What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia

May 1999

Urban Development Sector Unit East Asia and Pacific Region

Copyright © 1999 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing May 1999

Urban and Local Government Working Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development community with the least possible delay. The typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. Some sources cited in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Request for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to the Urban Development Division at the address in the copyright notice above. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally give permission promptly and, when reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee.

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Recommendations and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................3 2. Waste Characterization ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Waste Generation Rates ................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Waste Composition ..........................................................................................................................6 2.3 Waste Trends ..................................................................................................................................... 7 3.0 Consumer Societies ............................................................................................................................... 11 4.0 Business Involvement in Waste Management ................................................................................... 12 4.1 Increased Partnerships ..................................................................................................................12 4.2 Extended product responsibility ..................................................................................................12 4.3 Environmental Labelling ............................................................................................................... 14 4.4 Waste exchanges ............................................................................................................................. 14 4.5 Pulp and Paper ............................................................................................................................... 14 5.0 Environmental and Health Impacts of Improper Solid Waste Management ............................... 15 6.0 Integrated Solid Waste Management ..................................................................................................16 6.1 Solid Waste Management Costs ................................................................................................... 17 7.0 Solid Waste Management Common Values ....................................................................................... 22 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 Waste Generation and Composition References ..................................................................................... 30 Annex 1: Solid Waste Data ......................................................................................................................... 33 Annex 2: Waste Generation Rates ............................................................................................................. 35

This paper was prepared by Daniel Hoornweg, researched by Laura Thomas and overseen by Keshav Varma (EASUR). Information and comments were supplied by many World Bank and UNDP staff, particularly George N. Plant, L. Panneer Selvam, and Richard W. Pollard, and Carl Bartone of the Transport, Water, and Urban Development Department. Melissa Fossberg, Gabriela Boyer, Beth Rabinowitz, and Laura Lewis edited and prepared the paper.

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

WHAT A WASTE:

Solid Waste Management in Asia
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Solid waste data is largely unreliable. This report contains one of the most comprehensive compilations of municipal solid waste data in Asia; yet, due to inconsistencies in data recording, definitions, collection methods, and seasonal variations, the data can only be considered approximate, albeit more accurate than most. For planning purposes, however, the data presented in this report should be sufficient. The urban areas of Asia now spend about US$25 billion on solid waste management per year; this figure will increase to at least US$50 billion in 2025. Today’s daily waste generation rate is about 760,000 tonnes. By 2025, this rate will be increased to about 1.8 million tonnes per day. Japan spends about ten times more for waste disposal than collection costs (mostly incineration costs). Total waste management costs in low income countries are usually more than 80 percent for collection costs. Lower cost landfilling is usually a more practical waste disposal option than incineration. The urban areas Municipal governments are usually the responsible agency for solid waste collection and disposal, but the magnitude of the problem is well beyond the ability of any municipal government. They need help. In addition to other levels of government, businesses and the general community need to be more involved in waste management. Generally, solid waste planners place too much emphasis on residential waste; this waste represents only about 30 percent of the overall municipal waste stream but often receives the lion’s share of attention. The waste components requiring priority attention in Asia are organics and paper. Indonesia and the Philippines as well as parts of China and India are the Asian countries facing the greatest waste management challenge, based on projected waste generation rates and relative affluence to deal with the problem.

• •

of Asia now spend about US$25 billion on solid waste management per year; this figure will increase to about US$47 billion in 2025.

In terms of waste management trends, no region of the world faces a greater need to break the inextricable link between waste generation rates and affluence than Asia. For example, if Asia follows life style trends of the US and Canada (as Hong Kong already seems to be doing) versus the more typical European urban resident, the world would need to supply about 500 million tonnes more resources in 2025. Asia should pursue regional approaches to many solid waste management problems, e.g., packaging regulations and import/export rules. Urban residents generate two to three times more solid waste than their fellow rural citizens. Municipalities should charge for waste disposal, and possibly collection, based on generation rates. Industrialized countries contain 16 percent of the world’s population but use about 75 percent of the world’s paper supply. Residents of India, Indonesia, and China, for example, are aspiring to be as affluent as more industrialized nations. This would require a doubling of the world’s current level of paper production.
Page 1

• • • •

Nepal. This paper reviews the broad trends related to solid waste management in Asia1. recommendations are made to help overcome these limitations and for improving solid waste data collection and presentation. Japan. In 2025. It is beyond the scope of this paper to venture into the debate on “the limits to growth” vis-a-vis resource consumption or the negative environmental impacts that will occur from wastes generated by an increasingly consumeristic one billion urban Asians. between 50 to 80 percent in middle income countries. Indonesia. Singapore. however. National governments must reduce the externalities of waste by considering measures such as full cost accounting. and extended product care. Page 3 . the authors identified shortcomings with terminology used and sampling methods and built-in problems with consistency. and preliminary suggestions for reducing the impact of these trends are provided. Lao PDR. Thailand. the urban areas of Asia produce about 760. Asian governments should anticipate spending at least double this amount (in 1998 US dollars) on solid waste management activities. and only 30 to 60 percent in low income countries. To carry out integrated “The impact doesn’t look too bad. The fear about these effects. and Sri Lanka. For example. Today.” solid waste management.2 million m 3 per day. particularly since nearly 95 percent of environmental damage occurs before a product is discarded as 1 Asia in this report is limited to China.7 million m3 per day. Bangladesh.” or solid waste. In Annex 1. “The big picture” projects regional urban MSW quantities and compositions in 2025. Annex 2 presents waste generation rates for selected Asian cities. is warranted. the real values are probably more than double this amount.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 1. The paper also briefly discusses possible policies and budget requirements for dealing with this burgeoning waste stream. using containers in a beneficial way. Solid package deposits. The forces of these trends are analyzed. Waste manufacturer responsibility. The general community. India. or approximately 2. Vietnam. and exercising environmentally friendly purchasing habits.000 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day. In compiling these data. Myanmar. Mongolia. Introduction: Solid Waste Management in Asia As urbanization and economic development increases in Asia. must also actively Impact participate in the solutions by modifying their behavior patterns. These estimates are conservative. This paper contains one of the most comprehensive collections of solid waste generation data.8 million tonnes of waste per day. they need to exert discipline in separating waste. local governments need partners. nowhere is the impact more obvious than in society’s “detritus. Hong Kong. Republic of Korea. This amount is used to collect more than 90 percent of the waste in high income countries. which is probably the most Overall important stakeholder in Environmental waste management activities. this figure will increase to 1. Philippines. Local governments in Asia currently spend about US $25 billion per year on urban solid waste management. In 2025. or 5. Malaysia.

Annex 1 discusses in detail reliability issues and compositions of waste data.) There are eight major classifications of solid waste generators: residential. Although urban waste management data may be inconsistent and unreliable. construction. However. This definition of waste may differ somewhat from definitions used by other international data sources. process. and total waste generation is usually much higher than that reported by government agencies. institutional. such as the use of coal for cooking and heating. 25 percent residential (Linda Shore). it is clear that solid waste management efforts must target priority urban areas. certain wastes may eventually become resources valuable to others once they are removed from the waste stream. Sawachi). Page 4 . Given these factors. commercial. MSW includes wastes generated from residential. waste is defined as any unwanted material intentionally thrown away for disposal. and in high income countries. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION Solid waste streams should be characterized by their sources. would be a valuable contribution to municipal waste management planning. 35 percent residential (excluding construction and demolition . institutional.” A follow-up study that reviews composting rates (existing and potential). Accurate information in these three areas is necessary in order to monitor and control existing waste management systems and to make regulatory. and institutional decisions. the general “rules of thumb” provided in this paper should provide sufficient direction for the purposes of waste management planning. For example. Severe underrecording of waste quantities is typical. financial. as well as by generation rates and composition. Osaka. potential markets). recycling (existing programs. and some sources are commonly excluded. Because waste characterization studies are relatively expensive to conduct. and agricultural. readers must exercise caution in interpretating the data. Copenhagen. 37 percent residential (excluding industrial waste . only 25 percent to 35 percent of the overall waste stream is from residential sources2. 30 percent residential (Helmer Olsen). construction and demolition. construction and demolition. Often only residential waste is referred to as MSW. This paper does not review “where the waste goes. and municipal services. (See Figure 1. industrial.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA solid waste. 2. number and working conditions of waste pickers. This paper focuses on waste management only as it pertains to urban environments. One important observation shown in Annex 1 is that apart from localized anomalies.Tim Michael). This paper discusses the concern about environmental effects associated with solid waste management as well as the escalating costs that solid waste management consumes from local government budgets and how to handle these increases. by the types of wastes produced. Far too often. such as industrial. if this municipal waste stream includes construction and demolition waste. the quantity of waste is doubled. Knowledge of the sources and types of waste in an area is required in order to design and operate appropriate solid waste management systems. It is important to define the composition of the municipal waste stream in a clear and consistent fashion. Toronto. municipal services. Better consistency in definition and methodology is needed.Mr. process. In the context of this paper. this definition varies greatly among waste studies. 2 Personal Communication: Region of Vancouver. based on (1) projections that in 2025 about 52 percent of Asia’s population will reside in urban areas. rural solid waste management data are virtually nonexistent and are derived only from assumptions regarding purchasing habits. Although this paper contains one of the most comprehensive compilations of MSW data for Asia. and municipal services. industrial. commercial. However. demolition. and (2) evidence that urban residents generate at least two times more waste per capita than their rural counterparts. urban waste generation rates are generally consistent vis-a-vis local economic activity and residential wealth.

ashes. road repair. special wastes Industrial Light and heavy manufacturing. and other recreational areas.” Agriculture Crops. agricultural wastes. special wastes. oil. yard wastes. power plants. refineries.. batteries. landscaping.1 WASTE GENERATION RATES Waste generation rates are affected by socioeconomic development. office buildings. wood. hospitals. off-specification products.g. chemical plants. government centers Commercial Paper. beaches. packaging. hotels. sludge Process Industrial process wastes. plastics. pesticides) Page 5 . etc. food wastes. fabrication. hazardous wastes (e. demolition of buildings Municipal services Street cleaning. farms Spoiled food wastes. vineyards. as a weighted average of the waste data available from various cities. metals. power and chemical plants Stores. tires). paper. orchards. bulky items. the greater the amount of solid waste produced. hazardous wastes Same as commercial Institutional Construction and demolition New construction sites. Figure 2 gives urban MSW generation rates. the greater the economic prosperity and the higher percentage of urban population. and household hazardous wastes Housekeeping wastes. scrap materials. food wastes. mineral extraction and processing Wood. general wastes from parks. landscape and tree trimmings. steel. construction and demolition materials. hazardous wastes. Figure 1: Sources and Types of Solid Wastes Source Residential Typical waste generators Single and multifamily dwellings Types of solid wastes Food wastes. 2. feedlots. Waste generation rates for various Asian cities are in Annex 2. degree of industrialization. renovation sites.. cardboard. dairies.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA waste management decisions are based disproportionately on residential waste. plastics. wood. dirt. special wastes (e. and climate. glass. metals. textiles. etc. prisons. cardboard. tailings All of the above should be included as “municipal solid waste. other recreational areas. Generally. markets. beaches. glass. white goods. leather. restaurants. ashes. concrete. water and wastewater treatment plants Heavy and light manufacturing. Street sweepings. construction sites. which accounts for an increasingly small fraction of the waste stream as an area industrializes. parks. slag. consumer electronics. Schools.g.

000.000.000.000 tonnes per year Metal 5% Glass 7% Plastic 10% Paper 34% Others 11% Organic 33% Organic 28% Middle Income Countries: Current Total waste=34.000 tonnes per year Others 12% Organic 60% Note: Approximate scale only.000. Page 6 .000 tonnes per year Others 12% Metal 8% Glass 7% Plastic 9% Paper 36% 2025 Waste Quantities and Composition High Income Countries: Year 2025 Total waste=86.000 tonnes per year Others 13% Metal 5% Glass 3% Organic Plastic 50% 9% Paper 20% Low Income Countries: Current Total waste=158.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Figure 2: Waste Composition of Low.000 tonnes per year Metal 4% Others 47% Organic 41% Glass 3% Plastic 6% Paper 5% Metal Glass Plastic 1% 4% 2% Paper 15% Low Income Countries: Year 2025 Total waste=480.000.000. and High Income Countries Current Waste Quantities and Composition High Income Countries: Current Total waste = 85. Middle.000 tonnes per year Others Metal 11% 3% Glass 2% Plastic 11% Paper 15% Organic 58% Middle Income Countries: Year 2025 Total waste=111.

69 Hong Kong generates enormous China 620 30.8 60. Urbanization and rising incomes. As demonstrated by Hong Kong.5 1. Republic of 9.8 Current Urban MSW Generation (kg/capita/day) 0.59 Japan report significantly lower Hong Kong 22.4 to 0.730 100 1. however. Figure 4 exemplifies this trend. construction and demolition.81 produced by all activities within the municipality than some of the other High Income 30.0 5.740 20.0 1. and municipal services wastes were also included.7 0.4 0.8 13.50 0. Hong Kong’s Philippines 1. ranging between 0. which lead to more use of resources and therefore more waste.3 1.07 kg per capita per day. As predicted.990 95. As mentioned previously.2 0.1 to 5. very little information about rural waste generation rates in Asian countries is available.55 0.10 figures for these countries do not Japan 39.3 0.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Low income countries have the lowest percentage of urban populations and the lowest waste generation rates.47 represent all municipal solid wastes. institutional. All of the countries that have a GNP per capita less than US $400 produce under 0. which vary from 1. which explains Middle Income 1. As GNP increases toward the middle income range. total waste quantities would be much higher if industrial.9 kg per capita per day. Because they consume and generate more solid Page 7 .52 waste generation rate better reflects Thailand 2. the Singapore 26.64 countries.640 77.73 their exceptionally high per capita Indonesia 980 35.4 0.2 20. Singapore. Although Singapore and Korea. are the two most important trends that factor into rising waste generation rates.410 37.10 the true quantities of waste Malaysia 3. one can assume that rural populations will generate less waste because these areas have lower per capita incomes.49 0.76 MSW generation rate in comparison to other countries.89 demolition waste. and Japan.60 0.7 0. Figure 3: Current Urban Municipal Solid Waste Generation Country GNP Per Capita 1 Current Urban (1995 US $) Population (% of Total)2 490 200 240 240* 240 310 340 27. 1997b See Figure 7 for comparison to 2025.07 generation rates than other high and middle income countries. the per capita waste generation rates also increase. global inconsistencies in the way municipal solid waste is defined and quantified can lead to significant differences among the “official” waste generation rates. 2 United Nations. the high income countries show the greatest generation rates.990 79. Individuals living in Indian urban areas use nearly twice as many resources per capita than those living in a rural setting. Comparing generation rates for various countries is problematic.5 to 1.1 kg per day.64 0.45 0.050 54. commercial.6 0. 1995 considers only residential wastes.7 18.6 1. 1 The Singapore generation rate World Bank.46 Low Income Nepal Bangladesh Myanmar Vietnam Mongolia India Lao PDR 350 21. For both countries. *estimated GNP whereas the Japanese data include only wastes produced from households and general wastes from business activities.9 26.7 kg per capita per day.79 quantities of construction and Sri Lanka 700 22.890 53.3 26. ranging from 0.700 81.

08 7.6 204.2 WASTE COMPOSITION Waste composition is also influenced by external factors.15 95. Figure 2 shows that the compostable fraction in high income countries. Cited in Hammond.34 94.5 kg per capita per day (World Bank. is significantly lower than for low and Figure 5: Waste Composition Among Different Types of Households in Dalian. China and India Iron ore diverge from this trend because they Other metallic minerals 2.23 5. Cited in Ecology and Environment. All commodities respectively. middle.. 1993) Page 8 .37 0.53 296.69 weight.2 inorganics in the waste stream. the population’s standard of living.3 46. Figure 5 shows the degree to which the preference of coal over gas in a Population (in millions) 606. Sugarcane 84.9 2.95 9720. Figure 4: Direct and Indirect Per Capita Consumption in India. 1998a). Rupees/annum methodologies for determining composition were rarely discussed in Rural per capita Urban per capita waste studies. gas. 1998) implications for these countries as income levels increase.2 Organic 70. such as in Bangladesh.23 traditionally use coal as a household fuel Cement 4. the Indian urban population is expected to produce far more waste per capita than its rural population. such as geographical location. Although the definitions and 1989—90.4 to 0.5 60 Households Type Cooking with gas Individual heating with coal Cooking with coal Central heating with coal Cooking with coal Individual heating with coal Other 10. ranging from 40 to 85 Crude petroleum and natural gas 0. and high income Asian countries.34 162. the compositions for Commodities consumption consumption municipal solid waste are assumed to be based on wet weight. Figure 3 presents the current average urban waste compositions for low.34 Generally.1 66.5 18. and water supply 121.73 81. energy source.3 25.34 79.6 38.6 Chinese city increases the percentage of 74.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA waste.6 7.3 Inorganic 19.69 compostable organic matter in the urban 60.15 kg per capita per day.7 (Dalian Environment and Sanitation Department (DESMB). 1990.8 25.81 percent of the total.88 source.. Inc. which are located in Annex 2. The ash that is subsequently 43. The percentages are based on a weighted average of the compositions for individual countries.03 waste stream.00 countries have a high percentage of Coal and lignite 33. and weather.20 of India and China’s waste composition. China Waste Content Percentage Percentage 35. This Percentage of population increase obviously has considerable (Parikh et al. Ash is included in the “others” category and makes up 45 and 54 percent 4996. where the rural population generates only 0. This difference between rural and urban waste generation rates also exists in other Asian countries. 1991.48 produced is very dense and tends to Iron and steel dominate the waste stream in terms of Electricity. while their urban counterparts generate 0. all low and middle income Cotton 58. 2. which ranges between 25 and 45 percent.

The percentage of consumer packaging wastes increases relative to the population’s degree of wealth and urbanization. plastic. a trend that is expected to continue for several decades. The figure below illustrates the differences between the waste compositions of two different residential areas in Beijing. generation rates have stabilized due to an economic slow-down and the implementation of waste reduction policies (Japan Waste Management Association. 1996). most likely from packaging materials. Besides economic growth. If the pace of capital accumulation and productivity growth continues. 1994). on average. rural-to-urban migration is estimated to account for 40 to 60 percent of annual urban population growth in the developing world (McGee and Griffiths. 1996). horticultural. despite periods where Americans experienced economic hardships such as the Great Depression in the early 1930’s and the energy Figure 6: Variations in Waste Generation and Composition crisis of the mid-1970’s. but also between individual cities. In fact. Waste quantities were rising until 1970. Cities in developing countries are experiencing unprecedented population growth because they provide. 1997c). As the economy prospered in the late 1980’s. 2. China Waste quantities and compositions vary not only between countries. then the wages of unskilled workers in all countries and regions are expected to increase substantially (World Bank. and glass wastes.3 WASTE TRENDS Waste quantities are inextricably linked to economic activity and resource consumption. Percent 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Metal Glass Paper Plastic Organic Ash and dirt Single-story poorer residential areas Wealthier residential area Page 9 . are predominant in single-story residential waste streams. the Asian population is projected to be about 52 percent urban. Asian countries are also experiencing urban growth rates of approximately 4 percent per year. Consequently. As shown in Figure 22. municipal solid waste is increasing in excess of 10 by Affluence: Beijing. The wealthier households produce significantly higher percentages of paper. and ash waste. and metal becomes more prevalent in the waste stream of middle and high income countries. greater economic and social benefits than do rural areas (World Resources Institute. By 2025. Compostable matter. However. the overall consumption rates in the United States dramatically increased as the economy prospered. China is also experiencing rapid population and economic growth. and communities within a city. Japan has experienced waste trends comparable to the United States over the past two decades. Over the next 25 years. The high ash and dirt content is from coal since gas is not yet as widespread among the population (Beijing Environmental Sanitation Administration. since 1990. poverty in Asia is expected to continue declining (despite recent economic performance). declined temporarily after the 1973 energy crisis. The economic and population growth experienced by many Asian countries follows similar material consumption trends as those found in the United States and other industrialized countries over the past century.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA middle income countries. glass. metal. 1996). waste quantities increased sharply. and then rose again slightly. The presence of paper. such as food. plastic.

3 4.4 trends.0 0.9 1.1 1. transport manufacturing. will have to deal with enormous quantities of urban waste with a changing composition in the years to come.5 developing countries.140 88.4 patterns of both developed and High Income 41. with a population of more than 6. particularly the low and middle income countries. has an extensive industrial base comprised of metallurgical industries. (See Figure 7.7 1.1-4.0 0.5 54.8 0.8 Low Income Nepal Bangladesh Myanmar Vietnam Mongolia India Lao PDR China Sri Lanka Middle Income Indonesia Philippines Thailand 6. As China.500 1.6 0. will become more predominant in the waste stream as the economies increase and the population becomes more urbanized.6-1.3 40.6 0.0 47.5 45.7 0. plastic. According to the Environmental Protection Department for Wuhan City.000 97.8-1.5 Historical waste generation Malaysia 9. the ash composition will greatly decrease and the percentage of compostable organic matter will increase slightly.0 1.7 0.3 kg per day since their economies are predicted to grow at the highest rates and will experience significant Page 10 .390 2.19 million tonnes in 1985 to 1. electrical equipment.6 0.400 2. MSW quantities have increased from 1. and population predictions.1 rates and compositions are 53.0 0.9 1. Not only are the quantities of waste increasing commensurate with the growing economy and expanding population.400 72. pharmaceuticals.3 39. By contrast. Wuhan City.7 74.500 84.5 1.500 2025 Urban Population (% of Total)1 48.000 100. but they demonstrate that most Asian countries. Packaging wastes. such as paper. estimates are conservative. the capital of Hubei province. and per capita Hong Kong 31. construction materials. Figure 2 compares and contrasts the urban waste composition and the total amount of waste generated by the current and future populations for these same countries.2 kg per day because these countries have relatively high annual GNP growth rates and urban population growth rates. oil processing. the middle income countries should anticipate a per capita increase of about 0.8 million. India.6 61. 1995 See Figure 3 to compare to current rates.300 3. textiles. and glass.600 93.5 42.5 municipal solid waste generation Singapore 36.650 39.9 0. Figure 7: 2025 Urban Per Capita Municipal Solid Waste Generation Country GNP Per Capita in 2025 (1995 US $) 1. manufacturing.0 76.050 360 440 580 580 560 620 850 1.2 1.7 1.3 estimated for Asian countries in Japan 2025. and Mongolia become more prosperous and move away from coal as the traditional fuel.3 2025 Urban MSW Generation (kg/capita/day) 0.8 34.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA percent per year. a reflection of improved living standards.1 60. the composition is also shifting towards plastic and paper packaging (see Figure 21). 1997).) These 1 United Nations. and food industries.50 million tonnes in 1993 (Wei et al.2 44. economic Korea. Republic of 17. The urban per capita waste generation rate for most of the low income countries will increase by approximately 0.

000.00 2. it is unlikely that they will significantly reduce their waste quantities below current levels. paper and compostable wastes.000. No immediate proposals are underway regarding how to reduce construction and demolition wastes. Figure 8 shows average waste densities of 500 kg/m3.00 Mass (tonnes) 500. Myanmar.400. their rates may reflect definition inconsistencies rather than waste minimization practices. the low income countries will generate more than twice as much municipal waste than all of the middle and high income countries combined—approximately 480 million tonnes of waste per year.00 0. Whereas the low income countries Page 11 .000. As a whole.000. Middle and High Income Countries (per day) Volume (m3) 3. Although these two countries have implemented integrated solid waste management plans.00 600. wastes from this sector will remain high and keep contributing significantly to the municipal waste generation rate. Lao PDR. 300 kg/m3. By 2025.000.00 1.200. respectively.00 1.00 1. and packaging wastes. Indonesia and the Philippines will be producing significant quantities of waste. Construction activity in Hong Kong is expected to continue. they should have stronger economies and more resources to begin implementing integrated solid waste management plans. and India can each expect their urban waste quantities to increase by about four to six times the current amount. urban populations from low and middle income countries will triple their current rate of municipal solid waste generation over the next 25 years.000.000.00 Low income Middle income Current 2025 High income 0. Singapore and Japan both have the lowest waste generation rates of all the high income countries and even some of the middle income countries. Vietnam.00 400.000. The per capita municipal solid waste generation rate in high income countries is expected to remain stable or even decrease slightly due to the strengthening of waste minimization programs. Although Thailand and Malaysia will have the highest per capita waste production rates.00 1.00 800. the waste composition is predicted to become even more variable as the percentage of compostable matter declines. medium.000.000. especially paper and plastic.00 2.00 1. Thus. which will require management with a still relatively small per capita GNP.000. The overall MSW composition for high income countries is predicted to be relatively stable. only a slight decrease is expected in metal and glass wastes and increases should occur in plastic. Nepal.000. The total amount of waste generated in 2025 will increase by a relatively small amount—about 1 million tonnes per day— compared to the current waste quantities.00 Low income Middle income Current 2025 High income population growth in the urban sector. Bangladesh. and high income countries.00 200.000.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Figure 8: Total Waste Quantities and Volumes Generated by Low.000. However. and 150 kg/m3 were used to calculate the volume of waste generated for low.500. Such a dramatic increase will place enormous stress on limited financial resources and inadequate waste management systems.000.000.000. A different trend emerges when comparing waste amounts in terms of volume.500. increase. Overall.

as discarded packaging USA 313 26. but do not take up as much space.890 stream will contribute to the growing waste volume.) Compounding this is the fact that much of Asia’s urban growth is occurring in very large cities. Indonesian per capita paper consumption rose by 11. while 30 2. which exacerbates waste disposal and collection problems. Brazil Bulgaria China Egypt Indonesia Nicaragua India Nigeria Ghana Lao PDR Vietnam 1 2 28 20 17 11 10 4 3 3 1 1 1 3. their paper requirements will be enormous.2 percent between 1981 and 1989.720 by the high income countries. The increasing 128 9.990 generate about the same quantity of wastes.640 1. 1997). Low income countries will Germany be the largest generator of wastes on a mass basis.510 of both mass and volume. Malaysia In the next 25 years. 1997 World Bank.700 percentage of plastic and paper materials in the waste South Korea 62 3. Thailand 30 2. Singapore. and United Kingdom 170 18. Japan 225 39.790 in their overall waste quantities and volumes.740 There is little doubt that the low and middle income countries of Asia are following a development path similar to the United States. This increase in volume is a result of paper. the high income countries generate the most waste on a volumetric basis. Page 12 .0 CONSUMER SOCIETIES Industrialized countries comprise only 16 percent of the world’s population. the high income countries are expected to Hong Kong 220 22. Hong Kong. However. Indonesia.980 materials and household goods. As shown in Figure 9. their paper consumption and related packaging wastes will also increase. India. but they currently consume approximately 75 percent of global paper production. 1997b According to a 1992 study by the Indonesian Environmental Forum (Djuweng. and China are three of the world’s four most populous countries and among the lowest consumers of paper per capita. Djuweng.160 countries will experience about a three-fold increase Poland 31 2.640 In 2025. If they follow industrialized countries. and Japan will Russia stay relatively constant.330 620 790 980 380 340 260 390 350 240 3. in terms 190 27. and other multi-material packaging prevalent in the waste Figure 9: Global Paper Consumption Rates (1995) streams of wealthier and more urbanized countries. bulky wastes.240 South Korea. both low and middle income Chile 39 4. plastics. as their GNP and urban populations grow.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA currently produce the highest quantity of waste on a mass basis. Per capita Per capita GNP 2 Low and middle income countries have a larger Country 1 Paper Consumption (1995 US $) percentage of high density organic matter and ash (kg/year) residues in their waste streams which weigh more.700 will also surpass the total volume of waste produced Australia 152 18. (See Figure 2. To meet local and international market demands and to fulfill its intention of becoming the world’s largest pulp and paper producer.

Republic of 45 72 “The sun never sets on McDonald’s. and the company (Coca-Cola Company. whether we’re 18 308 serving customers in the world’s great metropolitan Australia centers or near the picturesque rice fields carved into Chile 14 291 the landscape of the Indonesia island of Bali..…” (millions) consumption* In another part of the report. If the per capita consumption of Indonesia 164 131 Coca-Cola goes up by just one serving a year in China. Often..investing aggressively to ensure our Market Population Per capita products are pervasive. and more mass produced products are all byproducts of widespread increases in local “disposable incomes. Philippines 69 117 McDonald’s Corporation has a similar expansion Thailand 59 67 goal: Korea. (See Figure 11. multimaterial items.) Page 13 . 1997 Annual Report).” A negative side of greater affluence is that it brings with it more waste. As lifestyles rapidly change. 2. The substantial increase in use of paper and paper packaging is probably the most obvious change. newly mobilized consumers and their market-savvy suppliers rarely consider the potential waste management problems that go hand in hand with changing lifestyles. increased use of plastic waste and food packaging results in a related rise in the amount of litter. and Indonesia. of higher volume (making waste more expensive to collect).7 million tonnes of paper annually by 2000. the related conveniences and products—mobile phones. disposable diapers.4 billion containers would be Japan 125 144 added to the waste stream.234 5 company was quoted as saying “When I think of China Indonesia—a country on the Equator with 180 million India 953 3 people. their waste composition changes. and a Moslem ban on United States 266 363 alcohol— I feel I know what Heaven looks like” (Barnet 201 9 and Cavanagh. disposable diapers— pose special waste disposal challenges. India. the President of the 1.2 million tonnes of pulp and 32. 1994). Coca-Cola reported to Figure 10: 1996 Per Capita Coca-Cola Consumption shareholders that two of its four key objectives were to and Market Populations increase volume and expand its share of beverage sales worldwide by “. Even more problematic is the fact that in most low and middle income countries. (See Figure 10). The Coca-Cola Company is one telling example of how a multinational company may endeavor to increase its market share— in this case in China. development of waste management systems woefully lags behind the realities of a quickly changing waste stream. electronics . 1997) announced plans to triple its presence in China over the next three years. The next most significant change is a much higher proportion of plastics. Brazil India. fast-service restaurants. and Indonesia. and “consumer products” and their related packaging materials. As countries become richer and more urbanized.” (McDonald’s *8-ounce servings of Company beverages per person per year (excludes products distributed by The Minute Maid Corporation.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Indonesia is planning to produce 13. single-serving beverages. More newspapers and magazines (along with corresponding increases in advertising). a median age of 18. In fact. In addition. In its 1996 Annual Report. McDonald’s Company) is actively expanding in Asia. more packaged foods. preferred. polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC) plastic. McDonald’s is at home everywhere. The rate of change in MSW quantities and composition in Asia is unprecedented.

(See Figure 12. this responsibility is extended to all those involved in the product chain.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Figure 11: Number of McDonald’s Restaurants. Coca-Cola. On the positive side. and Unilever—often have progressive programs that address their specific. retailers. many of the larger multinational corporations—such as McDonald’s. through the end use and final disposal phases.1 INCREASED PARTNERSHIPS McDonald’s and Coca Cola were mentioned previously as examples of companies that represent the overall shift toward a “consumer society. can also become powerful allies to local governments in the fight against waste. bottled water vendors in Indonesia) are often even more prolific waste generators than their international counterparts. with their global expertise. produced and distributed. 1997) 4. suppliers. many progressive companies are working as equal partners with governments in developing comprehensive waste management programs. which places the onus upon the manufacturer to reduce the environmental impacts of their product at each stage of the product’s life cycle—that is from the time the raw materials are extracted. CEMPRE.” In pursuit of expansion. undoubtedly change and increase the overall waste stream. is a good example of this type of collaborative partnership.0 BUSINESS INVOLVEMENT IN WASTE MANAGEMENT 4. EPR does not consider only the manufacturers accountable for environmental impacts. waste stream. the larger multinational companies. 1991 and 1996 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Hong Kong China Singapore Malaysia Indonesia Thailand Number of restaurants in 1991 Number of restaurants in 1996 India (McDonald’s Corporation. as well as the overall. multinational corporations. which originally started in Brazil. governments are realizing that they can not handle waste management alone. from manufacturers.g. consumers.2 EXTENDED PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY Extended product responsibility (EPR) is a voluntary measure. 4. To respond to the call. with global marketing programs. and disposers of products. By contrast. However. local national firms (e.) More and more. Page 14 . however..

Sweden designed a new law to promote more efficient use of resources in the production. CEMPRE/Uruguay. Recently. Austria. 1997). economic indicators on. Despite these difficulties. Homepage: www.org. for using secondary materials in production. the governments of Germany. Coca-Cola. Tetra Pak. and reuse of waste. The Dutch government implemented a new policy that requires distribution of life cycle assessment information at each stage for manufactured products. businesses voluntarily label their products to inform consumers and promote products determined to be more environmentally friendly than other functionally and competitively similar products. the Ecocycle Waste Act of 1994 sets general environmental goals for manufacturers. academics. Danone. complete information regarding product ingredients. In 1994. the international environmental certification system. and non-governmental organizations. CEMPRE’s involvement has extended beyond Brazil. recovery. Mercedes-Benz. and Sustenta in Mexico. and technical aspects of. Nestle. In addition.3 ENVIRONMENTAL LABELING Environmental labeling of consumer products has helped raise environmental consciousness and momentum throughout Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. and for returning products to suppliers at the end of their useful lives. and a database on packaging and the environment (ECODATA). however. newsletters. including improving the sales or image of a labeled product. These programs have been established in numerous OECD countries: Germany. ISO 14001 certification. 4. providing accurate. Portugal.. old automobiles. and making manufacturers more accountable for the environmental impacts of their products.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Figure 12: CEMPRE . and France (OECD. Under environmental labeling programs..e. In practice. Labeling programs are becoming more popular. and the Center for Packaging Technology works in partnership with the government and the private sector to improve packaging systems. Souza Cruz. Environmental labeling can help achieve a number of goals. The Association for the Defense of the Environment and Nature (ADAN) in Venezuela. the Industry and Commerce Pro-Recycling Organization (ICPRO) in Puerto Rico. for indicating when products contain hazardous materials. Swedish battery manufacturers have voluntarily agreed to develop a recycling program for nickel-cadmium batteries (Davis et al. the Netherlands. It provides guidelines for goods that are long-lived as well as those that can be re-used: regarding their reusability and recyclability. CEMPRE/Brazil. and to help local governments in their waste management efforts. Finland. CEMPRE educates the general public about waste and recycling through technical research. tips on how to sell recyclable material. data banks. Suzano. and seminars. Canada. via the World Wide Web. CEMPRE’s members include a wide range of local and international companies. Entrapa. and Sweden have each begun to develop comprehensive frameworks for EPR. The Swedish Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources issued ordinances requiring increased return and recycling of consumer packaging.cempre. directors of companies. Procter & Gamble. Gessy-Lever. Active members have also promoted.Business Involvement in Municipal Solid Waste The Brazilian Business Commitment for Recycling (CEMPRE) is a non-profit trade association that promotes recycling as a component of integrated waste management. waste collection and recycling. and been granted. Japan. i. Sweden. Problems include the difficulty in assessing the entire life cycle of the product in a comprehensive way. Established in 1992. Paraibuna. or establishing product categories. have formed a partnership. the organization provides. becoming self-financed. In addition. and Vega. In Germany. CEMPRE’s programs are directed principally at mayors. labeling of consumer Page 15 . 1991). the operation of labeling programs is more difficult than initially anticipated. raising consumers’ environmental awareness. The companies came together to ensure that their perspective on solid waste (particularly packaging issues) was considered by waste planners. the Latin American Federation of Business Associations for the Promotion of Integrated Solid Waste Management was created to exchange information among its members. scrap paper. and used tires. Norway.br In the last few years. Brahma.

It is also clear that Internet exposure is helping to increase the exchange rates (Buggeln. (Anderson and Smith. Waste exchanges and industry response to projected waste quantities suggest that East Asian countries may benefit from working cooperatively in establishing secondary materials markets and from instituting consistent product and packaging design standards. Figure 13: Results of Survey Asking Whether indeed. 1998). (a country that has a more established South Korea 88 tax regime that is more difficult to modify). More than 50 waste exchanges exist in major centers across North America— such as New York. these industries have a natural desire to expand Respondents Felt That Their Health Was Affected their markets. expanded consumers’ choice of environmentally friendlier products. For example. India 94 Countries such as China. the Canadian Waste Materials Exchange. some are updated monthly. companies save thousands of dollars in avoided disposal costs or in obtaining raw materials at reduced prices.5 PULP AND PAPER Perhaps the next most important area for strengthened partnerships between business and government is in the pulp and paper industry. 4. stimulated the development of products with lesser environmental impact.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA products has grown among countries and may potentially serve as an effective tool for environmental protection. Indonesia. in Chile 88 the United States. 1991). materials listed on the exchange have a 20 percent chance of becoming diverted for useful purposes..4 WASTE EXCHANGES Waste exchanges provide another practical way for businesses and industries to divert waste from disposal to a beneficial use. Chicago. The pulp and paper industry should not be expected to reduce the growth of their products voluntarily. Asian by Environmental Problems governments should aim for judicious use of legislation and market reforms to reduce resource consumption Country Percentage of respondents and waste generation rates. According to Dr. without impinging on who said a great deal or a fair amount economic growth. 1997) Page 16 . and Toronto—and in most cases are provided as a free service to industries. Inc. former director of the oldest waste exchange in North America. every tax 87 dollar that is shifted from income and investment and Peru placed toward resource use and pollution generation Poland 84 enables the economy to gain an additional 45 to 80 cents Italy 83 beyond the revenue replaced in the form of additional 80 work and investment and in environmental damage Ukraine averted (Sitarz. Through waste exchanges. To meet the needs of business. pollution. and thus reduced waste. no studies quantify the effect of environmental labels on product sales or the subsequent environmental impact. and domestic waste quantities (OECD. 4. and the 93 Philippines are well positioned to adopt more China 92 progressive tax measures because their government Hungary revenue bases are still relatively new. To date. Bob Laughlin. Businesses are undoubtedly aware of the huge potential Asian market. However. and most exchanges have web sites on the Internet with links to other exchanges. Waste lists are published three to four times a year. Paper is a good place to start. 1998). a qualitative study of the German labeling program conducted by Environmental Data Services. in 1988 concluded that the environmental label fostered environmental awareness among consumers.

soil. Greenhouse gases are generated from the decomposition of organic wastes in landfills. and long-term partnerships should be sought with receptive resource manufacturers to incorporate these materials. as much as 95 percent of an item’s environmental impact occurs before it is discarded as MSW. The U. and drinking water can also expose individuals to disease organisms and other contaminants. and untreated leachate pollutes surrounding soil and water bodies.S. Robust. In fact. In urban areas. as much as the disposal liability it now represents. Using water polluted by solid waste for bathing. Human fecal matter is commonly found in municipal waste. food irrigation. creating stagnant (Anderson and Smith. 1997) water for insect breeding and floods during rainy seasons. Uncontrolled burning of wastes and improper incineration contributes significantly to urban air pollution. Insect and rodent vectors are attracted to the waste and can spread diseases such as cholera and dengue fever. solid waste clogs Percent who strongly agree Percent who somewhat agree drains. Page 17 . Indiscriminate dumping of wastes contaminates surface and Hungary 18 19 ground water supplies. fair. they do not include the substantial environmental degradation resulting from the extraction and processing of materials at the beginning of the product life cycle. the Beijing or Jakarta regions in 2025 will produce more paper and metal than the world’s largest manufacturing facilities.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS OF IMPROPER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT South Korea 15 60 United States 23 50 Chile 21 44 27 29 Ukraine Improper solid waste management causes all types of pollution: air. Figure 14: Results of Survey Question Asking Whether Respondents Would Contribute Part of Their Income if They Were Certain the Money Would be Used to Prevent Environmental Pollution India 51 30 Peru 39 41 China 30 47 Italy 23 52 5. Health and safety issues also arise from improper solid waste management.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Urban regions in Asia should begin to view their “urban ore” as an opportunity. These negative environmental impacts are only a result of solid waste disposal. For example. and Poland 13 42 water.

93. (Other Asian countries were not included in the survey). Figure 14 shows that these same countries also showed the highest positive response to the question of whether they would agree to contribute part of their income if they were certain the money would be used to prevent environmental pollution. some revenue-producing activities are “skimmed off” and treated as profitable. The UNEP International Environmental Technology Centre (1996) describes the importance of viewing solid waste management from an integrated approach: • • • Some problems can be solved more easily in combination with other aspects of the waste system than individually. economies of scale for equipment or management infrastructure can often only be achieved when all of the waste in a region is managed as part of a single system. Cited in Tchobanoglous et al. asking whether respondents believed that their health was affected by environmental problems.. Adjustments to one area of the waste system can disrupt existing practices in another area. Understanding the inter-relationships among various waste activities makes it possible to create an ISWM plan where individual components complement one another. and informal sectors can be included in the waste management plan. and nowhere is this link more apparent than in low income countries. some will always be net expenses.g. and open burning of waste also contribute to overall health problems. Without an ISWM plan. Environics International Ltd. An ISWM plan helps identify and select low cost alternatives. China.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Public Health Service identified 22 human diseases that are linked to improper solid waste management (Hanks. and the co-disposal of hazardous and medical wastes with municipal wastes poses serious health threat.0 INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) is defined by Tchobanoglous et al. 1967. • • • Waste hierarchies are usually established to identify key elements of an ISWM plan. and management programs to achieve specific waste management objectives and goals.. 6. Waste workers and pickers in developing countries are seldom protected from direct contact and injury. biological. Some waste activities cannot handle any charges. composting. Public. or chemical processes (e. 1993). unless the changes are made in a coordinated manner. with a response of 94. and South Korea ranked among the top five countries that indicated their health was affected a great deal or a fair amount. (See Figure 14. private. and 88 percent. dust stemming from disposal practices.) India. technologies. respectively. Perhaps surprisingly. low income countries are also the most willing to pay for environmental improvements. incineration) landfilling Page 18 . surveyed 24 countries. Exhaust fumes from waste collection vehicles. The general waste hierarchy accepted by industrialized countries is comprised of the following order: • • • • • reduce reuse recycle recover waste transformation through physical. while others may show a profit. People know that poor sanitation affects their health. while activities related to maintenance of public health and safety do not receive adequate funding and are managed insufficiently. (1993) as the selection and application of appropriate techniques. Integration allows for capacity or resources to be completely used.

and high percentage of inerts. Large budget allocations to intermediate waste treatment facilities. leachate collection systems. some high technology sorting and processing facilities. Mainly localized markets and imports of materials for recycling. Waste fees are regulated by some local and national governments. but reuse and Some discussion of source reduction. Landfilling Low-technology sites. Large composting plants are generally unsuccessful. Upfront community participation reduces costs and increases options available to waste planners (e. organized program.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Figure 15: Comparison Of Typical Solid Waste Management Practices Activity Source reduction Low income Middle income High income Organized education programs are beginning to emphasize source reduction and reuse of materials. Prevalent in areas with high land costs. Increasing attention towards long-term markets. Collection rate greater than 90 percent. the wealthy. but the fee collection system is very inefficient. usually open dumping of wastes. recycling and composting). Informal sector still involved. Compactor trucks and highly mechanized vehicles are common. No organized programs. and businesses willing to pay. more innovation in fee collection. Page 19 . Most recycling is through the informal sector and waste picking. leak detection. Waste stream has a smaller portion of compostables than low and middle income countries. Improved service and increased collection from residential areas. Collection costs can represent less than 10 percent of the budget. Collection costs represent 50 to 80 percent of the municipal solid waste management budget. Sporadic and inefficient. Materials are often imported for recycling. Composting Rarely undertaken formally even though the waste stream has a high percentage of organic material. not as common as high income countries. Larger vehicle fleet and more mechanization. Open dumping is still common. but experiencing financial and operational difficulties. low per capita waste generation rates but rarely incorporated in to any are common. and gas collection and treatment systems.g. Waste fees are regulated by some local governments. some small-scale composting projects are more sustainable. Sanitary landfills with a combination of liners.. Collection Recycling Recyclable material collection services and high technology sorting and processing facilities. Most incinerators have some form of environmental controls and some type of energy recovery system. Some incinerators are used. Incineration Not common or successful because of high capital and operation costs. Becoming more popular at both backyard and large-scale facilities. Service is limited to high visibility areas. high moisture content in the waste. Costs Collection costs represent 80 to 90 percent of the municipal solid waste management budget. Some controlled and sanitary landfills with some environmental controls.

15 2. Manila. As shown in Figure 16. India Lahore.25 of municipal taxes and fees. USA 1991 106 22. France 1995 63 24.80 4. Pakistan Dhaka. financial.37 Hoornweg (1992).620 0. In addition.280 billion Hanoi. Canada 1991 67 20.130 0.540 0.33 planning.16 In Japan. Vietnam Madras. fundamental environmental.11 3. region. increasing attention is focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from waste. Country Year Per Capita Per capita GNP % GNP waste services.17 Page 20 . Latvia 1995 6 2.52 only about oneBuenos Aires. greater involvement of the business community in recycling.32 2.000 0. Bangladesh Accra. general observations are delineated in Figure 15.28 management Kuala Lumpur.420 0. Romania 1995 2. Estonia 1995 8.46 0.67 2.5 percent GNP (US $) value can be used New York.77 1. Brazil 1989 13.26 total. Siting for landfills is difficult.47 third of the overall Tallinn.45 0.440 0. are São Paulo.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Despite progress in a few countries. Hungary 1995 13. 6.80 0.550 0.27 residents. Common to all countries is an increasing awareness about the linkages between waste generation and resource consumption vis-a-vis sustainable development. institutional and social problems still exist within all components of the waste systems in low and middle income countries of Asia. Philippines 1995 estimate 4 1. exclusive Riga.5 percent of Figure 16: Municipal Urban Waste Services Expenditures their per capita GNP on urban City. Bucharest.990 0. and the increasing awareness of the value of source separation and marketability of good quality compost. however. These costs. The Expenditure on SWM (US $) Spent on SWM 0. 1998) 1994 1995 1985 1995 1994 predict 2 1.25 to prepare waste London.1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS MacFarlane (1998) highlights a relationship between per capita solid waste management costs and per capita GNP. Ghana (MacFarlane.48 by low and middle Toronto. Venezuela 1989 6.51 0.160 0.33 income countries as a general guideline Strasbourg. Malaysia 1994 15.450 0.070 0.25 4.77 1.37 1.75 1.66 250 350 390 270 390 0.48 businesses and Caracas. m u n i c i p a l governments are responsible for solid waste management services and spent about 2. Argentina 1989 10. Colombia 1994 7. and municipality has its own unique site-specific situations.38 budgets and for Budapest.080 0. cities in both developing and industrialized countries generally do not spend more than 0. Additional costs are paid by Bogota. Recognizing that each country. Incineration is mainly used for volume reduction and its high costs will continue to inhibit its use.240 0.54 0. which often causes sites to be established in inferior locations.450 0. England 1991 46 16.

Final disposal costs are minimal because disposal is usually accomplished through open dumping.. The breakdown of the country’s waste expenditures is shown in Figure 17. Compared to high income countries.419 24. collection costs decrease to about 80 percent (Cointreau-Levine et al. Approximately 45 percent of the total budget is spent on intermediate treatment facilities. Others only charge a flat rate per month or year.554 24. 35 percent of the respondents imposed charges for general waste management services and 636 municipal governments have adopted a fee structure. 1993).253 In low and middle income countries.274 Research 18.474 Purchase Consignment Others of vehicles.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Figure 17: Japanese Expenditures for Solid Waste Management Services (1993) Construction and repair expenses Intermediate treatment Facilities 828. 90 percent of Indonesian solid waste management budgets is allocated for activities related to collection: street sweeping. as shown in Figure 19. 1994).327 66.583 1989 10.818 37. Waste fees are often regulated by the local government and officially collected through a variety of forms. By contrast. or included in the water and electricity bill.272 46.672 Personnel 619. The City of Ahmedabad.482 (Japan Waste Management Association. some municipalities attempt to directly charge residents and commercial enterprises for waste services.545 190. If a sanitary landfill is used for final disposal. and only 1 percent on final disposal (Jain and Pant.712 Final disposal plants 108.165 1988 9. Typically.419 39. India.250 municipalities. Even when waste fees or taxes are imposed by the local government.300 Operation and maintenance expenses Collection Intermediate Final and treatment disposal transportation 85. Revenues from waste fees cover only 4 percent of the total management expenses. 18. environment fee. such as a general household sanitation fee. According to a 1992 Japanese survey of about 3.494 Others 26. as shown in Figure 18. and vehicle operation and maintenance.949 1990 11.924 1992 14.898 24.257 25. spends about 86 percent of its solid waste budget on collection. In Malaysia. 1994). etc. some cities do not collect any fees at all. 1996) 1987 8. compared to only 4 percent allocated towards collection and 6 percent for final disposal.591 1993 18. municipalities in low and middle income countries allocate the majority of their solid waste management budget to collection and transportation services.646 281. 1996) yen in 1993 on general waste services. 13 percent on transportation. Household and commercial waste service fees vary between cities and countries.795 31. namely. the fee collection system is inefficient or unsupervised and subject to Page 21 . whereby the charges increase in relation to the amount of waste disposed. Certain cities collect fees based on the amount of waste generated. about 70 percent of the MSW budget is spent on the waste collection (Sinha. incineration plants.107 1991 12.112 28. accounting for approximately 5 percent of general municipal budgets. waste managers often complain that fees are inadequate to cover the costs of waste services.280 8. transportation. Per capita and per ton waste management expenses of municipal governments have increased every year in Japan. they completely subsidize solid waste services through general funds. Figure 18: Japan’s Solid Waste Management Expenses 1986 Expenses per capita (yen/capita/year) Expenses per disposal amount (yen/ton/year) (Japan Waste Management Association.

1998a 4 UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program. Bangladesh Vientiane.10 and $18. China6 Shanghai. 2535. In Figure 19: Solid Waste Management Fees for Various Cities and Countries City.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA illegal practices.20/household/year Delhi. Country Ulaanbaatar. 1998 6 Johannessen. or that collected money is not transferred directly to the waste management department. 1995 8 Public Health Act (1992) B.55/person/year 3 Hanoi. Indonesia Yangon. 1995 3 World Bank. US $1. Vietnam2 Dhaka.60/household/year US $6/household/year Waste disposal tax is paid. pay only property tax.85/peri-urban household/month Two main hotels each pay $8.15 to 0. The system places poorer residents at a disadvantage because the quality of their primary collection service suffers from the small revenues generated.25/apartment/month US $0. Indonesia6 Denpasar.77 per month per occupant. Private and commercial establishments do not pay any direct waste fees.. Thailand Page 22 . All residential areas in Jakarta are required to pay for primary waste collection. Public Health Act (1992) empowers local authorities to set up solid waste collection fees for households. and industry according to fees announced in the Act. residents pay a Conservancy Tax for solid waste management US $12 to 216/household/year US $360 to 960/non-governmental commercial organization/year Residents and businesses do not pay any direct waste fees. commercial enterprises. Mongolia 1 Household and Commercial Fees US $0. Although regulations are in place to mandate the amounts to be paid by various wastegenerating sources. India5 Beijing. Myanmar Thailand 8 7 6 6 Residents do not pay any direct waste fees.E. Some households pay NGOs about Rs 15 to 20 per month for primary collection services. Local governments also collect retribution fees to cover the costs of transportation and final disposal.50 to 0. markets. 1 2 World Bank. India5 Less than US $0. Proposed system where homeowner has to pay a fixed amount of Rs 15 to 20 per month for collection services. even if wastes are not adequately or regularly collected. US $3 to 7. 1998 5 Environmental Resource Management (ERM) India. average 30 occupants US $0.63/person/year. 1998 7 Tin et al. the retribution fees actually collected are very low. or that money is used for purposes other than solid waste management. Lao4 Chennai (Madras). China Hong Kong6 Jakarta. 1998c URENCO. The waste collection fees are configured based upon the community’s affluence as well as the desired quality of service.80 to 9.

Illegal tipping was not a cause of the reduction. such as collection and landfill operations. The City of Date-shi. a greater awareness and corresponding change in business practices were the main reasons quantities decreased. rather. or altogether ignored. Full cost accounting attempts to cover externalities and includes all waste management costs that are often only partially accounted for. but the system is seriously flawed because: • • • • collectors are few and part-time collectors lack incentive money passes through the hands of at least six agencies Cleansing Agency does not automatically keep the revenues (Porter. Japan reported a similar decrease of municipal waste quantities once disposal fees were introduced. (Japan Waste Management Association.00 40 Waste Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) Tipping Fees (Can$/tonne) 0. 1996) Even if fees are imposed on the public for waste management services. only 1 percent of the waste fees is transferred to the Cleansing Agency. the city uses its general fund to pay for this stage of waste management.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Jakarta. 1991) Tipping Fees (Can $/tonne) Page 23 . such as: Figure 20: Reducing Waste Quantities Through User Fees The City of Guelph. The Cleansing Agency tries to collect door-to-door. The figure below shows a corresponding decrease in the waste generation rates as the residents attempted to avoid disposal fees. To make up the difference in missing fees. Canada increased its landfill tipping fees gradually from no charge in 1985 to Can $92 per tonne in 1991.50 20 0 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 0 Waste Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) (City of Guelph.50 60 1. but are now receiving cooperation from the local residents who have succeeded in reducing their waste quantities. they are usually priced on the basis of direct costs for limited activities. 1996) Guelph municipal solid waste generation rates and landfill tipping fees 100 2.00 80 1. The purpose of the new system was to gain financial resources to build new disposal facilities. Initially the authorities met with public opposition.

Waste disposal facilities.g.g. declining real estate values.. Citizens should be encouraged to place their waste in containers that enhance collection efficiency.” or strategies. traffic congestion) closure and post-closure costs environmental costs (e. Local governments should minimize residential waste collection frequency to a maximum of twice per week. 1. wherever possible.. siting landfills in geotechnically superior locations. Waste collection and disposal fees should be based on waste generation rates. noise) (Resource Integration Systems Limited et al. especially from poor and densely populated areas. Developing waste disposal facilities such as landfills and incinerators often generates tremendous concern—both warranted and reactionary. e.. natural resources tax regimes. However. Municipal waste managers should opt for the least technically complex and most cost-effective solution (e. Page 24 . and financing mechanisms. including multi-national agencies and transnational corporations.g. a few “common values. life-cycle analysis. Waste diversion should be maximized. 5. and empower the private sector to pick up waste from non-residential sources. waste exchanges. extended product responsibility. standard operating procedures.g. progressive programs can be developed in a complementary manner.. An integrated approach toward solid waste management needs to be followed. 7. All levels of government. which is adequate from a public health perspective. 2.. approvals. Local governments should focus primarily on residential waste collection. e. but requires social acceptance. There is a striking degree of similarity in municipal waste management needs and constraints across Asia. it is possible to reduce opposition to new facilities by involving the community and following a technically sound and transparent site selection process. Sound technical justification and a transparent planning process that respects the general public’s valid concerns may not eliminate public opposition. 3. air and water pollution.g. but it is the best way to minimize it. and reduced collection frequency. 1992) 7. Commercial. need to be well integrated within a sound master plan that reflects regional requirements.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA • • • • • • • • • disposal site selection studies and procedures public hearings. institutional. Local governments should license private haulers to generate revenues and to ensure proper collection and disposal. must play a role in long-term program development. and. waste separation for increased recycling and composting. using local conditions to ameliorate potential environmental impacts and costs. Direct user charges and waste fee collection should begin with the business community. and industrial waste collection can usually be self-financing. micro-enterprise development.. can be proposed. 4. which often have a useful life in excess of 25 years.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMON VALUES In order to help solid waste management practitioners. limited mechanization and incineration). Through good partnerships. These programs include communitybased operations. 6.. access roads) social costs (e. Local governments must honestly and respectfully gauge the public’s willingness and ability to participate in the design and implementation of waste management programs.g. and permits design work capital costs operating costs development of infrastructure to support disposal facilities (e.

treatment.. e. improper disposal is far more expensive in the long run. reuse. Regional approaches to waste disposal. recover) and encourage waste separation to maximize flexibility to deal with future changes. and disposal costs often place a large burden on local government finances.g.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 8. However.” 9. All levels of government should promote the hierarchy of waste management (i.e.. shared landfills are especially important. Local governments are usually in the best position to assume key responsibility for municipal solid waste collection and disposal. sustainable financing and sustainable service provision still needs to be defined by a broader set of stakeholders. Page 25 . reduce. Wherever appropriate. 10. with costs accruing over many years. governments should view solid waste as a resource. rather than just a “local problem. recycle. Although waste collection. Local governments need the assistance of all levels of government to provide waste management services efficiently.

1998) Page 26 . Bureau of Mines. 1900-89 (millions of tonnes) 800 Industrial Minerals 600 Secondary Metals Recycled Paper Millions of tonnes 400 Primary Paper 200 Prim ary M etals Non Fuel Organics Wood 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 92 1940 102 1950 296 1960 530 1970 1042 1980 2820 1989 5453 GNP (billions of dollars) (U. 1997) 1984 1988 1994 Figure 22: United States Material Consumption Trends.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Figure 21: Wuhan City Waste Composition 80 Paper Metals 60 Plastics Glass Thousand tonnes Textiles 40 20 0 (Wei et al. Cited in Hammond.. 1993.S.

Extended Product Responsibility: A Tool for a Sustainable Economy. Ecology and Environment. USA. Environment. USA. 1997. Vol. G. 1997.A. 1998.. Shenyan. International Trade and Recycling in Developing Countries: The Case of Waste Paper in India... G. Djuweng.C.. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. J. 1997. Masters Thesis. Dalian. Inc. Green. R. The Washington Post. State of the Environment Fact Sheet No. 39. Arkonin Consultants. 1996 Annual Report. 1996. U. Solid Wastes Program. Prepared for Liaoning Urban Construction and Renewal Project Office. Liaoning Environmental Project: Dalian Solid Waste Management Facility Report. D. November. and Welfare. New York. Department of Health. The World Bank. Solid Waste/Disease Relationships. USA. S. Greenest.A. Collaborative Research in the Economics of Environment and Development (CREED).. McGraw-Hill.gc. Publication SW-1c. June.G. India (personal communication). Cited in Tchobanoglous. P.. Wet/Dry Recycling Centre. D. 1997. Georgia. Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program (MEIP). October.. Prepared for Liaoning Urban Construction and Renewal Project Office. A Preferred Waste Management System for the City of Guelph. Dalian. Hong Kong. Wilt. Urban Development Technical Paper Number 5. Inc. Dalian Environment and Sanitation Department (DESMB). Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Eggerth. http:// www1. Environment Hong Kong 1996: A Review of 1995. Thiesen. Ohio. and S. City of Guelph. USA.. 1998. Brazil. Diaz.T. Canada (personal communication). New Delhi. Indonesia. Education. Environmental Management of Urban Solid Wastes in Developing Countries: A Project Guide..WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA References Anderson. Page 27 .M. October. Cincinnati. Lancaster. Liaoning Environmental Project: Dalian Solid Waste Management Facility Report. People’s Republic of China.C. Cointreau.exe/osoeeng/query=*/doc/{t344}? Environmental Protection Department. L. Philippines. 7. Cointreau-Levine. Barkenbus. G. 1994. USA.F.. 1997. Greener.. Options for Domestic Solid Waste Treatment in Beijing. EMB/DENR. 1993. Smith. Inc. New York. Managing Solid Wastes in Developing Countries.ec. São Paulo.ca/cgi-bin/foliocgi.N. November 22. 1996. Final Report: Technical Assistance Project on Private Sector Participation in Infrastructure Public Services Solid Waste Management Sector.L. and J. Shenyan. 1990. People’s Republic of China. Industrial Waste Exchanges: An Overview of Their Role. 1993. 1993. D.. September. Coca-Cola Company. USA. Urban Environment and Solid Waste Management Study. June. Washington. Guelph.S. T. Cited in Ecology and Environment. World Bank. October 10. Hoornweg. The Jakarta Post.J. Wastes Management. January. and L. Timber Estates Threaten Forests. 1997. Davis.. 1998. Atlanta. Tennessee Materials USA. 1992. 1996. Buggeln. Guelph. C. New York. People’s Republic of China. CEMPRE News. Beijing Environmental Sanitation Administration. 1991. University of Guelph... and D. Ontario. 95—1. Hanks. Number 36. Vigil. Savage.. 1982.. S. Washington. Canada. Environment Canada. H. Saturday.. People’s Republic of China. IBRO.. Website. 1967. and Osana International Inc. Ontario. Lancaster. MEIP City Working Paper Series. USA. Environmental Resources Management (ERM) India. S . No. 1995.

Canada (personal communication). Draft proceedings of the United Nations Expert Meeting on Population Distribution and Migration. D. 1994. Sri Lanka. 1996.P.. World Bank. 1997. Recycling in Asia: Partnerships for Responsive Solid Waste Management. 1993. and Recycling: Formal and Informal Aspects of Production and Employment in Indian Cities. 2528. 95—1.pelb. 59. 27—32. Prospects of Recycling Systems in Indonesia. Baud. Parikh. L.hk/waste/current. M. January 18—22 (United Nations. 1995.wpelb. 1998. Cited in Environment Canada. Japan. Vol. T. P. No. Avebury Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Bolivia. pp. Conservation & Recycling 6 (1/2). Japan. Water and Urban Development Department. 1994). MacFarlane.gc.htm Pollution Control Department.. Porter. 1998 (personal communication with staff. Conservation and Recycling (12). Thailand). pp.gov. Transportation. 1996.. United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD). Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research Discussion Paper No. Global Urbanization: Towards the Twenty-First Century. Environment Canada. Cited in van Beukering. Bangkok. State of the Environment Fact Sheet No.. Griffiths. Publications Service. Paris.exe/osoeeng/query=*/doc/. http://www.ca/cgi-bin/foliocgi. Solid Waste Management in India. pp. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1998.B. and Global Stewardship. Japan Waste Management Association. Environment and Lands Bureau. M.. The Annual: McDonald’s Corporation 1996 Annual Report. Ottawa.. C. Publications Service. OECD Environmental Data: Compendium 1995. Recovering Urban Solid Waste in Bangalore (India). Justice. 1983. Bombay. 48–51. and C. International Environment Report. Resources. France. Oak Brook. 1998. Markham. and I. Inc. 1994. Biocycle.. Tokyo.. USA. Page 28 . 1991. 1998. Colombo. Jain. Public Health Act (1992) B. Organisation for Economic and Co-operation and Development (OECD). Website. University of Amsterdam. Solid Waste Recovery.L..J. Johannessen. Paris. R. Conference paper. 2535 and the Regulation of the Ministry of Public Health (1985) B. http://www1. Nagoya. Pant. Waste Management in Japan 1996. 1993. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Huysman. Website. Washington. Santa Cruz. and G. National Packaging Monitoring System. 1997. 1998. pp. A Comparison of the Energy Savings from the Use of Secondary Materials.E. Conference paper presented at the 20th WEDC Conference. 1993. Solid Waste Management Consultant. J. 1997. Maryland. Illinois.C.ec. J.E. B. Database accessible through the Solid Waste Management Division. Perla. 229—252. A. Indonesia. New York. England. June. et al. France. 1—3. Natural Resource Consumption: North and South.. 1996. Department of Geography. Cited in Hammond A. Community Composting in Developing Countries. 1991. 4. Powell. Hong Kong Special Administration of the People’s Republic of China. August. Lanham. Consumption Patterns: The Driving Force of Environmental Stress. Technical Report on Asia: The Emerging Approach to Landfilling of Municipal Solid Waste.G. Planning.. Re-use. Population Distribution and Migration. 158—159. Listyawan. The Economics of Water and Waste: A Case Study of Jakarta.. 20. USA. An Economic Analysis of Different Types of Formal and Informal Entrepreneurs. Paper in Ethics of Consumption: The Good Life. McGee. Environmental Labeling in OECD Countries. USA.M. McDonald’s Corporation. Thailand.

Autumn. Lee.gc. USA. 103—131..exe/osoeeng/query=*/doc/{t344}? Resource Integration Systems Limited and VHB Research & Consulting Inc.. World Urbanization Prospects: The 1994 Revision. Tin. Tchobanoglous. D. Regional Development Dialogue. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. D. 1996. in Crocker. 1993. Linden. Canada. May. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC). New York. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC). Refuse Collection Vehicles for Developing Countries. 1998. Page 29 .. pp.or. No. A Review of Indian Experiences in Composting of Municipal Solid Wastes and a Case Study on Private Sector on Private Sector Participation. Resources. Inc. Human Development Report. 1997.. United Nations. 1996.L. Maryland. 1995. United Nations. W.. USA. 3. 1998. Reutergardh. 1997. 1993. USA. Su. 1992. K. A. Materials and the Economy. Technical Publication Series.. (ed). Minerals Today. 1989. New York. Waste Minimization Measures for a Waste Reduction Advisory Committee 3 Rs Strategy: Final Report. (personal communication with Regional Water and Sanitation Group for East Asia and the Pacific. April. Inc.C. Statistics Division.. P. United Nations. Justice. 14. Partnership in Solid Waste Collection: Malaysian Experience. Vol.. 14. 1995. Lao PDR and Cambodia Office). Osaka/Shiga. Data based on actual survey conducted by the Institute of Urban Centres for its Solid Waste Management Project in 1996—97. and S. USA. Cited in Hammond. and Global Stewardship. D.ca/cgi-bin/foliocgi. United States Bureau of Mines. 95—1. Supplemental document at the International Expert Group Seminar on Policy Responses Towards Improving Solid Waste Management in Asian Metropolises.. Resource Integration Systems Limited. Municipal Solid Waste Management. 6. Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis.ec. 1998. 1993. United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD). President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Vigil. and T. New York. and S. 1998.. Ethics of Consumption: The Good Life. Lanham. Selvam. 1995 Demographic Yearbook.M. Conference of Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Rural-Urban Connection. New York.. H. Website. Conservation and Recycling. Population Division. International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management. 1998. Charge Up to Recycle! Comes to Canada. Oxford University Press. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Municipal Solid Waste Collection System in Yangon. USA. 1992. Sinha. National Waste Minimization Study: Final Report. September 23—24. State of the Environment Fact Sheet No. Website.unep. Sustainable America. 15. Sitarz.. Canada. USA. G. Wise.jp/ietc/ESTdir/pub/MSW/RO/Asia. City Profiles. Thiesen. McGraw-Hill. L. 1997. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. USA.L.. Newsletter and Technical Publications.A. http:// www1. Press release. Earthpress. http://www. Regional Overview and Information Sources: Asia. D. No.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Rechargeable Battery Recycling in Canada (RBRC). Myanmar. A. Washington. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program. Toronto. Cited in Environment Canada. Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

1996. ◊*Ecology and Environment. 1996. Washington... Sectoral Analysis in Bangladesh. Lancaster. and S. New York. October 20. Yunnan Environmental Project: Environmental Assessment Report. International News: China and India. April.C. Washington.. Municipal Waste Management in Bangladesh With Emphasis on Recycling. World Bank. May. Presented at the Regional Workshop of Urban Waste Management in Asian Cities. Washington. ◊*Wei. Fact Finding Report: Solid Waste Management. Warmer Bulletin. Oxford University Press. Solid Waste Disposal in China: Situation. Inc.. Herbell. June 25. Shenyan. USA. 1996—97. Bangladesh. (personal communication with staff in Mongolia).F. USA. D. USA. Zhang. 1996. Wei. D. The Center of Environmental Planning and Assessment. pp. USA. Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries. D. Problems. and S. Draft Final Report.C. USA. Solid Waste Disposal in China: Situation. 573—583. 15. 1995. pp.C. D. 1997c. February. World Bank. World Bank. Liaoning Environmental Project: Dalian Solid Waste Management Facility Report. 1998. Washington. Options for Domestic Solid Waste Treatment in Beijing. 1997. Solid Waste Management in Hanoi. USA. and Suggestions.. November. Chongqing Urban Environment Project. M. Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program.C. 1997. World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World. (51). Problems and Suggestions. Oxford. ◊*World Bank. 1997b. D. People’s Republic of China. Waste Imports for Recycling. Guangxi Urban Environment Project.. Waste Management and Research. 1995. Vietnam. People’s Republic of China. 1993. Page 30 .C. Dhaka. Washington.C. Waste Management and Research (15).. January. 1996. City Working Paper Series. J-D.. Zhang. February. Draft Report. 573-583. Draft Report: Bangladesh Sectoral Analysis.C. Washington. Cited in World Bank. D. 1998a. Dalian. World Bank. Sectoral Analysis in Bangladesh. United Kingdom. ◊*Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences. USA. Final Draft.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Urban Environment Company (URENCO). Environmental Impact Assessment for Hubei Province Urban Environmental Project.C. 1997a. January. Washington. 1998b. Forthcoming paper. The Urban Environment. Washington. World Resources: A Guide to the Global Environment. 1992. 1996.. Prepared for Liaoning Urban Construction and Renewal Project Office. World Bank. p. 1998. D. Yunnan Institute of Environmental Sciences. Draft Report. 1998c. International Economics Department. June. J-B. J. USA. *World Bank. World Resources Institute. Herbell.. World Bank. D. Warmer Bulletin (44).. WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION REFERENCES * indicates reference is for waste generation rate ◊ indicates reference is for waste composition Bangladesh: ◊Ahmed. 20. J... China: ◊*Beijing Environmental Sanitation Administration.

Chongqing Urban Environment Project..WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA *World Bank. Vol. D. Lao PDR: *UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program. Indonesia: ◊*Listawayan. OECD Environmental Data: Compendium 1995.. Yunnan Environmental Project: Environmental Assessment Report. 1995. Hong Kong Special Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Prospects of Recycling Systems in Indonesia. Regional Water and Sanitation Group for East Asia and the Pacific. and F. Data based on actual survey conducted by the Institute of Urban Centres for its Solid Waste Management Project in 1996-97. New Delhi. 1989. No. H. *United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program. Recycling in Asia: Partnerships for Responsive Solid Waste Management. Tokyo. USA. *Planning. Japan. B. Tokyo Metropolitan Waste Management Office. Website.C. Hong Kong: ◊Environmental Protection Department. Washington.hk/waste/current. H. Japan. Community Involvement in Primary Collection of Solid Waste In Four Indonesian Cities. L. Japan: *Japan Waste Management Association. Solid Waste Management. World Health Organization assignment/mission reports. United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD). Supplemental document at the International Expert Group Seminar on Policy Responses Towards Improving Solid Waste Management in Asian Metropolises. Journal of Resource Management and Technology. Fact Finding Report. Collection and Disposal Problems of Solid Waste in Major Cities of Developing Countries: A Case Study in Malaysia. 1989. Cited in Hani.. September. December.H. Environment and Lands Bureau. 1996. City Profiles. Status of Solid Waste Disposal in Metro Cities in India. Malaysia: *Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia.. http://www. Final Draft. 1997. India. 1992.pelb. Waste Management in Japan 1996. Environment Hong Kong 1996: A Review of 1995.htm India: ◊*Environmental Resources Management (ERM) India. December. 1996.gov. 1990. Othman. February. 1996.M. Nagoya. 1998 (personal communication with Regional Water and Sanitation Group for East Asia and the Pacific. Hong Kong. ◊Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 20. Technical Guideline on Sanitary Landfill.wpelb. Page 31 . Lao PDR and Cambodia Office). Republic of: *Ogawa. 1997. *United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD). 3. 1989. *Ogawa. ◊*Yunnan Institute of Environmental Sciences. Korea. 1995. World Health Organization assignment/mission reports. 1993.

.gov. EMB/DENR. Su. 1997. Vietnam: *Kampsax International A/S. *Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).sg:80/env/function/solid. Urban Services Project Ulaanbaatar. pp.. and S. 1994 (personal communication with World Bank staff in Sri Lanka. Volume 1. Solid Waste Management in the Kathmandu Valley.html Sri Lanka: *Metropolitan Colombo Solid Waste Management Study. Cited in Tin. L. Presented at the International Conference on Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. 1995. 1998. Philippines: *United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Municipal Solid Waste Collection System in Yangon. Myanmar. Lee. Capacity Building for Local Government Units on Environmental Management (Local-GEM). 1995. 1994. 14. EMB/DENR. Warmer Bulletin 53. 1998. 1993.. 103-131. Kandy Solid Waste Management Study. Singapore: Hon. 1993.-H. Website.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Mongolia: *Government of Mongolia. *Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Thailand: *Pollution Control Department. June 27—30.. Page 32 . Resources. Thailand (personal communication with staff). Singapore. L. 1991.. March. Feasibility Study. Nepal: *Consolidated Management Services Nepal Ltd.F. unpublished departmental data. Conservation and Recycling.-K. 1997. Wise. Reutergardh. Main Report. Yangon City Development Committee. Philippines. 1996. March 1998). IBRO. Galle Solid Waste Management Study. Urban Environment and Solid Waste Management Study. D.L. Annex 6: Evaluation of Three Solid Waste Collection Pilot Projects. City Government of Ulaanbaatar and the World Bank. Prepared for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Danida and Socialist Republic of Vietnam.M. 1997. Study on Solid Waste Management for Metro Manila in the Republic of the Philippines. January. Halong City Water Supply and Sanitation Project. 1995. Myanmar: *Cleaning Department.. http://ww. W. December. *Singapore Ministry of the Environment. Solid Waste Management in Singapore. A.

yard. household goods) “Others” wastes should be differentiated into two categories: “other-residue” and “other-consumer products. they may be attributable to changes in the relative scavenging value of the materials. or open dumping takes place. and sweepings and is a significant component of the waste Page 33 . the reliability of solid waste data is further reduced by large seasonal variations (e. bulky wastes. incomplete waste collection and disposal (e. transfer. and a lack of weigh scales at landfill sites to record waste quantities. and wood wastes) paper plastic glass metal others (includes ceramics. yet growing waste quantities associated with increasing GNP are not necessarily a true reflection of increased waste. and transportation. thereby reducing the quantities of waste delivered to disposal sites. The component categories used within this report are: • • • • • • compostables (includes food. significant level of waste is disposed directly by the generator by burning or throwing in waterways and low lying areas).” “Other-residue” is made up of ash. and large variations can be observed if the economic situation changes. bones. ashes. The most accurate method measures the waste at the source before any recycling.g. waste collection efficiency is low and formal services do not extend to all communities. inerts. Waste composition indicates the components of the waste stream given as a percentage of the total mass or volume. should be considered with a degree of caution due to global inconsistencies in definitions of common terms and methodologies. inerts. Measuring waste quantities arriving for final disposal is most practical for municipal purposes. This way of measuring does not accurately represent the waste stream because waste can be diverted prior to final disposal. coconut husks. leather. seasonal rains and uncontainerized waste).g. especially in low and middle income countries where the informal sector removes a large amount of recyclable waste during collection. As well. in most low and middle income countries. However. the generation rate and composition are commonly calculated using the waste quantities arriving at the final disposal site. and whether they were estimated or physically measured. composting. textiles. rubber. dirt. including both generation rates and composition.. It is rarely mentioned at what stage the waste generation rates and composition were determined. burning.WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA ANNEX 1: SOLID WASTE DATA Waste data.. The reliability of the data is questionable due to: • • • • • • • • • undefined words or phrases units omitted inconsistent units used dates not indicated study methodologies not discussed estimates made without any basis incomplete data inconsistent values sources of information not referenced In most low and middle income countries.

the higher the moisture content and the density of the waste stream.5 30. 1995 World Bank.0 49. Table 1 shows solid waste moisture contents and densities as reported by specific cities. Philippines Kuala Lumpur. 1996 4 Ecology and Environment. Low income countries have a wet waste density typically between 350 to 550 kg/m3. Data are also denoted by the letter “t” to denote the unit. 1997 Another major inconsistency among the various waste studies is the use of U. Philippines 6 Metro Manila.stream in low and middle income countries.S. Myanmar Chongqing. Country Low income countries Yangon.g.0 n/a n/a 45. Usually the higher the percentage of organic matter. This waste stream is much more significant in high income countries and differs from “other-residue” in that the volumes are much higher per kilogram of waste and are generally combustable..1 56. China4 Middle income countries Bangkok. middle income countries range from 200 to 350 kg/m3.7 27. Probably both mass and volume measurements were used depending upon the country. and high income countries from 150 to 300 kg/m3. 1998 6 Department of Environment and Natural Resources.. household appliances. Table 1: Solid Waste Moisture Contents and Densities City. Within this report. Waste densities and moisture contents are needed to convert data to a common frame of reference for comparison (e. It is important to cite whether the percentages are given on a dry or wet basis because the component percentages will differ markedly depending on the moisture content.0 7 High income countries 7 Tin et al. and/or based on volume or mass. Thailand Rayong Municipality. India.. The waste density of low income countries such as China. High income countries probably used mass as a basis since they have greater funding resources and support to complete a more accurate waste characterization. tetra-paks and blister packaging). Thailand Batangas. 1993 5 Pollution Control Department.3 46. “Other. Malaysia Seoul. imperial units versus metric units. Rarely is it indicated within a waste study whether the percentage is on a wet or dry basis. Inc. causing the true value to be unknown. unless clearly noted.g. Frequently the U.4 6 5 Chonburi Municipality.. . 1989 8 Japan Waste Management Association. South Korea Yokohama. electronics. 1995 7 UNCRD. all of the units are metric. It is assumed that the composition was determined on a wet basis because most countries have financial restrictions and a lack of physical resources to remove moisture from the waste.7 5 5 400 550 554 400 200-350 350 210 240 262 n/a 270 150-300 302 n/a Dalian.consumer products” consists of bulky wastes.S. imperial ton and the metric tonne are interchanged for one another when reporting waste quantities. Thailand 49. from mass to volume and from wet to dry). 1997a 3 Yunnan Institute of Environmental Sciences. Japan8 1 2 45. China 3 2 1 Moisture content (%) Density (kg/m3) 350-550 n/a 42. Low and middle income countries would be more inclined to use volume since it does not require measuring equipment and can be estimated. China Qujing. and multi-material packaging (e. and Mongolia is further influenced by significant quantities of discarded coal ash residue.

ANNEX 2: WASTE GENERATION RATES .

9 0.300.000 2.230 2.400 2.000 6.367.000 594.960.080.000 1.87 0.6 3.000 24.000 2.280 943.44 1.37 0.250 2.916.000 60.26 3.840 104.442.000 30.5 1.752.73 1.302.000 959.58 0.200.000 6.510 1.160 495.83 0.000 8.000 3.000 1.000 0.640.17 0.045.080 4.106.000 1.000 15.000 16.448.000 2.436.254.000 6.000 2.200 15.74 0.000 1.3 1.000 570.160.658.000 639.480 2.200.575.88 0.180.000 1.88 0.000 1.206.07 1.38 0.018.114.019.000 8.681.6 0.66 0.800.153. Commercial 1993 1995 1995 1991 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 2.59 0.000 1.000 6.400 Page 36 .436.818.16 1.497.29 1.368.390 913.000 584.836.000 2.062.923.75 1.2 1.33 0.400 Japan Sapporo (20)** Sendai (20)** Chiba (20)** Tokyo (20)** Kawasaki (20)** Yokohama (20)** Nagoya (20)** Kyoto (20)** Osaka (20)** Kobe (20)** Hiroshima (20)** Kita-kyushu (20)** Fukuoka (20)** Korea.845.000 1.612.400 30.86 0.800.000 1.000 480.25 0.ANNEX 2 Waste Generation Rates for Selected Asian Cities Country East and North East Asia China Chongqing (1) Dalian (2) Year Urban Population Generation Rate (kg/cap/day) Total Waste (kg/day) 1997 1993 Shanghai (2)** Guilin (3)** Qujing (4) Beijing (5) Huangshi (11) Xiangfan (11) Yichang (11) Wuhan (6) Hong Kong (7) Residential Misc.46 2.600 473.000 10.033.850 1.780 12.000 1.000 11.000 374.640 473.69 1.080 5.2 1.202.160.000 3.700.000 1.85 0.000 391.100 725.000 7.000 557.08 6.022.2 0.27 1.400 575.745.000 854. Republic of Seoul (8) Mongolia Ulaanbaatar (9) South East Asia Indonesia Jakarta (10)** Bandung (10)** Semarang (10)** Surabaya (10)** Yogyakarta (12) Padang (12) Ujung Pandang (12) Lao PDR Vientiane (13) Khanthabouri (13) Tharher (13) 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1989 1995 1993 1993 1993 1993 1991 1991 1991 1998 1998 1998 9.42 0.000 1.000 356.519.78 0.000 1.000 180.920 344.000 221.6 2.400 3.200.400 1.250 1.000 1.88 0.000 844.900 513.880 603.436.275.180 1.695.21 1.430 9.71 0.120 4.139.9 1.600 1.08 0.17 0.000 6.157.500.000 11.450 183.600 22.03 1.314.

38 0.000 1.130 5.000 5.880 4.000 191.43 0.720 82.700 300.000 524.48 0.000 12.966.000 300.557.037.79 0.130.710 148.51 0.520 360.288.120 82.39 0.000 2.000 Page 37 0.500 102.000 167.430 1.458.720 84.44 0.45 0.54 0.000.000 494.980 n/a n/a n/a 269.000 196.000 312.79 0.160 183.32 0.38 0.38 0.000 1.740 231.000 9.71 0.29 0.000 211.000 4.000 8.130.39 1.600 1.000 5.800 188.500 2.000 167.009.000 n/a 1.000 360.000 273.000 170.15 1.53 0.760 1.62 1.099.4 1.680 91.5 0.850 5.664.4 0.52 0.71 1 0.000 5.000 1.1 1 1.000 400.983.000 255.5 0.63 2.290 168.000 227.609.406.092.51 0.876.200 .360 99.579.000 1.000 152.000 428.940 391.000 1.73 0.41 2.800 372.ANNEX 2 Malaysia Kuala Lumpur (8) Penang (8) Bemban New Village (14) Temoh New Village (14) Kota Setar (15) Pulau Pinang (15) Ipoh (15) Kelang (15) Seremban (15) Johor Bahru (15) Kota Bharu (15) Kuantan (15) Melaka (15) Petaling Jaya (15) Myanmar Yangon (16)** Philippines Metro Manila (17) Baguio (17) Batangas (17) Tacloban (17) Iligan (17) Cagayan de Oro (17) Olongapo (17) Singapore (18) Thailand Bangkok (19)** Chiangmai (19)** Nakhonsawan (19)** Udonthani (19)** Nakhonratchasima (19)** Rachaburi (19)** Pattaya (19)** Phuket (19)** Songkhla (19)** Vietnam Halong (21) South Asia Bangladesh Rajshahi (22) Barisal (22) Khulna (22) Dhaka (22) Chittagong (22) Sylhet (22) India Ahmedabad (23) Bangalore (23) Bhopal (23) Bombay (23) Calcutta (23) Coimbatore (23) Delhi (23) Hyderabad (23) Indore (23) Jaipur (23) 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1993 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1996 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1997 920.000 n/a n/a n/a 243.640 90.620 216.300 3.040 2.300.186.000 193.000 188.213.643.560 81.677.5 0.457 1.440 583.000 9.39 0.106.063.53 0.000 2.180 120.000 212.000 278.000 100.11 0.36 0.000 6.452.290 3.876.412.48 0.000 242.513.45 0.11 0.59 0.54 0.340 350.55 0.000 137.500 186.4 0.87 1.982.730 n/a 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 2.78 1.000 4.55 1.5 0.619.000 2.000 1.400 804.850 103.46 0.400 542.720 3.000 466.309.000 816.000 3.620 349.

1993 (3) World Bank.244.700 60. RWSG-EAP. 1995.38 0.619. Lao PDR and Cambodia office. 1996 (6) Wei et al. 1998 (waste quantities are estimated. 1994 (8) UNCRD 1989 "City Profiles.52 0. UNDP. JICA.. 1996 (4) Yunnan Insititute of Environmental Sciences.640 899.1997. 1992 (16) Cleaning Department..000 1.000 1.499. IBRO.000 1. EMB/DENR.4 0.66 0.043. 1993 (used 1990 population and assumed average density of 300 kg/m^3) (13) Personal communication with UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program. EMB/DENR. the country is divided into 6 Administrative Divisions) (23) Environmental Resources Management (ERM) India.000 109.000 0.98 0. Environment and Lands Bureau.320 70..1989 (15) Hani and Othman.58 0.ANNEX 2 Kanpur (23) 1995 Kochi (23) 1995 Lucknow (23) 1995 Ludhiana (23) 1995 Madras (23) 1995 Madurai (23) 1995 Nagpur (23) 1995 Patna (23) 1995 Pune (23) 1995 Surat (23) 1995 Vadodara (23) 1995 Varanasi (23) 1995 Visakhapatnam (23) 1995 Nepal Kathmandu Valley (24) 1994 Sri Lanka Colombo (25)** 1994 Kandy (25)** 1994 Galle (25)** 1994 n/i means not indicated n/a means not available C&D means construction and demolition **city population data are from United Nations. 1998. Based on actual survey conducted by the Institute of Urban Centres for its 1996-97 SWM Project (14) Ogawa.6 0. Generation estimates are from Ministry of Infrastructure Development (1996-97) (10) Listyawan. 1997 Page 38 .753. 1.000 941.874.31 0.990 438. 1998 (22) World Bank. 1996 (19) Pollution Control Department. Yangon City Development Committee cited in Tin et al. and the World Bank.400 300.120 695. 1997 (2) Ecology and Environment Inc.780 396. and Study on Solid Waste Management for Metro Manila in the Republic of the Philippines.000 690.850 (1) World Bank.5 0.360 348.625..000 4.031. 1998 (20) Japan Waste Management Association.136. 1997 (7) Planning. 1995 (24) Consolidated Management Services Nepal Ltd.980 366.000 104.65 1.090 412.003.000 1.000 917. 1997 (assumed density of 300 kg/m^3) (11) Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences. 1995.000 1.27 0. 1997 (18) Signapore Ministry of the Environment.000 2.4 0.031.000 602.62 0. Urban Environment and Solid Waste Management Study.000 1. 1997.800 345. 1996 (population data from 1994) (21) Kampsax International A/S.340 3.400 1. City Government of Ulaantabaar. 1995 (12) UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program.64 0. 1995 (17) Capacity Building for Local Government Units on Environmental Management (Local-GEM). February 1996 (5) Beijing Environmental Sanitation Administration.199.000 752.000 615.750 330.400 402.39 0. MMDA.000 670." Supplemental document at the International Expert Group Seminar on Policy Responses Towards Improving SWM in Asian Metropolises (9) Government of Mongolia.39 0.36 0.

200 34.53 1.12 1.26 1.1 0.96 0.85 263.4 15.93 0.ANNEX 2 OECD Municipal Solid Waste Generation Rates Country USA Australia Canada Finland Iceland Norway The Netherlands France Denmark Austria Japan Belgium Switzerland Turkey Hungary Sweden Germany Spain Italy Poland Portugal Mexico Greece 1 2 Year 1992 1992 1992 1990 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1990 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1990 1990 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 MSW Generation Rate1 kg/capita/day Population2 Total Waste tonnes/day 2 1.2 57.4 1.18 1.5 526.081 38.914 8.85 0.030 8.6 5.8 1.1 7 61.1 5.558 140.01 0.949 6.89 1. 1997b *United Nations.110 7.29 1.898 8.280 8.160 21.6 9.670 459 6.5 58. 1995 World Bank.1 125.552 9.99 0.910 78.09 1.2 38.224 11.3* 4.2 10.1 1.8 81.8 10.2 8.599 10.9 91.7 1.1 1.2 8.99 0.37 1. 1995 Page 39 .07 1.912 35.235 74.888 81.209 53.808 54.1 18.925 OECD.1 10.700 66.1 29.9 39.9 0.

Finland. 1995) Organic 34 52 23 26 50 37 32 25 49 44 43 18 35 44 27 64 38 Paper 28 14 38 46 22 30 26 30 20 20 27 31 23 21 28 6 26 Plastic 11 4 9 9 7 7 0 10 9 8 9 6 12 11 15 3 8 Glass 7 6 7 7 9 6 6 12 5 7 4 4 5 7 3 2 6 Metal 8 3 8 8 5 3 3 6 5 3 5 5 3 4 3 1 5 Other 13 20 16 12 8 17 35 17 13 17 8 36 22 13 24 24 18 The following countries only consider household waste in the MSW composition: Canada. Denmark.ANNEX 2 1993 OECD Municipal Solid Waste Composition (percentage) Country Canada Mexico USA Japan Australia Denmark Finland France Greece Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Switzerland Turkey Average (OECD. France. and Turkey Page 40 . Luxembourg. Netherlands.

730 2.651 583 435 616 362 1.442 583 2.429 435 17.700 310 270 980 350 3. 1997b Page 41 .ANNEX 2 Gross National Product (GNP) for Various Countries Country Assumed Annual Growth Rate (%) 1995 Per Capita GNP1 (1995 US $) Predicted 2025 Per Capita GNP (1995 US $) China Hong Kong Japan Korea.570 562 489 2. of Mongolia Cambodia Indonesia Lao PDR Malaysia Myanmar* Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam Bangladesh India Nepal Sri Lanka 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 620 22. Dem. Rep.740 240 240 340 200 700 1.028 6.505 30.640 240 9. Korea.890 240 1.Rep.990 39.050 26.379 850 9.Peo.268 World Bank.987 53.549 36.

162 71.1 9.9 1.2 44.000 36.4 121.455 32.4 4.650 167.300 142.ANNEX 2 Current GNP per capita 19951 1995 Population Total (millions) 1 2025 Urban Waste Generation Predicted GNP per capita Predicted Population Total2 (millions) Urban2 (% of Total) Predicted Urban Waste Generation MSW (kg/cap/day) Total (tonnes/day) Country Urban (% of Total) 2 Generation Rate (kg/cap/day) Total Waste (tonnes/day) Low Income Countries Nepal Bangladesh Myanmar Vietnam Mongolia India Lao PDR China Sri Lanka Middle Income Countries 200 240 2 240 240 310 340 350 620 700 980 1.115 43. Page 42 .5 45.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 196.5* 73.1 193.292 3.2 20.1 1.730 39.473 10.362 25.46 0.9 6.6 104.2 13.3 40 47.6 0.2 18.1 25 275.7 93.376 47.600 21.52 1. Republic of Hong Kong Singapore Japan 1 2 World Bank.500 1.862 3.76 0.200.1 44.5 0.3 68.9 0.440 17.81 1.482 8.392.89 0.700 9.8 46.460 3.3 100 84.269 2.7 30.050 2.818 360 440 580 580 560 600 850 1.5 42.8 0.7 97.334 12.600 31.47 1.616 440.5 2.300 2.6 58.4 4.7 18.3 39 76.2 20.7 1.6 0.8 1.3 26.6 31.608 52.740 3.8 1.1 1.5 54.742 5.166 32.576 734 287.5 73.500 6.2 3 125.07 1.210 Indonesia Philippines Thailand Malaysia High Income Countries Korea.3 22.8 21.400 2.6 54.3 39.453 748.2 3.69 0.55 0.740 134.6 60.890 9.1 75.1995 *assumed GNP Country waste generation rates are based on weighted averages from different cities within the country.552 10.59 5.45 0.005 19.9 3.3 8.9 1 1 0.6 118.1 72.4 35.4 1. 1997b United Nations.000 53.743 58.700 22.5 1.7 74.064 21.5 119.804 8.526.041 29.7 81.8 60.4 54.833 3.289 62.6 0.49 0.9 0.500 40.990 26.408 914 114.79 0.3 95 100 77.2 20 53.5 1.9 26.4 5.6 34.7 0.1 0.5 929.

9 3.0 9.8 6.7 7.5 3 0. and Surabaya. Dalian.6 13. Bandung.6 19. Songkhla.9 48.8 2 0.4 10. Kandy.3 2025 MSW 44. Bangladesh based on Dhaka.2 1993 n/i 5.2 23. Sri Lanka based on Colombo.6 3.8 1990 n/i 128 296.7 3.3 1.5 3. and Baguio.7 2025 MSW 70.8 4.7 1.9 2.37 5. Rayong.525.7 12. Batangas.83 80 4 2 0 0 14 54.0 47.9 8.2 10.9 44.68 1.1 1. MSW 80 7 2.5 60 15 6 3 4 12 Nepal based on Kathmandu Valley.5 4. India based on 23 metro cities.7 3.1 112. High Income Countries Components 1995 Urban Population Singapore Japan Hong Kong Current Est.1 4.7 11. and Galle.1 11.3 3.9 1995 Dom 106.4 28.4 1993 MSW 37.3 4. Philippines based on Metro Manila.6 14. China based on Qujing.5 57.2 43.6 1995-96 n/i 10.6 76. Wuhan. Lao PDR based on Vientiane and Khanthabouri.7 1.8 3.1 50 20 9 3 5 13 Indonesia based on Jakarta.9 1992 Dom 12.6 5. Guilin.5 7 84.8 17.8 2.4 6. Xiangfan.7 3.5 14. 2025 Year Type of Waste Compostables Paper Plastic Glass Metal Others 3 1990 MSW 97.1 363.3 7.9 17.74 3.19 1.1 1998 Dom. Hong Kong based on the entire country.2 41.6 27.1 3.6 14.8 8.2 3. Myanmar based on Yangon.9 5.0 4.5 41.8 22.1 1995 MSW 4.19 3.9 1994 MSW 21. 2025 Year Type of Waste Compostables Paper Plastic Glass Metal Others 68.3 54. 2.5 13. Page 43 . Malaysia based on 11 municipalities.9 2.4 3. Beijing.2 1993 Dom. and Yichang.2 1995 n/i 11.2 33 34 10 7 5 11 Singapore based on the entire country.7 655 1.8 6.2 4. and Chiangmai. Middle Income Countries Components 1995 Urban Population Indonesia Philippines Thailand Malaysia Current Est. Com Dom.6 26 46 9 7 8 12 37.8 2. Com.70 2025 MSW Year Type of Waste Compostables Paper Plastic Glass Metal Others 1993-941991-95 Dom.2 21.7 1.8 36.7 35. Japan based on Metropolitan Tokyo.2 14.1 1.8 5.6 15. Com 1.ANNEX 2 Composition of Urban Solid Waste in Asian Countries Low Income Countries Components 1995 Urban Population (in millions) Nepal Bangladesh Myanmar Lao PDR India Sri Lanka China Current Est. IC&I 249. Thailand based on Bangkok. and the Municipalities of Chonburi.9 10. Olongapo.3 41.3 11. Huangshi.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful