Waste Management Outlook for Mountain Regions

Generating a culture of paying for services to cover all or part of operational costs, is an important step in improving SWM. Several mountain cities have been successful in this regard, often as a result of new, higher-quality services. Nairobi is a good example; people are more willing to pay when their neighbourhoods are clean and free of waste (Scheinberg,Wilson and Rodic-Wiersma, 2010). The delivery of services throughtheprivatesector (includinglargecompaniesandmicroenterprises)aswell as through cooperatives and community associations has also been shown to be effective in developing countries. In more remote mountain regions, community-based financing based on voluntary mechanisms, tourism revenue or the sale of recyclable materials (where possible) may be more appropriate. Financing SolidWaste Management in Communities and Cities

User fees for solid waste management services and its challenges

in recovering costs (UNEP and ISWA, 2015). Recent approaches often entail greater collaboration between state and non-state actors – be it private investors, informal workers, central and local state organizations or volunteers. However, all waste service providers need to recognize that vulnerable and low-income households may not be able to afford increases in fees that come with improvements in SWM or profit-seeking in the waste sector. In addition, poor households in remote mountain regions that are not served by municipal services do benefit. This may also be the case for slums and rural communities. Thus, raising awareness of the importance of waste management and the participation of all stakeholders is a necessary precondition for implementing user fees. In some cases, it may be necessary to charge higher fees to higher income households, to support to those who cannot afford to pay. Systems for collecting variable taxes and tariffs must be transparent and acknowledge public needs and traditions, to work effectively (UNEP and ISWA, 2015). The reality in many developing and transitional countries is that municipal services are often not able to cover all households. A common approach for activists and residents is to self-organize to tackle local challenges. Informalwastepickersoftenfill thisgapandcontribute significantly to waste management by collecting, sorting, trading and sometimes processing waste materials. Globally, of the estimated 19-24 million people currently working in waste management and recycling, only 4 million are in formal employment. The rest are informal workers, mainly waste pickers in developing countries, many of themwomen (ILO, 2013). In some countries, the informal waste sector employs as much as 1 per cent of the urban Earning a living fromwaste: informal waste pickers

Public municipalities and private firms have many costs to cover for managing solid waste, including transportation and fleet maintenance, fuel, paying waste collectors, and maintaining treatment and sorting facilities. Cost recovery tariffs and fees are commonly used to cover these costs, especially in the case of commercially-driven operators or to finance quality improvements. However, it is often difficult to collect or increase tariffs/fees to cover the real costs or to finance improvements due to a perceived lack of public demand for services and/or and a lack of public willingness to pay. Fixed fees do not take into account the variability in solid waste produced among households. Different social groups often differ in their willingness to pay for municipal waste services (UNEP, 2005). Income-based tariffs can incorporate the ability to pay into user charges, while surveys on acceptable levels of payment can include the public in setting rates (GIZ, 2015). However, these types of charges offer little incentive for waste reduction. Some tariffs also aim to reduce the amount of solidwaste produced. ‘Pay-as-you-throw’ schemes are one example, charging fees to households and firms based on volumes and weights of discarded waste. This can lower the costs for poor families in peripheral regions who produce little waste and cannot pay service fees. However, it can also encourage illegal dumping and requires investment in both monitoring systems and enforcement strategies. Paymentsmay also be more irregular than with weekly or monthly charges, creating budgeting challenges for service providers.

Both private and publicmodels for SWMare used across theworld and there is no evidence to suggest that either is more efficient

38