Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Waste Systems in
Developing
Countries
By Sandra Cointreau
Solid Waste Management Advisor
The World Bank, Washington DC
February 2006
c
Sustainability Needs:
Well planned and tested solid waste systems --
to develop cost effectiveness.
Attention to social values and needs -- to
minimize health concerns and design
affordable systems.
Cooperation and involvement of the people
being served.
Competition, accountability and transparency -
- to optimize trust by consumers and encourage
private investment.
Ethical, legal and regulatory frameworks -- to
minimize risks to investors.
î
First ± What are the health
and environmental concerns
that Sustainable Solid Waste
Systems must address?
Environmental Concerns:
Greenhouse gases from solid waste activities ±
Landfills are top source of methane GHG; refuse
fleets are significant sources of CO2 and N2O.
Wasted recyclable materials have lost inherent
energy production activities (i.e., CO2 and N2O).
Volatilized heavy metals (e.g., mercury and lead),
dioxins and furans from open burning dumpsites
and low-standard incinerators.
Leachate from unlined and uncovered dumpsites
contaminates ground and surface waters.
Bioaerosols and dust from handling.
Smoke particulates from open dumping.
^
Health Concerns:
Infection ± contact with human fecal matter, blood, and
diseased tissue; contact with diseased dead animal matter
and manure.
Animal diseases ± foraging of animals/birds at open
dumps; recycling of slaughter waste into animal feed.
Respiratory disease -- particulates and bioaerosols reduce
pulmonary function.
Cancer -- volatilized refractory organics from landfill
gases; heavy metals, dioxins and furans from poorly
controlled burning.
Headaches ± lack of oxygen and excessive CO from
dumpsite decomposition and burning.
Injury ± wounds from sharps, traffic accidents.
D
Direct Contact with Waste:
c
Pulmonary Function:
23% Dumpsite Workers with
Abnormal Pulmonary Function (India
local study)
cc
Blood Lead Levels:
70% Dumpsite
Children Pickers
above WHO lead
guideline --
children pickers
mean lead was
2.5 times higher
than in control
slum children
(Philippines local study) Quezon City, the Philippines, 1995
cî
Intestinal Parasite Infection
Among Waste Pickers:
65% incidence in
Bangkok, Thailand
98% incidence in
Manila, Philippines
(child waste pickers only)
97% incidence in
Olinda, Brazil
92% incidence in
Calcutta, India
Bombay, India, 1995
c
Slides at Open Dumps:
Istanbul, Turkey
± 39 killed, 1993
O Portino, Spain
± 1 killed, 250 evacuated,
1994
Calcutta, India
± 2 killed, 1992
Manila, the Philippines
± over 200 killed, 2000
Bandung, Indonesia
± over 100 killed, 2005
Tashkent, Uzbekistan,
2001
c^
Second ± How do we
achieve cost-effective
technical designs for
Sustainable Solid Waste
Systems?
cD
Waste Character:
Vegetable/putrescible material 2-3 times higher --
40% to 80% by weight
Recyclable paper, plastic, metal, glass 2-5 times
lower -- 5% to 15%
Inert fines 2-5 times higher -- 20% to 40%
Moisture content 2-4 times higher -- 40% to 70%
Density 2-3 times higher -- 350 to 400 kg/cu.mtr.,
uncompacted in collection truck
Calorific values 2-3 times lower -- 800 to 1,300
kcal/kg.
c
Waste Differences affect
Technical Choices:
Compaction is not always justified.
Composting is technically viable, but farmers
may not afford to pay the difference in cost
above sanitary landfill.
Sanitary landfill gas generation is technically
viable, but gas escapes quickly in warm
tropical climates and requires extra investment
to contain.
Incineration is rarely self-sustainable, since
supplemental fuel is needed for low-calorie
waste.
cå
Strategic Planning is Essential:
Collection options vary widely in cost and
quality of service, must fit the local setting
Transfer facilities can dramatically cut
costs
Disposal systems have large economies-
of-scale, must fit the local waste character
Holistic modeling is available to
comparatively assess costs, consumables,
and emissions.
cÎ
Collection
Vehicle Types:
Small ± power tiller,
hand cart, mini-truck
Slow moving ± tractor
and trailer, animal cart Accra, Ghana, 1997
Fast moving ± open
tipper truck, rear loader
truck
Container lifting ± roll
on, skip, mechanical
arm for carts
Kukkattpally, India, 2001
c·
Collection
Vehicle Types:
Arm-Roll Container,
Sekondi, Ghana, 1997
î
Collection Vehicle Types:
îc
Collection Vehicle Types:
îî
Cost Comparison of Vehicle Types
Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Costs
in Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2000
40
35
30
cost per tonne in $US
25
20
0
5 20 35
î
Crew Size and
System of Loading:
Vehicle productivity
more important in
LDC¶s than worker
productivity Bombay, India, 1995
Arrange crew size to
optimize vehicle
productivity
Facilitate method of
loading
îD
Crew Size V
Comparison: M
had lower M
4-person crew M
"
M
Larger crew
M
could load M
vehicle faster M
and optimize
vehicle
!
productivity
î
Public versus Private Operator:
Different financing costs
Different overhead costs
Different salaries and benefit costs
Different insurance, tax, registration, and
marketing costs (also corruption costs)
Different length of hours of work and productivity
per worker
Different vehicle availability
Different accountability ± per contractual
specifications
îå
Private Sector Service:
Woman-Owned
Micro-Enterprise, Women-Owned Cooperative,
Quito, Ecuador, 1998 Kukkattpally India, 2001
îÎ
Public versus `
`
`
Private Costs: M
M
Total costs for
private versus M
public were so
M
close in Quito, it
`
was decided to M
maintain a balance
Transfer M
M
reducing
Collection Haul M
Distance, M
M
Vehicle M
Emissions and M
50 percent.
Determine Transfer Breakpoints:
`
` `
Each type and size
`
!"""
of collection 40
vehicle has a REAR LOADER
35 MANUAL 10
different transfer
breakpoint 30 TRANSFER
SYSTEM W/
Traffic speed 25
COLL.TRUCKS
`
affects the transfer TRANSFER
TRUCK W/
20
breakpoint FACILITY
15 TRANSFER
Consider transfer TRUCK 60
for hauls over 30 10
minutes 5
TRANSFER
STATION
0
5 15 30 50
` # $
c
Typical 2-Level Transfer
Stations:
Manila, Philippines,
1993
î
Direct Unloading
to Transfer Truck:
a
^
Types of Transfer Vehicles:
Landfill Economies-of-Scale:
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Investment Cost/Tonne - Clay and Geomembrane Total Cost/Tonne - Clay and Geomembrane
å
Composting:
Compost plants are
safe and clean and
technically
appropriate for
clean organic
waste
Product quality is
key to success
Market demand
may not be
adequate to cover
costs
Ahmedebad, India, 2001
Î
Vermi-Composting:
Requires more
land than
composting,
because piles
short.
It is more
sensitive to
toxics in waste,
and is best done
on partially
composted
waste.
Bangalore, India, 2001
·
Neighborhood Composting:
Dakha, Bangladesh,
2001
^
Refuse-Derived-Fuel Pellets:
Limited to dry
climates with dry
waste.
Only clean sorted
waste can be
consolidated into
pellets for use as
low-calorie fuel.
Market demand
may not be
Hyderabad, India, adequate for cost
2001 recovery.
^c
Materials Recycling at Source:
Source segregation obtains
cleanest reusable materials.
Source segregation requires
extra collection systems.
Registration and route
assignment upgrades the
status and security of waste
pickers.
Source segregation
minimizes occupational and Bangalore, India, 2001
environmental health risks.
^î
Protective Gear for Workers:
Hyderabad,
India, 2001
^^
Third ± How do we
arrange financially for
Sustainable Solid Waste
Systems?
^D
Solid Waste Service is Costly:
^
Adequate Cash Flow is Essential:
Dc
Economic Instruments for Regional or
Global Externalities:
Intergovernmental transfers to
upgrade disposal to desired national
standards.
Intergovernmental transfers to
encourage compost as a carbon sink
and means of upgrading land for
agriculture.
International transfers to encourage
emission reductions to reduce climate
change.
Dî
Examples of financial transfers:
USA Superfund to remediate hazardous
releases, including qualifying municipal
dumps.
± 1980-2005+ Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act,
and subsequent amendments.
± Funded with taxes on crude oil and certain
chemicals, eventually 8.5 $US BB.
± 45,000 sites assessed, about 1,600 placed on
National Priority List.
± Private responsible parties sued by Govt. to
reimburse the trust.
Source: Francisco Grajales
D
Examples of financial transfers:
Israel Solid Waste Subsidy Program
± 1994-2003 financial support to municipalities.
± Covered 5 years of cost increases for increased
disposal and haulage from implementing
improved new landfills.
± Covered recycling communal bins and a fee
for each tonne of waste recycled.
± Covered half the cost of backyard composting
devices.
Source: Francisco Grajales
D^
Examples of financial transfers:
EU funds to upgrade disposal for EU
accession countries.
± 2000-5+ Instrument for Structural Polices for
Pre-Assession.
± Grants to upgrade infrastructure to meet EU
standards, averaging over 1 BB Euros annually.
± Funds up to 75% of landfill civil works
investment.
EU cohesion funds
± 2000-5+ Assists less prosperous member
countries to meet EU standards ± about 28 BB
Euros.
Source: Francisco Grajales
DD
Examples of financial transfers:
UK Landfill Tax Credit
± Taxes every tonne landfilled ± 50 BB
Pounds/year ± mostly funds remediation of
solid waste activities.
± Landfills given exemption for donations to
environmental improvements.
± Similar landfill taxes in France, Italy, and
Netherlands.
Ireland Recycling Partnership
± 1997 payment for every tonne of packaging
waste recycled ± over 60 MM Euros thus far.
Source: Francisco Grajales
D
Examples of financial transfers:
USA Tax Exemptions
± For bond issues for resource recovery plants
± For investment in landfill gas recovery
Various US States Recycling Subsidies
± 5-15% price preferences for recycled content
Global Environmental Facility
± funds to promote climate change
improvements ± 1991-2005+ ± ~5 $BB.
Carbon Finance
± funds to purchase green house gas emission
reductions ± 2000-2005+ - ~1$BB.
Source: Francisco Grajales
Då
Examples of possible carbon
finance in solid waste sector*:
Landfill Transfer stations
methane gas reduce vehicle
capture to flare emissions from
or recover. direct haul by
Composting or collection vehicles.
anaerobic Recycling captures
digestion to inherent energy in
avoid landfill recyclable
gas. materials.
*Note: Bank transaction costs necessitate bundling solid waste
components to meet required 50,000 tonnes/year of CO2 equivalent
DÎ
Carbon finance to reduce Green
House Gases:
In past century, GHG¶s grew 35%.
Industrialized countries, with only 20% of world
population, contributed over 60% of the GHG¶s.
By 2025, global GHG¶s are projected to grow
by 57%.
By 2025, developing country GHG¶s are
projected to grow by 84%.
Carbon finance is an international incentive
from the original polluters to LDC¶s to motivate
them to reduce global GHG externalities.
D·
Ú billion tonnes/yr CO2 equivalent
discharge to atmosphere in 2000:
~16% is from methane.
Methane is 21-25 times stronger as a GHG
than CO2.
World Bank carbon finance pays according
to climate change impact.
Each tonne of methane is paid at 21 times the
price of CO2.
Emission purchase agreements commit to
pay for 10+ years from World Bank funds.
Prices range upwards from 5$/tonne CO2
equivalent, depending on risk.
Solid waste - one of 3 most fixable
sources of methane:
M
M
Rice-11%
M anure-4%
Enteric fermentation-28%
Biomass burning-5%
Biofuel production-4%
Wastewater-10%
Coal-8%(fixable)
Solid waste-13%(fixable)
Natural gas-15%(fixable)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
c
Source: US EPA year 2000 data
How do we cover costs for
service benefits occur within
municipal boundaries and
warrant being covered by
municipal revenues? î
Ideally««
Delegate more authority to
municipalities to
± Raise capital for investments, and
± Establish fees and taxes to cover
recurrent costs and debt service.
Encourage municipalities to enter
inter-municipal agreements for
specific facilities with economies-of-
scale (~300 tonnes/day for most
facilities«~400,000 residents).
Cost Recovery is Recommended:
People are willing to pay for good
service.
Free riders and illegal dumpers are
commonly identifiable from papers in
their waste.
Earmarked user charges enable
reliable revenues for service delivery.
Large generators may be influenced
by quantity-based charges«polluter
pays principle.
^
Cost Recovery Mechanisms:
Property-tax additions for solid
waste.
User charges attached to water or
electric bills.
User charges billed separately to all
waste generators.
Tipping fees at transfer and disposal
facilities.
D
Charges are based on City-wide Costs.
Service to the poor is often more costly
± small loads, poor access.
Value of waste from the poor is less ±
fewer recyclables, more ash and sand.
Charges should be proportional to
income:
± Property area,
± Water consumption, or
± Electricity consumption.
Only large generators pay by volume.
Additional Revenue Sources:
License fees from private
subscription operators.
Franchise fees for service zones.
Sales from recyclables, compost and
landfill gas.
Carbon finance from sale of
CO2equivalent emission reductions.
Landfill, environmental, or tourist
taxes earmarked for solid waste.
å
Conclusions:
Plan cost-effective technical
systems.
Address all health and
environmental issues.
Develop sustainable financial
arrangements.
Î
http://www.worldbank.org
/solidwaste
http://carbonfinance.org
scointreau@worldbank.org
·