DISPOSABLE CITIES GARBAGE, GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN URBAN AFRICA explores the United Nations Sustainable Cities Program in Africa. This is done through analysis of the application of the U.N. S.C.P. in three case study cities Dar es Salaam, Zanzibar and Lusaka. Based in field work within these cities in relation to the management of solid waste, the text also examines other contributing documents that augment the U.N. S.C.P. program. The author contextualizes the cities in their historical aetiology and political evolution. There is background given to national donors and their agencies contributing to the S.C.P. with greater attention paid to Germany, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark. It is of interest to note both the socio-political observations (e.g. German colonial history, Swedish “cognitive imperialism” p.32) and the broader economic shifts towards a ‘neoliberal’ agenda. Four filters are applied when viewing the case studies, economics, politics, culture and environment. The paradigms operating within these filters are neoliberalism, good governance, the politics of cultural difference and sustainable development. The authors’ work is based in having lived, studied and researched for more than twenty years in Eastern and Southern African cities and approaches the topic area by way of “...it seemed to me inescapable that environmental problems like those stemming from inadequate solid waste management needed to be addressed.” (p.139). A clear validation of an integrated approach to his observations might anecdotally be drawn from the author’s own translation of a popular musician-Dr. Remmy Ongala’s lyrics within the text (p.49). If a hierarchical apex were given to environment as the impetus for the investigation within the text, a similar ‘top-spot’ might be granted to neoliberal thinking in the applications and outcomes of the existent works/programs. This is not to deny the importance of the other contributing influences (pre/post political ecologies, existing cultural factors), merely the acknowledgement of the scale of the neoliberal agenda and its ability to penetrate other spheres. The influence of neoliberalism across multiple spheres might be appreciated in the transition from Ujamaa (family-ness) to Ubinafsi (private-ness, selfishness) (Glossary xv) The movement towards neoliberal policy adjustment in African countries (and its permeation through society to the populace) is figured to have its genesis in modernization strategies thrust upon it by Developed Nations and International Financial Institutions. Global economic upheavals through the 1970s coupled with increasingly dysfunctional post colonial governmental practises (heavily centralist Soviet styled) produced a situation where International Financial Institutions imposed Structural Adjustment Programs with duress via aid programs set up to assist failing economies. Outward economic and free market practises where championed as a method of rejuvenating the economies/societies of some nations. Unfortunately one of many outcomes of this was corrosion of “the integrity of what were fragile nation-states” (Hoogvelt 1997, p.163) (p.6). The envisioned financial influx was not forthcoming to many African states thus heightening economic and employment issues. The withdrawal of the state from many spheres (including solid waste management) left a vacuum in the provision of many services. The impact of the arrival of this ethos was felt through to the level of “commodification of many aspects of everyday life” and “reshuffled ethnic and family relationships” (Rapley 2004, p.64; Kelsall 2004, p.70) (p.6). Good governance as a practise in conjunction with civil society could be seen through the evolution of multi-party political practises and also the empowerment of community organisations. The transition for states was from Government to Governance. Both these developments could again be seen through the lexicon of neoliberalism in the circumventing of single party state controlled nations/economies. This (envisioned) consultative, localised more ‘grass-roots’ or ‘bottom up’ methodology might lead to more pragmatic and ‘democratic’ outcomes for a given population. When coupled with previously mentioned issues expressed in ‘drying up’ of financial resources (from state to community) and exacerbation or causation of fractures to the society as a whole this was not an outcome hoped for or envisioned. In the situation where neoliberal doctrine precipitated state economic withdrawal and precipitated the flourishing of enterprises previously associated with the state, the state was still a beneficiary of this, both in direct gain (albeit minimised tax revenue) and indirect political association and ‘contribution’. Thus it often still bore significant influence upon ‘localized’ management and governance and perpetrated a ‘top down’ disposition in management, albeit in a different guise. In practise, it is often an ‘ex’-government administrator that goes on to occupy a position of some stature within a ‘privatized’ market. The practice differed from the objective, the outcome some distance from the ideal. The politics of cultural difference as previously touched upon can be viewed in social fracturing as affected by the ramifications of neoliberalism’s embrace. Further to this, some of the conceptual framework contained within the two aforementioned paradigms form the underpinning of the approach to culture. Danida-a vesicle of Danish aid, produced The Power of Culture (Danida 2002a). A drive from atop in a distant locale directs the practises of the bottom. The exacerbating of already existing exclusion and generation of more discrete groupings as pertaining to any particular ‘interest’ are almost intrinsically entwined within the operative paradigm. An ‘opening’ of any structure, society, etc. naturally dictates an influx of different elements or recognition of existing ones to have occurred. How these influxes are assimilated by the whole whilst maintaining some notion of autonomy or distinction is a question. This process will always bring some forms of friction. There exist many places for potential schism. Religious difference, class, economic status, gender, old/new, tradition/modernity and the very arena of politics itself are all within the realm of consideration. In the wake of reforms, Dar es Salaam went from being an object of attention for the Sustainable Cities Program to a place of interest for the Safer Cities Program. Of interest may be the differing position alluded to by Chenal in the lecture series Villes africaines: Introduction à la planification urbaine. where “standardization” is seen as an outcome of a more ‘globalized’ urban disposition. Homes are burglarized where I live too, but possibly not at reported rate of 43% (as in Dar es Salaam). An aspect of cultural difference can also be seen in the processes and praxis of the various groups, players and strata of the Sustainable Cities Program-from International Financial Institutions and governments to donor organisations, N.G.O.s and ‘troops on the ground’. In a slightly different reading of the above paradigms it could be proposed that all three may sit within an earlier twentieth century ideal of Modernism, or Internationalism. Whereby, with the application of a few basic principles, there were universal answers (nuanced by local conditions) to the issues of prevalent concern to humans in any given context. In practise the outcomes of this could at best be described as ‘mixed’. The one goal, does not predicate one solution. It is also important to note that the kernel from which any of these approaches may have germinated (and their application) was more than likely dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire to see improvement for the whole. The notion of Sustainable Development (an author declared imperative for the text) is considered nebulous in practise. Its ethereal nature is often utilized by the political apparatus for its own gain. Generally defined, it is a balancing economic growth and environmental impacts with a view to limiting the depletion of natural resources or reduction of natural capital. When viewing the management of solid waste with the broader imperatives of the Sustainable Cities Program, the outcomes seem to indicate in many ways a failure. The case studies provide somewhat startling facts in relation to this. The multi-player partnerships have in some instances failed at a simplistic level and in other ways have failed with regard to associated objectives. The ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ can be seen in practice as the “haves” ‘have not’ refuse piling up around them nor the need to breath the toxic smoke of burn offs. The colloquial “have-nots” do in fact ‘have’ these issues. The stark reality exists that affecting an environment in the context of a defined area often doesn’t limit the reach of the effect. Again differences in position and culture more broadly are highlighted by more developed nation’s view of a positivistic or technological solution (usually dictating the financial resources to undertake it) versus the pragmatics and nature of the problem in another (in this case African) context. It may be important to note that the book was published prior to the Global Financial Crisis. The tone may be seen as somewhat critical of neoliberal philosophy (and not alone in this). The changed nature of global economic thinking and a differing trajectory in the current epoch need be preserved whilst reading. Neoliberal thinking was not solely based in the economic sphere but its influence was propagated through it. An interesting conundrum exists in the acquisition by the government of the United States of a 61% holding in General Motors. This has not produced any greater managerial benefit or stability (CEO tenure prior to bailout averaged 8.6 years, post bailout 3 subsequent CEOs lasted less than a year and stock performance is far lower than averages). This is obviously an example placed squarely within the sphere of business, but it does have a tone of Keynesian economics coming out of an era of rescinding of governmental influence. Another more intriguing example might be drawn from the European Union. The formation of a conceptually remote macro-government over a diverse population surely ran contrary to neoliberal dogma in some regards (though still maintained free(er) movement of capital and removal of tariff systems). The European Union received the Nobel Peace Prize-perhaps as a ‘tip of the hat’ to the fact Europe had managed not to have a war for some time and ‘bucked’ its own average. And yet, with the codified practises and approaches across an entire continent, recent history shows the chasm of the politics of cultural difference that exists across the continent. The aforementioned examples are not provided to support or contrast the assertions made within the book, they are merely proffered to highlight the nebulous nature of the relationships between the four filters through which the book views the Sustainable Cities Program. The book is strongly contextualized and forensically researched, indeed the terrain investigated is metaphorically and literally a world away. But terrain changes with time. As, no doubt, will African Cities.