Operator models for delivering municipal solid waste management services in developing countries: Part B: Decision support.

This is the second of two papers reporting the results of a major study considering 'operator models' for municipal solid waste management (MSWM) in emerging and developing countries. Part A documents the evidence base, while Part B presents a four-step decision support system for selecting an appropriate operator model in a particular local situation. Step 1 focuses on understanding local problems and framework conditions; Step 2 on formulating and prioritising local objectives; and Step 3 on assessing capacities and conditions, and thus identifying strengths and weaknesses, which underpin selection of the operator model. Step 4A addresses three generic questions, including public versus private operation, inter-municipal co-operation and integration of services. For steps 1-4A, checklists have been developed as decision support tools. Step 4B helps choose locally appropriate models from an evidence-based set of 42 common operator models ( coms); decision support tools here are a detailed catalogue of the coms, setting out advantages and disadvantages of each, and a decision-making flowchart. The decision-making process is iterative, repeating steps 2-4 as required. The advantages of a more formal process include avoiding pre-selection of a particular com known to and favoured by one decision maker, and also its assistance in identifying the possible weaknesses and aspects to consider in the selection and design of operator models. To make the best of whichever operator models are selected, key issues which need to be addressed include the capacity of the public authority as 'client', management in general and financial management in particular.

Operator models for delivering municipal solid waste management services in developing countries. Part A: The evidence base.

This article presents the evidence base for 'operator models' - that is, how to deliver a sustainable service through the interaction of the 'client', 'revenue collector' and 'operator' functions - for municipal solid waste management in emerging and developing countries. The companion article addresses a selection of locally appropriate operator models. The evidence shows that no 'standard' operator model is effective in all developing countries and circumstances. Each city uses a mix of different operator models; 134 cases showed on average 2.5 models per city, each applying to different elements of municipal solid waste management - that is, street sweeping, primary collection, secondary collection, transfer, recycling, resource recovery and disposal or a combination. Operator models were analysed in detail for 28 case studies; the article summarises evidence across all elements and in more detail for waste collection. Operators fall into three main groups: The public sector, formal private sector, and micro-service providers including micro-, community-based and informal enterprises. Micro-service providers emerge as a common group; they are effective in expanding primary collection service coverage into poor- or peri-urban neighbourhoods and in delivering recycling. Both public and private sector operators can deliver effective services in the appropriate situation; what matters more is a strong client organisation responsible for municipal solid waste management within the municipality, with stable political and financial backing and capacity to manage service delivery. Revenue collection is also integral to operator models: Generally the municipality pays the operator from direct charges and/or indirect taxes, rather than the operator collecting fees directly from the service user.