for vehicles, and if necessary to allow the groups to grow
capital. The Bo CC plans to undertake door-to-door collection services in the central business district
may send a negative message to the groups regarding the council’s ability to ‘cherry pick’ the
financially lucrative aspects. If the council is to do this for ‘information collection purposes’ to allow
them to contract out, this should be carefully communicated, and time limited. There may be the
option to use the opportunity to bid for the CBD services as an incentive for competitive performance
of the groups. Whilst the umbrella organisation is highly appreciated by members, there may be need
to review the overheads it currently places on the groups, their willingness and ability to finance the
full costs, and the potential need to downsize.
Waste-to-Wealth Small-Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs)
The work on SMEs continues to drive innovation, with new products being developed, new ideas being
supported, and now a medium-sized business investing in waste conversion. The Umbrella
organisation is popular with members, and holds opportunities for bidding for contracts, and pooling
capital amongst members. The upcoming WMIIZ holds potential to address some of the chronic
challenges of the SMEs, and has widespread support from all those that were interviewed.
There could be opportunity in future to link the size of investment/percentage subsidy to the volume
of waste the SME will remove from the waste stream, thus the potential funds they will save the Bo
CC operational costs. Whilst continuing to focus on dry waste and introducing innovative new ideas,
more focus could be added to initiatives in organic waste, given that it accounts for >80%2 of the total
waste stream. Support to the SMEs continues to be focussed more on increasing volumetric
production than on value adding/quality improvements, market demand building/linkages, and
distribution supply chains. For artistic products being produced at volumes potentially exceeding Bo
based demand, expertise could be brought in to add value and link with external (national and
international) markets. There may be opportunities to encourage the SMEs to engage in producing
Water, Sanitation & Hygiene (WASH) related products, which may help increase the health-related
impacts of the project.
Organic Waste
There have been some positive progress in market linkages for the composting SME, whilst other plans
on landfill level composting and household composting have been delayed by the EIA process and
Ebola respectively. Whilst efforts have been made to identify larger-scale PPPs for composting and
Biogas, there have been little conclusive leads, and international private sector investment may be
further hampered as a result of Ebola.
Given the proportion of Bo City’s waste that is organic, this component could merit considerably more
focus, both in terms of finance and human resources. As possible solutions (such as building demand
for and supply of quality compost and briquettes) may take time, it is recommended that such
initiatives start as soon as possible. WHH has strong international expertise in agriculture, and there
seems potential to develop the market demand for compost in Bo and potentially Kenema cities
through promoting urban agriculture. As the value of compost is not widely appreciated, a stronger
focus could be placed on proving compost’s value relative to petrochemical fertilisers. There could be
potential for a (subsidised) pilot on buying sorted organic waste at the landfill, to kick-start supply
chains of raw materials, and create a financially incentivised system for waste separation that does
not overly rely on customer ‘sensitisation’ for source separation. This may require requisite separation
infrastructure down the waste transport chain (e.g. skips for mixed and organic only waste), and there
may be opportunity to start the activities at the landfill in a ‘temporary’ capacity in lieu of the formal
EIA.
Biochar briquetting at scale has the potential to consume significant volumes of the organic waste
stream, and reduce deforestation. However small-scale pilots elsewhere using start-up businesses
may not have achieved the critical mass to operate at scale. The project could consider putting a
relatively larger subsidy and technical support to this business stream, to ‘take it to the next level’ in
2 As suggested in the Household Waste Study of 2013, although this may not include all waste streams. The figure may be closer to 75%. Regardless, it still represents the major component of the total waste stream in Bo City.
terms of customer demand building, mechanisation, and quality control. Medium-sized businesses
should be engaged relatively quickly once the process is proved at a smaller scale.
Skips, Waste Transport and the Dumpsite/Landfill
Bo CC have made noticeable and impressive improvements in the transportation of waste, with an
expanded network of skips, recent clear-up of >120 illegal dumpsites, and focus on a single ‘official’
dumpsite for the final repository of the waste. The project has provided transportation vehicles, and
is attempting to source external funds for further assets. Bo CC is following best practice in terms of
seeking a full EIA for the dumpsite, and has plans for operations that will minimise environmental
impacts.
There may be opportunities to pilot the leasing out of assets for the transport aspect of SWM through
PPPs, and potentially support Klin Bo to grow to be able to bid for such a service. There may also be
opportunities to increase waste separation and trading at the dumpsite using ‘temporary measures’,
and further engaging the scavengers at the site. The present environmental management at the
dumpsite could be improved, and some small adjustments to the landfill designs may further minimise
future operational costs, and ensure long-term functioning of the site.
Conclusions
Overall the project is progressing well, with impressive achievements made to date. The project
continues to be a flagship for waste management in the country, and a demonstration of good
governance and progressive decentralisation. All activities of the project are moving in a positive
direction, with many of the challenges or possible risks potentially mitigated with some relatively small
modifications in design.
1. Introduction & Background
Solid waste management is a major challenge in many low-middle income countries, not least in Sierra
Leone. Local councils often struggle with the rapidly expanding urban and peri-urban populations, and
the volumes of waste that they generate. Waste is not widely regarded as a resource in Sierra Leone.
Waste collection, transport and disposal are often inefficient and ineffective, posing considerable
public health risks, whilst degrading the environment. Waste management accounts for a significant
proportion of municipal expenditure, which if managed more efficiently, could liberate much needed
funds for other public infrastructure and services.
At national level, the Ministry of Health & Sanitation (MoHS) in 2013 launched the Integrated National
Waste Management Policy & Strategy, and is in the process of finalising the Policy & Strategy
Roadmaps. Key objectives of these documents include: increasing the role of the private sector in
waste management services; maximising the re-use/recycling/recovery of waste; and extending basic
waste management services to all citizens. The question is how?
In Freetown, the services of an international company (Masada) were brought in for waste
management, initially for the whole city, which has since been reportedly re-focussed only to the
central business district. Most waste management functions in Sierra Leone continue to be
implemented directly by the local and municipal councils, with input from other Ministries (such as
the Ministry of Health & Sanitation, and Ministry of Youth Affairs). There is also a certain amount of
formal and informal private sector activity, mainly around door to door waste collection services,
scavenging of recyclables, waste trading and to a limited extent recycling and reuse.
To help to address the question of how to attain the objectives of the national waste policy, DfID
supported two pilot projects, in Bo and Makeni City, to test different models for municipal waste
management. These ran between 2013 and 2014, and helped to inform the contents of the sector
Roadmaps. The project in Bo City achieved significant progress, and in February 2014 DfID agreed to
support the ‘scale-up’ of the project in Bo.
Bo City has a population of around 200,000, and is the capital of the Southern Province. It is estimated
that the city generates around 27,150 tonnes of municipal waste per year, with a composition of
approximately 87.7% wet waste, and 12.3% dry waste (Waste Audit 2013, WHH 2014). Waste services
have historically been implemented directly by the Bo City Council (Bo CC) and MoHS, financed by the
Own Source Revenue (OSR) of council, together with funds from central government and development
partners (such as the Decentralised Service Delivery Programme of the World Bank). It is stated that
waste management accounts for approximately 30% of the Bo CC expenditure (WHH 2014).
Bo is twinned with the County and District Councils of Warwickshire in the UK. The Warwickshire
Council has an associated charity named ‘One World Link’ (OWL), which has provided the opportunity
for exchanges between the two councils, and a degree of technical assistance to Bo in various sectors,
including waste management. Between 2008 and 2011, Bo City Council benefitted from a programme
supported by UNDP with involvement of OWL to make basic improvements in the waste management
system. In 2012 Bo City Council applied for funding from the DfID funded WASH Facility to implement
solid waste pilot activities. The proposal was refined over a period of time, and the City Council
partnered with the International NGO WeltHungerHilfe (WHH) to implement the project.
This pilot project (referred to later in the report as the ‘pilot phase’) was implemented from February
2013 to February 2014, by WHH and Bo CC, in partnership with OWL and a technical partner WASTE.
They also utilised the training and advisory services of a local social enterprise named ‘Klin Salone’,
who runs a door to door waste collection service in Freetown. The pilot, named ‘Support to local public
and private sector for solid waste management of Bo City and the environs’ focussed on creating local
economic opportunities from waste conversion and waste management, in addition to building the
capacity of Bo CC. Key outputs included the production of the Bo Waste Management Strategy & Plan
to 2020, the establishment of a door to door collection scheme delivered by local youth groups, and
the establishment and expansion of a number of small businesses involved in converting waste
materials to marketable products.
In February 2014 DfID agreed to extend the solid waste intervention in Bo, approving the proposal
titled the Support to the Waste Management Sector of Bo City (hereafter referred to as ‘the project’).
The project has a DfID-provided budget of £3.2m, with additional co-funding from WHH, Bo CC and
funds levered from the private sector. The project is being implemented by WHH and Bo CC (with
WHH assuming management and accountability for funds and project delivery to the donor), in
partnership with OWL and WASTE. It is a four year project, due to close in February 2018. The main
focus is to continue to strengthen the capacity of the public and private sector in waste management
services, bringing efficient services to the population, and stimulating employment and economic
growth. The Results Chain of the project are outlined in the figure below.
The Results Chain of the Project
2. Purpose, Objectives & Methodology of the Review
2.1. Purpose & Objectives The project has now been running for one year, and is in the process of going through a DfID annual
review. A number of key project decisions need to be made, and due to Ebola the project has not been
able to benefit recently from the visits of partners OWL and WASTE. It was felt that an independent
external review of the project, particularly on some of the emerging directions and strategies, would
Impact:
An overall improvement in the health outcomes and reduction in the sickness and morbidity levels in the city, cased by improvements in the solid waste management practices at the levels of
households, communities and the city as a whole
Outcome:
A Well organised and efficiently regulated and managed Waste Management Sector, incorporating standard practices of safe recyling and disposal of waste
Outputs:
1. Institutional capacity of the BCC developed for effective supervision and regulation of the Waste Sector
2. Awareness of Bo City population in waste minimization, separation, reuse, recycling and environmentally sound waste disposal issues increased
3. Effective, efficient and well regulated PPP structures for large scale activities in waste collection, recylcing and trading
help to validate/further refine the proposed directions of the project, and potentially add value and
external verification to the annual review process.
WHH therefore commissioned this interim external review of the project (hereafter referred to as ‘the
assignment’), to review current activity, with a focus on specific areas and upcoming plans. This
assignment was not envisaged as an external evaluation of the project, and has not been undertaken
as such. The assignment was undertaken to validate progress and plans/ideas, and provide
recommendations to strengthen the future implementation of the project. This report is therefore
written to be as utilitarian as possible, to assist project decision-making. The key focus areas of the
assignment include:
Project Progress According to Planning
Institutional & Financing Arrangements for the BCC Waste Management Function
The proposed Waste Management & Industrial Investment Zone (WMIIZ)
The Waste Collection & Transport System
Bio Waste Management
The full Terms of Reference are presented in the Annex (section 6.3).
2.2. Methodology This assignment was undertaken by Will Tillett (hereafter referred to as ‘the consultant’), a Freetown
based Independent Consultant, over 15 days in February and March 2015. This time included a desk
review of project documents, nine days spent in Bo conducting site visits and interviews, reporting
time, and presentations of preliminary findings to Bo based stakeholders. The feedback from the
stakeholder presentations are incorporated where appropriate within this report. The main
information collection activities included:
A desk review of project documents (a list of the documents consulted is presented in section
6.1of this report)
Field visits to sites of significance of the project, including the landfill, skip points, Klin Bo
offices and operational sites, production and marketing sites of various ‘waste to wealth’
businesses, and the proposed site of the Waste Industrial Investment Zone (WMIIZ)
Interviews and discussions with a wide range of project stakeholders, including Bo CC staff,
WHH staff, current and potential ‘waste to wealth’ businesses, Klin Bo members, the Ministry
of Health & Sanitation (at central and district level), the PPP unit of Statehouse, DfID,
representatives of the Youth Employment Scheme, the project legal consultant,
representatives from UNOPS, IRC, UNICEF and MoWR. In total over 35 people were consulted.
The list of interviewees/those discussed with is presented in the annex (section 6.2).
Focus Group Discussions were convened with representatives of WHH and Bo CC/local
councillors, to undertake a participatory Strengths, Weakness Opportunities & Threats
(SWOT) Analysis on the Waste Industrial Investment Zone and creation of the Waste
Management Department. The consultant also participated in thematic working group
meetings on the waste management department and for upcoming ideas on waste to wealth
businesses.
2.3. Limitations of the Review Given the focus of the assignment and time availability, quantitative data collection was not
undertaken primarily, with quantitative information taken from secondary sources only (such as KAP
surveys and monitoring reports). Care was taken to triangulate information received from
interviewees wherever possible with other interviews and literature review. Findings have been
presented to stakeholders to aim to avoid misinformation or mis-understandings, however the
possibility still exists. In a project that is complex, with considerable local dynamics, and a relatively
short time in the field for this assignment, there is a potential of oversimplifying problems or potential
solutions. With the limited time available, it was not possible to do considerable wider literature
review outside of the project documents provided, and it restricted the level of detail that was possible
to review all of the project components in high resolution.
This review represents only ‘a snapshot in time’ of the plans and progress of a project that evolves by
the day. These findings and recommendations presented herein represent the status of the project,
and contemporary plans at the time of data collection. However particularly with future plans, the
ideas are evolving by day, and some findings/recommendations may no longer be valid, or may have
already been addressed.
3. Overall Programme Review
This section of the report provides a broad overview of the project progress, challenges and key
successes/achievements. Further opportunities are discussed in general terms, and key potential
project risks and possible mitigation measures are presented. Subsequent sections go into detail on
the specific areas of the project to be reviewed as per the focus areas in the Terms of Reference.
3.1. Project Changes Since the design of the project, there have been a number of changes compared to the original
proposal. This is quite understandable in a project of this nature that is innovative and adaptive, and
takes a ‘learning whilst doing’ approach. The inception phase of the project (the first quarter) utilised
the services of a local consultant to help further define the work plan, which also evolved thinking in
certain activities (particularly related to waste trading sites and work on the landfill).
During the inception phase a number of documents were produced including a detailed workplan and
Logical Framework (modified slightly with refined milestone timeframes). Whilst these were
reportedly submitted to DfID it is unclear if they are being used by DfID as the contractually guiding
documents. More recently, it is understood that WHH has submitted a modification request (in early
2015) to re-allocate some of the funds earmarked for biomass initiatives to the Waste Industrial
Investment Zone, which was not originally factored into the plans/budget.
The main changes related to the proposal and subsequent workplan are described in the table below,
and where relevant elaborated on in subsequent sections.
Project changes relative to the proposal and inception phase workplan
Change Comment
Workplan developed and logframe refined during the inception phase
It seems the workplan is not currently used as a key project management tool, with the team referring more to the logframe and M&E plan.
‘Revolving funds’ being modified to ‘matching funds’, with different percentage contributions required from the private sector
The strategy of how the private sector is being/ could be supported is further discussed in subsequent sections
The Waste Management Industrial Investment Zone and infrastructure work at the landfill site
The idea for sites for waste separation, trading and composting has evolved between the proposal, inception phase, and current plans. This is further discussed in the WMIIZ section
Scale of PPPs and expectations for biogas There seems scepticism around the ability for the project to attain ‘large scale’ PPPs, particularly involving international investors (particularly in light of Ebola), and more local ‘small-to-medium’ scale solutions are expected to be followed
Expansion in the number of Youth Groups The team feel there may not be a need for expansion of the number of the youth groups, but rather extension of coverage of the existing groups. This is further discussed in the Klin Bo section of the report
3.2. Progress Summary According to the workplan timeframes and the logical framework milestones3, the programme is
broadly on track. This is particularly impressive given that the Ebola outbreak partially or wholly
derailed many other development projects in the country.
For those project activities that are delayed, most are in the process of operationalising, whilst some
may be subject to modification (as per the table above). The table below identifies the activities that
are more than three months delayed as per the inception phase workplan. It should be noted that the
progress on Logical Framework milestone achievements are on track for all but four indicators.
3 This is based on the Workplan and revised Logical Framework as developed during the inception period and presumably approved by DfID on acceptance of the overall inception report. There are some potential errors/omissions in some of the milestone date labelling in this Logframe.
Broad activities delayed by more than two months from the Workplan targets
Activity Area Reason for the Delay & Consultant Comment
Review of Institutional Framework for SWM and Establishment of the Waste Management Department
This was envisaged to be undertaken the second half of 2015 (the peak of the Ebola outbreak), and is therefore understandably delayed. Council meetings and decision-making would have been significantly impaired during this time.
The detailed design of the department is now fully and intensively underway. The important consultative process has developed strong ownership, but takes time.
Tariff study Unclear if this is planned soon, but may rely on bringing in external expertise, which is challenging in the Ebola context.
School education programme Schools have been closed since early in the outbreak, and are yet to re-open. The schedule once re-opened is potentially going to be very crammed during the ‘catch-up’, so it may be relevant for the postponing of this activity to the next academic year.
Mass Media on waste management This was due during Ebola, when public messaging was focussed around Ebola. However much progress has been made in the last month.
Increase the number of youth groups involved in door-to-door collection services
It is questionable as to whether this is necessary, or whether the opposite process should be followed to allow consolidation and growth of the performing groups. This is further discussed in the ‘Klin Bo’ section later in this report.
- Create PPPs in large scale transport of Waste and recycling activities
- Establish at least one new large scale recycling initiative
Whilst much effort has gone into this activity, the project team seem unsure how realistic a ‘large scale’ PPP is in the context, particularly in light of the Ebola outbreak on international investment appetite. The volumes of waste in Bo relative to other areas of the country to support large scale interventions also needs to be considered. Opportunities have been scoped to a certain extent (including numerous international visits), and it seems the team are hopeful to focus on more localised investments/PPPs, which may be more on a ‘medium’ scale. The work on supporting a medium scale business on plastics paving has already commenced.
Strengthen the existing waste trading system by building additional links to waste buyers and create new waste buying points in Bo City
Expected to be done during the Ebola outbreak period. Work is on-going around encouraging the waste traders to expand (including in the waste to wealth potential next round of support, and the on-going operations of Klin Bo youth groups). The WMIIZ is also potentially going to address the ‘waste buying points’ (discussed later in the report).
Create PPPs in medium to large scale composting and production of biomass energy
Medium PPPs on composting may be possible but are delayed due to the landfill progress (delayed due to the EIA). The project team and consultant are unsure how likely/realistic a PPP is for biogas in the context.
Development and zoning of sites for waste-related economic activities and upgrade of existing landfill sites
Whilst plans have been developed for the landfill upgrading, the infrastructure works are contingent on the progress of the EIA process.
The ideas around sites for waste economic activities have evolved since the workplan was produced, which is discussed in subsequent sections of this report. Plans have been developed around the WMIIZ which is envisaged to serve this objective to a certain extent.
There are some potentials for future delays in project activities, which are described in subsequent
sections of this report.
In summary, whilst the project is broadly on track, which is impressive given the Ebola context, the
project has some delays, attributable mainly to Ebola, and where this is the case many of the activities
are now being initiated. There are some activities that are delayed, but in reality may be cancelled or
modified due to a change in project strategy according to the context.
The following recommendations are proposed for consideration:
Postpone the school work until the next academic year
Re-consider the need as stated in the workplan to expand the number of youth groups
There could be benefit in the project team reviewing the sub-activities in the work plan (and
proposal) to identify if all steps are still relevant, and if any are at risk of being forgotten
DfID could consider the scenario that Bio-gas on a commercial scale may not be realistic in the
project in the context at this time. Also to potentially consider replacing the objective of
increasing the number of youth groups to increasing the size of existing groups
The project could identify ways to kick-start economic activities at the landfill site (using
temporary facilities such as shipping containers etc) in lieu of full EIA approval, where
appropriate to do so
3.3. Overall Challenges on the Delivery of the Project This section provides a brief overview of the key challenges in the project, related to project progress
and attainment of targets. Overall considering the challenging operating context, and relatively
ambitious targets of the project, the project continues to make impressive progress. The table below
is not meant to be exhaustive, nor is placed in any order of importance.
Key Challenges to the Delivery of the Project
Category Explanation/Discussion
Co-funding from the Council, pressure for utilisation of funds/resources for other (non SWM) purposes,
The council have mentioned challenges to consistently honour their co-funding commitments to the project due to Ebola (fall in tax revenue to the council), and late payments and/or shortfalls in disbursements of funds from central government. With the waste collection system operating more effectively, larger volumes of waste are now needed to be transported to the landfill (relative to earlier when much as dumped/burned across the city). Whilst a clear sign of project success, it increases the costs of the solid waste transportation, at least in the short term
The current mechanisms for payments on the solid waste expenditures may make disaggregation/tracking on expenditures specifically related to SWM by the council more challenging. There are plans to address this in the creation of the Waste Management Department, which has strong support from the council
The council has many competing demands for its limited budget (such as financing other services, meeting operational costs etc). This seems to lead to pressure on WHH (who are accountable for the DfID funds) to allow project funds to be used for other (non SWM) purposes, and has potential for points of conflict between WHH and Bo CC.
Staff turnover of Chief Administrator
The former Chief Administrator (CA) was replaced in 2014. The interim gap led to some delays in decision making from the council on project activities, and some institutional loss of memory. However the new CA is highly engaged on the project and demonstrating strong leadership
Political Involvement / Leadership / Support to project activities
Some interviewees mentioned that the political wing of council (e.g councillors) may not have been used/kept informed sufficiently on the project activities, which may have posed challenges. However many mentioned that the establishment of the working groups that involve councillors is helping to address this to a certain extent
Some interviewees mentioned some challenges or missed opportunities whereby the political wing could further support project activities in the form of consistent and aligned public communications. The recent public campaign on illegal dumpsites and community by-laws seems to be a positive example of the political wing supporting project activities
Frictions between WHH and Bo CC
Some interviewees mentioned some frictions between the Bo CC and WHH teams, with some aspects relating to Bo CC staff feeling they are not adequately involved or informed on the project activities, and that the project resources (such as vehicles, internet facilities) should also be made available to Bo CC. There were variable views on these aspects, and reported initiatives to improve information flow and access to certain resources. Whilst such frictions are likely to persist given the context of fiduciary accountability and relative access to resources of the two partners, the embedded and co-implementation approach is in the consultant’s perspective bringing much greater benefits to the project than the challenges presented. This is particularly related to fiduciary management, ownership, sustainability and capacity building.
The access to feedback and visits from the project donors that can help to address such challenges ‘from above’ may have been restricted recently due to staff turnover, and workloads/field access relating to Ebola
Social orientated approach to private sector development,
The project is following a socially oriented private sector development approach, whereby youth groups and small businesses are supported to engage and grow in the waste sector. This means that pure capitalist competitive tendering for services is more complex (as larger, more established
capacity of the local private sector, market demand
companies would out compete them), and significant support is needed to these new businesses. They also lack ready access to capital. Whilst these present challenges to implementing large PPPs and making quick progress, the benefits in local private sector development and employment are very strong.
The proposal was arguably ambitious in terms of the interest and capacity of the private sector, and demand for certain commodities (such as compost at a large scale). During implementation, experiences may indicate that expectations may need to be lowered to a certain extent, given the context, and particularly given the impacts of Ebola.
The willingness and ability to pay of households for waste management services is a potential constraint, as is the relative volumes of waste generated in Bo to allow large scale PPPs
Breadth of project activities, project staffing and accessing expertise
The project covers a wide range of activities, with a small team from WHH and equally small team from Bo CC – that while working very hard, may be stretched to cover all activities of the proposal to the fullest extent
The project is highly innovate, and is working on technical issues like PPP contracting arrangements, institutional reform, technical aspects of waste management etc. The availability and usage of experts to support the project may not be used to its fullest extent (not helped by Ebola restricting WASTE and OWL visits, or sourcing consultancy services from Bo rather than national markets).
Approach to decision making on the project
The project takes a highly democratic and transparent approach to decision making, and where possible follows the council’s consultative decision making processes. Whilst this is a major strength of the project (and not recommended to be changed), it also means that decisions can sometimes be slow. As decisions are often taken by groups, outputs may be compromises to potentially ‘ideal’ solutions.
Impacts of Ebola The impacts of Ebola on this project are wide-ranging. To summarise, the key challenges included; the ability to meet in groups for decision making and consultation; school activities with school closures; public awareness activities on waste when messaging was to be focussed on Ebola; access to international expertise in-country; interest/commitment of international private sector investment in Sierra Leone; customer’s ability to pay for taxes and waste collection services, and demand for waste-to-wealth products; reduction of central government financial transfers; health and safety of project team and waste workers
The following recommendations are proposed in light of the above challenges:
DfID could potentially consider how their role could be increased in reducing some the pressures
of the project partnership ‘from above’ – particularly around defining what DfID project funds
can/cannot be used for to all parties, and considering the issue of co-funding from the Bo CC side,
and how this could be required to be demonstrated
The project team could continue and expand the recent strong focus on involvement and updating
the administrative and political wings of the council, and consider how they may reduce their own
team’s ‘WHH’ branding within the council to build unity. Likewise the council could continue to
engage the project and WHH as a key part of council rather than something external, which would
require continuing the strong communication and leadership internally from the council’s senior
management
The project could investigate options for the ad-hoc access to specialist expertise in technical areas
that may be new to the team/local stakeholders. Examples could include specialists in PPP
contracting, private sector development (specifically financing models to encourage local private
sector growth) medical/liquid waste (if the project incorporates these aspects in future), higher-
calibre legal advice, and institutional reform/public financial management (to ensure coherence of
WMD policies/procedures with national level norms/legislation). Whilst many of these skills may
exist within Sierra Leone (such as PSD, Institutional reform/PFM, legal), some may require outside
expertise. In this context there could be a potential to expect more from WASTE (particularly for
expertise in developing country contexts).
The project team may consider expanding their staffing to provide adequate focus and timely
progress on new or upcoming project aspects (such as urban agriculture/composting).
3.4. Strengths & Key Achievements This project is impressive in its rate of delivery, implementation approach and potential outputs. This
section provides a bullet point overview of some of the key strengths and achievements of the project.
This list is not meant to be exhaustive, nor listed in any order of importance:
Whilst the project implementation arrangements between Bo CC and WHH have some
challenges, it is the opinion of the consultant that it is highly effective at engendering
ownership and leadership by the council, and building capacity on a daily basis, whilst
potentially limiting fiduciary risk
The project is at the ‘cutting edge’ of decentralisation, with the development of adapted
departments and potential initiatives to incorporate MoHS into the council function
progressing more innovatively and quickly than processes at central level. Whilst this is also a
potential risk, the project is a potential demonstration flagship of how councils can manage
urban services effectively.
The project includes a sector learning component whereby stakeholders from across the
country have been encouraged to visit the project and learn from the approaches and
experiences. There has reportedly been replication of some aspects of the project in various
councils, and the former Chief Administrator of Bo is now trying to replicate the project in his
new duty post of Makeni City. The Freetown WASH Consortium is also replicating some
components in their work. The project is being monitored by the PPP unit of State House as a
potential model to scale-up. This replication is aided by the commitment by the project team
(WHH and Bo CC) to share knowledge and experience externally.
The project has levered co-funding for the initial project from Government/Bo CC/World Bank
funds together with WHH funds, and continues to apply for additional resources to expand
the impact of the project from WHH funds, and is looking into funding from the German
Government.
There seems to be rapidly increasing political will and backing for the project, demonstrated
by the recent application of the ban on illegal dumping of waste, championed publically by
the Hon. Mayor of Bo CC
Despite a challenging operating environment particularly with the Ebola outbreak, the project
has made considerable progress in the first year, and is rapidly catching up with some of the
delays caused by Ebola
The project did not go into hibernation during Ebola, and staff (local and international)
remained, and activities progressed throughout the majority of the period. This demonstrates
the commitment of the project team and is likely to have gained considerable credibility for
staying to support during challenging times. The project was responsive to adapt to the
humanitarian context, undertaking interventions such as staff training, public awareness
raising and IPC activities in the council and youth groups just two days after the declaration of
the state of emergency. The project resources supported the distribution of food to
quarantined households, and an innovate ‘pilot’ approach to buying waste at the landfill was
instituted to ensure continuing waste management at a time when the Bo CC vehicles were
all on breakdown. The team even found opportunities for the SMEs in humanitarian response,
with one artisan supported to win a contract to supply cooking pots/stoves to quarantined
households.
The approach of decision-making in the project (such as the design of the WMD, ideas contests
for selecting and supporting SMEs) is demonstrating best practice in democracy, good
governance and transparency in council processes. Following the EIA process whilst slow is a
demonstration of ‘doing things properly’. Involving a wide range of stakeholders in the steps
of the decision-making process opens the potential for capacity building on a daily basis. It
also has the potential to ensure that decisions made are highly adapted to the local context,
given the volume of consultation involved.
In addition to the expected and actual outputs of the project such as income and job creation,
reduced environmental impacts and potentially improved health, the recent Knowledge,
Attitudes & Practices (KAP) survey identified a doubling of the proportion of residents stating
they were ‘very satisfied’ with waste services in the city (from 21% in 2014 to 42% in 2015).
Anecdotally the project is said to have considerably raised awareness on the economic value
of waste, with activities around separation and recycling said to have increased significantly.
3.5. Further Opportunities With these major strengths and achievements in mind, this section presents some of the potential
overall opportunities for further strengthening of the project. This is expanded in subsequent topics
relating to individual project components.
Increasing National Level Profile, Strengthening Coordination, Collaboration, Dissemination
The project is run from Bo, and despite strong efforts of the WHH Country Director in Freetown, the
project could arguably increase it’s national level profile. This is particularly in the current
humanitarian context, where programmes and strategies are rapidly being designed centrally for roll-
out, potentially by personnel and agencies that may not be aware of the work in Bo. This potentially
limits project ‘influencing’ impacts, and poses potential risks. An example of limited coordination at
national level is the interface between the work of the Ebola Response Consortium (ERC) on medical
waste management infrastructure (including in Bo City), and the WHH/Bo CC project, the latter having
had no idea of the former.
There may be opportunities to raise the project again on the sector agenda, potentially by partnering
with the MoHS to facilitate the roll-out of the soon-to-be completed Integrated National Waste
Management Policy/Strategy Roadmaps. If this was done in Bo, it could be a good opportunity to focus
the spotlight on waste management on Bo.
There may also be other opportunities to further raise awareness/influence the sector outside of Bo,
such as utilising the WASH Sector Learning platform to disseminate documents and organise learning
events (www.washlearningsl.net).
At local level, coordination with SALWACO appears to be a challenge, and could be of key importance
if the project would move into biogas, liquid waste management or public toilet management. It is
recommended that a delegation from Bo CC/WHH meet with SALWACO management together with
AfDB in Freetown to garner a clear idea of the SALWACO project plans, and request for information
sharing/joint planning. If the project moves into liquid waste management, further dialogue and
information exchange may be useful with the Freetown WASH Consortium/Goal.
It seems that other parties involved in solid waste management activities in Bo City may not be fully
coordinated with Bo CC activities. These include MoHS led street cleaning, and operations of the Youth
Employment Scheme (YES) project. The latter appears to be a situation of break-down in
communication/stalemate between the YES project and Bo CC staff, which seems counter-productive
to effective partnership and service delivery. If the YES project is to be continued this should be
addressed constructively. If the YES project is not to be continued, there may be scope for Bo CC to
formally request the transfer of waste management assets from the YES project to the WMD.
Increasing the Environmental Health Impacts of the Project
It is understood that during the design phase of the project, medical waste was specifically not
included. In light of the Ebola epidemic, and considering the relative importance of medical waste
management in public health terms, there may be merit in reconsidering this aspect. There is
considerable focus in the sector using humanitarian funding to upgrade infrastructure in Health
Facilities nationwide. This includes medical waste management infrastructure, potentially to varying
degrees. The ERC programme is expected to construct incinerators in major district hospitals. There
may be other programmes focussing on other healthcare facilities. These rapid, infrastructure
focussed interventions may not bring sustainable improvements in the long term, and there could be
a role in the project supporting more longer term improvements in healthcare waste management
(benefitting from the newly established infrastructure). Possible ideas could be around follow-up
training, supporting monitoring and compliance, or even investigating services for off-site
management. The latter should however be subject to expert research and guidance, given possible
risks involved.
Whilst outside of the scope of the proposal, the project is seeking funds to engage in liquid waste
activities (presently focussed around public toilet facilities), and has done some research (the recent
KAP survey) that could help inform possible liquid waste / Faecal Sludge Management (FSM)
interventions. It is understood that the WMD would also have the mandate for liquid waste
management. The recent KAP survey (WHH 2015) identified an existing demand for latrine/septic tank
emptying, and a relatively high proportion of unsafe collection and sludge disposal practices. This
poses major public health risks. The project has many of the ingredients already for piloting
interventions in FSM (the institutional structure with the WMD, collection services and an existing
private sector, sludge repository facilities). An intervention in FSM could improve the health impacts
of the project, and extend business opportunities/customer services in sanitation. However if this was
to be done, it would require the due personnel, finances and expertise to be done properly, given the
public health risks of poor FSM.
Linked with the previous point, there could be opportunities to increase the health impact of the
project by increasing the ‘WASH’ orientation of activities. The KAP study indicated good opportunities
for latrine upgrading. Presently the SMEs are being supported to produce any type of marketable
product from waste, with seemingly limited encouragement to generate products with WASH
benefits. However given the diversity and nature of the businesses supported, they could produce a
range of WASH related products for local consumption. Examples include latrine slabs from the plastic
paving initiative, food storage containers and rat traps to prevent Lassa Fever from the metal workers,
bins and handwashing facilities also from the metal workers, soap from the Yawi Women’s
Cooperative, domestic well buckets from the rubber workers and lids/windlasses from the
metalworkers. There could be consideration for a future ‘WASH Challenge Fund’ for the SME’s to
market and produce such materials, and opportunity to link them to other WASH related hygiene
promotion activities in the city (such as Red Cross’s work with the SALWCO project, or other NGO
initiatives in the city, or elsewhere).
The ‘Waste Management Department’ (WMD) as it is currently envisioned may be artificially removing
some aspects of environmental health by title and mandate of the department. There may be
opportunity to broaden the scope of the department to encompass other aspects of environmental
health. There may be opportunities for Ministry of Health & Sanitation (MoHS) staff to be devolved
into the WMD, and for the project to utilise the services of the recently trained Public Health Aides to
enforce liquid and solid waste regulations and by-laws at the local level. This is further discussed in
the WMD section later in this report.
Increasing the Food Security Impacts of the Project & Focus on Organic Waste
Whilst considerable progress has been made on ‘dry waste’, there is arguably less focus on solutions
for organic waste at this stage in the project. This is surprising given that organic waste may be the
stream posing the most significant public health and environmental contamination risks, and accounts
for >80% of the waste volumes in Bo City. It also has potential to bring considerable benefits to food
security and forestry in the local area (through compost/biochar). It is acknowledged that ‘medium
scale’ activities envisaged at the landfill site is impacted by the progress on the EIA and landfill
establishment. There is also some work with one composting initiative in the SMEs. There are also
plans for home composting, although these have not yet commenced due to Ebola.
It is suggested that a greater emphasis and project resources could be placed on the organic waste
stream. A dedicated officer could help. Interventions such as medium scale composting and building
the market demand, building the supply and demand for biochar briquettes, and developing urban
agriculture will take time. There is a good opportunity with the time (and potentially budget) available
in the project to make sustainable and scalable interventions, if started soon. Detailed
recommendations on this topic are presented in the ‘Organic Waste’ section later in this report. In
summary they include:
- Pilot an incentivised system of waste separation for organic waste, and commence
‘temporary’ operations at the Mile 5 landfill site in lieu of the full EIA approval (given that it is
already used as a dumpsite and this will help reduce the current environmental impact)
- Run a sustained public awareness campaign, and support a number of small-medium
initiatives on urban agriculture, linking with the use and promotion of compost. Consider an
‘urban agriculture challenge fund’ for the SMEs to produce urban agriculture related products
(like the WASH challenge fund)
- Focus on developing customer belief and confidence on compost as superior to chemical
fertilisers, including testing and demonstrating its value, and packaging/branding for value
addition
- Overall in terms of the importance on the waste stream, SMEs in composting and briquettes
should potentially merit more support and focus than other businesses working on more
fractional waste streams
- The project should not give up on the prospect of industrial demand for compost.
Increasing Environmental, Health & Safety, Equity & Inclusion Considerations in Project
Activities
The project is making deliberate efforts to include females in project activities, in a traditionally male
dominated sector. Good examples include training/support to women’s groups in transforming waste
to handicrafts. One of the youth groups collecting waste is also female dominated (titled ‘Women in
Progress’). Efforts should be continued to identify opportunities for female empowerment, which
could potentially present themselves in some of the upcoming urban agriculture activities. There may
be opportunities for the project to collaborate further with the Gender officer of Bo CC on this.
Of greater concern is the environmental, health and safety and inclusion aspects. Some of the ‘waste
to wealth’ processes are relatively harmful to the environment, involving burning plastic, batteries
etc. Processes such as these, and also collection/sorting of waste poses significant health risks. There
may be risks (and has been an example of) the activities of the youth groups undertaking door-to-door
collection/recycling activities, taking income and livelihood opportunities from existing informal
collectors and scavengers. These people are often the ultra-poor, and are often vulnerable members
of society. It is proposed that requirements for environmental/health and safety safeguards, and
inclusion of potentially displaced/vulnerable persons, could, and should be pre-requisites for
contracting with the council, or provision of any private sector loans/grants using donor funds. The
project should also fast-track plans for identifying and piloting environmental mitigation measures
(such as fume treatment) for polluting activities that are being supported (such as plastic tile making).
The use of international university researchers/students could be a cost effective way of achieving
this. They could also potentially undertake quality testing/validation of the products produced by the
SMEs.
With the involvement of the private sector in public services, consideration must always be placed on
ensuring access to minimal services by all. Whilst the Klin Bo youth groups reportedly have city-wide
coverage, their costs may be outside the financing capacity of many poor households. The alternative
for residents is to continue to use the network of skips located across the city. This may be perceived
as being the basic service that the citizens may expect as included within their taxes (whilst it is
acknowledged the income from these taxes is much less than the costs of the skip/transport service).
The concern is the distribution of the skip points around the city, and the challenges of equity in this
uneven distribution. This is of particular importance in the incoming ban of illegal dumpsites and
bylaws promoting fining of offenders. It is felt that extending the network of skips to neglected areas
should be a priority, and equity considerations should take precedence over profit making potential
of the youth groups. It is acknowledged that the expansion of the skip locations is highly complex and
challenging in reality, with many factors to consider, and complications in accessing land for such
purposes. Road maintenance to allow access to new areas could also be an area of consideration,
either with underspends or even something to request support for external projects (e.g. World Bank’s
incoming ‘Resilient Cities’ project, or the YES project). The ‘Headload Tax4 ’ being discussed by some
Bo CC/WHH staff may need to be considered in light of equity and inclusion issues.
Skip locations in Bo City with large gaps in spatial distribution
Photo of health and safety issues in SME production processes
Considering Different Ways to Support Private Sector Growth
The proposal refers to various financing mechanisms that may be considered, and specifically the use
of revolving funds for small-scale private sector growth. It seems the project is moving towards
matching grants across all areas (assets for door to door collection, SMEs, building on the WMIIZ),
which may be appropriate in some contexts, but may not be the only option. There are some different
interpretations on the terms and conditions of the matching grants, particularly around Bo CC having
some form of stake or share in the business being supported, which various SMEs/youth groups raised
(understandable) concerns over. The matching funds also present questions relating to asset
ownership. These are further discussed in subsequent sections of the report. There may be examples
and opportunities to help grow the private sector in other ways, which would benefit in the project
bringing in Private Sector Development specialists to provide guidance. Whilst it is not an area of
expertise of the author of this report, some initial ideas could include:
- Finding ways to pay businesses for a service/output, rather than paying for inputs/capital. The
project thereby guarantees a market for their services and allows them to grow themselves.
There have been some positive examples of this, such as linking a pot/stove maker to produce
for quarantined households funded by an Ebola project, and potentially contacting the paving
slab maker to pave the WMIIZ. These are great initiatives, and wherever possible should be
continued and expanded.
- Using project funds to 100% procure/build assets that remain the property of Bo CC, but are
leased (with clear O&M arrangements) to businesses. This may be particularly relevant for
waste collection and transport services, or buildings within the WMIIZ.
- Collateral guarantee – similar to the revolving fund but within a banking institution project
funds could theoretically be used for collateral guarantee, to allow businesses seeking loans
4 A headload tax refers to the idea to charge people to deliver waste to the skips, per container
for waste-related businesses to access more favourable interest rates. There is a potential risk
of defaulting however, particularly if it is perceived as a donor/NGO fund.
Learning Lessons from the ‘Pilot’ of Buying Waste at the Landfill
There was a period during the peak of the Ebola outbreak when all of the Bo CC waste management
vehicles for transporting waste were on break-down. The project team took an innovative approach
to buy waste that was delivered to the landfill, and communicated this business opportunity publically.
This stimulated considerable and rapid private sector activity. This model of enabling the private
sector (payment for outputs) is quite different to the approach currently taken with the youth groups,
where there is a strong focus on their internal administration and operations, arguably less focus on
incentivising final output. The pilot also allowed the trickle-down of finance from the end point down
to the collection, thereby avoiding ‘breaking the chain’ by having separate entities involved at the
different stages. The idea of purchasing waste on delivery is quite in contrast to paying for/focussing
on the input costs for collection and transport services. It is output based, with the inputs being
worked out by the private sector, with limited involvement by the Council. It creates clear opportunity
for the private sector, and opens the opportunity to buy sorted organic waste, with the problem of
how it is sorted transferred to the private sector (with due regulation/monitoring). It may also allow
the youth groups to partner or expand themselves also into transport services. It is suggested that the
project team could review lessons learned from the pilot, and how the successes could be brought
into future plans. There may be an opportunity to pilot the buying of sorted organic waste at the
landfill, which is discussed in more detail in the Organic Waste section of this report.
3.6. Possible Risks This section briefly identifies some of the key overall/cross-cutting project risks, and proposes
recommendations to mitigate/avoid these risks. The contents do not re-present the contents of the
risk matrix in the proposal, and there is much more detail on activity specific risk in the latter sections
of this report. These points are in no particular order of importance.
Possible Program-Level/Cross-Cutting Risks & Associated Recommendations
The risks that are perceived as relative high are stated in red font.
Headline Risk Detail Possible Recommendations
Delays with the EIA & Road Works Administration
The project is following the due process of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the landfill site. Whilst significant progress has been made to date, and there is optimism in WHH and Bo CC of the prompt completion of this process, it has a potential to delay the project. This would not only impact the infrastructural work at the landfill, but the commencement of the road reconstruction works to the site, and potentially the medium scale composting and other economic activities at the site.
Consider launching activities at the landfill site in a temporary arrangement without permanent infrastructure, whilst waiting for EIA approval
Delays with WMIIZ Approval
Progress on economic activities and aspects of scaling up the Waste to Wealth Businesses are potentially hinged on the WMIIZ. If land agreements or DfID approval for this aspect of the project delays, it may have knock on effects on various aspects of the project.
WHH accelerate progress on securing a high-calibre legal advisor to finalise the agreements
DfID consider fast-tracking the decision on the land purchase issue in light of this report, and pending acceptable legal arrangements from the project
The project considers to de-couple the components of grants for SMEs that are for business growth; and for investment in the site itself, to avoid business growth support being delayed due to the WMIIZ (there are other benefits of this, discussed in the WMIIZ section)
Delays/Risks with Approval of WMD Structure/ Processes
The Waste Management Department structure and procedures/financial arrangements could potentially be subject to delays in approval at the local level, or at the national level (if the latter is applicable). The department or processes if considerably different from normal processes could be condemned by central government.
Engage the relevant central government departments and agencies early to ensure they are on-board with the proposed changes
Consider reducing the ‘semi-autonomous’ aspect (which pushes the department to a more ‘unconventional’ structure to normal government processes) and avoid defining new financial or operational procedures (outside of standard official government procedures) unless strictly necessary
Risks with the WMD autonomy and financing/
The focus on the waste management department being ‘semi-autonomous’ and semi-reliant on own-source revenue opens many opportunities, but presents a number of potential risks.
This is discussed in detail in the WMD section later in the report.
operational arrangements
Power dynamics and contract management between Bo CC and private sector partners
There may be a power imbalance, and even paternalistic relationship between the council and the private sector (SMEs, Youth Groups/Klin Bo). There may be a risk of the council feeling they have ‘control over’ the businesses, which may be further exacerbated when they share the WMIIZ site and where the WMD will be the ‘landlord’. There may be varying perceptions on what the terms and conditions are regarding matching funds, and therefore if council in some way has a stake or share in the businesses – this may pose a number of problems, and is likely to be unpopular with the private sector. The council has made serious breaches of the contract with the youth groups to date (such as requiring them to deliver directly to the dumpsite, increasing their fuel and maintenance costs without compensation), which received no ramifications on the council.
The project should set a high standard and demonstration of best practice in contract management, facilitating either party to hold the other to account in case of breach. This may include financing legal support for the private sector to hold Bo CC to account
Consider financing a (good) legal advisor to support Klin Bo in the drafting of the next contract, and facilitate Klin Bo to have an equal voice to Bo CC/the project in working groups
Members of Bo CC/WHH may need orientation or discussions to align the concept of partnership and responsible contract management, and avoid misperceptions of control or hierarchy on the private sector
Carefully consider the terms and conditions of the Matching Grants, and what this means regarding the Council having some stake or undue control over the private sector. Also review implications of this approach on asset ownership, and communicate clearly to all parties. It is recommended to avoid profit shares.
Consider mechanisms to avoid the WMD/council overbearing the tenants of the WMIIZ
Ability of the sector to meet growing overhead costs, and competition on funds for service delivery
The project is potentially establishing many overhead costs (6 WMD staff, WMIIZ, Umbrella Organisations), in a sector that is currently underfunded and requires subsidy, and a private sector with a current marginal profit. There may be a risk that the need to finance overheads will compete with the costs of subsidising/delivering the service, and may overburden private sector with fees and levies. This could impact private sector growth/encouragement of new businesses, and may affect service delivery. The costs of some of the umbrella organisations may exceed the willingness of members to finance them.
Consider alternative financing arrangements for the WMD to avoid them needing to compete with the private sector for service provision.
Consider how to ensure mutual interest in private sector growth and performance/efficiency, and avoiding setting levies at a rate that may inhibit suitable profit/investment
Continue to consider all opportunities to reduce overhead costs, and start small with the potential to grow. This may include changes to Klin Bo umbrella organisation, reduction of the initial number of staff in WMD, and considering down-sizing aspects of the WMIIZ. These are further discussed in the latter sections of the report
WMIIZ related risks
The WMIIZ has a number of strengths and opens many opportunities, but may also come with risks relating to the re-purposing of the land post-project, landlord/tenant challenges and co-investment of assets on the site, and risks of non-complete occupancy.
This is further discussed in the WMIIZ section later in the report
Possible complications with ‘Matching Funds’ approach
The current plans for matching funds may pose risks related to co-ownership of assets and the council being or perceiving to be in control of the private sector entities. It may complicate contracting arrangements.
Consider bringing in expertise on Private Sector Development (Sierra Leonean expertise could partner with expertise on the waste sector in developing contexts, such as WASTE)
Consider leasing assets 100% owned by council for collection/transport of waste. Or support the private sector to provide their own vehicles
Consider the benefits vs. risks of council having profit share in the SMEs. Consider the ‘pay-off’ being the volume of waste they remove from the waste stream (e.g. cost savings for the council) rather than financial return from the business
Possible risks of creating monopolies or missing efficiency drives
Not perceived as a current risk, but potential in future. The establishment of Klin Bo and current contracting arrangements may block others from entering the waste collection ‘space’. Whilst this is necessary to a certain extent to allow the businesses to grow, and ensure economies of scale, there may be a risk of developing a monopoly. If MoUs for the youth groups are renewed purely by meeting objectives, rather than competitive bidding, it could limit efficiencies. For waste-to-wealth businesses, the umbrella organisation or members may prevent other businesses (from outside the project) from joining/using WMIIZ space, particularly if they produce competitive products.
Continue to allow Klin Bo to monopolise the door-to-door collection market to consolidate the business, then consider opening up in future. Within Klin Bo, youth groups could tender for operational areas, and allow healthy competition and growth of performing groups, and attrition of underperforming groups.
Ensure mechanisms in the MoU for the SMEs and WMIIZ regarding practicalities of new membership from those outside the project
3.7. Summary Overall the project has made significant progress, and is broadly on track according to milestone
targets of the Logical Framework. Where delays exist, many are due to Ebola, and are now in the
process of being initiated. Certain activities and targets as defined in the work plan may be subject to
modifications (such as large to medium PPPs, approaches to private sector financing etc.), and such
changes are quite understandable one year into a project, which is innovative and evolving in nature.
The delivery of the project is faced with a number of challenges, related to the delivery arrangements
of the project with WHH and Bo CC, Ebola related challenges, co-funding and requests for alternative
fund use from Bo CC, and the limited capacity/availability of the private sector. Despite this, the
project has made considerable achievements and poses a range of strengths. These include the model
for project delivery and fiduciary management, capacity building and ownership with Bo CC, and the
demonstration of the project as best practice in terms of good governance and progress in
decentralisation. The commitment, activities and innovation of the project during the Ebola outbreak
is admirable and the project has stimulated replication elsewhere and leveraged additional finance.
The national level profile of the project, and effective coordination with external projects could be
strengthened. There may be opportunities to extend activities into liquid waste, medical waste,
production of WASH products, and general Environmental Health services, to maximise the health
impacts of the project. There could also be merit in placing a stronger and more immediate focus on
solutions for organic waste, given the proportion of the waste stream it represents. This expansion
however may require augmentation of project resources (financial and human), and in-sourcing
technical expertise. There may be potential to replicate some of the successful aspects of the pilot in
‘buying waste’ at the landfill in future project activities. Further consideration and expertise could be
brought in for mechanisms to support private sector growth. There also could be further consideration
on aspects of environment, health and safety, and social inclusion in project activities.
The project activities as currently envisaged may pose some potential risks, which are felt to be
manageable with some small but important modifications to their design. This is further detailed in
subsequent sections of the report.
4. Detailed Review on Key Project Areas
This section of the report goes into detail on specific components of the project, briefly summarising
the proposed current/future strategy (at the time of data collection), commenting on this, and where
appropriate providing recommendations on how the activities/plans could be further developed. The
focus of this section is to review current and future directions, rather than appraise progress or
achievements made on the activities to date. As per the Terms of Reference, the main focus of the
activity-level review has been on the establishment of the Waste Management Department (WMD),
and the creation of the Waste Management and Industrial Investment Zone (WMIIZ). Observations
and recommendations are also provided for other components of the project where appropriate.
4.1. Waste Management Department (WMD)
4.1.1. Observations & Possible Challenges to Current Design
The creation of the WMD is a key feature of the Bo Solid Waste Management Plan 2020 (WHH 2014),
and is also integral in the proposal. That is to say it has been planned in the project for some time, and
has received strong backing from Bo CC. The project is currently working on the practical
arrangements, mandate, procedures, and financing for the WMD, and this is where the focus of the
review was targeted.
The review included reading the various documents provided by WHH5, together with a brief view of
the Local Government Service Commission Guidelines 2014, and Medium Term Expenditure
Framework for Bo CC 2015-2017. The consultant participated in one working group meeting where
policies and procedures of the WMD were discussed, facilitated Bo CC and WHH staff through a
participatory Strengths Opportunities Weakness & Threats (SWOT) analysis on plans for the WMD,
and had numerous interviews with a wide range of Bo CC and WHH staff. However the ideas around
the WMD, particularly relating to policies and procedures are evolving daily, and the information
collected and recommendations proposed represent a ‘snapshot in time’ at the time of data
collection, and may have since evolved.
The plan as it is understood is to establish a WMD that has financial oversight on all waste
management funds/expenditures of the council, and the ability to generate it’s own source revenue.
The department would have an accountant to help track/administer funds, and specific bank accounts
to which the head of the WMD would be one of the signatories (in addition to CA/Mayor and Finance
Officer of Bo CC/WMD, depending on the account). Revenue streams would be from the Government
of Sierra Leone (GoSL) and World Bank supported Decentralised Service Delivery Programme (DSDP)
central disbursements, transfers from Bo CC of Own Source Revenue (OSR) currently proposed at a
fixed rate of 15% property tax and 5% market dues income. The department is expected to generate
its own OSR from sources such as: consultancies of WMD staff; fines for illegal dumping; rental income
from tenants of the WMIIZ; business registration and signboards of SWM related businesses; and
leasing of vehicles/rental of department assets. It is also proposed that; there is some form of ‘profit
share’ from the private sector who benefitted from matching funds; that charges can be levied for
5 Including - Policies & Procedures document for the WMD (dated 30/1/15); Draft Financial Management of Revenue Sources WMD
(Version 03/02/15); Review of the Financial Management System of the Bo CC Waste Management Department (undated); First part
Bo CC Waste Management Department Policies & Procedures (Draft Version 30_01_15); Organisation Chart BCC WMD (22/1/2015);
Revenue system BCC WMD (31/10/14); Job description Environmental & Social Officer – LGSC 2014; Organisational Charts of Bo CC
(current and future, developed by Bo CC Human Resources Officer in February 2015); BCC Financial Flow Analysis (2011-2014);
those households depositing waste in the skips directly (the ‘headload tax’); the WMD gains income
from services directly rendered such as door-to-door collection of waste in the central business
district.
It is proposed that the WMD is staffed by a Head of Department, an Accountant, and four officers
responsible for various aspects of solid and liquid waste management. These staff are envisaged to be
paid for entirely from OSR, with a hope to avoid transfer of key staff to other councils, and provide a
salary scheme that would attract and retain skilled personnel. The department would have the
mandate for management of solid and liquid waste in Bo City. The staff that currently manages the
waste management function is the Environmental & Social Officer of Bo CC. It is proposed that if this
person migrates to the WMD, the Environmental and Social Officer position would be re-staffed.
The proposition is for the department to be ‘semi-autonomous’. Whilst there are ranging views as to
what this means, the common theme tends to be that the department is able to generate its own
funds, has control over the funds for the department, self-finances its staff, has the ability to track and
decide on expenditure on waste management, and is somehow able to generate its own workplans
and have less control on its daily running’s by the City Council.
The need for budget tracking and ring-fencing of funds for waste management in Bo CC is clear. It is
also clear that the establishment of the WMD has strong backing from all interviewed stakeholders,
and a well staffed/financed/managed department holds the potential to considerably improve waste
management service delivery. A huge amount of thought and consultation has been put into the
design of the WMD, and decisions are at an advanced stage. It is in this context that the SWOT analysis
and proposed recommendations are made.
Please find below the various Strengths, Weaknesses, and Opportunities & Threats of the Semi-
Autonomous WMD.
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats (SWOT) of the Semi-Autonomous WMD in it’s Current Design6
Strengths
The process of development has been highly consultative and has
considerable support across WHH and Bo CC staff
The department helps to formalise and raise the profile of waste management
functions of the council, and holds good potential for professional and
efficient waste management services
With the proposed financing arrangements, staff of the department are not at
risk of being transferred, and the salary scale may encourage and retain skilled
staff
The financial management arrangements allow improved tracking and ring-
fencing of funds for waste management, and decision making on expenditure
by the WMD, which may improve efficiency of fund utilisation and
accountability, and also help the project track co-funding
The ring-fencing and generation of own revenue streams allows higher
autonomy for the waste management function and may reduce funding
shortfalls for service delivery/payment of overheads
The assets of the department will be more easily monitored and ring-fenced
for waste management activities
It allows the department to generate its own revenue and operate efficiently
(potentially like a business, although there are recommendations to re-
consider this aspect)
The autonomy may help to boost public confidence and willingness to pay for
waste services, and aid the control in decision-making and expenditure by the
WMD. The autonomy on decision making can have positive impacts for staff
motivation
Weaknesses & Threats
The function of the Environment and Social Officer may be less optimally utilised if waste
management and environmental health activities were taken on by a separate department
It does not capture all aspects of Environmental Health (e.g. food hygiene, abattoir inspections,
compound and restaurant sanitary inspection and compliance, market place hygiene, vector
control etc)
Availability of staff with requisite capacity, and retaining the staff
’Semi‘ autonomy is subject to wide ranges of interpretation, which may cause challenges. It may
also not follow standard governmental processes, which could cause problems in future (e.g. its
legal validity, or central government support)
Ability of the WMD to finance its own costs, and over focus on income of the department to finance
department costs, rather than to finance/subsidise the service provision of waste, and depletion
of social service/equity considerations (e.g. services to the poor low-revenue potential areas)
Potential to levy high fees on private sector to secure income for the department, reducing
commercial viability of business, or dissuading private sector investment/involvement
Risk of WMD renting out its assets for non-SWM purposes possibly to the detriment of SWM
WMD becomes a competitor and potential inhibitor to private sector service provision, with an
unfair advantage of being a referee and player, and able to ’cherry pick‘ the more lucrative aspects
of waste management (such as the plan to take on the CBD door to door collection7).
Accountability of the WMD to council, and the council to the WMD (risk of too much autonomy –
actual or perceived)?
Pressure from the Council for finances/surplus provided back to council for other council
expenditures.
Possible institutional fragmentation and perception of ‘otherness‘ or separate to the council.
Possible risk of transfers of blame/management of council avoiding responsibility for SWM, and
lack of political support for waste management activities. Possible risk of poor
cooperation/expectation of payment of cross-cutting council services to ’autonomous‘
department. Possible jealousy of autonomy/salaries from other departments.
Possible conflict with other departments/agencies relating to asset use and ownership of income
from certain revenue streams (such as revenues from fines)
Opportunities
New and motivated staff may drive progress and innovation
6 As at 01/03/2015 7 Although there may be justified rationale for this as a short term arrangement, discussed in the Klin Bo section
The autonomy may facilitate the department bidding for contracts (although
this may also be a risk for the private sector development) and may facilitate
partnerships with external entities (public, private, NGO)
It is an opportunity to try an innovative approach, and demonstrate
progressive decentralisation and how departments can be run efficiently
(potential replication effect in council and nationally)
Risk of fund mismanagement could still theoretically persist in the WMD
Whilst being in strong support of the need for the WMD that has financial oversight and decision
making on WMD activities and expenditure, the consultant has four main concerns on the current
plans8:
1. Various Interpretations of ‘Autonomy’, and Risk of Fragmentation with the Bo CC
The objectives of current discussions for the need to ensure ‘semi-autonomy’ are clear and justified.
The challenges/risks of the department being ‘semi-autonomous’ are also important. One query is
whether the objectives of the financial ring-fencing/tracking, control, staff retention etc. can be built
into the design and MoU with council, without needing to title it ‘semi-autonomous’.
Objectives and possible challenges of the ‘Semi-Autonomous’ nature of the WMD
Main overall objectives (as
understood by the Consultant)
To get department staff on an
attractive salary with
performance incentives, and
reduce the risk of staff
transfers to other councils (by
central government order)
Give the ability of the WMD to
generate its Own Source
Revenue (OSR) and decide on
its usage
Ensure ring-fencing of funds
for waste management, with
direct oversight and control of
all funds for waste
management (GoSL, DSDP,
Council OSR contributions,
WMD OSR). Enable tracking of
co-funding from council to the
project
Allow stronger decision
making power/control by the
WMD to decide on work plans,
expenditures and assets of the
department
Potentially allow the
department to function like a
business / bid for contracts etc.
(this aspect has a range of
possible challenges, discussed
later in the report)
Potential challenges of ‘semi-autonomy‘
There may be a wide range of interpretations of ‘semi‘, which may cause
challenges. It could be perceived as a ‘grey area’ subject to mutual
interpretation.
FFragmentation and feeling of ‘otherness‘, which could (in a pessimistic
scenario) lead to breakdown in cooperation and coordination between WMD
and Bo CC (particularly as they will be the only Bo CC department not housed
in the Bo CC offices, and may have higher salaries). Cross-cutting support
functions of the council may not understand their role to service the ‘semi-
autonomous‘ department, and may even see this as outside of their job
descriptions
Solid waste management has for a long time been a major administrative and
political headache for councils. There could be mild risk if the WMD was seen
in some way as ‘separate‘ to council, that perceptions of responsibility and
accountability could be shifted/deflected to the WMD, and could start a
mutual blame culture. If WMD is a ’normal‘ council department, would there
be any mis-interpretation on who is ultimately accountable for SWM (e.g CA
and Mayor)? On the other hand, maybe the WMD may feel over autonomous
and not feeling the need to be accountable to the parent council.
Creating a semi-autonomous department may be a little unusual to normal
government/ decentralisation processes. This may affect the legal validity of
the
WMD,
and
could
potentially cause challenges with central government.
2. Ensuring Coherence with National Policies & Procedures
8 As per plans at time of data collection, which may have since evolved.
“This hemi-semi-demi-wemi-autonomy” (Chief Administrator,
Bo CC)
“It (the WMD) will take SWM away from the Council”
(participant, WMD working group)
“No no, the Department is part of the council” (Bo CC Finance
Officer)
Linked with the point above, there may be risks of designing structures, processes and procedures for
the WMD that may be outside those of standard official government/DSDP procedures. Whilst the
establishment of the WMD is innovative and outpaces the rate of decentralisation at the national
level, it could be useful to ensure wherever possible the coherence with government systems. It seems
that much work is on-going in Bo around the definition and procedures, but arguably with limited
dialogue with the relevant central authorities at this stage.
3. Financing Arrangements of the Department & Running the WMD ‘as a Business’
The WMD is expected to source revenue from a number of potential income streams. The need to
secure reliable and increased financing to the SWM function for service delivery is clear. Solid waste
management is across the world, even in the most developed and efficient systems, subsidised to a
certain extent. The current profitability of the private sector involved in waste management
services/waste conversion is not huge, and many of these businesses in Bo are relatively small.
It is understood that the staff are expected to be funded out of these WMD generated revenues (WMD
OSR). It is proposed that the department will have six full time employees (and presumably significant
assets that need to be maintained), which all add to the ‘overhead’ costs in the sector that will need
to be financed. There seems to be a strong focus from interviewees on the need to secure funding for
the WMD. This was sometimes emphasised in absence of also ensuring more funds for the WMD
functions. Having the department staff primarily focussed on income of the department (from which
their salaries and bonuses are generated), may present a possible risk of a focus on identifying ‘cash
cows’ in the waste management process, and overburdening private sector with levies or lease rates.
It may cause a conflict in the need to finance the department, and the need to finance service delivery.
Could this possible risk be lower if their salaries were not reliant on WMD OSR?
There have been interviewees who mention that the WMD would ‘operate like a business’. There
seem to be plans for the council to take on some direct service provision, including environmental
health services, and significantly, plans to take on door to door collection services in the Central
Business District (CBD). This poses a number of concerns. The intents of the project, as understood by
the consultant, is to help develop the local private sector.
The focus on WMD own source revenue generation may be leading to the WMD identifying the more
lucrative aspects of the sector, and potentially engaging in them directly. This may pose a number of
challenges. The WMD potentially becomes a competitor rather than an enabler of the private sector.
The council clearly has an unfair advantage in such a competitive situation, and has the ability to
‘cherry pick’ the most lucrative aspects, undermining the opportunities of the private sector they are
supposed to be enabling. There may be a risk also of being the player and the referee at the same
time. The council should always maintain the focus of ensuring equitable access to all. The private
sector traditionally focuses on more lucrative aspects of any contract, and sometimes need to be
pushed to serve lower-income areas. If the WMD is acting like the private sector, who is ensuring the
social objectives of the council for waste services? In a context where the private sector is not
forthcoming to invest their funds, much care should be taken to avoid the private sector mis-
interpreting the intentions of council or raising concerns on the business risks from public sector
competition.
Another possible challenge of the WMD focussed strongly on OSR could be the risk of the WMD
renting out its assets for non-waste management activities, to the detriment of SWM service delivery.
‘The Bo CC will minimise its engagement and direct involvement in the waste management, and
will engage a supervisory, monitoring and evaluation role’ (Project Proposal for this project).
Whilst there may be a plan around the Bo CC implementing directly in the central business district as
a ‘pilot’ where council operations are for a limited time with the purpose of gathering information to
allow more accurate contracting out – the wider concern around WMD operating as a business, and
enabling rather than competing with the private sector remains.
4. The Restricted Mandate of the WMD
The standard organogram for local councils9 does not include a waste management function
specifically, and instead has an ‘Environmental & Social Officer’. The job description for this officer
includes waste management loosely and indirectly, and a number of other non-waste management
responsibilities. There is an on-going process at national level, delayed somewhat by the turnover of
Ministers in MoHS, and Ebola, looking to formalise an MoU between MoHS and MoLGRD for the
absorption of environmental health staff within the councils (understood to be Environmental Health
Officers and Public Health Aides).
Whilst the WMD is highly aligned in mandate and title to the project, there could potentially be risks
that other (non-waste related) aspects of the Environmental & Social Officer’s function, and other
aspects of Environmental Health may not be covered, or may ‘fall through the cracks’. It is currently
proposed that if the current Environment and Social Officer staff migrated into the WMD, his former
position would need to be re-staffed.
Some municipal councils already have MoHS Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) embedded within
their departments (such as Kenema City Council). This presumably could enable the councils to take
on responsibilities of other environmental health issues within their municipal boundaries. Presently
the District Health Management Team (Bo District) has an Environmental Health Superintendent, with
a number of EHOs, and recently trained Public Health Aides (PHAs). It seems there are opportunities
for Bo CC to bring in one or two EHOs within its structure (salaries funded by MoHS). By bringing in
the EHOs there may be the opportunity to more directly engage the Public Health Aides (PHAs). The
PHAs are a decentralised cadre of MoHS Environmental Health staff that have been recently trained
and equipped (including uniforms) to undertake a MoHS flagship ‘Expanded Sanitary Inspection &
Compliance (ESICOME) programme. Around 250 PHAs were trained on a 3-month course to certificate
level by MoHS and Njala University, and a number are mandated to cover Bo City. There are potential
opportunities to bring on board the work of the PHAs (particularly if there was their line manager EHO
within council), to run ESICOME in the city, which would strongly support the regulation and
compliance aspect of the recent illegal dumping/burning bylaws. They could also support monitoring
on liquid waste dumping, and help in other areas of environmental health (such as sanitary standards
in markets, which appears to be a major issue in Bo).
If the WMD was to take on additional functions around Environment/Social, and Environmental
Health, would the title of ‘Waste Management Department’ still encompass all functions? Could
something like ‘Environmental Health Management Department’ capture this wider function?
In addition to solid and liquid waste management, the department could other aspects of
Environmental Health such as food hygiene, abattoir inspections, compound and restaurant sanitary
inspection and compliance, market place hygiene, and vector control.
9 As per the Local Government Service Commission 2014
4.1.2. Recommendations for the WMD The establishment of the WMD has clear rationale and need, and should certainly be done. There is
strong support from all involved, and there has been a lot of thought and consultation gone into the
process.
There are a number of design aspects that could be further considered to avoid possible risks and
maximise impact. It is acknowledged that these may be easier said than done, and many have likely
already been considered or actioned since data collection.
Identify if the objectives of the WMD (such as financial ring-fencing, direct control and
oversight on waste management funds, ability to generate own source revenue, decision
making capacity for the activities and expenditure of the WMD) are possible to achieve without
titling it as ‘semi-autonomous’. These conditions should clearly be documented in the
operating principles/MoU with Bo CC, which should be developed to a degree that WMD can
hold Bo CC to account in case of breaches.
Consider the WMD as pilot in nature, and review lessons learned/protocols within 12 months,
to develop permanent protocols within the lifetime of the project.
Engage the relevant central government functions soon, to ensure coherence and agreement
by the relevant authorities where needed. These may include the MoLGRD, LGSC, DecSec, the
Local Government Finance Department/DSDP managers, and the Human Resources
Management Office (HRMO).
Consider options for WMD staff financing from sources other than the WMD own source
revenues. There may be potential to request HRMO to augment the number of staff financed
for the next financial year, and/or request them to be financed by GoSL SWM funds. Having
them contracted as full-time auxiliary staff financed directly by Council OSR could also be an
option. Potentially review if it is possible for official waivers on transfers of key staff of the
department from HRMO/relevant central department.
Continue to identify how to minimise overheads of the WMD to avoid overburdening the
sector, or detracting funds from service delivery. Starting with a smaller staff compliment (than
six) may be one option, with the view to grow in future. This is particularly relevant where the
project already has a number of WHH officers that could support the WMD in the interim.
Carefully consider the WMD operating as a ‘business’, and ensure the objective of securing
income to the WMD does not compete with the need to fund service delivery, or risk orientating
services away from low revenue potential areas. Continue to identify ways whereby finances
could be received from profitable activities of the private sector without impinging too much
on the commercial viability of the private sector, or directly competing with them (e.g. leasing
out operational areas, or assets for waste collection and transport).
Further consider whether the mandate (and potentially title) of the WMD could be expanded
to enrapture other environmental health functions, and utilise the opportunity of absorbing
MoHS environmental staff within the council structure (salaries paid for by MoHS), and
utilising the upcoming opportunity of the PHAS and ESICOME to support the monitoring and
regulation aspect of the WMD. Ensure the non-waste functions of the Environmental & Social
Officer are not ‘lost between the cracks’.
Recommendations on specific details of the WMD:
Financial Management - Is there a need for four signatories on the WMD account? The larger
number of signatories may cause delays to a service where ‘waste does not wait’. There may
not be a need for the Mayor and Chief Administrator to both be signatories, and there is the
need to ensure the head of the WMD is included, together with the finance officer either of Bo
CC (for the GoSL/DSDP accounts) or potentially the WMD Accountant for WMD OSR account.
Regardless of signatories, the WMD Accountant should sanction all payment requests for
waste expenditure to maintain oversight, and should have the authority to view the accounts
of Bo CC OSR funds, to verify the funds received from council OSR proportionally relate to the
total revenue of the Bo CC OSR on property tax and market dues. Direct payments on waste
management should not occur out of central Bo CC OSR accounts, and funds due from Bo CC
OSR should be disbursed monthly. Underspends in WMD funds should potentially be allowed
to roll-over into the next financial year rather than be reimbursed to Bo CC.
4.1.3. Summary
There is a clear need and benefit for the establishment of the WMD. The current design appears to
have strong stakeholder support and has been subject to considerable consultation within Bo. The
design of the WMD aims to address some key challenges in the Bo CC management of waste services.
These include the tracking and ring-fencing of waste mandated funds, and the decision making control
by the waste function of Bo CC on the expenditures and activities of waste management. The design
also seeks to increase funding to the Bo CC WMD by generating own source revenue, and to use some
of these funds for the salaries of department staff, to reduce the risk of them being transferred to
other councils as they would be on the central government payroll.
The objectives of ring-fencing, tracking and control of funds and activities are essential parameters for
the department, and should be clear in the operating documents to which Bo CC and WMD sign. There
may be some challenges in the ‘semi-autonomous’ aspects of the current plans, such as risk of mis-
interpretations of autonomy, shifting ultimate accountability for services and funds, institutional
fragmentation, and coherence with standard government processes. It could be further reviewed
whether the objectives of the WMD could be achieved without titling the department as ‘semi-
autonomous’. Relevant central authorities (such as MoLGRD, LGSC, LGFD/DSDP, HRMO) should be
engaged to review plans and ensure coherence with official procedures or formal acceptance of
adapted arrangements. Opportunities could be sought to get staff of WMD to be included in the
organogram of Bo CC and financed by GoSL/HRMO from 2016 onwards.
Having the WMD operating efficiently is essential and a key feature of the current design. Having the
WMD operate ‘like a business’ however may pose a number of risks. The original project intents were
around enabling and growing the local private sector, with WMD becoming more of a facilitator,
contractor and regulator. An over-focus on the need to meet the recurrent costs of the department
may lead to less focus and funds placed on subsidising services. Careful consideration should be made
around where council is directly implementing services or competing for services that are also being
tendered to the private sector. The WMD should maintain a continual focus on ensuring a basic level
of service to all (particularly in the less commercially attractive market segments, such as poor
communities).
There may be opportunities to broaden the mandate (and title) of the WMD to encompass other
environmental health activities, potentially taking the opportunity of absorbing Ministry of Health &
Sanitation (MoHS) environmental health staff within the council structure (but paid by MoHS), and
incorporating sanitary inspection and compliance activities.
4.2. Waste Management Industrial Investment Zone (WMIIZ)
4.2.1. Observations & Possible Challenges to Current Design
The project is currently at advanced design and consultation stage for the establishment of a WMIIZ.
This idea has evolved through time, and its origins were included in the proposal of the project.
The proposal mentions a ‘waste resource centre’ that potentially would be a component of the landfill
(although not clearly stated), where sorting would be done, waste streams traded, and some waste
conversion would be done. During the inception phase, the former Chief Administrator and local
consultant, together with the project team further evolved this idea. It was proposed that a number
of sites were to be developed around the edge of the city (next to good roads) where waste is taken
to be sorted, where waste is traded by the on-site private sector, and SMEs could produce products
on the site (e.g. composting and other ‘dirty’ conversion processes). Therefore only the remaining
residual waste fraction would be taken from these sites to the final dumpsite at Mile 5. This would
potentially save fuel and vehicle maintenance costs as a smaller volume of waste would need to be
transported out along the poorly surfaced road to the final dumpsite. It was proposed10 that as the
landfill and it’s access road would be used less, there could be a reduction in relative expenditures
there, and some of the funds could be used to acquire the two ‘Waste Industrial Zones’ (WIZ) on the
eastern and western edges of town. It was envisaged there could be co-investment from the private
sector users of this land.
Since the inception phase this idea seem to have evolved, and the (former) Chief Administrator who
seemed to be pushing for the WIZ concept was transferred to Makeni. The current concept as
understood by the consultant is to have a ‘Waste Management Industrial Investment Zone’ (WMIIZ)
in the city centre, and then have waste sorting, trading and ‘dirty’ waste conversion activities
happening at the landfill (or off-site at the SME business premises for certain waste conversion
activities). The WMIIZ as currently envisaged would be located in the city centre next door to the soon
to be opened bus terminus and the ‘Bo Plaza’ (a shopping mall constructed by NASSIT). The proposed
WMIIZ would occupy 1.3Ha land, which is currently derelict. The proposed site would include offices
for the Bo CC Waste Management Department, and also for the umbrella organisations Klin Bo and
the Waste-to-Wealth SME umbrella. It would also have a shop/display area to market the SME
products, and then 13-19 plots available to be occupied by the SMEs for the production and marketing
of the waste-derived products. The site would also include a covered, lockable parking space for the
WMD vehicles and spare parts, and potentially include a public toilet. Please find the current design
depicted in the figure below, together with photos of the site location.
Photos of the proposed site for the Waste Industrial Investment Zone
The current site design of the Waste Industrial Investment Zone for Bo City Centre
10 In the document titled ‘Justification for Activity Change, April 2014’. Whilst it was documented as proposed changes in the documents produced by the consultant engaged during the inception phase, no formal activity or budget amendment was submitted at this stage.
It is hoped that the WMIIZ will address a number of chronic challenges in the project/waste sector in
Bo. These include; access to affordable and adequate office space for the WMD and the umbrella
organisations; access to markets in central locations to showcase and trade the waste-to-wealth
products11; access to land at stable rental/lease rates for the SMEs to produce products12; improved
fleet management of WMD vehicles.
A participatory SWOT analysis on the ideas for the WMIIZ was conducted with Bo CC and WHH staff,
together with a number of interviews on the topic with SMEs, Klin Bo, Bo CC and WHH staff. It was
also discussed with the Bo-based WHH contracted legal consultant. The information presented in the
SWOT table below is a combination of all of these and also including the additional thoughts of the
consultant.
11 Market access to sell the products of the SMEs has been a key challenge in previous DfID funded SWM projects in Bo and Makeni 12 It was reported that numerous SMEs in the project have been under pressure from their current landlords to increase the rent significantly, or be removed from their land. It has been explained to the consultant that this relates to the landlord seeing the SMEs start to profit, and wanting to capitalise also in the gains of the business.
Strengths, Opportunities, Weaknesses & Threats of the WMIIZ in it’s current design
Strengths & Opportunities
Strong support from the administrative and political wings of Bo CC, and strong
interest from a number of SMEs. There has been considerable Bo CC/SME/Klin Bo
consultations on the topic. SMEs are willing to invest their own funds to the
development of the site.
The central location of the site next to the bus terminus and shopping plaza, will
mean there are many people passing by, which opens opportunities to show-case
the waste products to a large number of potential customers, which is a key
challenge for many of the SMEs. It can also demonstrate the value of compost.
SMEs having access to more stable lease arrangements for the site would help to
overcome some of their current issues in land access. SMEs and Klin Bo are also keen
on being located within a new and official council structure as it may help build
public recognition of their businesses as ‘serious‘
A site in the centre of town focussed on waste management and
recycling/conversion, would potentially help considerably raise public awareness on
the opportunities of waste as a resource, and with WMD present there, may help to
raise the profile of waste services as something that needs to be paid for, and
customers can visibly see and discuss with/complain to the WMD. This may increase
willingness to pay for services
The site can act as a demonstration site to show PPPs at work, and be a ‘hub‘ for
visits to Bo for national experience sharing and training on SWM. It is innovative,
and could be a demonstration for the country. Having the site may help
create/strengthen linkages for external and local waste/product traders, and could
help boost credibility for private investment to waste management in Bo
There is likely to be efficiencies in having the WMD and other key stakeholders
(private sector partners/service providers) in the same complex. It is also an
opportunity for greater synergies and linkages in the work. There may also be
efficiencies in having the WMD sited together with all the assets for waste
management. Having the WMD located off-site from the Bo CC offices may help for
the department to better focus.
Weaknesses & Threats
Given the city centre location, whilst it is strong on market access, it prevents some of the
more ‘dirty‘ sorting, trading and SME productions from happening on-site. Industrial sites are
rarely sited in the centre of cities. It therefore does not capture all original intents of the WIZ
as foreseen in the inception phase. It is expected that these would instead be done at the
landfill site or decentralised at the SME private business locations.
There may be a range of interpretations on what can/cannot be done on the site. Some waste
related activities may be inappropriate to undertake in the city centre given environmental
health issues – these include sorting of waste, composting, and SME activities that generate
air pollution (briquetting, plastic slab making, metal pots melting). The site may encourage
dumping on the premises/public perceptions that it can be used for dumping
The central location means that security of the site may be an issue that may incur significant
running costs to mitigate. The site is public, meaning shoppers etc. are moving across the site
where the WMD has its vehicles and other assets
There could be a risk of the land (in a prime location in the city centre) being re-purposed for
other things that are more lucrative than the current WMD plans. This risk may be higher if
the site is unable to self-finance based on the envisaged purposes alone
The need to self-finance the overhead costs of the site may put pressure to increase rent
above limits of affordability/acceptability of the tenants (whose profits may be relatively
marginal). The site may be over-perceived as a cash-cow for the WMD rather than enabler
of the private sector. Increased rent, levies, tax on sales and profit shares could all be
theoretically proposed to tenants which may inhibit their growth/commercial viability
The site could fail to achieve the expected occupancy rates at the site, which may decrease
customer foot-fall in the site. It may need to achieve a ‘critical mass‘ of occupancy
The garage space and location of the vehicle fleet is expected to reduce
maintenance costs, facilitate easier fleet management, and potentially avoid
vehicles being used for non-waste purposes. It would address the issue of lack of
adequate office space for the WMD
The WMIIZ would likely help to stimulate economic growth during the construction
and operation phase. It would contribute to urban development in the CBD. The
construction would also give opportunities to create initial significant market
demand for SME products to allow the businesses to grow and establish waste
procurement and production systems at a larger scale (e.g. plastic paving slabs for
the walkways, soil regeneration through compost)
There may be revenue generation opportunities for WMD that exceed the running
costs of the WMIIZ, allowing subsidy for WMD operations.
There may be cost savings from moving the WMD to a separate building. This may
include the energy costs not being split between other functions, and potential
ability for the site to utilise the project’s solar power system;
The relations between Bo CC/WMD and it’s private sector partners may already have
challenges in terms of WMD perceiving they can ‘control’ the SMEs/youth groups, or that
they have some stake in their business due to the matching funds. This could theoretically
be intensified if they are located on the same site, and are the ’landlords‘ over the other
’tenants‘. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there could potentially be mild risks of those
on site colluding, and creating a public-private monopoly.
Locating the WMD in a separate location to the other Bo CC functions could cause the risk of
fragmentation or over-perceptions of autonomy/’otherness’. It may be more challenging for
Bo CC to monitor the activities of the WMD
Possible risk of Klin Bo/W2W umbrella blocking new businesses from investing or joining the
site if they are providing competitive services or products. Risk of over-relying on the long-
term functioning of the umbrella organisations
Combining matching funds and lease agreements may complicate issues, with SMEs having
a 20% ownership of the assets on the land, but also long-term lease. What may this mean in
terms of mid-term breaking of contracts and asset ownership, and long-term asset
ownership where mixed investment has been done?
“(Having the WMD in the WMIIZ) the WMD can easily control over the
SMEs in the zone” Environmental & Social Officer, Bo CC
In summary the WMIIZ is highly innovative, is expected to address a significant number of challenges
to the project and waste sector in Bo, and create a wide range of opportunities. The main weaknesses
are around it not catering for all needs (such as waste sorting/trading, and ‘dirty’ SME production),
however this is currently proposed to instead be done at the landfill. There are a number of risks with
the WMIIZ in it’s present design, with the major ones being around the ability to self-finance running
costs, and the risk of land re-purposing or increase of rents post project.
It is suggested that the potential benefits and opportunities outweigh the risks, particularly as the
project is ‘pilot’ in nature, and is therefore worth undertaking. However the following
recommendations are proposed to reduce some of the risks identified, and maximise the impact of
the site.
4.2.2. Recommendations for the WMIIZ
The WMIIZ running costs ideally should not require significant subsidy that would compete
with the financing of waste management service delivery. It is understood that the current
design has identified ways to minimise operational costs13, and further opportunities may exist.
There may be opportunity to further investigate mitigation strategies in case of limited
occupancy by the SMEs, or inability of tenants to affordably cover the site running costs. It
could be useful to ensure the need to finance the WMIIZ does not overburden the private sector
that it is designed to enable. If the incomes may not easily cover running costs, it may be
interesting to consider allowing a portion of the site for a ‘cash cow’ purpose, which could
generate significant rental income to subsidise the overall running of this site. This would need
to be clearly defined and restricted in the legal agreements so that it would not create risks of
re-purposing of wider areas of the site. There is currently a small portion of land in the WMIIZ
design that is not purposed (bottom left of site layout) which could presumably be used for this
purpose.
Given the importance of the legal documents defining a). the purpose of the land use, and b).
the terms and conditions of tenancy (including long-term rates), it is suggested that WHH
engage a high(er) calibre legal advisor to review and finalise the documents. Some areas for
consideration in the draft14 documents could include: how to ensure long term rental stability
factoring in inflation; how to guarantee land purpose, and who would be the witnesses and
signatories of this document15.
Using matching funds for the SMEs to construct infrastructure on the site may complicate what
could otherwise be clear 100% ownership issues, and complicate more standard lease
agreements. Further legal advice may need to be sought on this topic, including the
considerations of scenarios on reimbursements if contracts are terminated, or in case of
13 Such as plans for high-quality initial construction and use of solar power to reduce running costs, public toilet operating on a user-pays principle to pay for upkeep, having a shop on-site for sale of products should finance itself 14 These conditions may have already been addressed since data collection 15 The Chief Administrator may be the more conventional signatory for land agreements than the mayor. Having the umbrella organisations as signatories may create issues if one or both collapse in future. There may instead be scope for them to be witnesses. It was unclear at time of data collection who would be the primary counter signatories to the Bo CC – potentially DfID? Having MoLGRD to do this may be a challenge, but MoLGRD could theoretically be an additional co-signatory or witness.
insurance claims. There may be benefit in considering de-coupling pending grants to the SMEs
related to business growth, and infrastructure on the WMIIZ site.
The WMD would need to be mindful not to be overbearing landlords, or seeing the WMIIZ as
creating the opportunity to further ‘control’ the private sector that is supposed to enable.
Considers in strategies to ensure the WMIIZ remains open to all new businesses in waste,
without umbrella organisations trying to block out competitors could also be useful if not done
already
Clearly define what waste activities can, and cannot be undertaken at the WMIIZ, to ensure
environmental health problems are not brought to the city centre. The needs of the ‘dirty’
processes that cannot be undertaken on site could be fast-tracked, namely waste
sorting/trading and production of certain products (compost, bio-char, plastic paving slabs).
The project could identify opportunities to fast-track the starting of ‘temporary’ sorting,
trading and processing at the existing dumpsite even in lieu of the EIA (further discussed in the
Landfill section of the report). If the landfill site is not the answer for all of these purposes,
there could be further consideration as to how sorting could be undertaken at sites lower down
the waste chain (e.g. at skip points), without creating environmental health issues.
The site design could further consider the issue of site security of the public site, particularly
for the vehicle assets of the WMD. Do the offices need to take up such a central location/size
necessary(?), or could more space be opened for things like demonstration patches for
compost vs. chemical fertilisers? The site could be a mini-demonstration of urban agriculture,
and sales of the vegetable could potentially subsidise the grounds person on the site, who could
be trained to promote the compost product and give gardening advice to visitors. It could be
useful to have a skip in the compound to ensure site hygiene. Consider a basic well on site for
garden irrigation purposes, and incorporating rainwater harvesting in the site design.
Consider increasing the profile in the purpose of the WMIIZ as a site for customer
communications and customer service (WMD and Klin Bo).
4.2.3. Summary
The WMIIZ is highly innovative, is expected to address a significant number of challenges in the project
and waste sector in Bo, and create a wide range of opportunities. The main weakness is around it not
catering for all needs (such as waste sorting/trading, and ‘dirty’ SME production), however this is
currently proposed to be done at the dumpsite instead. There are a number of possible risks with the
WMIIZ in it’s present design, with the major ones being around the ability to self-finance running costs,
and the risk of land re-purposing or increase of rents post project. Mitigation strategies are proposed,
and are already being looked into by the project team to address these risks.
It is suggested that the potential benefits and opportunities outweigh these (mitigated) risks,
particularly as the project is ‘pilot’ in nature, and is therefore worth undertaking. DfID should
favourably consider the use of project funds to procure/30+ year lease and build-up the site.
The following recommendations are proposed to reduce some of the risks identified, and maximise
the impact of the site. The design is aiming to minimise the future operating costs, and if there are
potential shortfalls in income from tenancy, there could be consideration to cross-subsidise the site
with a ‘cash cow’ activity which may not necessarily be directly SWM related, in a defined and non-
expandable area of the WMIIZ. The legal agreements for land purpose, and around tenancy and rate
arrangements should be strengthened utilising strong legal expertise. Further consideration could be
made on the use of matching grants for building infrastructure on the site, and what this may mean
in terms of ownership. Given the city centre location, it should be clearly defined what can, and cannot
be done on the site to avoid creating environmental health issues, and further review/fast-track
mechanisms to cater for ‘dirty’ activities such as waste sorting, composting, and production of
briquettes/plastic paving slabs that may not be catered for in the WMIIZ. The current design could
further consider opportunities for compost/urban agriculture demonstration, and to promote the site
also as a customer service point for WMD and Klin Bo.
4.3. Klin Bo / Door to Door Collection
4.3.1. Observations, Challenges & Recommendations
The project continues to work with the 10 youth groups that perform the door-to-door collection of
waste to paying customers, transporting the waste to the skips. For residents who do not wish to
subscribe to this service, they can continue to transport the waste themselves to the skips. The youth
groups have been supported to form the ‘Klin Bo Services’ umbrella organisation, staffed by four
people, based in temporary office facilities until the WMIIZ can accommodate them.
The youth groups have continued to survive during challenging circumstances, and according to those
interviewed, remain committed and keen to continue the services. The groups have mentioned falling
numbers of customers during the Ebola outbreak due to economic challenges, and the vehicles they
have been using are coming to the end of their usable life (without significant repairs), leading to high
maintenance costs. The road networks in many operational areas are not favourable for the tricycles
being used. Another major challenge to revenues was when Bo CC required the groups to deliver
waste directly to the landfill due to breakdown of their vehicles, significantly increasing costs. This was
a major breach of contract, and losses were not compensated.
Unfortunately a time series dataset was not available for analysis, but the table below presents a
‘snapshot’ of performance indicators taken in January, covering October and November 2014 (during
the height of the Ebola outbreak).
Performance Data from Klin Bo Youth Groups during October & November 2014
Item Minimum Maximum Mean Median
Income during November 2015 (SLL) - 2,148,000
750,200
695,000
Saving deposits made in the bank accounts during October & November (SLL)
- 1,880,000
318,800
68,125
Paying customers in the last 30 days* 20 180 109 100
Resigned Customers in the last 30 days* 8 321 68 28
* Customer numbers are dynamic, with households opting in and out weekly, depending on various factors such
as income at that time. These statistics were taken from October/November, during the peak of the Ebola crisis,
and it is expected the number of customers will increase significantly in the first quarter of 2015.
Source: Third in-depth monitoring report Klin Bo, January 2015.
Whilst progress has been good, the service level remains at around 10% coverage of residents in the
city, and performance between the clubs varies considerably. However with the recent imposition of
the community by-laws against dumping/burning and clean-up of illegal dumpsites, together with the
improving Ebola context, it is expected that business will pick-up. This may be limited however by the
functionality of the tricycles allowing the groups to provide reliable services to customers.
Klin Bo has a number of educated and highly motivated staff in the umbrella association and in the
groups, and the model of private sector collection working with council provides an interesting
opportunity for profit-based monitoring and reporting of illegal dumping/burning of waste. There
seems to be consensus amongst the interviewees that they perceive the umbrella organisation as
something that provides direct benefit, and enables easier coordination with Bo CC. From anecdotal
information from Bo CC, the volume of waste that is now being delivered to the skips has increased
significantly, suggesting an increase in the proportion of waste in Bo City that is managed, rather than
dumped.
There were a number of actual or potential challenges identified on the Klin Bo aspect of the project,
which are summarised in the table below, together with some possible recommendations.
Challenges, Observations & Suggestions for Klin Bo Services
Challenge/Observation Possible Recommendations
Possible challenges with two way accountability and somewhat paternalistic power dynamics
between the Bo CC and Klin Bo services. Significant breaches in MoU encountered with no
ramifications, and the current MoU expired over 3 months ago
The project should demonstrate ‘best practice‘ in PPP contract management,
supporting either party to gain legal support to address breaches in contract
Bo CC should consider ways to adjust power dynamics to one where Klin Bo are
seen as contracted ‘partners’
The next legal agreement should be a contract rather than MoU, and care should
be taken that Klin Bo has an adequate voice and if necessary legal aid in the
contract development. The current MoU should be extended urgently until an
anticipated date of re-contracting
High operational costs due to road network and tricycles breaking down, risk of a
deteriorating spiral of service delivery and dropping customers/revenue, and possible
vulnerability of continuous services with only one tricycle per group (in case of break downs)
Bo CC apply for funds for upgrading key road network in the city to support the
waste management operations (it is understood this is already in progress)
Undertake a rapid repair of all tricycles to avoid further loss in customer
confidence, and focus on more durable vehicles for future procurements
Consider supporting the groups to have access to back-up vehicles, to reduce
vulnerability of breakdown and loss of operations. Could this be facilitated by Klin
Bo?
There seems to be various interpretations of asset ownership of the existing tricycles. There
has been challenges in the quality maintenance and repairs on the tricycles.
These arrangements need to be clear in the future contracts, and clearly
communicated to all youth groups to ensure everyone has the same
understanding.
Plans for using ’matching funds‘ for the procurement of vehicles may complicate asset
ownership and contracting out/leasing. If the vehicles were 100% Bo CC, they would
essentially be leased out, and could be sold at the end of their depreciated design life. If they
were 100% private owned, the council essentially leases/subsidises operational activities to
the private sector to perform. Both of these models allow for contracts to be cut at any time
without complications of co-owned assets, and avoids over-supporting some private sector
players who could become a monopoly through part-owned assets.
Further consideration (and possibly technical advice from WASTE) regarding
options for PPPs and asset ownership arrangements. If the private sector are to be
encouraged to purchase their own assets, there may be other ways to enable them
to do so without mixing ownership (such as putting funds into collateral
guarantees to help the private sector to access low-interest loans)
Repair the current tricycles, and give the youth groups time to grow their capital
before expecting considerable funding (given the recent economic and operational
challenges)
Another challenge may be the group’s ability to raise adequate capital for matching funds at
the present time.
The Klin Bo umbrella organisation has four full-time ‘employees‘, plus office costs. It is
understood that the members of the umbrella group had to leave the operations of their
groups to be staff of the umbrella, potentially making them financially dependent on the
umbrella financing for their salaries. These costs impose considerable overheads to the youth
groups, which may exceed the group’s willingness or ability to pay for the umbrella service.
Payment of the nominal monthly membership fee has not been forthcoming from all groups
to date, and these are at a rate considerably lower than the actual costs of the association.
However the recent initiative of Klin Bo to apply for support to establish an SME to gain
additional income streams could address some of these concerns.
Consider revising the operational structure of the umbrella organisation to reduce
costs. Is it necessary for staff to be full-time, and could they still work part-time for
their groups?
Identify opportunities to expand and diversify their services, and support their
entry into other income generating activities (as is now being done to help them to
start-up a second hand shop)
As mentioned in the WMD section of the report, the council is considering to establish their
own door-to-door collection service in the central business district. This is the most financially
lucrative area of the city, and has previously been promised to the youth groups. It has been
explained that a motive behind this could be to undertake the services for a short time to gain
data and experience on its operations and income potential, to allow the WMD to more
informatively outsource the service.
It has the potential to send the wrong message to the private sector regarding council ‘cherry
picking‘ of the more lucrative pieces of the waste chain, and may anger and demotivate the
youth groups.
Bo CC/WMD should carefully consider the direct implementation of this service by
the council vs leasing the operational licence to work in the area, and receiving
income from that arrangement. If Bo CC is to do it, this should be done for a
defined period of time and clearly communicated to Klin Bo that it is a pilot, and
set a date on which the opportunity to operate in that area would be tendered.
Consider using the CBD operational area as the motivation for performance by the
youth groups, and consider limiting a Bo CC direct implementation to the minimal
time necessary to collect data required to allow outsourcing.
The groups still have a relatively low customer base, which may risk falling further if they are
not able to maintain a good service (due to vehicles)
Considerable progress was made during the clean-up campaign, but public
awareness, monitoring and vigilance will be required for a sustained period to
avoid it having only short-term gains
Continue the public awareness, and enforce the bylaws, with initial prosecutions
made highly public
Identify opportunities for incorporating Public Health Aides into the WMD
structure, and using the upcoming ‘Expanded Sanitary Inspection & Compliance‘
(ESICOME) programme (MoHS) to compliment the ongoing monitoring and
enforcement
Other Possible Recommendations:
Consider opportunities to support Klin Bo services to expand into other environmental health services, such as liquid waste management, vector control and managing public toilets
Potentially create opportunities for Klin Bo to move into waste transport market segments
There may be opportunities to consider Gender, Equity and Social Inclusion (GESI) aspects related to the distribution of the skip locations, requirements for health and safety of staff
of Klin Bo groups, and including rather than excluding the vulnerable members of society currently making livelihoods from waste.
The MoU currently guiding the activities of Klin Bo groups is planned to be reviewed and re-issued.
This may pose opportunities for re-considering aspects of the former MoU, and encouraging
competition and growth of performing groups, attrition of weak groups, or even mergers.
There seem to be significant frustrations from the project team regarding the performance of Klin Bo
groups, which are based on performance criteria set. However it is unclear whether sufficient
consideration on the operational challenges of the groups (current and historic) are fully taken into
account. The following points are proposed to address some of these issues.
Considering the difficulties experienced of late, it is proposed that the groups are provided with
short term support to be able to ‘perform’, to then monitor performance, and then re-
negotiate the contract, potentially allowing a reduction in the total number of groups. This
period could also allow the groups to build capital which they may not currently have access
to. If the tricycles were all repaired through a one-off subsidy, considering the recent public
clean-up campaign, it could allow good conditions to allow the groups to ‘perform’, and allow
monitoring of their performance in relatively favourable conditions. The figure below identifies
possible next steps for the contracting of the groups.
Possible steps for the re-contracting of Klin Bo groups
4.3.2. Summary
Klin Bo youth groups are continuing to operate and play a key role in SWM in Bo City, despite
considerable challenges such as Ebola, and high costs of vehicle maintenance. Presently only around
10% of households are subscribed to their services on a regular basis, but it is expected that the
recently imposed bylaw against burning or illegal dumping, and the post-Ebola context will improve
this. Involving the MoHS Sanitary Inspection and Compliance programme in future could also boost
subscriptions.
The current Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Bo CC is up for renewal, and offers a
chance to reconsider former terms and conditions, and also encourage competition between the
groups, allowing growth, mergers and attrition. It is proposed to undertake a subsidised ‘quick fix’ of
Fix bikes, continue community mobilisation/vigalance, provide
requisite final training to address administrative
challenges (basically create a good ground to raise
capital/perform)
Extend the existing MoU for a few months, monitor
performance (long enough to monitor change and grow
capital)
Re-tender the opportunity to operate, and potenitally lease
new vehicles. Consider reducing the number of zones to allow growth and mergers. Consider
leasing operational areas. Consider tendering the
opportunity to take on the CBD
the tricycles, and extend the existing MoU and monitoring period, to allow the groups to ‘perform’ in
relatively favourable conditions. This would also allow time to develop a strong contract, to consider
alternative arrangements to ‘matching funds’ for vehicles, and if necessary to allow the groups to grow
capital. The Bo CC plans to undertake door-to-door collection services in the central business district
may send a negative message to the groups regarding the council’s ability to ‘cherry pick’ the
financially lucrative aspects. If the council is to do this for ‘information collection purposes’ to allow
them to contract out, this should be carefully communicated, and time limited. There may be the
option to use the opportunity to bid for the CBD services as an incentive for competitive performance
of the groups. Whilst the umbrella organisation is highly appreciated by members, there may be need
to review the overheads it currently places on the groups, their willingness and ability to finance the
full costs, and the potential need to downsize.
4.4. Waste-to-Wealth Initiatives / SMEs
4.4.1. Observations
To encourage a larger volume of waste to be taken from the waste stream for re-use and recycling; to
develop a market value for waste products; and to develop local businesses; the project continues to
support Small-Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) to produce waste derived products. Around eight
businesses were supported to grow with initial capital grants during the pilot phase, and the project
is now in the process of supporting the second round of investments to the original eight or so
businesses, plus supporting a number of businesses new to the project. The approach to the business
support is highly transparent and democratic, starting with public advertisements for the business
opportunity, followed by the businesses submitting business plans. After verification by the project,
the business plans are pitched by the businesses to a group of stakeholders, and businesses are
selected for support. To date the project supports the production of a wide range of products utilising
waste from the majority of components of the waste stream. Support provided tends to be around
increasing the production volumes of the business, but has also included some trainings to the
business on technical aspects and administration.
The current plans are to support the businesses to grow by providing the opportunity of ‘matching
grants’ of up to 80% of project funds on the condition of the business raising and transferring the 20%.
The project then procures and supplies/directly pays for the investments, rather than giving out funds.
This component of the project is progressing well, with the existing businesses continuing to innovate
and produce products (albeit to a relatively limited market for some products), and the new
businesses are adding new ideas and innovations. The project has also recently supported it’s first
‘medium’ sized business on a 50/50% matching grant to produce plastic paving slabs. This
entrepreneur has already sent samples for testing at the Sierra Leone Roads Authority (SLRA), with
the view to get the product approved for road and culvert construction, which could open
opportunities for larger contracts. The design of the WMIIZ also includes the provision of plastic paving
for the site footpaths, which would help to kick-start demand for the product, allowing the creation
of the plastic waste supply chains. The project has also supported the creation of an umbrella
organisation for the SMEs involved in the waste-to-wealth activities, which seems to be a welcome
move from the SME members, and provides the opportunity for the SMEs to pool capital for joint
ventures/loans, and may help the group to bid for contracts. The current SMEs are also showing keen
interest in the opportunity to access land at the proposed WMIIZ to showcase their products, and for
some, produce on-site.
4.4.2. Recommendations
Some activities of the SMEs may pose environmental health, and health and safety issues (e.g.
melting plastic, production of biochar briquettes, smelting metal, separation of waste for
composting). There could be potential to increase the requirements on the SMEs to address
such issues as conditions for receiving matching grants, and to include in Bo CC’s follow-up
monitoring of their operations. There may be opportunities for the project to bring in technical
support/ideas for the SMEs to reduce/mitigate some of the effluent fumes. International
universities may bring potential of offering low-cost expertise for solutions on the fumes from
the plastic melting. Potentially land could be provided at the dumpsite for operations of the
more ‘dirty’ SME processes, which could possibly be fast-tracked using temporary solutions,
even in lieu of the formal EIA approval. This could help to address some of the production needs
of the ‘dirty’ SME processes that are not catered for in the WMIIZ
Considerable focus is being placed on local conversion of waste into products, with potentially
less focus on supporting waste traders to increase the volumes and value of waste they extract
from waste streams for export. A greater emphasis could be placed on the traders, to identify
how their rate of trading could be increased (e.g. co-funding compaction/lifting devices for
heavy products like metals), and value addition of traded items (such as
sorting/washing/chipping of rubber slippers). Their ability to have access to the landfill site for
sorting and trading could help facilitate reclamation, potentially providing facilities for storage
on site (e.g. shipping containers leased to the businesses). The scavengers at the dumpsite
could be formalised and linked with the traders if they are not already, to identify how to
increase the volume of supply. Research into the limiting factors of the traders, and needs of
the buyers (based outside of Bo) could be useful in steering this work.
The matching grants may lead to some uncertainty in long-term asset ownership, and also
potentially confuse otherwise more straightforward tenancy agreements for using the WMIIZ
site. There may be potential to de-couple the matching grants for the WMIIZ construction, and
for the other business growth purposes. The terms and conditions of the matching grants could
benefit from greater clarity both for the SMEs and Bo CC, as there may be perceptions of Bo
CC gaining greater ‘control’ on the businesses, being shareholders, or requiring the SMEs to
share their profits16. The latter aspect is likely to be unpopular with the SMEs, and profit
sharing may open opportunities for opaque practices in reporting on profits achieved. Fixed
annual payments may be more appropriate, or Bo CC may consider not expecting ‘pay-back’
from the businesses, instead considering the investment as ‘paying for itself’ in waste volumes
that will be reduced, and their subsequent cost savings. Future funding arrangements for the
SME grants could consider other mechanisms, such as revolving funds or collateral guarantees
for banks, and even revolving funds within the Waste-to-Wealth umbrella organisation. The
opportunity followed for supporting the plastic paving business to grow by ‘paying for an
output’ (potential contract to pave sections of the WMIIZ) is a strong and relatively lower-risk
method of supporting private sector growth.
16 Currently only being considered for the medium-sized business rather than small businesses.
“If they (Bo CC) say they will become shareholders, I will not accept the money. We (SMEs) are
helping them. All I will pay is rent in the WMIIZ, and business licence. Nothing else”. SME
interviewee.
There could be opportunity in future to make the investments to the SMEs proportional to the
potential cost savings of WMD on otherwise managing the waste they are removing from the
waste stream. This may be linked to total volume, or ‘challenging’ waste streams such as
batteries etc. With this, much more focus and investment could potentially be placed on
initiatives dealing with significant volumes of organic waste. Currently there is only one organic
waste SME (small-scale, high grade composting), and a small biochar briquette business being
established17. There may be opportunities to increase the relative proportions of
subsidy/percentage matching grants for such businesses, and potential to identify medium-
sized operations on which to support this. This is further discussed in subsequent sections of
this report.
The focus on business support appears still to be mainly focussed on increasing production
volumes of the businesses, with potentially less focus on value addition, quality control, and
building the customer demand/linkages for the products. This may be the primary focus of the
requests of the SMEs, and may be more straightforward to ‘procure and supply’ to the SMEs
than trainings, developing supply chains, quality improvements and customer marketing.
However the range of products being produced could benefit from such areas, which may
benefit from such support or directives being proposed externally rather than the ideas being
proposed by the SMEs themselves. Mechanisation of production, modern product branding
and point of sales units in retail outlets could all be opportunities. Where artisanal/artistic
products are to be produced, greater emphasis could be placed on market linkages to buyers
outside of Bo – nationally and internationally. This may not be a strength of the project
team/technical partners or the umbrella organisation, and may benefit from bringing in such
expertise. There may be benefit in identifying how market orientation skills for the more
‘artistic’ products could be brought into the umbrella organisation, potentially through some
of the recent business winners.
There is considerable potential for the existing and new SMEs to produce WASH-related
products. Examples include soap, food storage containers, rat traps, toilet slabs, rubber
rope/buckets for wells and metal windlasses, hand washing facilities, bins etc. The project
could consider a ‘WASH Challenge Grant’ to encourage businesses to convert waste for WASH-
related purposes, and linking to on-going WASH programmes in the area to promote the
products.
The umbrella organisation seems motivated and engaged, however members may not
currently be consistently paying their subscriptions, and association committee members may
be expecting financial ‘recognition’ for their activities. As with the Klin Bo umbrella, minimising
potential overhead costs of the umbrella organisation may help avoid future challenges. Based
on responses from some interviewees, there may be a small risk of the umbrella association
creating challenges to new members joining the association or operating in the WMIIZ,
particularly if the new businesses are producing competitive products. Whilst it does not seem
a risk at this stage, it could be monitored in future, with mitigations potentially built into future
MoUs.
The focus on small-scale SMEs at this time is helping to prove the value of the
products/demonstrate a business model. However to take ‘to the next level’ in terms of
17 Biochar briquettes were the focus of an earlier round of support, however the business suffered internal challenges and never got established, despite efforts of the project.
production and volumes, opportunities to ‘scale-up’ with engaging medium-sized businesses
could be further pursued (as has been achieved with the plastic paving slabs).
4.4.3. Summary
The work on SMEs continues to drive innovation, with new products being developed, new ideas being
supported, and now a medium-sized business investing in waste conversion. The Umbrella
organisation is popular with members, and holds opportunities for bidding for contracts, and pooling
capital amongst members. The upcoming WMIIZ holds potential to address some of the chronic
challenges of the SMEs, and has widespread support from all those that were interviewed.
There could be opportunity in future to link the size of investment/percentage subsidy to the volume
of waste the SME will remove from the waste stream, thus the potential funds they will save the Bo
CC operational costs. Whilst continuing to focus on dry waste and introducing innovative new ideas,
more focus could be added to initiatives in organic waste, given that it accounts for >80% of the total
waste stream. Support to the SMEs continues to be focussed more on increasing volumetric
production than on value adding/quality improvements, market demand building/linkages, and
distribution supply chains. For artistic products being produced at volumes potentially exceeding Bo
based demand, expertise could be brought in to add value and link with external (national and
international) markets. There may be opportunities to encourage the SMEs to engage in producing
Water, Sanitation & Hygiene (WASH) related products, which may help increase the health-related
impacts of the project.
4.5. Organic Waste
4.5.1. Observations
It is understood that the current strategy for organic waste is to promote household level composting
and agriculture; support the production of small-scale high quality compost production; support small-
scale biochar briquettes (with a view to demonstrate it’s value for scaling up); and ‘medium-scale’
composting at the landfill in future. It is unclear whether the composting at the landfill would be with
a focus for rendering it more environmentally inert, or with the objective to produce compost for sale.
The work at the landfill has not yet commenced due to the EIA process. There were ideas in the
proposal around larger scale PPPs for bio-waste, such as composting and/or biogas. There has been
some investigations on potential larger-scale (potentially poorer quality) compost demand, and also
biogas, which did not lead to obvious investors/customers. There were international visits and
discussions with potential investors (Europe, Ghana), however these were not conclusive, and Ebola
is expected to negatively impact international private sector investment at this time. The team are
now focussing more on the opportunity of small-medium sized, more local solutions.
The household level work has been delayed due to Ebola, and there are plans to start this aspect in
the coming months. The work is ongoing with the small-scale composting business (Charles Boyle),
and there has been progress in linking this SME with a potential buyer (Socfin). Bo CC has also
mentioned the idea to utilise compost for city beatification activities (although it is unclear if there are
funds for this purpose), and there is good potential to demonstrate the compost value in the WMIIZ.
However current demand for the SME’s product is reported as low. The SME has partnered with the
local Klin Bo youth group to provide the waste inputs, however mixed waste is being delivered, with a
variety of possible contaminants, and leading the SME to dump/burn the residual waste on the
compound.
There was an initial initiative to support biochar briquetting in 2013, however this business suffered
internal challenges and failed to get established, despite efforts of the project. The recent ideas
contest approved a business plan to provide matching funds to a small business to produce briquettes.
This initiative is linked to one of the more enterprising SMEs who is producing fuel efficient stoves,
with the view to market the products together as a package.
4.5.2. Recommendations
The overall recommendation for organic waste is to focus more project attention and resources
(human and financial) on organic waste solutions, given that organic waste accounts for >80%
of the waste stream in the city. The recommendation is also to start these activities soon, as
building significant demand for and supply of quality compost and briquettes, will take time to
achieve.
Create the demand for compost through proving it’s value, and urban agriculture. The value
of compost relative to petrochemical fertilisers is not well appreciated, and the value of the
compost produced by the SME has not been tested or certified. This may undermine customer
confidence. There may be opportunities to increase the support to composting initiatives to
get the products tested and if relevant certified18. A focus on packaging and branding to allow
the compost to be seen as a more desirable commodity could also be useful. Proving the value
of the compost relative to chemical fertilisers could also be possible through demonstration
plots in highly visible public places (e.g. WMIIZ and others), and potentially by subsidising the
supply of ‘testers’ to respected local agricultural enterprises and potential users of compost.
Whilst household level compost would address a percentage of households not inputting
organic waste to the waste stream, it may not create the commercial demand for compost. It
may only be taken up by a relatively small proportion of households. Whilst proceeding with
the household initiatives, there may be opportunities to focus on building up the
cooperative/business demand for compost, by stimulating demand in urban agriculture in Bo,
and potentially surrounding areas19. With WHH’s strong international experience in
agriculture, there could be potential to focus some project resources into expanding urban
agriculture, and thus creating a viable local market for compost. There could even be
opportunity to start-up an agricultural promotion/education programme e.g. on local
television, with compost producers giving advice to farmers on how to grow crops (and use
compost). Whilst promoting customer demand, focus would also be useful in ensuring
consistent quality, especially considering the existing challenges of quality in the SME compost
business (batteries etc in the mixed waste organic inputs). Whilst there has been some market
assessment for larger volume compost buyers, there could benefit from further research before
discounting this option.
Figure 1 Photo of the compost demonstration site of the SME, showing challenges in quality control
18 There could be merit in investigating whether mobile soil testing kits are available, and if so consider purchasing one for this purpose. 19 It seems there is considerable actual and potential urban agricultural activities in Kenema town
Pilot medium-scale waste separation and composting. The pilot on buying waste at the
landfill site during Ebola could be capitalised on in terms of learning how to get what is
required, delivered to the landfill site. There could be consideration for a (subsidised) pilot to
buy sorted organic waste at the landfill/dumpsite, to kick start the supply chain to allow the
start of medium-sized composting operations. The scavengers at the dumpsite could
presumably be engaged on this issue, and potentially it could be ‘piloted’ on a ‘temporary’
basis using non-permanent infrastructure, allowing it to get started in lieu of the EIA. However
this would need to be facilitated with ‘down the chain’ infrastructure to support separation,
such as designated skips for organic and mixed waste. If the headload tax was to proceed,
there could be the potential to charge less for depositing separated waste, subsidised by the
sale of the end product. The operator at the skip points could enforce this and further sort the
waste at the skip points. It is suggested that there may be more success if the waste separation
was somehow financially incentivised (e.g. lower user payments for sorted waste), than if
‘sensitisation’ was dominantly relied upon for source separation.
Identify ways to develop the demand and supply for Biochar at scale. Piloting biochar
briquette making has been done with small-scale businesses with some challenges, for
example in Makeni where the DfID funded ‘SOBA’ project has continued to support the
briquette group. There may be a potential for the project to take the pilot ‘to the next level’
which other pilots may not have achieved, potentially by providing subsidy to operate demand
building at scale, matched with mechanisation, professional branding and quality control.
Whilst the project may be focussing on small-scale business for the briquettes at present, a
relatively rapid demonstration of its value to allow it to be taken on by a more medium-sized
enterprise may be useful. It is expected that to build considerable awareness and demand for
briquettes, a relatively larger investment/subsidy may be required.
Confirm SALWACO’s plans (and opportunities) for liquid waste treatment before discounting
Biogas. The project team and Bo CC are not well informed on the type of treatment facilities
planned for construction in Bo for liquid waste. The treatment site is on the adjacent plot to
the landfill site, thus posing possible economies of scale of organic solid and liquid waste. There
may be merit in investigating further the SALWACO plans for the waste treatment at the site,
and if there were any potential to introduce biogas production. It is appreciated that this may
be relatively unlikely, but could be worth checking.
4.5.3. Summary
There have been some positive progress in market linkages for the composting SME, whilst other plans
on landfill level composting and household composting have been delayed by the EIA process and
Ebola respectively. Whilst efforts have been made to identify larger-scale PPPs for composting and
Biogas, there have been little conclusive leads, and international private sector investment may be
further hampered as a result of Ebola.
Given the proportion of Bo City’s waste that is organic, this component could merit considerably more
focus, both in terms of finance and human resources. As possible solutions (such as building demand
for and supply of quality compost and briquettes) may take time, it is recommended that such
initiatives start as soon as possible. WHH has strong international expertise in agriculture, and there
seems potential to develop the market demand for compost in Bo and potentially Kenema cities
through promoting urban agriculture. As the value of compost is not widely appreciated, a stronger
focus could be placed on proving compost’s value relative to petrochemical fertilisers. There could be
potential for a (subsidised) pilot on buying sorted organic waste at the landfill, to kick-start supply
chains of raw materials, and create a financially incentivised system for waste separation that does
not overly rely on customer ‘sensitisation’ for source separation. This may require requisite separation
infrastructure down the waste transport chain (e.g. skips for mixed and organic only waste), and there
may be opportunity to start the activities at the landfill in a ‘temporary’ capacity in lieu of the formal
EIA.
Biochar briquetting at scale has the potential to consume significant volumes of the organic waste
stream, and reduce deforestation. However small-scale pilots elsewhere using start-up businesses
may not have achieved the critical mass to operate at scale. The project could consider putting a
relatively larger subsidy and technical support to this business stream, to ‘take it to the next level’ in
terms of customer demand building, mechanisation, and quality control. Medium-sized businesses
should be engaged relatively quickly once the process is proved at a smaller scale.
4.6. Skips, Transporting & Landfill/Dumpsite
4.6.1. Observations
The project has procured additional vehicles and spare parts to allow Bo CC to operate waste
transportation more effectively. WHH is also pursuing additional funding (outside DfID) for additional
vehicles such as a bulldozer. Whilst these assets are being managed directly by Bo CC at present, there
are opportunities and ideas around their potential leasing out for PPPs in waste transportation. The
project has extended and mapped the network of skip locations, and recently undertaken a major
clean-up operation of >120 identified illegal dumpsites. Whilst no figures were reviewed in this
assignment, anecdotal evidence indicates that the total volume of waste being managed by Bo CC
(rather than illegally dumped or burned by residents) has increased considerably, suggesting a
considerably more effective overall waste management system. Bo CC has also ceased using the
‘informal’ dumpsite, and switched to the ‘official’ dumpsite at Mile 5. The volume of waste delivered
to this site is considerable, again showing the effectiveness of the system against illegal dumping,
however the environmental management of the dumpsite at present is relatively poor. Bo CC has
started a full EIA process for the dumpsite, and commenced the process with SLRA for the
rehabilitation of the road to the site. The project partners One World Link have provided technical
support and initial construction designs for the landfill site and the potential composting to be
undertaken there.
4.6.2. Recommendations
Whilst this aspect of the project was not a focus of the assignment, the following brief
recommendations are proposed:
Skips & Transport:
There may be opportunities for the project to pilot an incentivised separated organic collection
system, as described earlier in this report. This may require a significant customer awareness
campaign, and clear visual distinction between skips for organic and mixed waste. Whilst the
‘headload tax’ may present risks20, it would require full-time operators at the skip locations,
who could support in the separation process.
There may be opportunities to expand the locations of the skip points (with accompanying
access road improvements) to ensure more equitable access to skips for customers who cannot
afford the door-to-door collection.
There may be opportunity to learn lessons from the ‘pilot’ of buying waste at the landfill, and
how this ‘end value’ could support the cascading of financial flows down the waste chain.
Currently the chain is somewhat ‘broken’ financially, with Klin Bo gaining funds for the door-
to-door collections, but these funds are not considerably subsidising waste transport. However
like with the headload tax, charging the groups to deliver at the skips may pose risks for illegal
dumping. Revenues could instead potentially be made from charging fees for operating in set
areas, leased by Bo CC.
There could be potential to increase coordination and cooperation between Bo CC and other
waste activities in the city (MoHS and particularly the YES project), and potential opportunities
to expand the ‘customer service/feedback’ aspect of Bo CC SWM operations.
There could be further considerations on how the transport aspect of Bo CC SWM operations
could be contracted out, through leasing assets with clear ownership by the Bo CC, and clear
maintenance arrangements. This could be taken as a small scale pilot at some stage, and there
may be potential to allow Klin Bo to try to grow into such services if appropriate.
Dumpsite/Landfill:
The current dumpsite is not being well managed, and is not utilising the full potential for waste
separation and processing (currently only by visiting scavengers). There may be opportunities
to start moving on ‘pilot’ activities at the dumpsite, using temporary infrastructure (such as
shipping containers for storage/office space) whilst waiting for the full EIA approval to put in
permanent infrastructure. This could allow project and economic activities to get moving, and
could improve the current environmental impacts of the site. More immediately, Bo CC could
consider mechanisms for improving dumpsite management from the current operations.
The project team mentioned that there may be opportunities to bring together scavengers at
the dumpsite, which could be theoretically linked with waste traders, who may even consider
setting up satellite trading/buying points at the site (e.g. if provided with access to shipping
containers and possibly waste sorting tables). There could be opportunity to further discuss
the interests and needs of these traders, and help to formalise and increase the health and
safety of the scavengers.
There may be opportunities for small modifications in the landfill design, particularly to ensure
low recurrent costs and sustainable supply chains. For example, the waste separation conveyor
belt could potentially be replaced with sorting tables. Procurement of assets/infrastructure
20 Charging people to deliver to the skip point may encourage a return to illegal dumping and burning. It may require the people delivering the waste (commonly children) to manage the funds
such as the weigh bridge, bull-dozer and shredder should consider how to ensure sustainable
supply chains for parts and skilled labour. There is already considerable thoughts on minimising
operational costs, and there may be further opportunities (e.g. manually powered rather than
mechanised shredder?).
The detailed designs for the site may benefit from confirming that climatic conditions have
been factored into account for the composting operations (long dry season and water
demands, intense rains and water-logging/surface water overflow).
4.6.3. Summary
Bo CC have made noticeable and impressive improvements in the transportation of waste, with an
expanded network of skips, recent clear-up of >120 illegal dumpsites, and focus on a single ‘official’
dumpsite for the final repository of the waste. The project has provided transportation vehicles, and
is attempting to source external funds for further assets. Bo CC is following best practice in terms of
seeking a full EIA for the dumpsite, and has plans for operations that will minimise environmental
impacts.
There may be opportunities to pilot the leasing out of assets for the transport aspect of SWM through
PPPs, and potentially support Klin Bo to grow to be able to bid for such a service. There may also be
opportunities to increase waste separation and trading at the dumpsite using ‘temporary measures’,
and further engaging the scavengers at the site. The present environmental management at the
dumpsite could be improved, and some small adjustments to the landfill designs may further minimise
future operational costs, and ensure long-term functioning of the site.
5. Conclusions & Recommendations
This assignment was undertaken by an independent consultant with the objective to review overall
project progress, and critically appraise certain aspects of the project, providing recommendations for
strengthening the design where appropriate. The interim review was conducted over a 15 day period
in February and March 2015, and included extensive discussions with stakeholders, site visits and
document review. Whilst efforts were taken to triangulate findings, given the short duration of the
review and relative complexity of the project and context, there may be a risk of mis-understandings
of issues and over-simplification of solutions. The project is highly dynamic, with the design of project
activities evolving daily. This review therefore represents a ‘snapshot in time’ of the plans and
activities at time of review, which may have since been modified.
Overall the project is making good progress in spite of relatively challenging operating conditions, with
the few delays mainly linked to Ebola, with many activities now being initiated. There are some aspects
of the original project design that may not be achieved due to a change in strategy (such as moving
from large to medium-sized PPP solutions), which is to be expected in a project that is innovative in
nature, and adapts with the evolving context.
Some key challenges to implementation relate to the design of the project as embedded within the
council, with one partner being relatively well resourced and holding financial accountability for
project funds, and the other being relatively resource poor, with many competing demands for sectors
to fund. The co-funding from Bo CC has reportedly been a challenge, particularly in spite of reductions
in council revenues from residents and central government during the Ebola period. External support
from DfID to mediate and/or reinforce donor requirements has previously helped in addressing some
of these challenges, and there may be benefit in resuming this aspect of project support.
Whilst the embedded approach may have challenges, it is still an impressive model of project delivery,
where Bo CC is demonstrating strong ownership and leadership, and the daily capacity building creates
good prospects for longer-term sustainability. The project is a national flagship for managing solid
waste effectively, and is perceived by many as a strong demonstration of decentralisation and also
good governance. The commitment of the WHH and Bo CC is impressive, and the project remained
functional even through the peak of the Ebola crisis, adapting quickly to the context.
At the project level, there may be opportunities to maximise and further expand on the project
impacts. These include:
Increasing the national level profile of the project, and improving local and national level
coordination with other sector initiatives
Increasing the health impacts of the project, by considering to expand activities to a certain
extent into medical waste, liquid waste management, encouraging the SMEs to produce
WASH related products, and incorporating the Environmental Health function of MoHS within
the WMD structure
Considering environmental, health and safety, and social inclusion considerations as pre-
requisites for SME or PPPs support, and pushing for equity in access to basic services (e.g
distribution of skip points)
Further reviewing mechanisms for supporting the growth/access to assets by the private
sector, where alternatives may exist to ‘matching grants’ in some contexts
Identifying ways to minimise overhead costs in the SWM sector (WMIIZ, WMD, umbrella
organisations, landfill design)
There are some possible risks related to the current design of activities. These relate to possible delays
with the EIA for the landfill, the autonomy and financing aspects of the WMD, and the guaranteed
land use purpose, rental agreements and operational financing of the WMIIZ. However the project
team are already looking into these, and the report proposes some recommendations for small
adjustments in the design to mitigate them.
The WMD has been subject to considerable consultation, and has strong backing from all interviewed
stakeholders. The design holds opportunities for considerable improvements in financial tracking and
management, and in service delivery. Some recommendations are proposed to the existing design to
avoid significant overheads, and for financing arrangements that avoid the WMD being overly
focussed on own source revenue, or directly competing with the private sector to deliver services. It
is recommended to follow standard official government processes wherever possible in the design of
the new department, and to engage relevant central authorities (LGFD, LGSC, HRMO) soon, with the
aim to build it into formal government funded functions from the next financial year. Whilst there is
a clear need for the department to have financial oversight and control over all waste expenditures
and activities, the broad objectives may be able to be achieved without needing to overemphasise the
department’s ‘semi-autonomous’ aspect, which may be a relatively ‘grey area’ for many stakeholders
and government systems.
The plans for the Waste Industrial Investment Zone (WMIIZ) are innovative, and hold the potential to
address many chronic problems in the waste sector in Bo. Given the range of opportunities it presents,
and fact the project is pilot in nature, it is recommended that the project proceeds to support the
acquisition and development of the land for this purpose. There are some considerations to avoid
potential risks. These include: the need to have strong(er) legal agreements defining the land purpose
and the long-term tenancy conditions; to minimise the operational costs of the WMIIZ in it’s design;
and have a contingency plan in case income does not meet these costs, possibly allowing a ‘cash-cow’
activity in a designated portion of the land to cross-subsidise the site. Other recommendations include
carefully considering the use of matching grants for infrastructure on the site; and given the city centre
location, defining what can and can’t be done on the WMIIZ, and fast-tracking solutions for the more
‘dirty’ processing activities such as sorting, trading, composting and smelting that cannot be done on
the site.
The Klin Bo youth groups continue to operate despite challenging circumstances, and have a strong
interest to continue in future. The establishment of the Klin Bo umbrella organisation is helping to
ease coordination, representation and problem solving. There have been some challenges in breaches
in the MoU by both Klin Bo and Bo CC, and there is a need to address the power imbalance between
the parties, ensuring two-way accountability. The MoU is due to be renewed, which creates an
opportunity to revise terms and conditions and create healthy competition between the groups for
efficiency purposes. It is proposed that the current (expired) MoU is extended and tricycles fixed, to
allow the groups a number of months with relatively favourable operating conditions to ‘perform ‘and
grow capital. There could then be opportunities to re-contract, potentially giving the opportunity for
growth, mergers and attrition. There could be potential to reconsider the approach for matching
grants for vehicle assets, potentially to move towards either 100% public and leased assets, or 100%
private assets. Technical partners WASTE could be in a position to advise on relevant PPP/PSD
arrangements for waste sector in developing countries. If the council intends to proceed to establish
their own youth group to service the lucrative central business district, this should only be for a short
period to gain information to enable outsourcing/leasing the operational area in the near future.
The Waste-to-Wealth businesses (SMEs) continue to expand, with innovative new ideas and products
being introduced and showcased. There is much interest amongst the SMEs for the potential to
improve market access through the WMIIZ. It is proposed that future investments into the SMEs could
be proportional to the potential savings they would make to Bo CC waste management costs. Organic
waste represents >80% of the waste stream, and the main products (compost and briquettes) may
require considerable subsidy to develop the market demand and quality to operate at scale.
The focus of support to the businesses continues to be mainly on increasing volumetric production,
with opportunities to put additional support in quality improvement/value adding, demand building
and market linkages. There could be greater focus on the opportunities to increase the volume and
value chains of the waste traders who remove waste from Bo City for external markets.
There has been some progress on organic waste, with a range of plans to augment the small-scale
work with the composting SME to target household level and landfill level composting, which have
been delayed by Ebola and the EIA respectively. Whilst efforts have been made, the initial plans for
large-scale PPPs for Biogas or composting may be optimistic, particularly in light of the impact of Ebola
on international investment. There may be opportunities to put considerably more focus on organic
waste solutions, and given that establishing demand and quality production at scale will take time,
there is a need to start these activities soon. There is a need to prove the value of the compost, and
there is a good opportunity to build local demand for compost (whilst improving nutrition and food
security) through supporting urban agriculture initiatives in Bo, and possibly Kenema cities. Whilst
household composting is valid, it may not create market demand for compost, therefore it is suggested
that these activities run in parallel. Whilst continuing to improve the quality of the SME compost, there
may be opportunity to pilot medium-scale composting at the landfill site by piloting the (initially
subsidised) purchase of separated organic waste at the landfill, and kick-starting an incentivised
system for organic waste separation. Biochar briquettes are relatively new to Sierra Leone, and
previous pilots on a small scale may not have achieved the critical mass for commercial viability. Whilst
the project intends to focus on demonstrating the potential at the small scale, there could be merit in
subsidising mechanisation, quality control, and demand building, so considerable impact may be
achieved, and medium-sized enterprises may be interested to scale-up the approach relatively rapidly.
The waste transport and disposal system has considerably improved in recent years, with the council
now delivering all waste to the ‘official’ dumpsite, and having an expanded network of skips with
relatively regular collections. There may be future opportunities to pilot the leasing out of the
transportation vehicles. The current management of the dumpsite could be improved, and there may
be opportunities to kick-start some activities on the site such as sorting, trading and composting, even
in lieu of the EIA.
Overall the project is progressing well, with impressive achievements to date. The project continues
to be a flagship for waste management in the country, and a demonstration of good governance and
progressive decentralisation. All activities of the project are moving in a positive direction, with some
challenges or possible risks potentially mitigated with some relatively small modifications in design.
6. Annex
6.1. Documents Consulted in the Review
A number of documents were provided by WHH on the project that may not have specific references.
In this instance, titles and where possible dates are provided.
Review of the Financial Management System of the Bo CC Waste Management Department
(undated)
First part Bo CC Waste Management Department Policies & Procedures (Draft Version
30_01_15)
Human Resources Management Guidelines for Local Councils – Local Government Service
Commission 2014
Integrated National Waste Management Policy Roadmap (Draft), MoHS 2015
Bo City Council Medium Term Expenditure Framework 2015-2017
Project Logical Framework and most recent budget amendment
WMIIZ site plans and compost plan
Landfill site plan
Constitution Klin Bo Final (signed)
Klin Bo final MoU with Annexes
Draft legal agreement for land purchase (V1)
Work Plan
Proposal Narrative – Support to the Waste Management Sector of Bo City – November 2013
Job description Environmental & Social Officer – LGSC 2014
Klin Bo youth group operational area map
Bo CC skip locations map
Abarka & Thurn 2014 – Solid Waste Management Strategy for Bo to 2020 - Strengthening
Capacities for an Integral Waste Management System in Bo City -
BCC Financial Flow Analysis (2011-2014)
WHH – (Internal) Proposal for Thematic Funds_WASH
Concept Note Public Toilet Facility
Draft Financial Management of Revenue Sources WMD (Version 03/02/15)
Justification for project activity change - April 2014 – Mahmoud Idriss
Report on the Activities Undertaken from August to November 2014, Southern Region, MoYA
Youth Employment Scheme (2014)
Third in-depth monitoring report Klin Bo (January 2015)
Organisation Chart BCC WMD (22/1/2015); Revenue system BCC WMD (31/10/14)
Policies & Procedures document for the WMD (dated 30/1/15)
Ideas contest list of qualifying applicants, March 2015
KAP survey_25.12.15
6.2. List of Persons Interviewed / Participated in Focus Group Discussions
Bo CC Councillors (Counsellor Osu Kebbay, Counsellor Rose-Marie Jalloh, Counsellor Mary
Coker, etc.)
Bo CC SWM casual workers x2 (names not captured)
Bo CC Workers – Accountant (Mustapha Jalloh), Mayor (Hon. Harold Tucker), Finance Officer
(Abubakkar Daboh), Chief Administrator (Victor Kalie Kamara), HR Officer (Alfred Lewis),
Development & Planning Officer (Edward Alpha), Environment & Social Officer (Samuel
Hinga Navo), 2 BCC Waste Officer in SWM function (Swaliho Koroma & Jayah Bawoh)
Country Director, UNOPS (Chris (?) unofficial discussion
DfID (Simon Williams)
International Rescue Committee (Stacey Mead)
Klin Bo Umbrella Organisation (George Korlia, Thomas Kamanda, Alhaji Conteh, Mohammed
Kanneh)
Klin Bo Youth Group x1 (name not captured)
MoHS Environmental Health Superintendent (Allieu Kargbo), Director of Environmental
Sanitation (Dr Ansumana Sillah)
Participants of Bo CC/WHH WMD focus group meeting (Victor Kamara, Edward Alpha, Osu
Kabbay, Abubakar Darbor, Samuel Navo, Alfred Lewis, Sulieman Bangura, Alfred Fobay, Alex
Combay, Raphael Thurn, Mary Coker)
Participants of Bo CC/WHH WMIIZ focus group meeting (list not obtained)
Participants of W2W ideas contest (list to be provided by WHH)
Participants of WMD sub-groups (list to be provided by WHH)
PPP Statehouse (Patrick Sessay)
Waste-to-Wealth SMEs (Francis Gbondo, Alfred Muana, Lucinda M. Katta, Mohammed
Conteh, Charles & Alice Boyle, Ibrahim Iftoni)
WHH Staff (Jochen Moninger, Raphael Thurn, Sulaiman, Mohammed Massaquoi, Alfred
Maada Fobay, Bockarie Bawoh)
WHH-contracted Legal Consultant (Aggrey Aruna)
YES coordinators (Abdul Aziz, Ayub Sherif)
6.3. Terms of Reference for the Interim External Review
Interim External Project Review
Terms of Reference (ToR):
The overall objective of this assignment is to undertake a review of the main components of the
project, in terms of current activities and upcoming plans, with a focus on the specific areas outlined
below. The consultant will document findings and recommendations related to those key areas (and
others where applicable) for consideration in the decision making for further implementation of the
project. It is expected that the assignment will also contribute indirectly to the DfID annual review
process.
The assignment will be undertaken through a combination of document review, key stakeholder
interviews/focus group discussions (where required), and field visits. This will be a participatory review
with Bo CC and WHH project teams.
Project Progress according to Planning
Compare Status of Implementation against planning Documents (Brief Review of project progress up to date)
Identify Gaps (if any) due to the Ebola crises
Institutional & Financing Arrangements for the BCC Waste Management Function
Giving technical inputs and assess details of the planned management model of a new and semi-autonomous BCC Waste Management Department as it is described in the draft document ‘BCC Waste Management Department. Policies and Procedures’
Review the administrative set-up and giving recommendations how to ensure consistency and coherence with national legislation and sector plans
Focus Interviews with key actors (Bo City Council, WHH, Stakeholders) to evaluate their involvement and commitment to the Waste Management Department
Waste Management & Industrial Investment Zone (WMIIZ)
To review whether the concept of the planned site close to the City Centre in Bo is serving the purpose to systematically achieve the project’s objectives as they are outlined in the project’s proposal and log frame, and possible current/future needs of the waste stakeholders in Bo
Does the WMIIZ help the Klin Bo youth groups and its newly established umbrella organization to upscale their operations and improve on their daily operations which is door-to-door waste collection
Does the WMIIZ serve the purpose to upscale the local waste-to-wealth activities with a focus on SME’s involved in reuse and recycling in a sustainable manner (analysis of the current investment plans of SME’s, the upcoming second idea contest and the planned trainings to be organized in cooperation with INGO WASTE in 2015)
Does the WMIIZ support the idea of creating synergies between the public and private sector and does it potentially ensure the sustainable success of Private Public Partnerships (PPPs)
Is the planned investment in the WMIIZ cost-effective and serves the purpose to inter alia increase the revenue source of the Waste Management Department
Waste Collection & Transport System
Review ideas for the next phase of contracting for Klin Bo youth groups, including past experiences
Review models of waste transporting, to provide initial recommendations for formulation of the “way forward”: private versus public services.
Bio Waste Management
Review and comment on ideas and strategies for organic waste management
Duration:
15 days
Output:
Documentation of Project Progress (Brief Review of project progress up to date)
Formulation of Recommendation for further Project Implementation to WHH/ DFID
Debriefing on review results to stakeholders in Bo
Debriefing of WHH & DFID representatives about project progress and recommendations
Top Related