SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ARMENIAN CITIES … Varosyan, Armine Petrossian ADRESS Bonus Tracks. 14 TaSiMa 15. TaSiMa 15 15 Bonus Tracks 1 Acknowledgements RTI International is grateful

13TaSiMa15

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ARMENIAN CITIES

(The experience of the USAID-funded Armenia Local Government Program – Phase 3 [LGP3], implemented by RTI International (RTI) * from 2005 to 2010 under Con-

tract Number EPP-I-01-04-00037-00, Task Order 4.)

Mayis Vanoyan,

Armen Varosyan, Armine Petrossian

ADRESSBo

nus

Trac

ks

14 TaSiMa15

15TaSiMa15

Bonu

s Tr

acks

1 Acknowledgements

RTIInternationalisgratefultotheU.S.AgencyforInterna-tionalDevelopment (USAID); theirDemocracyandGover-nanceOfficeArmenia;andMs.BellaMarkarian,COTR,forherconsistentsupportenablingtheauthorstosummarizetheirfiveyearsofactivityfortheServiceDeliveryComponentoftheArmeniaLocalGovernmentProgram–Phase3(LGP3).

TheauthorshaveenjoyedworkingwithMr.SamCoxsonandMr.RobertBodo,ChiefsofPartyinArmeniaforLGP3.Thispaperhasbeendevelopedwithinagoodworkenvironment,resulting from wise project management that led to theproject’ssuccessfulresults.

2 Introduction

Streetsweeping,wastecollection,andwastedisposalarethemostpubliclyvisibleactivitiesofmunicipalservices.Thegreatmajorityofpublicandcommunitycomplaintsaboutwastemanagementarisefrominsufficientwastecollectionanddisposalservices.Wastecollection,consequently, re-ceivesahighpoliticalpriorityinmanycountries[1].

AccordingtotheArmenianLawonLocalSelfGovernment,garbagecollectionanddisposalserviceisoneoftheman-datory functions of local governments. Solid waste ma-nagement remains the most problematic challenge forcities’ leadership.Toillustrate,abaselinestudyof40Ar-meniancitiesshowedthatitremainsthefirstservicepri-ority for33of thesecities [2].Themainproblems in thisfieldofsolidwastemanagementcanbegroupedintofourperformanceareas:(1)lackoflegislativebackgroundandapoormanagement system, (2) lackofappropriateequip-ment,(3)lackoffinancialcapacities,and(4)aweakrelati-onshipwiththepublicinthecities.

Through LGP3, RTI’s efforts assisted Armenian cities inovercomingtheseproblemsthroughco-financingprojectsthatprocure,togetherwiththepartnercities,solidwastecollection services and disposal trucks. In addition, LGP3arrangedparticipatorydevelopmentofsolidwasteperfor-mance management plans/strategies, using internationalexpertiseandbasedonpreviousexperience[3,4,5]. Toaidindraftingtheseplans/strategies,eachcityestablis-hesaworkinggroupandastandingcommittee,consistingof members from city staff, practitioners and staff fromsolid waste entities, local nongovernmental organization(NGO) representatives, and citizens. The drafted perfor-mancemanagementplans/strategiesarethenusedbythemunicipalitiestoimprovetheirsolidwastecollectionanddisposal service. The planning extends to the year 2015,and thus includes long-,medium-,and short-termcom-mitments[6,7].

ThispaperisbasedonthepracticalresultsgainedbytheUSAID-funded LGP3, implemented by RTI from 2005 to2010.Duringthisperiod,LGP3implementedvarioustypes

ofprojects,mainlygroupedintotwocategories:(1)co-fi-nancing and (2) technical assistance. The latter includedtraining,provisionofaseriesofworkshopsandseminars,trainings of trainers (TOTs), and more. These two imple-mentation categories established a synergistic effect: thesuccessof technicalassistancewas reinforcedbypositiveresultsgainedfromtheoperationofnewlyobtainedspecialtrucks(rear-orside-loadinghydrauliccompactortrucks).Theproject implementationprocessand results analysis,throughthedurationoftheprojectyears,arerepresentedherewith.

3 ImprovementofServiceDeliveryofSolidWasteCollectionandDisposal

3.1 AcquisitionofEquipmentandGarbageTrucksthroughCo-financing

Inthelatenineties,manycommunalenterprisesinArme-niathatwereunderthejurisdictionoflocalgovernmentswereprivatized[8].Anumberoforganizationaltypeswerecreated: open joint stock companies (OJSCs), closed jointstockcompanies(CJSCs),limitedliabilitycompanies(LLCs),individualentrepreneurs,andothers.Inmanycases,duri-ngtheprivatizationprocess,theequipmentandthetruckfleet that were specialized for solid waste (SW) servicesweretypicallydispersedacrossseveralcompaniesandin-dividuals[9].Often,equipmentincommunitieswaspriva-tized to individualsor enterprises fromoutside the com-munity.Evenincaseswhereequipmentininitialstagesofprivatizationremainedinthecommunity,itwaslatersold.Thus,inmanycases,especiallyinsmallandmedium-sizedcommunities, privatization led to loss of equipment andspecializedtrucksallottedforSWcollectionanddisposal.Equipmentandfleets forSWcollectionanddisposalun-der theSoviet system had traditionally been bought anddeliveredbythestateinacentralizedway.Now,afterthecollapseofthissystem,localgovernmentscannotaffordtobuynewequipmentorrenewfleetsbytheirownmeans.The abovementioned equipment dispersal, and the factthat the last time the current fleet was replenished waslongago(intheeighties),exacerbatedtheproblemoftheobviouslackofatechnicalfleetforSWcollectioninArme-nia.ApreliminarybaselinestudyonservicedeliveryhadshownthatthemajorityofcitiesconsideredtheproblemofSWmanagementoneoftheirhighestpriorities.Outof40cities,33consideredthatSWmanagementandthecurrentequipmentfleetisanareathatshouldbedevelopedandsubstantiallyimproved,and,therefore,theyrateditasthehighestpriorityamongotherservices[2].

TheUSAID-fundedLGP3program,implementedbyRTI,es-tablishedco-financingprojectsforseveralcitiesinArme-nia,aimedatimprovingservicedelivery.Eachpartnercityprovided20%matchingfundstoprocurespecializedgar-bagetrucksthatareeitherrear-orside-loadinghydraulic

M.Vanoyan,A.Varosyan,A.Petrossian SolidwasteManagementinArmeniancities

16 TaSiMa15

15.TagungSiedlungsabfallwirtschaftMagdeburg AbfallzwischenMarktundUmweltschutz

compactortruckswithamechanical-orhand-loadingsy-stem.Asaresult,28citieshavenowobtained29garbagetrucksofvarioustypes.TruckprocurementwasorganizedwithLGP3contributing80%ofthetruckcost.Inaddition,fourcommunitiesobtainedutilitytrucksforstreetcleaning/sweeping[3].Table1,below,providesdataonthetypesoftruckspurchased.

Table1: TypesandNumberofTrucksObtainedandDeliveredthroughtheCo-financingProject

TypeofgarbagetrucksonthechassisofZIL Quantity

Rearmechanical-andhand-loading(MKZ10) 4

Sidemechanical-loading(KO449-10) 19

Rearhand-loading(MKZ) 6

Totalnumberofgarbagetrucks 29

Utilitytrucksforstreetcleaning(MDK) 4

Totalnumberoftrucks 33

Note:ZIListhemanufacturerofspecializedMKZ,KO,andMDKtrucks.

3.2 PerformanceManagementPlan/StrategyinCommunities

As mentioned prior, there was an acute need to acquiretrucks for SW collection and disposal. However, the pro-blemofSWmanagement(collectionanddisposalofgarba-ge)wasnotlimitedbylackofequipmentalone.Suspenseofcentralizedfundingandstatesubsidiesfortheseservices,collapseofSWmanagementinstitutionsandinfrastructure,andlossofstandards/normsandhumanresourcesarejustapartial listof reasons for thiscontext.Allof thesepro-blemsresultedincities’SWmanagementremainingatacriticallypoor level.Toeffectivelyalleviate someof theseproblems,USAID’sLGP3projectactivities,implementedbyRTI,involvedthecoreelementsoftechnicalassistanceandtraining,alongwithdevelopmentofSWmanagementper-formanceplans/strategies.

Planningisessentialtokeeppacewiththeincreasingde-mandbythepopulationtokeeptheenvironmentclean[11].Becausemunicipalitiesandserviceprovidersareoftenbusywiththeirdailyroutineactivitiesanddonotgenerallyplaceattentiononmid-andlong-termdevelopment,itisallthemoreimportanttoconductstrategicplanninginviewofaprospective,comparativelylongdurationofdevelopment.

In addition, democracy means that the public should beinfluential in setting the strategic framework for publicservices and that the users of public services should beconsulted about their needs and wishes [8]. Waste ma-nagementtouchesontheinterestsofawiderangeofsta-keholders.Therefore,itisespeciallyessentialtoinvolvedif-ferentstakeholderstolinkthestrategicplanfirmlytorealityandtomobilizestakeholderinvolvement.Thedevelopment

processofsuchaperformancemanagementplancontainsseveralsteps,startingwithestablishingaWorkingGroup(WG)andaStandingCoordinationCommittee(SCC).Beforethefirstdevelopmentmeeting,themunicipalitiesareaskedtoestablishaWGandSCC[5].

InArmenia,aWGconsistsofwastemanagementpractiti-oners(staffofacompanyprovidingSWservices)andmu-nicipalcommunaldepartmentstaff(whoaremoredirectlyinvolvedwithSWcollectionanddisposal).OthermemberswhomaybeassignedtoaWGincludesanitary-epidemicregional specialists, NGO representatives, active citizens/council representatives, andother interestedparties.Ba-sically,aWGisagroupthatconsistsofprofessionalsandcitizens’representativesthatconductstheappropriatestra-tegic planning, and the SCC is intended as a group thatmonitors and coordinates the action plan resulting fromthestrategicplan.

ThemilestonesforanentireactivityofdevelopingaPerfor-manceManagementPlan/StrategyareillustratedinTable2,below.Thefirstmeetingofthisprocess(InceptionWork-shop)isorganizedtointroducescopesofworkforWGandSCCmembersandtosetascheduleforaseriesofmeetingsandtrainings.ThesecondWGmeetingaimstodefinethemostsignificantproblemsandthecurrentcontext;conductastrengths,weaknesses,opportunities,andthreats(SWOT)analysis;andconductananalysisofbaselinefeatures.Pro-blemsandthewholeactivityweredividedintofourmainperformanceareas(seeIntroduction).ToprioritizeexistingproblemsinSWmanagementincertaincities,membersoftheWGalsodiscussindicatorsforhowtheproperprioriti-zationofproblemsshouldbecarriedout.

Usually,WGsincitiesareofferedasetofcriteria,andtheymayselectcriteriafromthesuggestedlistoraddnewonesiftheywish.Themosttypicalcriteriaselectedbycitiesin-clude(1)abudgetassessmentofproblems(i.e.,budgetes-timationofprospectiveprojectactivityaimedtosolvespe-cificproblems),(2)thehealthandenvironmentalimpactofproblemsolutions,(3)theextentofpublicassistance,and(4)thenumberofpotentialbeneficiaries(seeTable3).

Normally,dependingonthespecificsofacity,aWGmightgiveadifferentpreferenceforindicators,asmentionedinthetable.Afterdefinitionoftheweight(multiplier)ofeachindicatorbythemethodologythatiswelldescribedinseve-ralpublications[4,5],aWGproceedswithdefiningscoresof projects/problem solutions to allow further prioritiza-tion.Thescoresaredeterminedbymultiplyingtheweightofthecertainindicator(alreadydecidedbythegroup)bytheunit,whichisdefinedbyeachWGmemberindividually.Thefinalcalculationoftheaverageoftotalscoreswillpointouttherateofprioritization.Theprioritizationofprojectsisveryimportant,especiallyinthecontextoflimitedfinancialresources.

17TaSiMa15

Bonu

s Tr

acks

Table2: InitialActivitieswithWGandSCCMemberstoDevelopaSolidWaste(SW)ManagementStrategy

N/N ActivityDescription Participants1 InitialmeetingwiththeCommitteeandWorkingGroup(WG)tobrieflyintroducethe

projectandtheactivitiesCommitteeandWG

2 ParticipatorydetectionofexistingSWproblemsinthecityinfourmajorareas:1.LegalframeworkandservicemanagementforSWcollection;2.SWcollectionanddisposal;3.Financialsustainabilityoftheserviceprovision;4.Publicawarenessandparticipation.

WG

3 Financialanalysisofprojectssuggestedasasolutiontothementionedproblems(bud-getassessmentofprojects).DEFINITIONOFCRITERIA1………2……….3………4………….

WG/ServiceProvider

4 Selectionofproblems’prioritizingcriteria,settingweightingandscoringsystem WG5 DefinitionofstrategicgoalsforeachproblemareaanddefinitionofSWstrategyvision WG6 Meetingsoncustomerawarenessandparticipation,andintroductionofdataanalysis

ofphonesurveysCommitteeandWG

7 Trainingonestimating:1.theunitcostforgarbagecollection,transportation,andpositioning2.theservicedeliverypayments,

ServiceProvider

8 Developmentandpresentationofthestrategicplan CommitteeandWG9 Approvalofthestrategicplanbythelocalcouncil Councilmeetingwith

CommitteeandWGparticipation

OtherActivitiesCarriedOutbyLGP3/RTIa Installationandtrainingone-systemofphone-basedpublicopinionsurveyb Conductingphone-basedsurveysof400citizensaboutthequalityofgarbageremovalserviceandcitizenreadi-

nesstopayfortheservicec Installationandtrainingonsoftware,enablingpropertrackingrecordofservicefeecollectionreceiptsd Deliveryof30,000copiesofdoublereceipts


Table3: IndicatorsforProjectPrioritization*

AssessmentIndicator Unit WeightIndicator:Budgetestimationofproposedsolution<$1000 4

A$1000-$5000 3$5000-$10000 2>$10000 1Indicator:HealthandenvironmentalimpactNo 1

BLow 2Fair 3High 4Indicator:Numberofbeneficiaries<25% 1

C25%-50% 250%-75% 375%-100% 4Indicator:PublicsupportNo 1

DLow 2Fair 3High 4

*Prioritizationrate=unitxweight

Eachprojectissupposedtosolveacertainproblemorpro-blems.Allprojectsaregroupedintofourmainareas,andthestructureofgoalsfortheseareasandthepropervisionofthestrategyaredefinedbytheWG,withassistancefromRTI’sfacilitators.Ageneralstructureandthecontentforvi-sion,goals,andobjectivesarepresentedbelow(seeFigure1).After formulationof thevision,performanceareasaredetermined,eachwithspecificgoals.Eachgoalinvolvesacertainnumberofprojects/solutions,andeachprojecthasitsownobjective.Thelatterisformulatedaccordingtotheindividualproblemsraised;therefore,theseobjectivesareuniqueandmorespecific.TheWGwillalsoprovideobjectiveresults.Theobjectivesaregroupedbyperformanceareas,andeachofthempre-sentsaseparatestrategicgoal(seeFigure1).Thus,inclu-dedinthestrategyareasetofprojects—anactionplan—tobe implementedduring the specifiedyears.This strategymighthelpcitiesnotonlytosolveproblemsinaplannedway,butitcanalsobeusedtoplanandcontrolactivities.

18 TaSiMa15


Basedonobjectivesinthestrategy,anactionplanwasde-velopedthatincludesseveralprojectstobeimplemented.Basedonprioritizationandtakingthefeasibilityofimple-mentationintoaccount,theprojectsarethengroupedintocurrent,short-term,andlong-termprojects.

3.3 DynamicsofContextChangesofSWPerfor-manceManagementinArmenianCities

Therewasanacuteneedtoevaluateprojectimpact,whichincludesbotheffectivenessoftruckoperationandperfor-mancemanagement,ingeneral.Toassesschangesinci-ties, first a baseline study related to service delivery/SWmanagementwasconducted,andsecond,someindicatorswere selected, through which progress, if any, could bemeasuredandevaluated.Thoseindicatorsarethenumberof servedpopulation (coverage), thenumberof contractssignedbetweencustomersandserviceproviders,revenuesversus expenses/breakeven, and citizen satisfaction withservices(seeTable4).

To evaluate the current context (provision of a baselinestudy), a questionnaire was developed, through whichthe quality and quantity of service provision was stated.

Figure1. SolidWasteManagementStrategicVision,Goals,andObjectives

Also,inordertoassesstheleveloftreatmentofclientsandserviceusers, abaseline surveyon customer satisfactionwas provided through the automated phone survey spe-cialsoftware.Ineachcity,400respondentswereasked10questionstoindicateboththequalityandquantityof theservice, and thewillingness of customers topay for ser-vices. To reach financial sustainability, the public serviceofSWmanagementshouldbebusinesslike,whichmeansthatserviceusersshouldbeservedbytheserviceproviderasa“customer.”

Duringthetransitionperiod(fromcentralizedprovisionofservices toa systemofhavingcontrolovera local,morelimitedarea),acultureofnon-paymentfortheseservicesbecameestablished,resultingin,amongotherthings,poorqualityof servicesand insufficientefforts toenforceuserfeecollections.InArmenia,lowratesoffeecollectionrelatenotonlytohousingmaintenance[12],butalsotootherser-vices.Inturn,the“non-payment”offeeslimitstheserviceproviderintreatingcustomersproperly.Thus,SWmanage-ment,withthisviciouscyclebackground,becomesoneoftheproblemservicesthatischronicallysufferingfromlackofmoneyandhas remainedatapoor levelofquality inArmeniasincethebeginningofthenineties.

Figure2.DistributionofLGP3partnercitiesbypopulationsize

19TaSiMa15

Bonu

s Tr

acks

To evaluate the implementation of the Performance Ma-nagementPlan,LGP3/RTIstaffsetthefollowingindicators(see Table 4) to assess the performance of each city. Alldatacollectedduringthebaselinestudy,aswellasduringthefollowup,aredividedintotwoareas:(1)datacollectedfromapartmentbuildingsand(2)datacollectedfrompri-vatehouses.

4 ServiceProviders

BeforeArmenia’sindependencefromtheSovietUnionandin the early years after independence, the state housingstockandutilities—water,sewerage,SW,landscaping,andcare for green areas—were managed, maintained, andrepairedby theofficial statehousing–communalmainte-nanceorganizations,called“ZHEKs”inArmenia.Respon-sibility formaintenanceof thehousingstockandutilitieswas transferred to local governments under GovernmentDecrees42,51,and116of1997,and“ZHEKs”wereconver-tedintojointstockenterprisesandincorporatedwithinlo-calgovernmentstructures.Later,mostoftheseenterpriseswereprivatized[9].

Table4: PerformanceIndicators

Performanceindicators Definitionofindicatorsandmeasuringunit

1.Relativenumberofpopulationserved(coverage)

Definition:SWmanagementcoversmoredistrictsandaccordinglymoresegmentsofpopulationareservedUnit:Ratioofgeneralandservedpopulation,in%

2.QuantityofSWactuallycollectedandremovedtolandfillvs.SWproduced

Definition:IncreaseofthepartofproducedSWthatiscollectedandremovedtolandfillUnit:RatioofSWquantityactuallycollectedandremovedtolandfilltoSWquantityproducedinurbansitesandsubjecttoremovingtothelandfill,in%

3.FrequencyofSWcollectionandremoval(frequency)

1)ApartmentBuildings Definition:FrequencyofemptyingthegarbagebinsandremovingtolandfillperunitperiodoftimeinapartmentbuildingsUnit:Times/day

2)Privatehouses Definition:FrequencyofemptyingthegarbagebinsandremovingtolandfillperunitperiodoftimeinprivatehousesUnit:Times/day

4.Fillingvolumeofgarbagebinsatapart-mentbuildings(abellmethodisusedforprivatehouses)

Definition:IncreaseoffillingvolumesorquantitiesofgarbagecansUnit:RatioofvolumeofgarbagecanstoSWquantityproduced,in%

5.Relativegrowthofcollectionofpaymentsforservice

Definition:IncreaseofpaymentcollectionsUnit:Ratioofratesbetweenfeesactuallycollectedandpotential(whileservingalloverthecommunity)

6.Breakeven(revenuesvs.expenses) Definition:DecreaseofunitcostofserviceandincreaseofrevenuesUnit:Ratioofgeneralexpensesfordeliveryofservicetorevenuesrecei-vedfrompaymentsandsaleofrecyclableSW,in%

7.Customersatisfactionforservicedelivery Definition:Pursuanttoconductedsurveys,increaseofthebeneficiarieswhoarepleasedwiththelevelofdeliveredserviceUnit:Ratioofsatisfiedbeneficiarieswithinthesurveytototalnumberofbeneficiaries,in%


CurrentlyinArmenia,enterprisesinvolvedinSWcollectionanddisposalareof two types: (1) commercial (for-profit)organizations and (2) noncommercial (not-for-profit) or-ganizations.Commercialorganizationsareusuallyopenorclosed joint stock companies, limited liability companies,andalso individualentrepreneurs.Thecommercialorga-nizationscanbeofmixedownership,andthemunicipalitycanhaveashareandbeoneoftheshareholders.Noncom-mercial organizations carrying out the duties of SW ma-nagementincitiesarealsoofdifferenttypes:CommunityNoncommercial Organizations (CNCO), Budget Organiza-tions(BO),CondominiumAssociations,andothers.

Noncommercialserviceprovidersaremostlyownedbymu-nicipalities(exceptinthosecaseswhentheserviceisprovi-dedbycondominiumassociations)andarepublicorgani-zations.Commercialorganizationsareclassifiedintothreetypesoforganizations:(1)publicorganizations—closedjointstockcompanies(CJSCs)(orrarelylimitedliabilitycompa-nies [LLCs]) that are 100% owned by municipalities andNGOs(insomecases thoseestablishingLLCs); (2)privateorganizations—LLCs100%ownedbyprivateentitiesandin-dividualentrepreneurs;and(3)privateorganizations—open

20 TaSiMa15


jointstockcompanies(OJSCs),whereamunicipalityownsashareof18–34%ofthetotalpackage.Thus, the public organizations are both commercial andnoncommercial(withnoncommercialorganizationsbeingpublicwithoutexception),whileprivateorganizationsaresolelycommercial.

Since2006,municipalitieshavesetouttochangethesta-tusofcompaniesprovidingSWcollectionanddisposalser-vices.ManymunicipalitiesareinitiatingtheestablishmentofSWpubliccompanies,thusincreasingthepublicsector’sshareoftheSWmarket.Figure3showstheincreaseinthenumberofpubliccompaniesattheexpenseofthenumberofprivateones.This trendcanbeexplainedbyseveralreasons.Oneverysignificantreasonis thatprivatecompanieshavenotup-graded theirequipmentfleetsince the lateeighties (sin-ce the start of privatization of state/community-ownedcommunal enterprises). Private companiesare still usingtechnology and equipment more than 20 years old. The

equipment is obsolete, and maintenance is very expen-siveanddifficult.Alargepercentageofequipmentisoutoforderandnotbeingusedanymore.Whenmunicipali-tiesannouncetenderstoprovideservicesforSWcollectionanddisposal,privatecompaniesoftendonothavethespe-cializedtrucksnecessarytofulfillthecontracts.

ProvisionofSWservicesisnowamandatoryfunctionforlocal governments. Because private companies are notproperlycarryingoutthebusinessofsolidwastemanage-ment,municipalitieswouldliketoshiftthisbusinesstopu-bliccompanies.Thisshiftfromprivatetopublicenterpriseshasalreadyhappenedinmanycities.AnothermotivationtoshiftSWservicesfromprivateenterprisestopubliccom-panies is thatnonprofitorganizationsdonotpay incometaxes.Thismeansthattheycanpossiblychargelessforthesameservice,or,morerealistically, theycanbeoperatedmoreprofitably,becauseexpense-to-revenueratioswillbelower.Comparingdifferencesbetweenservicesorganizedbypu-blic and private enterprises is very interesting. Figure 4shows the results of an analysis based on data from 30partner cities, where we compared public and privateenterprises,usingadministrativecostsasadeterminant.The data reveal that the public enterprises are spendingmoremoneyonadministrativeissues.Figure4showsthaton average, the ratio of administrative cost to the totalexpensesofpublicenterprises ishigher than thatofpri-vate enterprises, although in many cases, administrativeexpensesare veryhigh (more than 70%)even inprivateenterprises.

InFigure4,themeansofthetwogroupsaredifferent.Toensurethatthisdifferenceisstatisticallysignificant,anin-dependentsamplesTtesthasbeenprovidedforequalityofmeans.Anullhypothesiswillbethatthemeanofadmini-

Figure3: PublicandPrivateCompanies/SWServiceProviders

Figure4: ShareofAdministrativeCostsinPublicandPrivateEnterprises

21TaSiMa15

Bonu

s Tr

acks


Figure5: EstimationoftheCostofCollectionandDisposalforOneCubicMeterofSolidWaste

strativeexpensesofpublicenterprisesis thesameasthemeanofthatofprivateenterprises.Inotherwords,thereisnodifferencebetweenaverageadministrativeexpensesforpublicenterprisesandthoseforprivateones.Consequent-ly,thesetwogroups—bothprivateandpublicenterprises—arepartofthesameassembly.

Wecanformulatethisinthefollowingway:H0:μ1=μ2where

H0= thenullhypothesisμ1= themeanofadministrativeexpensesofpublic

enterprisesμ2= themeanofadministrativeexpensesofprivate

enterprises

AccordingtothetestingprovidedbytheStatisticalPackagefortheSocialSciences(SPSS),nullhypothesisisrejectedatthelevelof10%ofsignificance.Themeanofadministrativeexpenses for private enterprises significantly differs fromthe mean of administrative expenses for public ones, sowecanstatethatprivateenterprisesspendlessmoneyonadministrativeissuesthanpubliconesdo.For all SW companies in the LGP3 project cities, we cal-culatedtheunitcostofSWcollectionanddisposalservice(percapitaandpercubicmeter).(Weadoptedthevolumeofgarbage [incubicmeters]asourgarbageunit.)Whilecalculatinggarbageunitservicecost,severalfactorswereconsidered (e.g., oil and lubricant consumption, admini-strativeexpenses,salaries,andtaxes).Figure5showstheestimatedcostofservicespercubicmeterofgarbagetakingthesefactorsintoaccount.Visually,theaverageestimatedcostpercubicmeterdisplayedforpublicenterprisesdoesnotdiffermuchfromtheestimatedcostforprivateones.

WeappliedthesameTtesttounitcostaswasappliedtoadministrativecosts.ThetestingprovidedbySPSS,nullhy-pothesis of equality of means of the two groups of “pu-blic”and“private,” isnot rejectedat the levelof 10%ofsignificance. The mean of expenses disbursed by privateenterprisesforonecubicmeterofgarbagecollectionanddisposalservicedoesnotsignificantlydifferfromthemeanofexpensesdisbursedbypublicenterprisesforonecubicmeterofgarbage.Stateddifferently,thereisnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenthecostofSWcollectionanddisposalprovidedbyprivateandpublicorganizations.

4.1 NumberofPopulationServed(Coverage)

OneoftheimportantcharacteristicstoconsiderinSWser-viceisthecoveragearea,ornumberofpopulationserved.Inmanycities,theserviceprovider,regardlessofwhetheritisprivateorpublic,cannotorganizeservicetocoveralldistrictsofacity.Thereareseveralreasonsfornotcoveringalldistricts:

• Expensestoprovideserviceexceedtherevenues.Inremotedistrictsorforhousesoffthemainstreets,ser-viceprovidershavedifficultyarranging thegarbagepick-up.Customersinthesehousesordistrictsarescattered,sopopulationdensityis lowerthaninareaswithapartmentbuildings.Thismeansthatfewerpeoplearepaying,whileexpensesforthecollectionarehigheroratleastsimilartotheexpensesintheareaswithapartmentbuildings.

• Accessdifficulties.Some districts are physically hard to reach. Streets arenarrowandsloping,unpavedandruined;andhousesaredifficulttoaccess.Again,thoseareasusuallyhaveprivatehousesratherthanapartmentbuildings.

22 TaSiMa15


• NotInMyBackyard(NIMBY).In districts where service is difficult to organize, one ofthesolutionsofferedis to installgarbagebins thatallowa service provider to empty the bins every two or threedaysratherthaneveryday(dependingonthenumberofbins installed and amount of garbage produced). Unfor-tunately, this solutionoftenengendersaNIMBYattitude.Noonewantsthesetypesofbinsinhis/hervicinity,crea-tingtheso-calledNIMBYsyndrome.Thissyndromeiswi-despreadaround theworld [13]. Consequently, service inthesedistrictsremainspoor,orserviceisnotprovidedatall.Usually,thesedistrictshaveprivatehouses.Installationofgarbagebinsiseasierinapartmentbuildings,andtheNIMBYsyndromedoesnotoccur,becausethereareusuallyplacestoinstallgarbagebinsthatareagreeabletoallre-sidents.

Thecomparisonofthefollow-upandbaselinesurveyssho-wed thatmanypositivechangesoccurredduring the im-plementation period of SW Performance Management inArmenia(seeFigure6).TherehasbeenaconsiderableincreaseincoverageduringtheimplementationofthePerformanceManagementPlan.Thebaselinedataandanalysisof24citiesshowedthatinsomecitiestherewerenoservicesatallinthedistrictswithprivatehouses.Thefollow-upsurveys,however,showthatinamajorityofcities,theserviceinthedistrictswithprivatehouses has been started (established), and consequent-ly,thecoveragehasincreased.Atpresent,theincreaseinpopulationservedinprivatehousesis30%,inapartmentbuildingstheincreaseis11%,andtheincreaseinservicetolegalentitiesisaround22%.For apartment buildings and private houses, the changeisstatisticallysignificant(thenullhypothesisofequalityofmeansisrejectedat the levelof5%ofsignificance).Thedata from thebaseline studies (2006) and the follow-upsurveys (2009) show a statistically significant differencebetweentheirrespectivemeans.

4.2 NumberofContractsSignedbetweentheServiceProviderandCustomers

One of the main indicators of SW service quality is thenumberofcontractssignedbetweenserviceprovidersandcustomers(residentsorlegalentities).Theactualcontractsoffer technical details of the quality of services, but thenumberofcontractssignedbetweenserviceprovidersandcustomers,whileexpressingthequantityofservices,alsoindicatesanincreaseoftrustbycustomers.Anon-paymentcycleusuallystartswithresidentsrefusingto sign contracts for SW collection and disposal. TheSWcollectionserviceisspecificanddiffersfromotherservices(e.g.,electricity,gas,andwatersupply).Itisverydifficulttoestablishcontroloverresidents.Ifacustomerdoesnotwant to pay for his/herwater supply, for example, thereisleverage—cutoffthenon-payer’swaterserviceuntilhe/shepays.ThesameleveragecannotbeappliedtoSWcoll-ection.Technically, it is impossible todiscontinue serviceonlyforthosecustomerswhoarereluctanttopay,becausetheserviceisfundamentallyofferedtothecommunityasawhole.Residentswhorefusetosignacontractmaychoosetodumptheirgarbageillegally,buttheresidentswhodosignacontractstillneedtheservice.Startingin2008,LGP3/RTIstaffdevelopeda template forcontracts between service providers and customers/re-sidents. LGP3 isworking consistentlywith cities to incre-asethenumberofcontractsontheprinciplethat“servicethroughcontractsshouldbemandatory.”Thecomparisonoffollow-upandbaselinesurveysforcon-tractsisindicatedinFigure7below.The increase in the number of contracts signed with re-sidentslivinginapartmentbuildingsis15%;theincreaseincontractsforprivatehousesis70%;andtheincreaseincontractssignedwithlegalentitiesisaround30%.For apartment buildings and private houses, the changeisstatisticallysignificant(thenullhypothesisofequalityofmeans is rejected at the level of 10% of significance forapartmentbuildingsand5%forprivatehouses).Thereisastatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenthemeansofthebaselinestudyandfollow-upsurvey—2006versus2009—inregardtonumberofcontractssigned.

Figure6: CoverageofSolidWasteCollectionandDisposal Figure7: NumberofContractsSignedbetweenServiceProvidersandCustomers

23TaSiMa15

Bonu

s Tr

acks

4.3 RevenuesandExpenses

SWcollectionanddisposal inArmenia isbeingprovidedbyprivateorpublicenterprises (the latterestablishedbymunicipalities).Bothtypesofenterprisesareinterestedincollectinguser fees,because theyare theprinciplesour-ceof income.Whileprivateorganizations (LLC,CJSC,andOJSC)areinterestedingainingprofitfromthebusinessofSWcollectionanddisposal,publicorganizationsaremoreinterestedinreachingbreakeven.LGP3/RTIisworkingwithpartnercitiestoanalyzerevenueandexpensesdata.

Reachingbreakevenisbecomingcrucialforpublicenterpri-ses,becauseifincomedoesnotcovertheexpensesincur-redbythesetypesoforganizations,themunicipalbudgetisexpectedtocovertherestoftheexpenses.Inotherwords,in thecaseofuser feesnotbeingpaidorbeingpartiallypaid,theenterpriseprovidingtheservicecannotcovertheexpensesandmust“rely”onthepublicmunicipalbudget.Thismeanswaitinguntilthemunicipalbudgetcoversex-pensestopaysalariesandbuylubricants,fuel,andequip-ment.AlthoughSWcollectionanddisposalisaservicethat


shouldbebusinesslike,withexpensesthatshouldbecove-redbyclients/customersorcitizenswhoreceivetheservice,thefinalburdenof coveringexpensesactually fallsuponthemunicipalbudget.Private service providers are more inclined to strive forbreakeventhanpublicones.Aswementionedabove,theyspend less on administrative issues, which are a majorpartoftotalexpenses.Theanalysisofrevenuesversusex-pensesshowsthatprivateenterprisesaremoresuccessfulingettingclosertothebreakevenpoint.Itissurprisingthatsomeprivateenterprisesstillsurvive,havinganegativeba-lancewithregardtorevenuesversusexpenses(thelatterprevails).However,inthemajorityofcases,SWcollectionserviceisprovidedalongwithstreetcleaning,andorgani-zationsthathaveanegativebalanceredirectSWcollectionexpenses and list them as city street cleaning expenses,whicharelargelyfundedbythemunicipalbudget.Table5showsthatin2009adeficitoccurredmoreoftenforpublicserviceprovidersthanforprivateones(11and3,re-spectively).Atthesametime,moreprivatecompaniesthanpublic ones worked with surplus (6 and 1, respectively).With regard tobreakeven,privateserviceprovidersseembebetteroffthanpublicones.

4.4 ProspectiveFinancialSustainability

Theabovementionednegativebalanceofrevenuesversusexpenses,eitherforpublicorprivateenterprises,couldbechangedtoapositiveoneifmunicipalitiesandcompanieswouldviewSWmanagementnotonlyasacommitmenttofulfill(amandatorypublicservice),butalsoasarealandpurerevenue-generatingtool,whichwouldentailserviceexpansion (quantity) and increase in quality. To increaseboth quantity and quality of service, SW service consoli-dation in at least two or more communities has severaladvantages.

Figure8: Revenues,Expenses,andBreakevenforTwoYearsinPartnerCities

Table5: Deficit,Breakeven,andSurplusforPublicandPri-vateServiceProvidersin2009*

ServicePro-viderOwner-shipType

2009

Deficit Breakeven Surplus Total

Public 11 1 1 13Private 3 2 6 11Total 14 3 7 24

*Theterms“deficit,”“breakeven,”and“surplus”aredefinedasthediffe-rencebetweenrevenuesandexpenses.Anegativebalanceisadeficit,apositiveisasurplus,andabreakevenisreachedwheneverrevenuesandexpensesareequal.

24 TaSiMa15


SomeofthelocalgovernmentsinArmeniawithskilledandprofessionalstaffandsufficientfinancialmeanstodeliverSWremovalservicetocustomerscouldgenerateincomebyorganizingSWremovalserviceinunderservedandweakermunicipalities or villages, through the unification of SWmanagement.Somemunicipalitiesandvillages(especiallythehundredsof smalleroneswithpopulationsofa fewhundredpeo-ple) have extremely scarce financial resources to fulfilltheirmandatoryfunctions;theyareunderstaffedandhaveaweakcapacity.UnifyingSWmanagementinthoseweakcommunitieswouldbeanimportantstep.

The prevalence of weak municipalities suggests that amovetocreateconsolidatedSWservicemanagementandestablishInter-CommunityUnionswillbemorethanjusti-fiedintheArmeniancontext.Besidesgeneratingincome,itwillleadtootherpositiveenvironmentaloutcomes:

• Establishmentofcentralized(enlarged)regionalland-fills,causinglessenvironmentaldamage,versusseve-ralseparate,smalllandfillsscatteredoveraregion.

• EstablishmentofasolidbaseforSWrecyclingincities,citizenparticipationinrecycling,andasaconsequence,ahabitofpurposefulcitizenengagement.

• Public-private partnerships (PPPs) for the recyclingbusiness,whichwillleadtothereductionofSWpro-ductionincities.

LGP3 conducted a preliminary study and pilot survey tolearnaboutcitizenattitudesaboutSWseparationandre-cyclinginArmenia.Sourcereductionthroughseparationofgarbage(SWseparation,providedbyresidents,attheplacewheregarbageisproducedandbeforeitsdisposaltoland-fills)willbeacrucialbehaviorchangeforcitizensandwillsetanewlevelofqualityintheSWmanagementbusiness.However, are citizens psychologically ready to providehouseholdwasteseparationandsourcereductioninArme-nia?AsurveyconductedinVanadzor(apopulationofover100,000)revealedpositiveoverallresults.Table6summa-rizestheanswerstooneoftheninequestionscontainedinthesurvey.

Table6. AreYouReadytoRemoveGarbageafterSeparationifFavourableConditionsAreCreated?

Yes No Difficult/Refusetoanswer98% 1.2% 0.8%

TheresultsshownaboveindicatethatrecyclinginArmeniaisdemanddriven.

Moreover,theseasonalmeasurementsinfiveselectedpilotcitiesinArmenia(organizedandconductedbyMagdeburgUniversity,Germany,DepartmentofMechanicalEnginee-ring,InstituteofLogisticsandMaterialHandlingSystems,undertheguidanceofDr.HartwigHaase)showapotentialto reducegarbageproductionofup to 70%,onaverage.This creates a context that recycling could also prospec-

tivelybebusinessdriven,andisconfirmedbysurveyscon-ductedbyLGP3ofsomeprivatefirmsstartingtoworkonrecyclinginArmenia.Theseresultsleadustostatethatthereshouldnotbeseri-ousobstaclestoincorporationoftherecyclingcomponentinSW collectionanddisposal service inArmenia, nor toinvolvementofcitizensinthiscollaboration.

4.5 CustomerSatisfactionforServiceDelivery

(Comparisonof resultsof thecitizen-satisfactionbaselinestudyandfollow-upphonesurveysin25cities)

Thephonesurveyoncitizensatisfaction forSWmanage-ment in cities was conducted using the special software“CitizenOpinionPolling,”whichisanautomatedinforma-tionsystemdevelopedbytheauthorEminZavaryan(seeforexample, http://www.eurasia.org/programs/grantSearch.aspx)andinstalledinLGP3partnercitiesbyRTI.Thesurveycontainstenquestions,askedofcitizenschosenbyrandom,automatedselection.Ofthetenquestionsforanalysis,twoquestionsindicatequalityofservices.Thefirstofthesetwosurveyquestionstobeanalyzedis,“HowdoyourateSWmanagement(SWM)inyourstreet/buildingingeneral?”Itisadirectquestion,andcitizenshavethechancetoassessthecontextofthequalityofgarbagemanagementintheircity.Thesecondquestionforanalysisis,“HowoftenistheSWdisposalusuallycarriedoutinyourstreet/building?”Thisquestion directly shows the frequency of garbage pickupandalso relates to thequalityof servicesprovided inci-ties.Ineachsurvey,approximately400respondentswerequestioned.LGP3 program staff wanted to ascertain if the quality ofserviceshadchanged(increased)duringprograminvolve-ment,andiftheprogram-backedcitiesnowhavequalifiedservices.Morespecifically,itwasworthwhiletofollowuponcitizensatisfactionwithSWmanagementservices,tra-ckingchanges (ifany)beforecitiesgot specialized trucksfor SW collection and disposal and technical assistance.Accordingly, the surveyswerenamedfirst (baseline)andsecond(follow-up)survey.

How Do You Rate SWM in Your Street/Building in General?

Answers to thequestion “Howdoyou rateSWM inyourstreet/building in general?” were aggregated by respon-dentslivinginapartmentbuildingsandthoselivinginpri-vatehouses.ThisdivisionisprovidedbecauseadifferentapproachisappliedtoSWcollectionserviceinthesetwocategories,andinmostcases,thequalityofservicesalsodifferscrucially.Theanswerswereratedonthefollowingscale:

1. atleastgood2. satisfactory3. unsatisfactory4. itisdifficulttoanswer

25TaSiMa15

Bonu

s Tr

acks

Inallcities,weseeacertaindecreasein“unsatisfactory”responses during the follow-up survey. This decrease isespeciallynotablein theresponsesofprivatehouseresi-dents—50%onaverage(seeFigure9summarizingthetwosurveys).Thenumberofthosepeoplewhoareunsatisfiedwiththeserviceisreducedbymorethanhalf.These findings substantiate the fact that LGP3 made po-sitivechangesinSWcollectionservice,andthecontextofservice for private houses has significantly changed andimproved.Accordingly,answersfromprivatehouseownersof“atleastgood”increasedby12%.However,theincreasein theassessment“at leastgood” ismorenotable in theanswersofapartmentbuildingdwellers—21%onaverage.


Figure9: SummaryofSurveysin25CitiesontheQuestion“HowDoYouRateSWMinYourStreet/BuildinginGeneral?”(QualityofSWCollectionandDisposal)

Note:AB=apartmentbuildingresidents,PH=privatehouseresidents


Figure10: SummaryofSurveysin25CitiesontheQuestion,“HowOftenIstheSWDisposalUsuallyCarriedOutinYourStreet/Buil-ding?”(FrequencyofSWPickupfromBins)

Thus,thefollow-upsurveyin25citieswhereLGP3provi-dedassistancetomunicipalitiesonSWMindicatesanota-ble shift from answers of “unsatisfactory” and “satisfac-tory” towardanswersof “at leastgood” inboth typesofdistricts—apartmentbuildingsandprivatehouses.A similar trend is inplacewithquestionsexpressing thefrequencyofgarbagepickupindifferentdistrictsbyprivatehousesandapartmentbuildings.WecomparedabaselinesurveyprovidedintheinitialstageoftheLGP3activitytoafollow-upsurveystartedin2009.This trendcorroboratestheshiftinresultsintheresponsestothepreviousquestionof“qualityofservices.”

Figure10showstheincreaseinfrequencyofSWcollectionanddisposalincitiesandsummarizestheresultsofsurveysin25citiesonthefrequencyofgarbagepickup.Accordingtotheresponses,thedailypickupserviceincreasedforboth

26 TaSiMa15


privatehousesandapartmentbuildings.Theresponsesonfrequencyof“atleasttwotimesinaweek”increasedforbothapartmentbuildingsandprivatehouses,whilethere-sponse“not regularly” (whichincludesarangewith lessfrequency)decreasedinbothdistricts.Ofnote,theanswer“theserviceisnotprovidedatall”decreasedsubstantially(bymorethanhalf)inthedistrictswithprivatehouses.There isanotableshift fromresponsesof“service isnotprovided at all” and “is not provided regularly” towardresponsesof“atleasttwotimesinaweek”(mainly)and“daily” (to a lesser extent) for both apartment buildingsandprivatehouses.

4.6 WillingnesstoPay

It is evident that SW collection and removal service forapartmentbuildingsisconductedrelativelybetterthanthesameserviceforprivatehouses.Thisdifferenceinqualitystemsinpartfromthedifferenceincoverage—thenumberofpopulationservedishigherinapartmentbuildingsthanit isinprivatehouses(seeFigure6)—andisevidencedincitizens’ answers to questions about quality (apartmentbuilding residents are more satisfied than those in pri-vatehouses(seeFigure11).Accordingly,thewillingnesstopayforservicesishigherinapartmentbuildingsresidents(according to their responses insurveys).Thispropensitystartedwiththebaselinesurveyandcontinuedthroughthefollow-upsurveys.

Figure11: SummaryofSurveysin25CitiesontheQuestion,“DoYouPayforSWCollectionandDisposal?”


Basedontheresultsofthesurveys,wecanconcludethatcompared toprivatehouseresidents,apartmentbuildingcustomershaveahigherwillingnesstopayforSWservices,but the capability to pay is almost equal in both places.Localauthoritiesusuallyexplainthepoorrateofcustomerpaymentasbeingasocialconditionof theresidents.Weacceptthatthesocialconditionofresidentscanplayanim-portantrole incollectionof revenues,and that thepayershould first be capable of paying. However, according toresultsdiscussedinthepreviousparagraph,thequalityofservice ismore influential than social conditionswhen itcomestoawillingnesstopay.Thesocialconditionsofre-spondentslivinginprivatehousesandapartmentbuildingsareapproximatelythesame,butthewillingnesstopayisindirectproportiontothequalityofservices.Thisisalsotrueforotherservices[12].

27TaSiMa15

Bonu

s Tr

acks

5 Conclusions

• Technicalassistance/trainingprogramsandprojectsthatensureequipmentformunicipalserviceimprovementreinforce each other, and the best result is achievedwhenthosetwotypesofassistanceareprovidedtoge-ther.

• Aco-financingprocurementmechanismisgoodleve-rageforanon-biaseddefinitionofpriorityofservices.Itenablesmunicipalitiestobecomeaccustomedtoandreadyformoreadvancedborrowingmechanisms.

• In the development of a Performance ManagementStrategyonSWcollectionanddisposalservice,variousstakeholdersshouldbeinvolved,andcitizenrepresen-tationbeincluded.

• SWManagement service is much more efficient andtransparentwhenawrittencontractoragreementexistsbetweencustomersandserviceproviders.

• Privateenterprisesincurlessadministrativeexpensesthanpublicones.

• Themajorityofprivateenterprisessucceedinreachingbreakeven, and their revenues are higher than theirexpenses.Fewerpublicenterprisesthanprivateenter-priseswereabletoreachbreakeven.

• Thereisatendencytoconvertprivateenterprisesintopublicones.

• Thereisnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenunitcostsofserviceprovidedbypublicenterprisesandthoseprovidedbyprivateenterprises.Thatmeansthe-reisnodifferenceintheefficiencyofservicesprovidedbyeitherprivateorpublicenterprises.Thatmightbeonereasonforthepropensityofmunicipalitiestocon-verttheserviceprovidedbyprivateenterprisesintooneprovidedbypubliccompanies.

• ThereshouldbenoseriousobstaclestoincorporatingtherecyclingcomponentinSWcollectionanddisposalserviceinArmenia.TherecyclinginArmeniahasattrac-tiveprospects.

• Separationofthetwoservices—sanitarycleaningandSWcollectionanddisposal—mayleadtomoreefficient,client-orientedSWmanagement.Iftheseservicesarenotseparated,thereisachanceforenterprisestocoverexpendituresattheexpensesofthepublicbudget.

• Citizensatisfactionwasraisedduringtheperiodbet-weenourtwosurveys(uptofouryears’interval),andthecomparisonbetweenthebaselinesurveyandfollow-up surveys has shown positive change in quality ofservice,frequencyofpickup,andwillingnesstopay.

• Willingnesstopayisconnectedtoandindirectpropor-tiontoqualityofservices.

ListofReferences

1. Shaw,Anwar. Editor. PublicServices Delivery. PublicSectorGovernanceandAccountabilitySeries,TheWorldBank;2005.

2. RTI International.ArmeniaLocalGovernmentProgram–Phase3,BaselineReview.PreparedfortheU.S.Agen-cyforInternationalDevelopment,[cited2010August17].Availablefrom:http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADH283.pdf;Sept.2006.

3. RTI.org[Internet]ResearchTrianglePark:RTIInternatio-nal,ServiceImprovementforAllArmenians.[cited2010August 17]. Available from: http://www.rti.org/page.cfm?objectid=B270734F-0E10-752C-1AD79A66DF74F545.

4. TheWorldBank.StrategicPlanningGuideforMunicipalSolidWasteManagement.[cited2010August17].Availa-ble from:http://www.worldbank.org/urban/solid_wm/erm/Edited%20Word%20Files/matrix%20page1.PDF.

5. Kobus,Dariusz.PracticalGuidebookonStrategicPlanninginMunicipalWasteManagement.TheWorldBank;2003.

6. TheUrbanInstitute.MunicipalWasteManagementPro-gramfortheCityofIjevan.LGPPhase2;2002.

7. Gordon,GeraldL.StrategicPlanningforLocalGovern-ment.InternationalCity/CountyManagementAssociation(ICMA),SecondEdition,2002.

8. Joyce,Paul.StrategicManagementforthePublicServices.OpenUniversityPress,Buckingham/Philadelphia,1999.

9. Anlian, Steven and Vanian, Irina. An Overview ofArmenia’sReforms:HousingandUrbanDevelopmentPolicy,1989–1995.1996.

10.TheWorldBank,HousingPolicyinArmenia:Condomi-niumActivity. (Paper04/10prepared forWorldBank-fundedconferenceorganizedbytheArmenianInternati-onalPolicyResearchGroup[AIPRG]).Washington,DC,2004, [cited2010August 17]Availableonhttp://www.aiprg.net/UserFiles/File/wp/jan2004/10.pdf

11.Hatry,HarryP.,PhilipS.Schaenman,DonaldM.Fisk,JohnR.Hall,Jr.,LouiseSnyder.HowEffectiveAreYourCom-munityServices?ProceduresforPerformanceMeasure-ment.3rdedition.ICMA,Washington,DC,2006.

12.Vanoyan,Mais,andDesilets,Brien.Featuresofactivityof condominiums in Armenia. Economic Policy andPovertyPeriodical,2003:No.5,pp.15-18. [cited2010August 17] Available at: http://www.edrc.am/user_files/40.pdf.

13.Cointreau-Levine,Sandra.PrivateSectorParticipationinMunicipalSolidWasteServicesinDevelopingCoun-tries.Vol.1:TheFormalSectorSeries.UrbanManage-mentProgram,1994.


Documents

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ARMENIAN CITIES … Varosyan, Armine Petrossian ADRESS Bonus Tracks. 14 TaSiMa 15. TaSiMa 15 15 Bonus Tracks 1 Acknowledgements RTI International is grateful