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