Sustainable Solid

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:

Bombay, India, 1995

Significant contact Tema, Ghana, 1998
during loading, no Children playing in an
shoes or gloves area of uncollected waste

Animals Raised and Fed on
Raw Waste:

Dominican Republic, 1998,

Pigs living on dumpsites El Salvador, 1998, Cows and
pigs searching for food
å
 Dumpsite Linkage to Animal and
Poultry Diseases:
‡ Avian Influenza H5N1±virus in bird secretions and excreta
are long-lived. Present in bedding and slaughter wastes, able
to last week. Wild birds are carriers. Humans susceptible
through contact and ingestion.
‡ Encephalopathies (Mad Cow, Sheep Scrapie) -- prion proteins
in brain and spinal materials are long lasting, even after
thermal processing into animal feed. Humans susceptible
through ingestion.
‡ Cattle, Sheep and Goat Foot-and-Mouth -- virus in secretions
and excreta. Present in bedding and slaughter wastes. Dogs,
rats, and birds are carriers.
‡ Bovine TB ± bacterium in secretions and excreta. Present in
bedding and slaughter wastes. Infective to all mammals.
‡ Rabbit Viral Hemorrhagic Fever ±virus in rabbit blood and
excreta. Present in bedding wastes and slaughter wastes, able
to last weeks. Surviving rabbits are carriers.
Î
 Bio-aerosol Levels:
‡ 10-1000 times Higher
near the truck loading
hopper (Switzerland, Denmark
local studies)
‡ 2-10 times Higher
inside materials
recovery plants (USA,
Finland local studies)
‡ 2-4 times Higher at
sanitary landfills (Italy
local studies) Izmir, Turkey,
1994
·
Particulates High at Burning
Dumps:

Dominican Republic, 1998 Mauritius, 1998

c
Pulmonary Function:
‡ 23% Dumpsite Workers with
Abnormal Pulmonary Function (India
local study)

‡ 40% Dumpsite Waste Pickers with

Abnormal Pulmonary Function (Thailand
local study)

‡ 53% Dumpsite Child Waste Pickers

with Abnormal Pulmonary Function
(Philippines 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:

Liftable Container, Izmir,

Turkey, 1994

Arm-Roll Container,
Sekondi, Ghana, 1997
î
 Collection Vehicle Types:

Market Skip Lift Containers,

Tema, Ghana, 1994
Arm Roll Container,
Ahmedabad, India, 2001

îc
 Collection Vehicle Types:

Mini Private Truck, Open Tipper Lifts Hand

Bangalore, India, 2001 Carts, Hue, Vietnam, 1996

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

15 LG RL COMP MANUAL 20 LG RL COMP CONTAINERS 20

SM RL COMP MANUAL 10 SM RL COMP MANUAL 10
10 SM RL COMP MANUAL 10 FARM TRACTOR TRAILER 6
OPEN TIPPER 6
5

0
5 20 35

km from collection to discharge

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

Ica, Peru, 1984

î^
 Crew Size:

Izmir, Turkey, 1994

Bangalore, India, 2001

îD
Crew Size V
  
 





 
  

Comparison: M

‡ 5-person crew M

had lower M

cost/tonne than 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  


of each, and M
 

 
gradually decrease  

M

government to 

about 30% through M
 

natural attrition.
M

   
 
   
î·
 Solid Waste Collection and Transfer Vehicle
Costs in Trinidad and Tobago, 1999
M

Transfer M

Systems enable M

M

reducing

cost per tonne in $US

M

Collection Haul M

Distance, M

M

Vehicle M

Emissions and M






Costs by 20 To km from collection to discharge

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:

Quito, Ecuador, 1998

Manila, Philippines,
1993
î
 Direct Unloading
to Transfer Truck:

Hyderabad, India, Skip

Container Lift Collection Truck,
Unloads to Open Tipping Truck,
2001 
Unloading to Storage Floor:

a








  
 



  


^
 Types of Transfer Vehicles:

US, lightweight, filled by US, lightweight open topped,

extrusion from a filled by gravity from hopper
compaction chamber
D
Transfer Systems:
‡ Enable implementation of regional
Treatment/Disposal facilities that achieve
Economies-of-Scale.
‡ Treatment/Disposal facilities should be at
least 300 tonnes/daily shift to have
bulldozers, wheeled loaders, windrow
turners fully utilized.
‡ Roads, fences, weighbridges, gatehouses,
utilities and maintenance components are
fixed costs that should be applied to large
waste quantities to lower cost/tonne.


Landfill Economies-of-Scale:

Œ

 
 
 
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

40 TPD 550 TPD 1100 TPD

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:

‡ Lessen the need to

transport waste to
disposal.
‡ Enable
neighborhood
revenues and
employment.
‡ Require motivated
public support.

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:

Khulna, Bangladesh (syringes), 2001 Tema, Ghana, 1998

^
 Segregate Special Wastes:
‡ Licensed private operators to safely
handle segregated biomedical
wastes

Hyderabad,
India, 2001
^^
Third ± How do we
arrange financially for
Sustainable Solid Waste
Systems?
^D
Solid Waste Service is Costly:

‡ Total cost for solid waste collection,

transfer, and disposal is typically
$40-80/tonne.
‡ Per capita waste generation is 0.2-0.3
tonnes/year.
‡ 60-70% of total cost is for collection.
‡ Full solid waste service requires 1-
2% of GDP.

^
Adequate Cash Flow is Essential:

‡ 50-70% of total cost is for

recurrent expenditure ± labor,
fuel, tires, oil, spare parts.
‡ Labor and fuel are priority
expenditures.
‡ If there aren¶t enough recurrent
funds, spare vehicles are
cannibalized for parts.
^å
Sources of Capital Funds:
‡ Municipal bond issues for facilities,
including intergovernmental tax
credits that recognize externalities.
‡ Municipal borrowings for vehicles,
such as from national development
banks.
‡ Renewal funds replenished by special
taxes, user charges, tipping fees.
‡ Intergovernmental transfers.
‡ Private sector investment.
^Î
Private Involvement raises
Recurrent Budget Requirements:
‡ Recurrent budget must be higher to
involve the private sector.
‡ Contractors have to pay monthly for
their debt service for investment, and
they borrow from short term notes at
high commercial interest rates.
‡ Few municipalities could afford to
support private sector investment.
‡ Mostly old non-specialized private
vehicles are hired.
^·
Some reasons for Limited Progress:
‡ Public systems improved in 80¶s not sustained.
‡ Development organizations in 90¶s reduced
funding, assuming there would be private
investment.
‡ Investment climate didn¶t improve, due to
political intervention in contracting and
contract continuity.
‡ Municipalities were restricted in the size and
length of contracts.
‡ Labor laws and unions restricted staffing
reductions to enable private sector service.
D
Solid Waste is a Public Good:
‡ Uncollected and poorly disposed
solid waste adversely affects public
health and environment.
‡ All municipal residents and visitors
benefit from any solid waste
services, regardless of whether
they directly participated.
‡ Excluding some residents from
services, adversely affects others.

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
·