You are on page 1of 116

For more information about the

Urban Development Series, contact:

KNOWLEDGE PAPERS
WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Urban Development and Local Government Unit
Sustainable Development Network
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20433
USA
Email: urbanhelp@worldbank.org
Website: www.worldbank.org/urban

March 2012, No. 15

WHAT A WASTE
A Global Review of Solid Waste Management

Previous Knowledge Papers in This Series
Lessons and Experiences from
Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS into Urban/
Water (AFTU1 & AFTU2) Projects
Nina Schuler, Alicia Casalis, Sylvie Debomy,
Christianna Johnnides, and Kate Kuper,
September 2005, No. 1

Occupational and Environmental
Health Issues of Solid Waste
Management: Special Emphasis on
Middle and Lower-Income Countries

Private Sector Initiatives
in Slum Upgrading
Judy L. Baker and Kim McClain,
May 2009, No. 8

The Urban Rehabilitation of the
Medinas: The World Bank Experience
in the Middle East and North Africa
Anthony G. Bigio and Guido Licciardi,
May 2010, No. 9

Sandra Cointreau, July 2006, No. 2

Cities and Climate Change:
An Urgent Agenda

A Review of Urban Development Issues
in Poverty Reduction Strategies

Daniel Hoornweg, December 2010, No. 10

Judy L. Baker and Iwona Reichardt,
June 2007, No. 3

Memo to the Mayor: Improving Access
to Urban Land for All Residents —
Fulfilling the Promise

Urban Poverty in Ethiopia: A MultiFaceted and Spatial Perspective

Barbara Lipman, with Robin Rajack,
June 2011, No. 11

Elisa Muzzini, January 2008, No. 4

Urban Poverty: A Global View
Judy L. Baker, January 2008, No. 5

Preparing Surveys for Urban
Upgrading Interventions:
Prototype Survey
Instrument and User Guide
Ana Goicoechea, April 2008, No. 6

Conserving the Past as a Foundation
for the Future: China-World Bank
Partnership on Cultural Heritage
Conservation
Katrinka Ebbe, Guido Licciardi
and Axel Baeumler, September 2011, No. 12

Guidebook on Capital Investment
Planning for Local Governments
Olga Kaganova, October 2011, No. 13

Exploring Urban Growth Management:
Insights from Three Cities
Mila Freire, Douglas Webster,
and Christopher Rose, June 2008, No. 7

Cover photo on right and on this page: Conakry landfill, Guinea (Charles Peterson photographer).
Cover photo on far left: separate containers for recyclables and non-recyclables, Barcelona, Spain (Perinaz Bhada-Tata photographer).

KNOWLEDGE PAPERS

WHAT A WASTE
A Global Review of Solid
Waste Management

Daniel Hoornweg and Perinaz Bhada-Tata
March 2012, No. 15

. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. Copyright © World Bank. 2012 All rights reserved Urban Development & Local Government Unit World Bank 1818 H Street.Urban Development Series Produced by the World Bank’s Urban Development and Local Government Unit of the Sustainable Development Network. The Series aims to explore and delve more substantively into the core issues framed by the World Bank’s 2009 Urban Strategy Systems of Cities: Harnessing Urbanization for Growth and Poverty Alleviation. Across the five domains of the Urban Strategy. and does not guarantee that any content is. NW Washington. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. or will remain. DC 20433 USA www. (iv) urban land and housing markets.worldbank. (iii) city economies. and other urban issues germane to the urban development agenda for sustainable cities and communities.org/urban This publication is a product of the staff of the World Bank Group. This note is provided for information only. The World Bank has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs and citations for external or third-party sources referred to in this publication. (v) sustainable urban environment. accurate or appropriate. the Urban Development Series discusses the challenge of urbanization and what it will mean for developing countries in the decades ahead. (ii) pro-poor policies. the Series provides a focal point for publications that seek to foster a better understanding of (i) the core elements of the city system.

Introduction 1 2. Waste Composition 16 6. Waste and the Environment 25 A Note on the Reliability of Solid Waste Data 32 Maxim Tupikov /Shutterstock. Waste Collection 13 5.TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword vii Acknowledgements viii Executive Summary ix Abbreviations and Acronyms xi Country Classification According to Region xii Country Classification According to Income xiii 1. Waste Generation 8 4. Global Waste Management Practices 4 3. Waste Disposal 22 7.com .

Map of Income Distribution 38 C.iv URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Annexes A.000 63 H.000 78 J. MSW Disposal Methods by Country 87 M. MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100. Availability of MSW Data by Country 40 D. Map of Regions 36 B.000 47 G. Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs 46 F. Countries Excluded for Lack of Data 45 E.000 71 I. MSW Generation by Country — Current Data and Projections for 2025 80 K. MSW Composition Data for Cities Over 100. MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100. The Global City Indicators Program 94 References 95 . MSW Collection Rates by Country 84 L. MSW Composition by Country 90 N. IPCC Classification of MSW Composition 93 O. MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.

6. 14. 7. 9. What a Waste 1999: What’s changed (and what hasn’t) in the last decade 2 Definitions of Municipal Solid Waste 4 Components of an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan 25 Integrated Sustainable Waste Management Framework 26 v . 10. 8.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT List of Tables 1. 13. 4. 2. 10. Comparison of solid waste management practices by income level 5 Generators and types of solid waste 7 Current waste generation per capita by region 9 Waste generation projections for 2025 by region 10 Current waste generation per capita by income level 10 Waste generation projections for 2025 by income 11 Sources for 2025 projections of solid waste generation 12 Average MSW generation rates by income 12 Types of waste and their sources 16 Types of waste composition by income level 19 MSW disposal by income 23 MSW disposal in two contrasting regions 24 Landfill classifications 29 Landfill methane emissions and total GHG emissions for selected countries 30 Technical GHG mitigation opportunities by waste management component 31 List of Figures 1. 9. 8. 15. 11. 4. 2. 13. 6. 2. 5. 3. 12. 14. Waste generation by region 9 Waste generation by income level 11 Urban waste generation by income level and year 12 Waste collection rates by income 15 Waste collection rates by region 15 Waste composition in China 17 Global solid waste composition 17 Waste composition by income 19 Solid waste composition by income and year 20 Waste composition by region 21 Total MSW disposed of worldwide 22 Low-income countries waste disposal 24 Upper middle-income countries waste disposal 24 Waste hierarchy 27 List of Boxes 1. 5. 3. 12. 4. 11. 7. 3.

.

is now ITC landfill and a global business with international markets and recycling center. solid waste management costs will increase from today’s annual $205. Cost increases will be most severe in low income countries (more than 5-fold increases) and lower-middle income countries (more than 4-fold increases). A credible estimate is made for what the situation will look like in 2025. Rachel Kyte Vice President and Head of Network. with more Ghabawi landfill. While service levels. Waste generation rates will more than double over the next twenty years in lower income countries.2 billion tonnes by 2025. The findings are sobering. Ankara. Solid waste is a large source of methane. Globally. In lower income country cities solid waste management is usually a city’s single largest budgetary item. a powerful GHG that is particularly impactful in the short-term. The report you have before you is an important one that provides a quick snapshot of the state of today’s global solid waste management practices.5 billion in 2025. extensive supply and transportation networks. air pollution. Amman. Improving solid waste management. diarrhea and dengue fever. and public health impacts such as respiratory ailments. Currently. especially in low income countries. environmental impacts and costs vary dramatically. world cities generate about 1. uncollected solid waste contributes to flooding. This volume is expected to increase to 2. Turkey Locally. Jordan Photo: Perinaz Bhada-Tata Photo: ©Simone D. McCourtie/World Bank than two million informal waste pickers.3 billion tonnes of solid waste per year. Sustainable Development The World Bank . this report will contribute to the dialogue that leads to much-needed action. Hopefully.4 billion to about $375. The global impacts of solid waste are growing fast. solid waste management is arguably the most important municipal service and serves as a prerequisite for other municipal action. The recycling industry.FOREWORD Solid waste management is the one thing just about every city government provides for its residents. is an urgent priority.

The report was also discussed and reviewed by the World Bank’s Waste Management Thematic Group. John Norton. and managed by Abha JoshiGhani. Manager of the Urban Development and Local Government Unit and Zoubida Allaoua. The ‘Waste and Climate Change’ section is from Charles Peterson. Jeffrey Lecksell and Claudia Lorena Trejos Gomez provided support and research assistance. Carl Bartone. . Economics and Local Government Department. Adelaide Barra. Marcus Lee. Charles Peterson. and Sintana Vergara for their useful feedback and comments.Acknowledgements This report was written by Daniel Hoornweg and Perinaz Bhada-Tata. Paul Procee. The authors would like to thank Christa Anderson. Director of the Finance. Catalina Marulanda. Xiaofeng Li. Julianne Baker Gallegos.

3 billion urban residents generating about 1. and the recycling industry. the methane from the organic fraction of the waste stream. This report provides consolidated data on MSW generation.g. Solid waste is usually the one service that falls completely Ghabawi landfill. Amman. A city that Golf course: cannot effectively manage its waste is rarely able post closure use to manage more complex services such as health. Ten years ago there were 2. Data is often inconsistent.9 billion urban residents who generated about 0. MSW is the largest single budget item for cities and one of the largest employers.2 kg per person per day (1. or transportation. reliable global MSW information is not typically available. The global nature of MSW includes its contribution to GHG emissions. one of the most important by-products of an urban lifestyle. e.3 billion tonnes per year). of landfill site education. local and global environment.64 kg of MSW per person per day (0. Municipal solid waste management is the most important service a city provides. is growing even faster than the rate of urbanization. urban practices. and economy. and the increasingly global linkages of products.42 kg/capita/day of municipal solid waste (2. collection. Jordan Photo: Perinaz Bhada-Tata Photo: Ron Perry/Oki Golf within the local government’s purview. This report estimates that today these amounts have increased to about 3 billion residents generating 1. Poorly managed waste has an enormous impact on health. By 2025 this will likely increase to 4. Despite its importance. and disposal by country and by region. however as suggested in this report there is now enough MSW information to estimate . composition. in low-income countries as well as many middle-income countries.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As the world hurtles toward its urban future. the amount of municipal solid waste (MSW). improperly managed waste usually results in down-stream costs higher than what it would have cost to manage the waste properly in the first place.2 billion tonnes per year).68 billion tonnes per year). incomparable and incomplete.

Photo: Alejandro Lipszyc/World Bank . Men pick up used cardboard boxes to sell for recycling in the San Joaquin open-air market in Salvador. both formal and informal. rates of MSW growth are fastest in China. other parts of East Asia. composition. The report also makes projections on MSW generation and composition for 2025 in order for decision makers to prepare plans and budgets for solid waste management in the coming years. GHG emissions and ozone-depleting substances are by-products of urbanization and increasing affluence. Pollution such as solid waste. This report is a follow-up to What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. particularly that of secondary materials. have a significant impact on overall MSW programming.x URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS global amounts and trends. particularly in low-income countries. a Working Paper Published by the East Asia and the Pacific Region Urban and Local Government Sector of the World Bank in 1999. Detailed annexes provide available MSW generation. While in more affluent countries ageing workers are a growing challenge. is critical. Improving MSW is one of the most effective ways to strengthen overall municipal management and is usually a prerequisite for other. collection. Waste workers. Reviewing MSW in an integrated manner with a more holistic approach. This link is likely similar with other urban inputs/ outputs such as waste water and total energy use. municipal services. the effective integration of waste pickers. focusing on urban form and lifestyle choice may yield broader benefits. Brazil Globally. given data availability and increased inter-dependence between nations and linkages in global trade. and disposal data by city and by country. Similar to rates of urbanization and increases in GDP. There is a strong correlation between urban solid waste generation rates and GHG emissions. more complicated. waste volumes are increasing quickly – even faster than the rate of urbanization. Municipal planners should manage solid waste in as holistic a manner as possible. The report has been expanded to include the entire world. and parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

commercial.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Abbreviations and Acronyms AFR Africa region C&D Construction and demolition CDM Clean Development Mechanism EAP East Asia and Pacific region ECA Europe and Central Asia region GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG Greenhouse gas HIC High-income country ICI Industrial. and institutional IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISWM Integrated solid waste management Kg/capita/day kilograms per capita per day LCR Latin America and the Caribbean region LIC Low-income country LMIC Lower middle-income country MENA Middle East and North Africa region METAP Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program MRF Materials recovery facility MSW Municipal solid waste mtCO2e Million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PAHO Pan-American Health Organization RDF Refuse–derived fuel SAR South Asia region SWM Solid waste management tCO2e Tons of carbon dioxide equivalent UMIC Upper middle-income country xi .

China Chad Comoros Congo. Kitts and Nevis Switzerland Mozambique St. Myanmar Cote d’Ivoire Philippines Romania Middle East & North Africa (MENA) Algeria Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Andorra Bangladesh Bahrain Australia Bhutan Egypt.xii URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Country Classification According to Region East Asia & Pacific (EAP) Africa (AFR) Eastern & Central Asia (ECA) Latin America & the Caribbean (LAC) Angola Brunei Darussalam Albania Antigua and Barbuda Benin Cambodia Armenia Argentina Botswana China Belarus Bahamas. Rep. Austria India Iran. RB Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe South Asia (SAR) . FYR Cuba Morocco Greece Poland Dominica Oman Hungary Dominican Republic Qatar Iceland Eritrea Singapore Russian Federation Ecuador Saudi Arabia Ireland Ethiopia Solomon Islands Serbia El Salvador Syrian Arab Republic Italy Gabon Thailand Slovenia Grenada Tunisia Japan Gambia Tonga Tajikistan Guatemala United Arab Emirates Korea. Mongolia Congo. Dem. Arab Rep. South West Bank and Gaza Luxembourg Ghana Vanuatu Turkey Guyana Guinea Vietnam Turkmenistan Haiti Monaco Kenya Honduras Netherlands Lesotho Jamaica New Zealand Liberia Mexico Norway Madagascar Nicaragua Portugal Malawi Panama Slovak Republic Mali Paraguay Spain Mauritania Peru Sweden Mauritius St. Belgium Maldives Iraq Canada Nepal Bolivia Israel Czech Republic Pakistan Estonia Brazil Jordan Denmark Sri Lanka Georgia Chile Kuwait Finland Malaysia Latvia Colombia Lebanon France Marshall Islands Lithuania Costa Rica Malta Germany Macedonia. Islamic Rep. The Burkina Faso Fiji Bulgaria Barbados Burundi Hong Kong Croatia Belize Cameroon Indonesia Cyprus Cape Verde Lao PDR Central African Republic Macao. Rep. Lucia United Kingdom Namibia St. Vincent and the Grenadines United States Niger Suriname Nigeria Trinidad and Tobago Rwanda Uruguay Sao Tome and Principe Venezuela.

Rep. Islamic Rep. Arab Rep. Vincent and the Grenadines New Zealand Vietnam Solomon Islands Suriname Norway Zambia Sri Lanka Tajikistan Oman Zimbabwe Sudan Uruguay Portugal Swaziland Venezuela. Rep. Dominican Republic Croatia Gambia Cote d'Ivoire Fiji Cyprus Ghana Ecuador Gabon Czech Republic Guinea Egypt. FYR Panama Italy Niger Maldives Peru Japan Rwanda Marshall Islands Poland Korea. China Mali Iran. China Tanzania Pakistan South Africa Malta Togo Paraguay St. Lucia Netherlands Vanuatu Sao Tome and Principe St. Cape Verde Cuba Brunei Darussalam Eritrea China Dominica Canada Ethiopia Congo. RB Qatar Syrian Arab Republic Saudi Arabia Thailand Singapore Tonga Slovak Republic Tunisia Slovenia Turkey Spain Turkmenistan Sweden West Bank and Gaza Switzerland Trinidad and Tobago United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States xiii . South Senegal Morocco Romania Kuwait Serbia Nicaragua Russian Federation Luxembourg Sierra Leone Nigeria Seychelles Macao. Georgia Denmark Haiti El Salvador Grenada Estonia Kenya Guatemala Jamaica Finland Lao PDR Guyana Latvia France Liberia Honduras Lebanon Germany Madagascar India Lithuania Greece Malawi Indonesia Malaysia Hong Kong. Kitts and Nevis Monaco Uganda Philippines St. Dem. Mauritius Hungary Mauritania Iraq Mexico Iceland Mongolia Jordan Myanmar Ireland Mozambique Lesotho Namibia Israel Nepal Macedonia.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Country Classification According to Income Lower Income (LI) Lower Middle Income (LMI) Upper Middle Income (UMI) High Income (HIC) Chad Bulgaria Colombia Barbados Comoros Cameroon Costa Rica Belgium Congo.

.

ageing demographics (solid waste workers tend to be younger). This is especially true in China. The original What a Waste Report provided waste estimates for South and East Asia. Municipal solid waste managers are charged with an enormous task: get the waste out from underfoot and do so in the most economically. Most growth predictions made in What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia were reasonably accurate and in most cases. Managing municipal solid waste is an intensive service. and producer pay arguments and apportioning costs and responsibilities. As formality increases so do issues of labor organization. health and safety. socially. China surpassed the US as the world’s largest waste generator. professional and often unionized labor management. In the intervening decade more accurate and comprehensive data became available for most regions of the world. In 2030. even taking into account the recent economic contraction. MSW also requires a strong social contract between the municipality and community. Municipalities need capacities in procurement. Therefore a global update of the 1999 report is possible.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1 Introduction In 1999 the World Bank published What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia (Hoornweg and Thomas 1999). particularly in developing countries. with an estimate of waste quantities and composition for Asia. employment generation. The main objective of this updated What a Waste Report is to provide current municipal solid waste 1 Solid waste management — formal and informal – represents 1% to 5% of all urban employment. Solid waste management and street sweeping is also often the city’s single largest source of employment. And if that task were not large enough. This waste stream represents about 33% of the world’s total quantities. Solid waste management is almost always the responsibility of local governments and is often their single largest budget item. and ongoing expertise in capital and operating budgeting and finance. and increasingly with demographic change in the work force. OECD-country estimates are typically reliable and consistent—added to these were comprehensive studies for China and India and the Pan-American Health Organization’s study for Latin America. Photo taken as part of Development 360 project. waste growth estimates were conservative. and environmentally optimal manner possible. Ferry men parking their boats on Buriganga River. All of these skills are prerequisites for other municipal services. solid waste is one of the most pernicious local pollutants — uncollected solid waste is usually the leading contributor to local flooding and air and water pollution. Photo: Scott Wallace Illustration: Brian Fray . China will likely produce twice as much municipal solid waste as the United States. the friction between ‘sanctioned’ and ‘unsanctioned’ recycling. local waste management officials also need to deal with the integrated and international aspects of solid waste. contract management. and timely. In 2004.1 Additionally. and management of staff — both formal and informal. Dhaka.

As countries urbanize. continues to have a majority of organics and paper in its waste stream: The combined totals are 72% for EAP and 54% for SAR. the daily generation rate in South Asia and East Asia and the Pacific combined is approximately 1 million tonnes per day. and disposal data by country and by region. residents are usually poorer. with only a fraction going toward disposal. ``Asia. Growth in waste quantities is fastest in Asia. The actual per capita rates. between cities. purchase fewer store-bought . Waste generation rates tend to be much lower in rural areas since. which results in a corresponding increase in the amount of waste generated. For a summary on the main differences between the data presented in the 1999 publication and this publication. and commodity prices. are highly variable. This report estimates that at present almost 1. their economic wealth increases. on average. relative shipping costs. As standards of living and disposable incomes increase. ``There is a greater emphasis on labor issues: in highincome countries.3 billion tonnes of MSW are generated globally every year. Solid waste is generally considered an ‘urban’ issue.8 million tonnes per day. but this report is intended to provide a broad global review. In most cases further local analysis will be needed. At present. ``Low-income countries continue to spend most of their SWM budgets on waste collection. used aluminum cans are deposited into a container for recycling Bigstock Photo © generation. Portugal. Solid waste is inextricably linked to urbanization and economic development.2 kg/capita/day. composition. Lisbon. These estimates are still accurate. demographics and immigration are critical factors. This report makes projections on MSW generation and composition on a country and regional level for 2025. consumption of goods and services increases. in low-income countries working conditions and integration of waste pickers has gained in importance. This should provide decision makers with a sufficient foundation on which to base waste management policy decisions. like much of the world. and even within cities. or 1. please refer to Box 1.BOX 1 2 What a Waste 1999: What’s Changed (and What Hasn’t) in the Last Decade ``What a Waste (1999) predicted that by 2025 the daily MSW generation rate in Asia would be 1. Both developing and developed countries are included. however. collection. ``Rates of recycling are increasingly influenced by global markets. as there are considerable differences in waste generation rates across countries. This is the opposite in high-income countries where the main expenditure is on disposal.

and the rate of urbanization is increasing quickly. In most cities. Also likely to emerge will be a greater emphasis on ‘urban mining’ as the largest source of materials like metal and paper may be found in cities. Citizens and corporations will likely need to assume more responsibility for waste generation and disposal. as many people will live in cities as the population of the whole world in 2000. Illustration: Brian Fray . This will add challenges to waste disposal. the quickest way to reduce waste volumes is to reduce economic activity—not 3 generally an attractive option. water pollution and endocrine disruptors are similar by-products to our urban lifestyles. Today. This report makes projections for MSW generation in 2025. specifically. product design and waste separation. Waste is mainly a by-product of consumer-based lifestyles that drive much of the world’s economies. As countries.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT items (which results in less packaging). particularly India and China. global solid waste quantities are projected to increase considerably. Solid waste is the most visible and pernicious by-product of a resource-intensive. solid waste managers need to appreciate the global context of solid waste and its interconnections to economies and local and global pollution. more than 50 percent of the world’s population lives in cities. and have higher levels of reuse and recycling. Greenhouse gas emissions. based on expected population and economic growth rates. However. The long term sustainability of today’s global economic structure is beyond the scope of this paper. consumer-based economic lifestyle. By 2050. continue their rapid pace of urbanization and development.

and waste disposal methods contribute to GHG emissions. as well as those originated by the small-scale industries and institutions (including hospital and clinics). as well as municipal construction and demolition is excluded. contents of litter containers. Landfills require land availability. Turkey Photo: ©Simone D. By IPCC: The IPCC includes the following in MSW: food waste. office buildings. Waste from municipal sewage networks and treatment. or for municipalities. soil. For example. yard and garden. commercial wastes. ITC landfill and recycling center. BOX 2 In solid waste management there is no ‘away’. plastics. street sweepings. and if not well executed. wood. Incineration requires waste placed outside for collection to be Definitions of Municipal Solid Waste By PAHO: Solid or semi-solid waste generated in population centers including domestic and. and other (e. dirt. ` The last two decades have brought a new challenge for waste management: the growing vagaries of global secondary materials markets. institutions and small businesses. and much of the waste stream is not combustible. Ankara. .. collection vehicles. the new problem is often of greater cost and complexity. glass (and pottery and china). market street sweeping.g. ash. textiles. dust. containerized to stay dry. and siting is often opposed by potential neighboring residents. ` The organic fraction of waste. and from public cleansing. and market cleansing. paper and cardboard. nappies (disposable diapers).4 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Global Waste Management Practices At a Glance: ` In solid waste management there is no throwing ‘away’. When ‘throwing away’ waste. metal. system complexities and the integrated nature of materials and pollution are quickly apparent. rubber and leather. garden (yard) and park waste. McCourtie/World Bank By OECD: Municipal waste is collected and treated by. electronic waste). similar waste from commerce and trade. Solving one problem often introduces a new one. including bulky waste. It covers waste from households. waste incineration is expensive and poses challenges of air pollution and ash disposal.

Costs (see Annex E) Collection costs represent 80 to 90% of the municipal solid waste management budget. compost lacking. Collection rate varies between 50 to 80%. and high percentage of inerts. Recyclable material collection services and high technology sorting and processing facilities are common and regulated. Increasing use of anaerobic digestion. Incineration Not common. islands).) Extended product responsibility common. Significant health impacts on local residents and workers. Open dumping is still common. Governments include incineration as a possible waste disposal option but costs prohibitive. Sanitary landfills with a combination of liners. Transfer stations are slowly incorporated into the SWM system. included in electricity or water bills. Service is limited to high visibility areas.. some small-scale composting projects at the community/ neighborhood level are more sustainable. Composting eligible for CDM projects but is not widespread. Most incinerators have some form of environmental controls and some type of energy recovery system. some high technology sorting and processing facilities. Increasing attention towards long-term markets. Landfilling/ Dumping Low-technology sites usually open dumping of wastes.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TABLE 1 Comparison of Solid Waste Management Practices by Income Level (adapted from What a Waste 1999) Activity Low Income Middle Income High Income Source Reduction No organized programs. Collection rate greater than 90%. Material prices fluctuate considerably. High fraction of inerts and compostables impact collection—overall collection below 50%. Collection costs represent 50% to 80% of the municipal solid waste management budget. Post closure use of sites increasingly important. recycling rates tend to be high both for local markets and for international markets and imports of materials for recycling. 5 . CDM projects for landfill gas are more common. Governments regulate and monitor emissions. Up front community participation reduces costs and increases options available to waste planners (e.. technical. Air pollution control equipment is not advanced and often by-passed. Informal sector still involved. Waste fees are regulated by some local and national governments. Anaerobic digestion increasing in popularity. Waste volume a key consideration. Facilities often driven by subsidies from OECD countries on behalf of equipment suppliers. Organized education programs emphasize the three ‘R’s’ — reduce. Some incinerators are used. More producer responsibility & focus on product design. Large price fluctuations. Materials are often imported for recycling.g. more innovation in fee collection. Informal recycling still exists (e. and gas collection and treatment systems. Some discussion of source reduction. Recycling rates are still relatively high. Compactor trucks and highly mechanized vehicles and transfer stations are common. but rarely incorporated into an organized program. Large budget allocations to intermediate waste treatment facilities. Aging collection workers often a consideration in system design.g. Waste regularly burned. High polluting to nearby aquifers. aluminum can collection. leachate collection systems. Recycling markets are somewhat more regulated. the wealthy. water bodies. Little or no stack emissions monitoring. Composting Rarely undertaken formally even though the waste stream has a high percentage of organic material. Overall recycling rates higher than low and middle income. About three (or more) times the cost of landfilling per tonne. Expenditures on more mechanized collection fleets and disposal are higher than in low-income countries. Often problematic to open new landfills due to concerns of neighboring residents. Becoming more popular at both backyard and large-scale facilities. but experiencing financial and operational difficulties. Larger vehicle fleet and more mechanization. Large composting plants are often unsuccessful due to contamination and operating costs (little waste separation).g. and businesses willing to pay. leak detection.g. and awareness of. Recycling markets are unregulated and include a number of ‘middlemen’.g. More source segregation makes composting easier. Markets for. Waste fees are regulated by some local governments. Only a small proportion of budget is allocated toward disposal. reuse. and operation costs. and generally not successful because of high capital. but reuse and low per capita waste generation rates are common. Recycling Although most recycling is through the informal sector and waste picking. e. but the fee collection system is inefficient. golf courses and parks. Collection Sporadic and inefficient. e. Waste stream has a smaller portion of compostables than low. Odor control critical. settlements. including hazardous goods such as e-waste and ship-breaking. Improved service and increased collection from residential areas.and middle-income countries. recycling and composting). Often receive medical waste. and recycle. Prevalent in areas with high land costs and low availability of land (e. high moisture content in the waste. Some controlled and sanitary landfills with some environmental controls. Collection costs can represent less than 10% of the budget.

Waste management cannot be effectively managed without due consideration for issues such as the city’s overall GHG emissions. Many municipal recycling programs in Europe and North America were started with the recycling markets relatively close to source. and the sheer number of interested parties). pose disproportionately large problems. labor market. middle-. More recently. items in a city’s waste stream originated from other countries that have countless factories and independent producers. Despite progress in solid waste management practices in the decade since the original What a Waste Report was published. Additionally. OECD and PAHO have released MSW data for Latin America and the Caribbean. The volatility of secondary materials prices has increased. general observations can be made across low-. please refer to Box 2. This version of What a Waste includes the data presented by these reports. marketing of secondary-materials has emerged as a global business. is shipped to China. For a compilation of the different definitions for Municipal Solid Waste. as defined in this report. however secondary materials marketing does not have the same degree of sophistication as other commodities (largely due to issues of reliability.g. social. ad hoc. with their associated health and nuisance issues. fundamental institutional. dropping significantly during economic downturns (when a city is least able to afford price drops). Although each country and city has their own site-specific situations. for example. waste collection vehicles are large sources of emissions and both incineration and landfilling contribute GHG emissions. There are some hedging opportunities for materials pricing. hazardous (e. financial. quality. institutional. syringes). In the last ten to twenty years an additional challenge has emerged for the waste manager: the growing global vagaries of secondary materials markets. such as organics (food and horticultural waste) and paper are easier to manage. externalities. land use planning. and construction and demolition (C&D) waste.6 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Locally. and environmental problems still exist. making planning more difficult. The price is often predictive of economic trends. and high-income countries. Table 2 gives sources and types of waste generated. The majority of waste recycled in Buenos Aires. The average city’s municipal waste stream is made up of millions of separate waste items. Hybrid. In many cases. encompasses residential. MSW. two comprehensive World Bank studies on India and China have been prepared (Hanrahan et al 2006 and Hoornweg et al 2005). . municipal. and voluntary take-back programs are emerging. Industry programs. such as voluntary plastic-type labeling. In the years that have passed since the original What a Waste report was released. Some of the larger waste fractions. and myriad related concerns. commercial. as delineated in Table 1. The price paid per tonne of waste paper in New York City is often based on what the purchase price is in China. either mechanically or by waste-worker) and deposit-return systems often meet industry and consumer resistance. but wastes such as multi-laminates. Uncollected waste can provide breeding areas and food to potentially disease carrying vectors such as insects and rodents. and e-waste. industrial. however they are generally inefficient and municipalities are often forced to subsidize the disposal costs of these items. are largely ineffective (no facilities exist to differentiate containers by numbers.

. metals. hazardous wastes. dairies. concrete. metals. orchards. prisons. C&D waste is often treated separately: if well managed it can be disposed separately. scrap materials. landscaping. food wastes. construction and demolition materials. wood. demolition of buildings Wood.. special wastes Commercial Stores. parks. cardboard. hazardous wastes (e. waste containing mercury. bulky items. hotels.. tires).. phones. farms Spoiled food wastes. plastics. oil. and other recreational areas.g. consumer electronics. e-wastes (e. coconut shells. coffee waste). tiles Municipal Services Street cleaning. agricultural wastes (e. gloves. restaurants. cardboard. pesticides) 7 TABLE 2 Generators and Types of Solid Waste (adapted from What a Waste 1999) . gas tanks. beaches. food wastes.g. ashes. e-wastes Institutional Schools. instruments. swabs. feedlots. motor oil. landscape and tree trimmings. and institutional (ICI) wastes are often grouped together and usually represent more than 50% of MSW. beaches. slag. commercial. plastics. tailings Medical waste Hospitals. power plants. clinics Infectious wastes (bandages. road repair. refineries. pharmaceutical waste Agricultural Crops. chemicals). hazardous wastes. steel. wood. hospitals (non-medical waste). and household hazardous wastes (e. paper. hazardous wastes (sharps. markets. cotton stalks. nursing homes. power and chemical plants (excluding specific process wastes if the municipality does not oversee their collection) Housekeeping wastes. sludge All of the above should be included as municipal solid waste. special wastes (e.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Source Typical Waste Generators Types of Solid Wastes Residential Single and multifamily dwellings Food wastes. yard wastes. other recreational areas. office buildings Paper. paints. The items below are usually considered MSW if the municipality oversees their collection and disposal. Industrial.g. cultures.g. mineral extraction and processing Industrial process wastes. batteries. aerosols. white goods. fabrication. airports Same as commercial Construction and Demolition New construction sites. blood and body fluids). vineyards. glass. renovation sites. government buildings. dirt. bricks. chemical plants. TVs) Industrial Light and heavy manufacturing. glass. off-specification products. computers. general wastes from parks. construction sites. rice husks. packaging. Process Heavy and light manufacturing. ashes. special wastes.g. cleaning agents). water and wastewater treatment plants Street sweepings.. textiles. radioactive waste from cancer therapies. leather.

but spans a wide range. the greater the amount of solid waste produced. The annual waste generation in East Asia and the Pacific Region is approximately 270 million tonnes per year. country. MSW generation rates are influenced by economic development. This quantity is mainly influenced by waste generation in China. which makes up 70% of the regional total. However. global averages are broad estimates only as rates vary considerably by region. with an average of 0. Waste Generation by Region Waste generation varies as a function of affluence. and are expected to increase to approximately 2.44 to 4. likely due to waste generated by the tourism industry. as does the amount of waste generated. we refer to Sub-Saharan Africa.2 to 1. and local climate. Mumbai. public habits. Per capita waste generation is generally low in this region. Per capita waste generation ranges from 0. the higher the Collecting paper economic development and rate of urbanization. The countries with the highest per capita rates are islands. while Africa and South Asia regions produce the least waste.3 kg per person per day for Photo: Jeroo Bhada . Annex A. Urban residents produce about twice as much waste as their rural counterparts. as can generation rates within the same city. consumption of goods and services correspondingly increases. This represents a significant increase in per capita waste generation rates. regional and country variations can be significant. to be recycled. Throughout the report. the greater the amount of solid waste produced. from 1.42 kg per person per day in the next fifteen years. Generally. and even within cities.8 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Waste Generation At a Glance: ` MSW generation levels are expected to double by 2025. from 0.0 kg per person per day. city.09 to 3. India Income level and urbanization are highly correlated Waste generation in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 62 million tonnes per year.2 billion tonnes per year by 2025. however. Current global MSW generation levels are approximately 1. ` The higher the income level and rate of urbanization.65 kg/capita/day. and as disposable incomes and living standards increase.3 billion tonnes per year. ` OECD countries produce almost half of the world’s waste. Map of Regions illustrates the regional classification used in this report. and a more complete accounting of all wastes generated. Data are particularly lacking for Sub-Saharan Africa. when Africa is mentioned as a region. the degree of industrialization.

The total amount of waste generated per year in this region is 160 million tonnes.1 to 3.45 In Eastern and Central Asia. solid waste generation is 63 million tonnes per year. with an average of 0.12 to 5.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TABLE 3 Waste Generation Per Capita (kg/capita/day) Region Lower Boundary Upper Boundary Average AFR 0.11 MENA 0.7 kg per person per day with an average of 2. The OECD countries generate 572 million tonnes of solid waste per year. the largest per capita solid waste generation rates are found in the islands of the Caribbean.1 kg per person per day and an average of 0. with per capita values ranging from 0.7 1.0 0.1 2 SAR the region. as well as average kg per capita per day of waste generated within each region.g. Per capita waste generation is 0. 2005).16 14 5. Current Waste Generation Per Capita by Region (see Annex J) 1. with per capita values ranging from 0.1 to 14 kg/capita/ day. Similar to the high per capita waste generation rates on islands in Africa.95 kg/capita/day (Hoornweg et al 2005).1 kg/capita/day.29 2.1 LAC 0.3 0.1 kg/capita/day.2 0. PAHO’s Regional Evaluation of Solid Waste Management.7 kg per person per day.16 to 5. approximately 70 million tonnes of waste is generated per year.1 kg per person per day. Latin America and the Caribbean has the most comprehensive and consistent data (e. The per capita values range from 1. with an average of 1. In the Middle East and North Africa.45 kg/capita/day. Eight countries in this region have no available data on waste generation in the literature. the waste generated per year is at least 93 million tonnes.7 2. The per capita waste generation ranges from 0.1 OECD 1.1 1.10 3. where OECD countries make up almost half Figure 1.2 kg/capita/day.95 ECA 0.65 EAP 0.29 to 2. Current Waste Generation by Region SAR 5% AFR 5% FIG. and an average of 1. 1 MENA 6% Waste Generation by Region ECA 7% OECD 44% LAC 12% EAP 21% .12 5. 9 In South Asia.44 4. and has an average of 1.09 3.1 0. indicating the lower boundary and upper boundary for each region.1 kg/capita/day. Table 3 shows current waste generation per capita by region.2 Figure 1 illustrates global waste generation per region.

958 2. For example. India and especially China have disproportionately high urban waste generation rates per capita relative to overall economic status as they have large relatively poor rural populations that tend to dilute national figures.45 2.2 TABLE 5 Income Level 1.285 OECD 729 2.320 1.392 MENA 162 1.2 Lower Middle 0.286 1. the average per capita waste generation amounts for the various income groups reflect the income level of the countries (see Figure 2).16 5.1 1. Lower middle: $876-3. Waste Generation by Country Income Level 3 High-income countries produce the most waste per capita.566. Only the affluence of urban residents is important in projecting MSW rates. Although the total waste generation for lower middle income countries is higher than that of upper middle income countries. High: $10.65 169.1 437.11 5. Table 5 shows current waste generation per capita by income level. upper-middle.1 173.532.1 Upper Middle 0.43 369.1 254.2 SAR 426 0.77 567. likely skewed as a result of China’s inclusion in the lower middle income 3 Urban Population (millions) Projected Urban Waste EAP Total Current Waste Generation Per Capita by Income Level Projected Population Countries are classified into four income levels according to World Bank estimates of 2005 GNI per capita.465. and in several countries average national affluence can be very different from average affluence of the urban populations.545 379 257 1.417 192.229 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.95 738.379 ECA 227 1.85 441.152 518 0.252 7. while Africa and South Asia figure as the regions that produce the least waste. and low income designations are somewhat inaccurate as these classifications are country-wide.725.840 777 0.4 6. and Lower: $875 or less.10 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS TABLE 4 Current Available Data Waste Generation Projections for 2025 by Region Total Urban Population (millions) Region Projections for 2025 Urban Waste Generation Per Capita (kg/capita/day) Total (tons/day) Total Population (millions) Per Capita (kg/capita/day) Total (tons/day) AFR 260 0.389 339 239 1.410 1.703 Waste Generation Per Capita (kg/capita/day) Lower Boundary Upper Boundary Average High 0.644 4.6 728.865.069.119 1. indicating the lower . group.980 1.545 681 466 1.124 1. while low income countries produce the least solid waste per capita.938 734 0.70 14 2.726 or above. Table 4 shows estimates of waste generation for the year 2025 as expected according to current trends in population growth in each region. lower-middle.810 LCR 399 1.60 of the world’s waste.466-10. Upper middle: $3.545 3.79 Lower 0.031 842 2. The high. Map of Income Distribution illustrates the global classification for income used in this report.742.5 1. Annex B.09 4.5 354.

and articles in peerreviewed journals. Lower Income 6% FIG. and some Middle Eastern countries from METAP data.069. countries in Latin America and the Caribbean from PAHO studies.080 1.321 4. showing decreasing average rates of per capita waste generation according to income level. For example. In cases where only per capita waste generation rates were available.112 912 2.618. Waste Generation by Country Income boundary and upper boundary for each region.982 1.5 kg/ capita/day is assumed for urban areas for 2005.13 1.19 3. assuming that most of the waste generated is in urban areas and only a small fraction comes from rural areas. as well as average kg per capita per day of waste generated within each group according to country income level.4 6.78 1. a per capita amount of 0. this report has used the same source for a group of countries so that the data are relatively standardized by methodology and year.272 Waste Generation Projections for 2025 by Income .547 1. reports by international agencies. Methodology for collecting current data: MSW generation data by country were collected from official government publications.1 1.532. Hence. please see Annex J.6 987.039 774 2. 2nd Ed.256 7.802 1.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 11 Figure 2. total urban population for that year was used to calculate per capita waste generation. Where possible. and World Bank studies.60 204.012.590 2. Upper Middle Income 19% Where only total MSW generation numbers were available.293 0. For further information on MSW generation rates by country. When reviewing Current Available Data Region Total Urban Population (millions) TABLE 6 Projections for 2025 (from Annex J) Urban Waste Generation Projected Population Per Capita (kg/capita/ day) Total (tons/day) 343 0. the total urban population for that year (World Bank. For several African countries.705 Lower Income High Income Total Total Population (millions) Urban Population (millions) Projected Urban Waste Per Capita (kg/capita/ day) Total (tons/day) 0.16 665. This estimate is based on the USAID 2009 publication on Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa (EGSSAA).010 2.86 584.586 888 619 1. World Development Indicators) was used to calculate the total urban MSW generation.637 676 Lower Middle Income 1. data were not readily available. Figure 2 presents global waste generation by country per income level.879.649.3 2. MSW generation data for high-income countries are from OECD publications.287 1.647 4.804 Upper Middle Income 572 1. 2 Waste Generation by Income Lower Middle Income 29% High Income 46% Table 6 shows estimates of waste generation for the year 2025 as expected according to current trends in population growth as determined by country income level.

Similar to ‘energy intensity’ urban residents also exhibit ‘waste intensity’. Projections for urban municipal solid waste generation in 2025 were made by factoring expected Figure 3. the values presented in this report. it’s important to keep in mind that values for waste generation at a regional level can differ markedly because of the influence from a single country.1 – 4.293 2. country were made based on the level of expected FIG. Projections for each by Table 6.12 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS TABLE 7 Sources for 2025 Projections of Solid Waste Generation Variable Current GDP (current US$. Modest adjustments for current experience and waste generation practices were made where appropriate. Methodology for calculating 2025 projections: For further information on the sources used for the 2025 projections please refer to Table 7.8 – 1.5 High-Income 1. such as the US.200 956 1. 3 Urban Waste Generation by Income Level and Year Waste Generated (millions tons/year) 1.000 800 686 602 600 369 400 243 213 200 0 Urban Population (millions) Waste (kg/capita/year) Country Income Group 360 75 343 219 676 343 Lower Income 1.0 Middle-Income 0. China or India.5 GDP (high-.6 – 1. middle-.080 288 344 573 423 619 628 Lower Middle Income Upper Middle Income 2010 Projected 2025 774 777 912 840 High Income . 2005) World Development Indicators GDP Projections by Region IEA Annual Energy Outlook (2005) Urban Population Projections United Nations World Urbanization Prospects (2007) TABLE 8 Average MSW Generation Rates by Income Data Source Income Level Average MSW Generation (kg/cap/day) Low-Income 0. Urban Waste Generation Table 8 illustrates the range of MSW based on growth in population and GDP and estimated country income level. These values are supported per capita waste generation. or low-income) and an average range of MSW generation based on that income level.

House-to-House: Waste collectors visit each individual house to collect garbage.. Generators can be required to separate their waste at source. Waste that is un-segregated could be separated into organic and recycling streams at a sorting facility. institutional) to the point of treatment or disposal. e. or hire third-party operators (or the municipality). 4. ` Collection rates range from a low of 41% in low-income countries to a high of 98% in high-income countries. MSW is picked up by the municipality. collection within cities can also differ greatly. customers. 5.g. Municipal solid waste is collected in several ways: 1.” or residue.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 13 Waste Collection At a Glance: ` MSW collection is an important aspect in maintaining public health in cities around the world. ‘Separation’ can be False Creek. and possibly a third stream of “waste. The degree of separation can vary over time and by city. a misnomer as waste is not actually separated Vancouver. according to a set schedule. Waste collection is the collection of solid waste from point of production (residential. industrial commercial. 2.com/brytta . Municipalities often license private operators and may designate collection areas to encourage collection efficiencies. or its designate. depending on local regulations. Self Delivered: Generators deliver the waste directly to disposal sites or transfer stations. Contracted or Delegated Service: Businesses hire firms (or municipality with municipal facilities) who arrange collection schedules and charges with © iStockphoto. Canada 3. The user generally pays a fee for this service. Collected MSW can be separated or mixed. Curbside Pick-Up: Users leave their garbage directly outside their homes according to a garbage pick-up schedule set with the local authorities (secondary house-tohouse collectors not typical). into “wet” (food waste. ` The amount of MSW collected varies widely by region and income level. Community Bins: Users bring their garbage to community bins that are placed at fixed points in a neighborhood or locality. organic matter) and “dry” (recyclables).

but recyclables are removed by waste pickers prior to collection. and at disposal sites. In cities like Buenos Aires. collection services make up the bulk of a municipality’s SWM budget (as high as 80 to 90% in many cases). Waste generated by the ICI sector tends to be collected better. Residential waste collection. Higher income countries tend to have higher collection efficiency although less of the solid waste management budget goes towards collection. because of more efficient containerization and purpose-built vehicles. The degree of source separation impacts the total amount of material recycled and the quality of secondary materials that can be supplied. For further information on estimated solid waste management costs according to income level. and benefits from the collection of fees. yet collection rates tend to be much lower. they are proportionally lower as other budget items increase. although collection costs can represent less than 10% of a municipality’s budget. efficient. Singapore but rather is placed out for collection in separate containers without first being ‘mixed’ together. on the other hand. However. In highincome countries. While total collection budgets are higher. leading to lower collection frequency and efficiency. please refer to Annex E. tend to be contaminated. Recyclables recovered from mixed waste. Collection programs need to be differentiated by type of generator. The percent of MSW collected varies by national income and by region. during the collection process. Often more attention is devoted to residential waste even though this is usually less than 50% of the total waste stream. The degree and sophistication of waste picking influences overall collection. especially in developing countries. MSW is not separated or sorted before it is taken for disposal. and frequent.000. reducing marketing possibilities. tends to be more expensive to collect per tonne as waste is more dispersed. source separation and separate collection can add costs to the waste collection process. collection rates are usually higher than 90% on average and collection methods tend to be mechanized.14 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Photo: Cyrus Tata Separate garbage containers. for example. waste pickers tend to remove recyclables . In low-income countries. Often. Annex G provides data for MSW collection in cities over 100.

The resulting scattered waste is more costly to collect: in some cases the value of recyclables are less than the extra costs associated with collecting the disturbed waste. Annex K details MSW collection rates by country. Containerization is an important aspect for waste collection. 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% High Income Upper Middle Income Lower Middle Income Lower Income Figure 5. From a health perspective. South Asia and Africa are the lowest with 65% and 46% respectively. 5 Waste Collection Rates by Region 100% 90% MSW Collection by Income 80% The data show that the average waste collection rates are directly related to income levels. or set afire. around 41%. Shanghai). waste generators should be aware of the true costs of collection. and it can become water-logged. largely because of culture and habituation. no more than weekly collection is needed. 4 Waste Collection Rates by Income 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Frequency of collection is an important aspect readily under a municipality’s control. Regions with low-income countries tend to have low collection rates. Low-income countries have low collection rates. Therefore. In some cities informal waste pickers have strong links to the waste program and municipally sanctioned crews can be prevented from accessing the waste as informal waste pickers process the waste. Not surprisingly.g. three-times per day residential collection is offered (e. MSW Collection by Region Figure 5 shows MSW collection efficiency by region.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT after the waste is placed curbside. Waste Collection by Income FIG. Waste Collection by Region FIG. particularly from residential generators. OECD countries tend to have the highest collection efficiency at 98%. Figure 4 shows the average collection percentage by income. 60% 70% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% OECD MENA LAC ECA EAP SAR AFR 15 . and ideally be charged for these directly. If waste is not set out for collection in closed containers it can be disturbed by vermin such as dogs and rats. Waste pickers can be formally or informally organized into groups or unions with varying degrees of autonomy and political voice. Good waste collection programming requires an ongoing iterative approach between collection crews and generators (usually households). while high-income countries have higher collection rates averaging 98%. However in some cities. Figure 4.

boxes. wood. lids. telephone books. ash. tins. although total amount of organic waste is still highest in OECD countries. and ‘other. Plastic Bottles. Strictly speaking paper is organic but unless it is contaminated by food residue. with its relatively easier flow and quality control. rubber. multi-laminates. such as building rubble.’ These categories can be further refined. In the municipal solid waste stream. In some cities this can represent as much TABLE 9 Types of Waste and Their Sources Type as 40% of the total waste stream. colored glass Metal Cans. C&D waste is not included unless specifically identified. broken glassware. cups Glass Bottles. newspapers. other inert materials . glass. bags. these six categories are usually sufficient for general solid waste planning purposes. and other inorganic materials make up the highest proportion of MSW in highincome countries. ` Although waste composition is usually provided by weight. foil. is the first material to be recycled. containers. while OECD countries have the least at 27%. plastic. economic development. bicycles Other Textiles. appliances (white goods). EAP has the highest proportion of organic waste at 62%. Industrial. A separate case-by-case review is recommended for specific cities. yard (leaves. process residues Paper Paper scraps. railings. light bulbs. ` By region. climate. metals. For most MSW management plans industrial by-products are not Sources Organic Food scraps. In this study. paper is not classified as organic. however. An important component that needs to be considered is ‘construction and demolition waste’ (C&D). However. waste composition is categorized as organic. ` Paper. Commercial and Institutional (ICI) waste also needs further local refinement. ` Low-income countries have the highest proportion of organic waste. especially with regard to collection: organics and inerts generally decrease in relative terms. Some industrial process waste requires specific treatment. appliances. magazines. brush) waste.16 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Waste Composition At a Glance: ` Waste composition is influenced by factors such as culture. as a country’s affluence increases. cardboard. e-waste. in this report. packaging. while increasing paper and plastic increases overall waste volumes. non-hazardous aerosol cans. shredded paper. leather. waste is broadly classified into organic and inorganic. bags. waste volumes tend to be more important. In most cities this material. grass. wrapping paper. composition impacts how often waste is collected and how it is disposed. concrete and masonry. plastics. paper beverage cups. paper. Table 9 describes the different types of waste and their sources. and energy sources. Many industrial processes have specific wastes and by-products.

As a country urbanizes and populations become wealthier. glass. Figure 7. and in most cities waste from the ICI sector represents the largest fraction of the waste collected.500. Generally. lowand middle-income countries have a high percentage of organic matter in the urban waste stream.g. Global Solid Waste Composition as organic waste may be diverted to water-borne sewers. fication of MSW composition based on region (See Annex N). plastic. In high-income countries. wood versus steel). whereas in high-income countries it is 28% and 31% respectively.000 tons included in waste composition analyses. The type of energy source Figure 8 illustrates the differences between low.and high-income countries: organics make up 64% of the MSW stream for low-income countries and paper only 5%. amount of street sweepings (can be as much as 10% of a city’s waste stream in dry locations). ranging from 40 to 85% of the total. The IPCC uses its own classi- Other 18% FIG.000.Figure 6. an integrated approach for organic waste is particularly important. Paper.000. cultural norms.500. ash content (often from household heating). and aluminum) increases. Geography influences waste composition by determining building materials (e. please refer to Annex I. 7 Global Solid Waste Composition Metal 4% Organic 46% Glass 5% Plastic 10% Paper 17% 17 . Waste composition is influenced by many factors. paper. however household and general waste should be included since it is usually disposed at common facilities. Waste Composition in China WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Metal 1% 2000: Population Using Coal Others 10% 2000: Population Using Gas FIG. and horticultural waste. such as level of economic development. consumption of inorganic materials (such as plastics. geographical location. 6 Glass 2% Waste Composition in China Plastic 13% Organic 65% Organic 41% Others 47% Paper 9% Metal 1% Source: Hoornweg 2005 Glass 2% Plastic 4% Paper 5% Municipal Waste Genereated from Population Using Coal for household heating = 49. energy sources.and high-income countries.000 tons Municipal Waste Genereated from Population Using Gas for household heating = 100. which is usually a more expensive option.000 tons Total Municipal Waste Generation in 2000 = 150. and climate. and metal fractions increase in the waste stream of middle. For data on MSW composition in cities with a population of over 100. while the relative organic fraction decreases.

The amount of paper.18 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS in a location can have an impact on the composition of MSW generated. heating. and specific reports for larger countries such as China and India. Organic waste comprises the majority of MSW. Waste composition data is generally available as percentages of the various waste streams. Although the definitions and methodologies for determining composition are not always provided or standardized in the waste studies referenced. the organic fraction tends to be highest in low-income countries and lowest in high-income countries. as opposed to 10% when natural gas is used for home heating. for the purposes of standardization and simplification the ‘other’ category in this report includes all of these wastes. For example. . Mongolia. These are only approximate values. Climate can also influence waste generation in a city. In some cases. Total amount of organic waste tends to increase steadily as affluence increases at a slower rate than the non-organic fraction. commonly divided into the categories shown in Table 10. ash. Waste Composition by Income As Figures 8 a-d show. Waste Composition by Region MSW composition by region is shown in Figures 10 a-g. Please see Annex M for further information on MSW composition data by country. plastic. rubber. ash makes up 60% of the MSW generated in the winter. Estimates for waste composition in 2025 are based on trends observed in OECD countries and authors’ projections. other wastes. For example. and glass. Annex J provides data for MSW projections for 2025 by income level. and 6%. The total waste composition figures by income and by region were then aggregated. the compositions for MSW are assumed to be based on wet weight. Precipitation is also important in waste composition. given that the data sets are from various years. Methodology This report includes waste composition data that was available for 105 countries from various sources. country. and an ash residue is included. particularly when measured by mass. and lighting might not come from district heating systems or the electricity grid. followed by paper. respectively) and lowest in the South Asia Region (4% for paper and 1% for both glass and metals). However. metal. The data presented in Figure 9 illustrates solid waste composition by income as compared between current values and values projected for 2025. but only 20% in the summer (UNEP/GRID-Arendal 2004). in Ulan Bator. and metals found in the MSW stream are the highest in OECD countries (32%. which have the least (27%). ‘other’ wastes are further disaggregated into textiles. glass. 7%. Humidity also influences waste composition by influencing moisture content. as un-containerized waste can absorb significant amounts of water from rain and snow. Annex J provides data for MSW projections for 2025 by region. Low-income countries have an organic fraction of 64% compared to 28% in high-income countries. The East Asia and the Pacific Region has the highest fraction of organic waste (62%) compared to OECD countries. Figure 6 shows the difference in waste composition in China between a section of the population that uses coal and another that uses natural gas for space heating. Each waste category was calculated using waste generation figures from individual countries. Table 10 represents a compilation of composition values of current day data presented in Annex M. This is especially true in low-income countries or regions where energy for cooking. etc. The ‘other’ category is clearly higher: 47% when coal is used. Figure 7 shows the MSW composition for the entire world in 2009. or region.

WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Figure 8. Waste Composition in Upper Middle-Income Countries d. 8 Other 15% Other 17% Waste Composition by Income Metal 2% Metal 3% Glass 3% Glass 3% Organic 64% Plastic 8% Organic 59% Plastic 12% Paper 5% Paper 9% c. and Annex J. Waste Composition in Low-Income Countries 19 b. **Source: By author from global trends. Waste Composition in Lower Middle-Income Countries FIG. Waste Composition by Income a. see Annex C on Data Availability. Types of Waste Composition by Income Level . Waste Composition in High-Income Countries Other 13% Other 17% Organic 28% Metal 3% Glass 5% Metal 6% Organic 54% Plastic 11% Glass 7% Plastic 11% Paper 14% Paper 31% TABLE 10 CURRENT ESTIMATES* Source: Income Level Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) Low Income 64 5 8 3 3 17 Lower Middle Income 59 9 12 3 2 15 Upper Middle Income 54 14 11 5 3 13 High Income 28 31 11 7 6 17 Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) 2025 ESTIMATES** Income Level Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Low Income 62 6 9 3 3 17 Lower Middle Income 55 10 13 4 3 15 Upper Middle Income 50 15 12 4 4 15 High Income 28 30 11 7 6 18 *Source year: varies.

*Total annual waste volume in millions of tonnes Plastic 11% Paper 30% 686 MT . 9 Solid Waste Composition by Income and Year 2025 Other 17% Metal Glass 3% 3% Plastic 8% Paper 5% Other Metal 17% 3% Glass 3% Plastic 9% Paper 6% Low Income Organic 64% 75 MT* Organic 62% 201 MT Other 15% Other 15% Metal 2% Glass 3% Lower Middle Income Organic 59% Plastic 12% Metal 3% Glass 4% Organic 55% Plastic 13% Paper 9% Paper 10% 369 MT Metal 3% 956 MT Other 15% Other 13% Upper Middle Income Glass 5% Organic 54% Plastic 11% Metal 4% Glass 4% Organic 50% Plastic 12% Paper 14% Paper 15% 243 MT High Income Others 17% 426 MT Other 18% Organic 28% Metal 6% Organic 28% Metal 6% Glass 7% Glass 7% Plastic 11% Paper 31% 602 MT Source: Current data vary by country.20 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Figure 9. Solid Waste Composition CURRENT FIG.

AFR Waste Composition Other 13% Metal 4% Glass 4% Organic 57% Waste Composition by Region Other 10% Metal 2% Glass 3% Plastic 13% FIG. EAP Waste Composition Plastic 13% Organic 62% Paper 10% Paper 9% c.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 21 Figure 10. LAC Waste Composition e. 10 b. SAR Composition Other 19% Other 37% Metal 5% Organic 47 Glass 7% Plastic 8% Organic 50% Metal 1% Glass Paper 1% Plastic 4% 7% Paper 14% g. ECA Waste Composition d. MENA Waste Composition Other Metal 10% 3% Glass 3% Metal 2% Glass 4% Plastic 9% Organic 54% Plastic 12% Organic 61% Paper 14% Other 12% Paper 16% f. OECD Waste Composition Other 17% Organic 27% Metal 6% Glass 7% Plastic 11% Paper 32% . Global Solid Waste Composition a.

the methodology of how disposal is calculated and the definitions used for each of the categories is often either not known or not consistent. Annex L presents MSW disposal methods data by country. Each waste disposal category was calculated using waste generation figures for the individual country. ` Although quantitative data is not readily available. Amman. 11 Total MSW Disposed of Worldwide 400 Amount Disposed (millions tons/year) 22 350 300 MSW Disposal by Income 250 Table 11 shows in further detail how MSW disposal varies according to country income level. the rest falls under ‘other’ disposal. ` Several middle-income countries have poorly operated landfills. in particular low-income and upper middle-income countries. the disposal of MSW is assumed to be based on wet weight. Many countries do not collect waste disposal data at the national level.URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Waste Disposal At a Glance: ` Landfilling and thermal treatment of waste are the most common methods of MSW disposal in high-income countries. These are only approximate values. Waste disposal data sets are generally available as percentages of the various waste disposal options. Total MSW Disposed Worldwide over 100. The total waste disposal figures by income and by region were then aggregated. making comparisons across income levels and regions difficult. disposal should likely be classified as controlled dumping. some countries only give the percentage of waste that is dumped or sent to a landfill. compostable and recyclable material is removed before the waste reaches the disposal site and is not included in waste disposal statistics. Ghabawi landfill. Furthermore. Although the definitions and methodologies for calculating waste disposal methods and quantities are not always provided or standardized in waste studies. given that the data is from various years. most low. 200 150 100 50 0 Landfill Recycled WTE Dump Disposal Options Compost Other Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the differences in MSW disposal methods according to country income level. FIG. Please refer to Annex H for MSW disposal data for cities with populations Figure 11.and lower middle-income countries dispose of their waste in open dumps. Jordan Photo: Perinaz Bhada-Tata . For example. in cases where data is available.000. commonly divided into the categories shown in Table 10. Waste disposal data are the most difficult to collect. In other cases. Figure 11 shows current annual global MSW disposal for the entire world. Methodology Waste disposal data was available for 87 countries through various sources.

2 Landfills 6.2 Recycled 0.02 Recycled 2.97 Other 18 *This value is relatively high due to the inclusion of China.9 Incineration 0.47 Dumps 23 27* Landfills 2.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT High Income TABLE 11 Upper Middle Income Dumps 0. MSW Disposal by Income (million tonnes) .18 Other 8.3 Recycled 129 Recycled Incineration 122 Incineration 0.05 Compost 1.12 Other 0.1 Compost 0.4 Other 21 1.9 Low Income Dumps Lower Mid dle Income 0.05 Incineration 0.05 Dumps 44 Landfills 250 Landfills 80 Compost 66 Compost 1.

Africa’s collected waste is almost exclusively dumped or sent to landfills. Low-Income Countries Waste Disposal Low-Income Countries Waste Disposal ences in GHG emissions).6 Landfills 242 0. FIG.05 Incineration 120 Other 0. yet the OECD region produces about 100 times the waste of Africa (these disparities are parallel to regional differ- FIG. Upper Middle-Income Countries Waste Disposal Upper Middle-Income Countries Waste Disposal Compost 1% Dumps 13% Other 26% Recycled 1% Income 0% Other 6% Dumps 33% Income 1% Recycled 0% Compost 1% Landfills 59% Landfills 59% TABLE 12 MSW Disposal Dumps Source: Hoornweg 2005 in two contrasting regions (million Landfills tonnes) Compost AFR OECD 2.24 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Table 12 contrasts the world’s richest (OECD) and poorest (Africa) regions.3 Source: Hoornweg 2005 Dumps — 2. 12 Figure 12.14 Recycled 125 Incineration 0.11 Other 20 . while more than 60% of OECD’s waste is diverted from landfill.05 Compost 66 Recycled 0. 13 Figure 13. Populations in the two regions are roughly equal.

environmental. climate. natural condi- ``Financial assessment of the plan. options) for waste collection.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 25 Waste and the Environment Integrated Solid Waste Management Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) reflects the need to approach solid waste in a comprehensive manner with careful selection and sustained application of appropriate technology. This should include data on MSW composition and other characteristics. and how such facilities and services will be paid for. recycle — often adding a fourth ‘R’ for recovery. compost plants. aims. objectives. transportation. treatment and disposal systems to be developed. including data covering both recent years and projections over the lifetime of the plan (usually 15-25 years). development and distribution of population. Option(s). with proposed waste mass flows proposed through each. ISWM should be driven by clear objectives and is based on the hierarchy of waste management: reduce. and distribution of collection. and on the appreciation of the critical role that the community. and establishment of a ‘social license’ between the community and designated waste management authorities (most commonly local government). ``The character and scale of the city. with developing and operating the plan including estimated subsidy transfers and user fees. . e. present and predicted. specifying the amount. arrangements needed to support the plan. over the lifetime of the plan (or facilities). who will provide them and the related services. ISWM is based on both a high degree of professionalism on behalf of solid waste managers. employees. ``All municipal policies. ysis of both investment and recurrent costs associated with the proposed facilities and services. treatment. what facilities are required. and transfer stations. transportation. ``Data on all waste generation. and initia- ``Associated institutional reforms and regulatory tives related to waste management. including anal- tions. ``The requirements for managing all non-MSW arisings. social. BOX 3 ``Identify all proposed options (and combination of ``All the sources of finance and revenues associated ``The proposed implementation plan covering a ``Evaluation of the Best Practical Environmental period of at least 5-10 years. Components of an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan An integrated Solid Waste Management plan should include the following sections: conjunction with facilities and practices and ways in which this information will be regularly reported. integrating balanced assessments of all technical.g. ``The proposed plan. and local (and increasingly global) ecosystems have in effective SWM. landfills. with an immediate action plan detailing actions set out for the first 2-3 years. and financial issues. scale. MSW in the city’s overall urban metabolism. Please refer to Box 3 for a detailed list describing the components of an ISWM Plan. reuse. ``Outline of the detailed program to be used to site ``Specifications on the proposed on-going moni- ``An assessment of GHG emissions and the role of toring and controls that will be implemented in key waste management facilities. These waste diversion options are then followed by incineration and landfill. working conditions. ``Outline of public consultations carried out during preparation of the plan and proposed in future. such as moisture content and density (dry weight). or other disposal options. and disposal of the defined types and quantities of solid wastes (this must address options for all types of solid waste arising).

Measures and priorities are created based on these various local. Surveys conducted by UN-Habitat show that in areas where waste is not collected frequently. An alternative framework is provided by UN-HABITAT. Elements (Process): include the technical aspects Sus tai na b Stakeholders: include individuals or groups that y ilit of solid waste management.26 BOX 4 Integrated Sustainable Waste Management Framework have an interest or roles. elements. and can thus pass on air. Local/Regulatory Authorities NGOs/CBOs Service Users Informal/Formal Sector Donor Agencies Stakeholders Elements Aspects Generation and Separation Collection Transfer Treatment and Disposal Recovery 3 R’s Environmental Political/Legal Institutional Socio-Cultural Financial/Economic Technical and Performance Adapted van de Klundert and Anschütz 2001. Lack of enforced regulations enables potentially infectious medical and hazardous waste to be mixed with MSW. which need to be addressed simultaneously when designing a solid waste management system: stakeholders. There are three interdependent and interconnected dimensions of ISWM. As outlined by the Dutch NGO. Please refer to Box 4 for further details on the interconnected dimensions of ISWM. institutional. a community increases influence or environmental regulations are tightened. effectiveness of the waste management system to safely remove the waste. and resource management (UN-Habitat 2009). Solid waste that is not properly collected and disposed can be a breeding ground for insects. and sustainability of the system from a technical. minimize costs. All stakeholders should be identified and where practical involved in creating a SWM program. e. WASTE. environmental protection. which is harmful to waste pickers and the environment. which identifies three key system elements in ISWM: public health. All stakeholders impact one or more of the elements. public health concerns have been the basis for solid waste management programs. Adapted fromfrom van de Klundert and Anschütz 2001. Public Health: In most jurisdictions. environmental and financial realities in which the waste management system operates. In low. MSW is often dumped in low-lying areas and land adjacent to slums. and political perspective (van de Klundert and Anschütz 2001). ISWM is based on four principles: equity for all citizens to have access to waste management systems for public health reasons. and optimize the use of resources. economic. and scavenging animals.and middle-income countries.g. The elements need to be considered simultaneously when creating an SWM program in order to have an efficient and effective system. vermin. Environmental Protection: Poorly collected or improperly disposed of waste can have a detrimental impact on the environment. Specific aspects can be changeable. financial. national and global aspects. as solid waste management is essential to maintaining public health. social (cultural). Aspects (Policies and Impacts): encompass the regulatory. and aspects. efficiency to maximize benefits. the incidence of diarrhea is twice as high and acute respiratory infections six times higher than in areas where collection is frequent (UN-Habitat 2009). Environmental threats include contamination of groundwater and surface water .and water-borne diseases. environmental.

composting) Landfill Incineration (with energy recovery) Waste Disposal Controlled Dump* Least preferred option *As a minimum. although usually informal. 14 Waste Hierarchy Reduce Reuse Waste Diversion Recycle Recover (digestion. controlled access. As the Most preferred option 27 cost of virgin materials and their environmental impact increases.and middleincome countries. the relative value of secondary materials is expected to increase. as bottom ash. Resource Management: MSW can represent a considerable potential resource. Recycling. the global market for recyclables has increased significantly. and where practical. as well as air pollution from burning of waste that is not properly collected and disposed. recycle — but now a fourth R is frequently added — recovery. waste should be disposed at a “controlled dump. . producing aluminum from recycled aluminum requires 95% less energy than producing it from virgin materials. occurs through an active. Producing new products with secondary materials can save significant energy. The hierarchy responds to financial. particularly in low. environmental. Waste Disposal Options The waste management sector follows a generally accepted hierarchy. The earliest known usage of the ‘waste management hierarchy’ appears to be Ontario’s Pollution Probe in the early 1970s. The hierarchy also encourages minimization of GHG emissions. reuse.” which includes site selection.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT by leachate. non-combustibles and by-passed waste needs to be landfilled. See Figure 14 for the waste hierarchy. This represents a global value of at least $30 billion per year. The hierarchy started as the ‘three Rs’ — reduce. FIG. social and management considerations. For example. In recent years. The world market for post consumer scrap metal is estimated at 400 million tonnes annually and around 175 million tonnes annually for paper and cardboard (UN-Habitat 2009). compaction of waste. sector. Incineration requires a complimentary sanitary landfill.

organic waste is treated in an enclosed vessel. Generally speaking. e.g. Informal recycling by waste pickers will have little GHG emissions. for example. about 20% of discards are recovered for recycling. which can be relatively high if improperly burned. First. Often associated with wastewater treatment facilities. and reuse) seek to reduce the quantity of waste at generation points by redesigning products or changing patterns of production and consumption. metal recovery from e-waste. In China. informal waste pickers at collection points and disposal sites recover a significant portion of discards. Waste Reduction: Waste or source reduction initiatives (including prevention. minimization. Aerobic Composting and Anaerobic Digestion: Composting with windrows or enclosed vessels is intended to be an aerobic (with oxygen) operation that avoids the formation of methane associated with anaerobic conditions (without oxygen). largely attributable to informal waste picking (Hoornweg et al 2005). and less costly than anaerobic . When using an anaerobic digestion process. except for processing the materials for sale or reuse. A reduction in waste generation has a two-fold benefit in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions. Recycling and Materials Recovery: The key advantages of recycling and recovery are reduced quantities of disposed waste and the return of materials to the economy. paper mill and paper recycling factory 1. anaerobic digestion will generate methane that can either be flared or used to generate heat and/or electricity. In many developing countries. Related GHG emissions come from the carbon dioxide associated with electricity consumption for the operation of material recovery facilities.28 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Photo: Eric Miller/World Bank Maputo – Fapel. composting is less complex. The second benefit is eliminating the emissions associated with the avoided waste management activities. 2. 3. the emissions associated with material and product manufacture are avoided. more forgiving.

infrastructure. infrastructure and liner in place Containment and some level of Passive ventilation or flaring leachate treatment. most of the GHG emissions associated with paper occur before it becomes MSW. informal waste picking. controlled dumping. Encouraging waste minimization through MSW programs can therefore have significant up-stream GHG minimization benefits. especially in developing countries. surface and ground water monitoring. the need to regularly add fuel) is not a preferred option due to costs and pollution. surface water monitoring. measures for final top cover and closure. Landfilling usually progresses from open-dumping.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT digestion. Typically. no engineering measures Unrestricted contaminant release None Engineered Landfill/ Controlled Landfill Registration and placement/compaction of waste. to sanitary landfilling (see Table 13). Operation and Engineering Measures 29 5. Proper landfilling is often lacking.460 mtCO2e) of total global greenhouse gas emissions. uses daily cover material. Experience from many jurisdictions shows that composting source separated organics significantly reduces contamination of the finished compost. Recovering the energy value embedded in waste prior to final disposal is considered preferable to direct landfilling — assuming pollution control requirements and costs are adequately addressed. Landfill: The waste or residue from other processes should be sent to a disposal site. uses daily cover. controlled landfilling. some directed placement of waste. Incineration: Incineration of waste (with energy recovery) can reduce the volume of disposed waste by up to 90%. can be recovered and the methane (about 50% of LFG) burned with or without energy recovery to reduce GHG emissions. cardboard. no engineering measures Unrestricted contaminant release None Controlled Dump Registration and placement/compaction of waste. Leachate Management Landfill Gas Management Semi-controlled Dumps Few controls. Landfills are a common final disposal site for waste and should be engineered and operated to protect the environment and public health. paper. produced from the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter. For example. Waste and Climate Change GHG emissions from MSW have emerged as a major concern as post-consumer waste is estimated to account for almost 5% (1. Open-burning of waste is particularly discouraged due to severe air pollution associated with low temperature combustion. liner and leachate treatment in place and post-closure plan. Methane is an intended by-product of anaerobic digestion and can be collected and combusted. rather than processing mixed MSW with front-end or back-end separation. proper siting. These high volume reductions are seen only in waste streams with very high amounts of packaging materials. plastics and horticultural waste. Containment and leachate treatment (often biological and physico-chemical treatment) Flaring with or without energy recovery TABLE 13 Landfill Classifications . Solid waste also includes significant embodied GHG emissions. Landfill gas (LFG). reduced leachate volume through waste cover Sanitary Landfill Registration and placement/compaction of waste. 4. incineration without energy recovery (or non-autogenic combustion.

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Opportunities Efforts to reduce emissions from the municipal solid waste sector include generating less waste. climatic conditions (ambient temperature. N2O) (MtCO2e) % Methane from Disposal Sites Relative to Total GHG Emissions Brazil 16 659 2. improving the efficiency of waste collection.30 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS TABLE 14 Landfill Methane Emissions and Total GHG Emissions for Selected Countries Country Methane Emissions from Post-Consumer Municipal Waste Disposa* (MtCO2e) Greenhouse Gas Emissions** (CO2.4% China 45 3.650 1. **UNFCCC 2005. Within the European Union. Methane. which 4 Wastewater management adds an equal amount of methane to the atmosphere. a by-product of the anaerobic decomposition is composed of methane (typically about 50%) with the balance being carbon dioxide and other gases. 5 has a Global Warming Potential 21 times greater than carbon dioxide. depending on waste composition. Greenhouse gas emissions from waste management can readily be reduced.4 The level of methane from landfills varies by country.1% Mexico 31 383 8. Landfills are responsible for almost half of the methane emissions attributed to the municipal waste sector in 2010 (IPCC 2007). Jordan Photo: Perinaz Bhada-Tata . Table 14 highlights some examples. the rate of GHG emissions from waste has declined from 69 mtCO2e per year to 32 million tCO2e per year from 1990 to 2007 (ISWA 2009). Organic biomass5 decomposes anaerobically in a sanitary landfill. Landfill gas. is the second most common greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. CH4.3% *EPA 2006a. Methane from landfills represents 12% of total global methane emissions (EPA 2006b).2% India 14 1.210 1. anaerobic digestion with combustion A transfer station in Amman. expanding recycling. methane avoidance (aerobic composting. Organic biomass excludes organic waste such as plastics that are derived from fossil energy sources. precipitation) and waste disposal practices.1% South Africa 16 380 4.

Finished compost applied to soils is also an important method to reduce GHG emissions by reducing nitrogen requirements and associated GHG emissions.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Waste Management Component Technology Options Waste Reduction Design of longer-lasting and reusable products. Consumers would pay for the waste management service when they buy the product. MRFs use a combination of manual and mechanical sorting options. reduced consumption. Product charges are a policy mechanism often better implemented by regional or national governments. treatment and use of landfill gas). although source separated is the preferred option as the materials would have less contamination from other discards. ` Pricing mechanisms. it may not be practical in many areas in developing countries. Energy generated from methane combustion can displace other fossil fuels either as a process energy resource or as electricity. natural gas). Policy Recommendations for Reducing GHG Emissions Governments have a range of policy options to encourage waste management practices that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. of produced methane and capture. Compost the organic material after digestion to produce a useful soil conditioner and avoid landfill disposal. non-fossil fuels (bio-fuel. ` Preferential procurement policies and pricing to stimulate demand for products made with recycled post-consumer waste. Composting/Anaerobic Digestion Institute composting programs ideally with source separated organics. Incineration/Waste-to-energy/ Refuse–Derived Fuel (RDF) Use the combustible fraction of waste as a fuel either in a dedicated combustion facility (incineration) with or without energy recovery or as RDF in a solid fuel boiler. Landfill Capture the methane generated in disposal sites and flare or use as a renewable energy resource. 31 TABLE 15 Technical GHG Mitigation Opportunities by Waste Management Component . Suitable technology options by waste management component are provided in Table 15. particularly in those where there are communal collection points associated with multi-unit households (such as apartment user charges tied to quantity or volume). A product charge is a cost assessment added to the price of a product and is tied to the cost of the desired waste management system. However. The fees collected would be directed to municipalities relative to the waste generated. Practical approaches that could be applied in most cities include: ` Public education to inform people about their options to reduce waste generation and increase recycling and composting. An example of this economic mechanism is an excise tax on tires assessed by most states in the US. This pricing policy can work well in locations where waste collection is from individual households so that waste quantities for disposal can be readily monitored. such as product charges can stimulate consumer behavior to reduce waste generation and increase recycling. Waste pickers could be used as a source of labor for manual sorting stages. Use of compost in public parks and other property owned by cities. ` Another pricing mechanism well suited to urban areas is user charges tied to quantity of waste disposed. Waste Collection Use of alternative. Consumers who separate recyclables pay a lower fee for waste disposal. Recycling/Materials Recovery Materials recovery facility (MRF) to process source separated materials or mixed waste. As with recyclables source separated materials reduce the contamination associated with recovery from mixed waste.

However. a significant level of waste is disposed directly through local burning or thrown in waterways and low lying areas). textiles. and completeness. Other-consumer products consist of . inerts. or sources of data not indicated `` Estimates made without basis `` Incomplete or inconsistent data (please see Annexes C and D for further information on available data) `` Information collected at a non-representative moment In most low. household goods) ‘Others’ wastes should be differentiated into two categories: other-residue and other-consumer products. leather. Waste composition specifies the components of the waste stream as a percentage of the total mass or volume. The most accurate method measures the waste generated at source before any recycling. and a lack of weight scales at landfill sites to record waste quantities. horticultural variations). Additionally. data collection methodologies. and wood wastes) `` paper `` plastic `` glass `` metal Rarely is it disclosed at what stage the waste generation rates and composition were determined.and `` others (includes ceramics.and middle-income countries. Measuring waste quantities for final disposal is practical for municipal purposes. The component categories used within this report are: `` organics (i. The reliability of the data is influenced by: `` Undefined words or phrases `` Inconsistent or omitted units `` Dates. incomplete waste collection and disposal (e. burning. rubber. waste collection rates are low and formal service does not extend to all communities. or open dumping takes place. Large variation in waste quantity and composition can be observed if the economic situation changes. yard. composting. the reliability of solid waste data is further compromised by large seasonal variations (e. Other-residue is made up of ash. in most low. the generation rate and composition are commonly calculated using waste quantities arriving at the final disposal site. ashes.and middle-income countries.32 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS A Note on the Reliability of Solid Waste Data Solid waste data should be considered with a degree of caution due to global inconsistencies in definitions. This method of measurement does not fully represent the waste stream because waste can be diverted prior to final disposal. inerts. and whether they were estimated or physically measured. dirt. especially in low. yet growing waste quantities associated with increasing GNP are not necessarily a true reflection of increased waste. they might be changes in the relative recoverable value of the secondary materials and improvements in overall collection efficiency. bones. methodologies.and middle-income countries.g. thereby reducing the quantities of waste delivered to final disposal sites.e. bulky wastes. and sweepings and is a significant component of the waste stream in low. middle-income countries where the informal sector removes a large fraction of recyclables.g. coconut husks. compostables such as food. seasonal rains and un-containerized waste.

Rarely is it indicated within a waste study whether the percentage is on a wet or dry basis. Probably both mass and volume measurements were used depending upon the country. there is no single standard or comprehensive system to measure and monitor city performance and urban quality of life. Photo: Cyrus Tata Bangalore.and middle-income countries would be more inclined to use volume since it does not require sophisticated measuring equipment and can be estimated. household appliances. Within this report. unless clearly noted. It is assumed that the composition was determined on a wet basis. Data are also denoted by the letter “t” to denote the unit. The GCIP (please see Annex O) provides a practical means for cities to collect credible information on MSW.g. It is important to cite whether the percentages are given on a dry or wet basis.. So far. India 33 . There are major efforts being done to correct data inconsistencies at the city level. from mass to volume and from wet to dry).g. Waste densities and moisture contents are needed to convert data to a common frame of reference for comparison (e. tetrapaks and blister packaging). the higher the moisture content and often the higher the density of the waste stream. because component percentages will differ markedly depending on moisture content. all of the units are metric. causing the true value to be unknown. Usually the higher the percentage of organic matter.WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT bulky wastes. 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 combustible. the Global City Indicators Program (GCIP). Low. In response to this need. electronics. and multi-material packaging (e. High-income countries usually use mass as a basis since they have greater funding resources and support to complete a more accurate waste characterization. or based on volume or mass. Another major inconsistency among the various waste studies is the use of imperial units versus metric units. has been developed. based in Toronto. Frequently the imperial ton and the metric tonne are interchanged when reporting waste quantities.

A couple salvage old bricks from an area demolished for renovation in Saigon Photo: Tran Thi Hoa .

ANNEXES .

Martin(Fr) St.36 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX A Map of Regions Greenland (Den) Iceland Faeroe Islands (Den) The Netherlands Isle of Man (UK) Canada Unite Kingdo Ireland Channel Islands (UK) Luxembourg Liechtenstein Switzerland Andorra United States F Portugal Spain Gibraltar (UK) Bermuda (UK) Morocco A Former Spanish Sahara The Bahamas Cayman Is. Maarten(Neth) Antigua and Barbuda St.B. Vincent and the Grenadines Dominica St. de Venezuela Chile Trinidad and Tobago Poland Czech Republic Slovak Repu Uruguay Argentina Austria Guadeloupe (Fr) Martinique (Fr) Aruba Bonaire Curaçao (Neth) (Neth) (Neth) Germany Hungary Slovenia Croatia Bosnia and Italy Herzegovina Serb San Marino Montenegro Koso 2 Vatican City Mac Albania G . Lucia Barbados Grenada R. Virgin Islands (US) 1 St. Kitts and Nevis St.S.(UK) Mexico Cuba Mauritania 1 Haiti Belize Jamaica Guatemala Honduras El Salvador Nicaragua Cape Verde Mali Senegal The Gambia Guinea-Bissau Costa Rica Panama R. de Venezuela Guyana Suriname Guinea Sierra Leone Liberia French Guiana (Fr) Colombia Burkina Faso Côte Ghana d’Ivoire To Equatorial G São Tomé and Prí Ecuador Kiribati Brazil Peru Samoa French Polynesia (Fr) American Samoa (US) Fiji Bolivia Tonga Paraguay Dominican Republic Puerto Rico (US) U.B.

R.of Korea China Afghanistan Bahrain Qatar Saudi Arabia Kyrgyz Rep.D. of Egypt Chad Eritrea Sudan Dem.of Korea Tajikistan Pakistan United Arab Emirates Oman ogo Guinea íncipe Cameroon Central African Republic Bangladesh India Myanmar Gabon Congo Sri Lanka Guam (US) Philippines Federated States of Micronesia Brunei Darussalam Malaysia Marshall Islands Palau Maldives Kenya Rwanda Dem.of Burundi Congo Tanzania N. of Iran Kuwait Iraq Mongolia Nauru Singapore Seychelles Comoros Solomon Islands Papua New Guinea Indonesia Tuvalu Timor-Leste Angola Malawi Zambia Zimbabwe Namibia Mayotte (Fr) Mozambique Botswana Madagascar Vanuatu South Africa Fiji Mauritius Réunion (Fr) Australia Swaziland d Kiribati New Caledonia (Fr) Lesotho Ukraine ublic The world by region Romania bia Classified according to ovo Bulgaria FYR cedonia World Bank analytical grouping Greece Low. of Yemen Ethiopia South Sudan Japan Bhutan Nepal Djibouti Nigeria Rep.ANNEX 37 IBRD 39177 MARCH 2012 Norway Sweden Finland Russian Federation Estonia Denmark Russian Latvia Fed.Rep.People’s Rep. Mariana Islands (US) Vietnam Cambodia Somalia Uganda Lao P. West Bank and Gaza Jordan Malta Libya Niger Benin Kazakhstan Arab Rep. Thailand Rep. Lithuania ed Germany Poland Belarus om Belgium Ukraine Moldova Romania France Italy Bulgaria 2 Monaco Tunisia Algeria a Turkey Greece Georgia Armenia Azerbaijan Cyprus Lebanon Israel Syrian Arab Rep. Uzbekistan Turkmenistan Islamic Rep.and middle-income economies East Asia and Pacific Europe and Central Asia Latin America and the Caribbean Middle East and North Africa South Asia Antarctica New Zealand Sub-Saharan Africa High-income economies OECD Other No data .

de Venezuela Chile Trinidad and Tobago Polan Czech Republic Slovak Repu Uruguay Argentina Austria Guadeloupe (Fr) Martinique (Fr) Aruba Bonaire Curaçao (Neth) (Neth) (Neth) Germany Hungary Slovenia Croatia Bosnia and Italy Herzegovina Ser San Marino Montenegro Koso 2 Vatican City Mac Albania . Kitts and Nevis St.S. de Venezuela Guyana Suriname Guinea Sierra Leone Liberia French Guiana (Fr) Colombia Burkina Faso Côte Ghana d’Ivoire To Equatorial G São Tomé and Prí Ecuador Kiribati Brazil Peru Samoa French Polynesia (Fr) American Samoa (US) Fiji Bolivia Tonga Paraguay Dominican Republic Puerto Rico (US) U. Martin(Fr) St.38 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX B Map of Income Distribution Greenland (Den) Iceland Faeroe Islands (Den) The Netherlands Isle of Man (UK) Canada Unite Kingdo Ireland Channel Islands (UK) Luxembourg Liechtenstein Switzerland Andorra United States F Portugal Spain Gibraltar (UK) Bermuda (UK) Morocco A Former Spanish Sahara The Bahamas Cayman Is.B. Virgin Islands (US) 1 St.B. Maarten(Neth) Antigua and Barbuda St. Vincent and the Grenadines Dominica St. Lucia Barbados Grenada R.(UK) Mexico Cuba Mauritania 1 Haiti Belize Jamaica Guatemala Honduras El Salvador Nicaragua Cape Verde Mali Senegal The Gambia Guinea-Bissau Costa Rica Panama R.

906 or more) Antarctica No data .855) Upper middle ($3. of Iran Kuwait Saudi Arabia Kyrgyz Rep. However. Thailand Ethiopia South Sudan Japan Bhutan Nepal Djibouti Nigeria Rep. the income data shown on this map is dated 2008.People’s Rep.of Korea China Afghanistan Bahrain Qatar Eritrea Sudan Turkmenistan Islamic Rep.of Burundi Congo Tanzania N.856–$11.R. of Egypt Chad a Benin a Dem.Rep. China Lao P.ANNEX 39 IBRD 39176 MARCH 2012 Norway Sweden Finland Russian Federation Estonia Denmark Russian Latvia Fed. Greece The world by income Classified according to World Bank estimates of 2008 GNI per capita Low ($975 or less) Lower middle ($976–$3. Uzbekistan Azerbaijan Iraq Mongolia Comoros Solomon Islands Papua New Guinea Indonesia Tuvalu Timor-Leste Angola Malawi Zambia Zimbabwe Namibia Mayotte (Fr) Mozambique Botswana Vanuatu Madagascar Fiji Mauritius New Caledonia (Fr) Réunion (Fr) Australia Swaziland South Africa nd Kiribati Nauru Singapore Seychelles Lesotho Ukraine ublic New Zealand Romania rbia ovo Bulgaria FYR cedonia As of July 2011. of Yemen Gabon Congo Sri Lanka Guam (US) Philippines Federated States of Micronesia Brunei Darussalam Malaysia Marshall Islands Palau Maldives Kenya Rwanda Dem. South Sudan is shown independent from Sudan.D. Lithuania ed Germany Poland Belarus om Belgium Ukraine Moldova Romania France Italy Bulgaria 2 Monaco Tunisia Algeria Kazakhstan Turkey Greece Cyprus Lebanon Israel Syrian Arab Rep. and applies to the former united Sudan.of Korea Tajikistan Pakistan United Arab Emirates Oman Togo Guinea íncipe Cameroon Central African Republic Bangladesh India Myanmar Rep. West Bank and Gaza Jordan Malta Libya Niger Georgia Armenia Arab Rep. Mariana Islands (US) Vietnam Cambodia Somalia Uganda Hong Kong SAR.905) High ($11.

Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire2 Croatia6 Cuba UMI LI LCR AFR x x 2001 2003 USAID (2009) PAHO (2005) Hoornweg et al. (2005) PAHO (2005) Payet (2003) LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) LMI UMI LMI HIC UMI AFR LCR AFR ECA LCR x x x x x 2005 2001 2005 2008 2001 USAID (2009) PAHO (2005) USAID (2009) Vego (2008) PAHO (2005) Income Level Region Albania1 LMI ECA x Algeria UMI MENA Andorra Angola2 Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Bahamas. (2005) x 2004 x T 1996 UNSD (2009) Composition Year of Data Source x 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2002 METAP (2004) x 2005 UNSD (2009) x x x x 2001 2007 2005 2004 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) x 2004 UNSD (2009) x 2004 UNSD (2009) x x x x 2003 1997 2002 2008 OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) Phuntsho (2008) x 1999 UNSD (2009) x 2006 x 2006 UNSD (2009) Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) x 2000 Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) x 2006 UNSD (2009) x 2004 OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) x 2001 x 2004 Kum et al. The Bahrain3 HIC LMI Country Gen. (2009) OECD (2008) x 2006 UNSD (2009) x 1998 UNSD (2009) x x T T 2001 2003 PAHO (2005) Payet (2003) x 2005 PAHO (2005) x 2005 UNSD (2009) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2005 UNSD (2009) x x T T 2005 2005 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) x x 2006 2005 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) x x 2000 2005 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) . (2009) OECD (2008) USAID (2009) LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) LI UMI AFR LCR x x 2005 2001 China LMI EAP x 2004 Colombia Comoros Congo. Rep. (2005) Parrot et al. Dem. Rep.40 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX C Availability of MSW Data by Country Source Collection Urban or Total Year of Data Source 2006 Denmark Ministry of Foreign Affairs x T 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2002 METAP (2004) x U 2002 OECD AFR x x 2007 2005 UNSD (2009) USAID (2009) x T 2007 METAP (2004) UNSD (2009) HIC LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) UMI LMI HIC HIC HIC HIC LCR ECA OECD OECD LCR MENA x x x x x x 2001 2007 1999 2006 2001 2000 x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x x x 2007 2003 2004 UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) Bangladesh4 LI SAR x 2004 Barbados HIC LCR x 2001 Belarus UMI ECA x 2005 Belgium Belize Benin2 Bhutan HIC LMI LI LMI OECD LCR AFR SAR x x x x 2006 2001 2005 2007 Bolivia LMI LCR x 2003 Botswana UMI AFR x 1998 Brazil Brunei Darussalam UMI LCR x 2001 HIC EAP x 2006 Bulgaria LMI ECA x 2007 Burkina Faso2 Burundi2 LI LI AFR AFR x x 2005 2005 PAHO (2005) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) UNESCWA (2007) Bangladesh Department of Environment (2004) PAHO (2005) Belarus Ministry of Natural Resources (2006) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) USAID (2009) Phuntsho (2008) Business News Americas (2004) Kgathi and Bolaane (2001) PAHO (2005) Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) European Environment Agency (2008) USAID (2009) USAID (2009) Cambodia5 LI EAP Cameroon LMI AFR x 2000 Canada Cape Verde2 Central African Republic2 Chad2 Chile HIC LMI OECD AFR x x 1990 2005 Parrot et al.2 Congo.Year of eration Data Disposal x Year of Data 2002 x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2005 x x x T T T 2007 2005 2000 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) x x 2003 2005 x T 2007 Source METAP (2004) Belarus Ministry of Natural Resources (2006) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) x T 2002 UNSD (2009) x 2007 x U 2000 Kum et al.

ANNEX

41

ANNEX C (continued)

Availability of MSW Data by Country
Income
Level

Region

Cyprus

HIC

ECA

x

2007

Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Dominican
Republic
Ecuador3

HIC
HIC
UMI

OECD
OECD
LCR

x
x
x

UMI

LCR

LMI

LCR

Egypt, Arab Rep.

LMI

El Salvador
Eritrea2
Estonia

Country

Gen- Year of
eration Data

Source

Collection

Urban
or
Total

Year of
Data

Source

Disposal

Year of
Data

Source

Composition

Year of
Data

Source

x

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

2001

UNSD (2009)

2006
2006
2001

European
Environment
Agency (2008)
OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)
PAHO (2005)

x
x
x

T
T
T

2007
2007
2005

UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)

x
x
x

2004
2003
2005

OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)
UNSD (2009)

x
x

1996
2005

UNSD (2009)
OECD (2008)

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

T

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

2000

UNSD (2009)

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

T

2001

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

MENA

x

2000

METAP (2004)

x

U

2000

x

2000

METAP (2004)

x

2000

METAP (2004)

LMI
LI

LCR
AFR

x
x

2001
2005

x

T

2001

PAHO (2005)
METAP
(2004)
PAHO (2005)

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

HIC

ECA

x

2007

x

T

2001

UNSD (2009)

x

2007

UNSD (2009)

Ethiopia7

LI

AFR

x

2006

x

1995

Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon2
Gambia2
Georgia
Germany

UMI
HIC
HIC
UMI
LI
UMI
HIC

EAP
OECD
OECD
AFR
AFR
ECA
OECD

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

1994
2006
2006
2005
2005
2007
2006

x
x
x

1994
2000
2005

McIntyre (2005)
UNSD (2009)
OECD (2008)

x
x
x

2001
2007
2005

UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)
OECD (2008)

x

2008

Asase et al. (2009)

x

1997

UNSD (2009)

x
x
x

2006
2007
2000

UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)

LI

AFR

x

2008

Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong,
China
Hungary
Iceland

HIC
UMI
LMI
LI
LMI
LI
LMI

OECD
LCR
LCR
AFR
LCR
LCR
LCR

x
x
x

2006
2001
2001

PAHO (2005)
USAID (2009)
European
Environment
Agency (2008)
Tadesse et al.
(2008)
McIntyre (2005)
OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)
USAID (2009)
USAID (2009)
UNSD (2009)
OECD (2008)
Asase et al.
(2009)
OECD (2008)
PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)

x
x
x

2001
2001
2001

PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)

x
x
x

T
T
T

2001
2001
2001

PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)

x
x

2001
2001

PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)

HIC

EAP

x

2008

Shekdar (2009)

x

T

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

2008

Shekdar (2009)

HIC
HIC

OECD
OECD

x
x

2006
2006

x
x

T
T

2003
2007

UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)

x
x

2003
2004

OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)

x
x

2005
2003

OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)

India

LMI

SAR

x

2006

OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)
Hanrahan et al.
(2006)

x

2004

UNSD (2009)

Indonesia8

LMI

EAP

x

2008

Shekdar (2009)

x

U

2006

Pasang et al.
(2007)

x

2000

LMI

MENA

x

2005

x

2005

LMI
HIC

MENA
OECD

x
x

2005
2006

x
x

T
T

2005
2005

UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)

x

2005

OECD (2008)

Israel

HIC

MENA

x

1996

Italy
Jamaica3
Japan

HIC
UMI
HIC

OECD
LCR
OECD

x
x
x

Jordan

LMI

MENA

Kenya

LI

Korea, South
Kuwait

Ghana

Iran, Islamic
Rep.9
Iraq10
Ireland

x
x

T
T

2007
2007

UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)

x
x

T
T

2007
2007

x

U

2008

x
x
x

T
T
T

2007
2001
2001

UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)
Asase et al.
(2009)
UNSD (2009)
PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)

2006
2001
2005

Damghani et al.
(2008)
UNESCWA (2007)
OECD (2008)
Israel Ministry of
the Environment
(2000)
OECD (2008)
PAHO (2005)
OECD (2008)

x
x
x

T
T
T

2007
2001
2003

x

2001

METAP (2004)

x

U

2001

AFR

x

2002

HIC

OECD

x

2005

x

T

2002

HIC

MENA

x

2009

Kenya Ministry
of Environment
(2002)
OECD (2008)
Personal
communication

x
x

2004
2005

OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)

x

2004

x

2008

x
x
x

2003
2001
2001

OECD (2008)
Asase et al.
(2009)
OECD (2008)
PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)

x

2005

x

1996

UNSD (2009)
PAHO (2005)
UNSD (2009)
METAP
(2004)

x
x
x

UNSD (2009)

Ngoc and Schnitzer
(2009)
Damghani et al.
(2008)

x

2005

UNSD (2009)

2005
2001
2003

OECD (2008)
Israel Ministry of
the Environment
(2000)
OECD (2008)
PAHO (2005)
OECD (2008)

x
x
x

2005
2007
2008

OECD (2008)
UNSD (2009)
Shekdar (2009)

x

2001

METAP (2004)

x

2001

METAP (2004)

x

2004

OECD (2008)

x

2005

OECD (2008)

42

URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS

ANNEX C (continued)

Availability of MSW Data by Country
Region

LI

EAP

x

2008

Shekdar (2009)

Latvia

UMI

ECA

x

2007

European
Environment
Agency (2008)

x

T

1999

UNSD (2009)

x

2003

Lebanon

UMI

MENA

x

2000

METAP (2004)

x

U

2000

METAP
(2004)

x

2000

Lesotho
Liberia11

LMI
LI

AFR
AFR

x

2005

USAID (2009)

Lao PDR

2

Gen- Year of
eration Data

Source

UMI

ECA

x

2007

Luxembourg
Macao, China

HIC
HIC

OECD
EAP

x
x

2006
2003

Macedonia, FYR

LMI

ECA

x

2006

LI
LI

AFR
AFR

x
x

2003
2005

Malaysia12

UMI

EAP

x

2002

Maldives

LMI

SAR

x

1998

LI

AFR

x

2007

Malta

HIC

MENA

x

2007

Marshall Islands
Mauritania2
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco

LMI
LI
UMI
UMI
HIC

EAP
AFR
AFR
LCR
OECD

x
x
x

2005
2003
2006

USAID (2009)
Payet (2003)
OECD (2008)

Mali

13

Year of
Data

Source

European
Environment
Agency (2008)

Lithuania

Madagascar
Malawi2

Collection

Urban
or
Total

Income
Level

Country

OECD (2008)
Jin et al. (2006)
Hristovski et al.
(2007)
Payet (2003)
USAID (2009)
Saeed et al.
(2009)
UNEP (2002)
Samake et al.
(2009)
European
Environment
Agency (2008)

x
x

x

T
T

T

2007
2007

2007

UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)

UNSD (2009)

Disposal

Year of
Data

x

2003

x
x

2003
2007

x

2007

Composition

Year of
Data

x

2000

Latvia Ministry
of Environment
(2006)

x

2003

METAP (2004)

x

2000

METAP (2004)

x

2004

UNEP (2007)

x
x

2005
2007

OECD (2008)
UNSD (2009)

x

1996

Macedonia (1996)

x

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

2000

Ngoc and Schnitzer
(2009)

x

1995

UNSD (2009)

Source

Lithuania
Ministry of
Environment
(2005)
OECD (2008)
UNSD (2009)

UNSD (2009)

Source
Ngoc and Schnitzer
(2009)
Latvia Ministry
of Environment
(2006)

x

T

x

T

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

T

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

2007

UNSD (2009)

x
x
x

T
T
T

2007

UNSD (2009)

UNSD (2009)
OECD (2008)
UNSD (2009)

2007
2005

UNSD (2009)
OECD (2008)

UNSD (2009)

2007
2006
2007

x
x

2007

x
x
x

x

T

2002

METAP
(2004)

x

2002

METAP (2004)

x

2000

UNSD (2009)
Grest (2008)
Ngoc and Schnitzer
(2009)

Mongolia

LI

EAP

x

2001

Mongolia
Ministry of
Nature (2001)

Morocco

LMI

MENA

x

2002

METAP (2004)

LI

AFR

x

2007

Grest (2008)

x

2007

x

2000

x

2008

Shekdar (2009)

x
x

2004
1995

OECD (2008)
UNSD (2009)

x
x
x

2005
2008
2005

UNSD (2009)
Imam et al. (2008)
OECD (2008)

x

2009

x

2000

Mozambique

14

Myanmar

UMI

EAP

x

2000

IPCC (2006)

Namibia2

UMI

AFR

x

2005

LI

SAR

x

2008

Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua3
Niger2
Nigeria
Norway
Oman

HIC
HIC
LMI
LI
LMI
HIC
HIC

OECD
OECD
LCR
AFR
AFR
OECD
MENA

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

2006
2006
2001
2005
2008
2006
1997

Pakistan15

LMI

SAR

x

2009

Panama
Paraguay
Peru

UMI
LMI
UMI

LCR
LCR
LCR

x
x
x

2001
2001
2001

USAID (2009)
Shekdar (2009)
per cap
OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)
PAHO (2005)
USAID (2009)
Solomon (2009)
OECD (2008)
Al-Yousfi
Batool and
Nawaz (2009)
PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)

Philippines

LMI

EAP

x

2008

Shekdar (2009)

Poland

UMI

ECA

x

2007

Portugal
Qatar

HIC
HIC

OECD
MENA

x
x

2006
2004

Nepal

European
Environment
Agency (2008)
OECD (2008)
UNESCWA (2007)

x

U

2003

x

T

2007

Alam et al.
(2008)
UNSD (2009)

x

T

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

x
x
x

x

T

T
T
T

T

2004

2001
2001
2001

2007

UNSD (2009)

PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)

UNSD (2009)

x
x
x
x

2004
1999
2001
2005

OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)
PAHO (2005)
UNSD (2009)

x

2004

OECD (2008)

x
x
x

2001
2001
2001

PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)
PAHO (2005)

x

2001

x

2000

Batool and Nawaz
(2009)
UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)
Ngoc and Schnitzer
(2009)

x

2005

OECD (2008)

x

1990

UNSD (2009)

x

2005

OECD (2008)

x

2001

OECD (2008)

ANNEX

43

ANNEX C (continued)

Availability of MSW Data by Country
Country

Romania
Russian
Federation
Rwanda2
Sao Tome and
Principe2
Saudi Arabia
Senegal2

Source

Collection

Urban
or
Total

Year of
Data

Source

Disposal

Year of
Data

Source

Composition

Year of
Data

Source

2007

European
Environment
Agency (2008)

x

T

2002

UNSD (2009)

x

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

2006

Atudorei

x

2000

IPCC (2006)

UNSD (2009)
Denmark
Ministry
of Foreign
Affairs
Payet (2003)
Patriotic
Vanguard
(2007)

x

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

1999

UNSD (2009)

x

2007

Patriotic Vanguard
(2007)

Income
Level

Region

Gen- Year of
eration Data

UMI

ECA

x

UMI

ECA

LI

AFR

x

2005

USAID (2009)

LMI

AFR

x

2005

USAID (2009)

HIC
LI

MENA
AFR

x
x

1997
2005

Al-Yousfi
USAID (2009)

x

T

2005

x

T

2006

LI

ECA

x

2006

Denmark
Ministry of
Foreign Affairs

UMI

AFR

x

2003

Payet (2003)

x

T

2003

Sierra Leone16

LI

AFR

x

2007

Patriotic
Vanguard (2007)

x

U

2007

Singapore

HIC

EAP

x

2008

x

T

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

2000

Slovak Republic

HIC

OECD

x

2006

x

T

2007

UNSD (2009)

x

2005

x

2002

Slovenia

HIC

ECA

x

2007

x

T

2002

UNSD (2009)

x

2003

OECD (2008)
Slovenia
Ministry of the
Environment
(2006)

Ngoc and Schnitzer
(2009)
OECD (2008)

x

1994

McIntyre (2005)

x
x

2002
2008

OECD (2008)
Shekdar (2009)

x

2002

UNSD (2009)

Serbia1
Seychelles

Singapore
(2009)
OECD (2008)
European
Environment
Agency (2008)

Solomon Islands

LMI

EAP

x

1994

South Africa17

UMI

AFR

x

2003

Spain
Sri Lanka
St. Kitts and
Nevis3
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and
the Grenadines
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland2
Sweden
Switzerland
Syrian Arab
Republic
Tajikistan

HIC
LMI

OECD
SAR

x
x

2006
2003

McIntyre (2005)
City of Cape
Town (2008)
OECD (2008)
Perera (2003)

UMI

LCR

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

T

2001

UMI

LCR

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

T

x

x

2004

OECD (2008)

PAHO (2005)

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

T

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

T

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

x
x

T
T

2007
2007

x
x

2005
2005

OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)

x
x

2005
2005

OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)

x

U

2002

UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)
METAP
(2004)

x

2002

METAP (2004)

x

2002

METAP (2004)

x

U

2005

x

2000

UNSD (2009)

x

2000

x
x

2007
1994

Ngoc and Schnitzer
(2009)
UNSD (2009)
McIntyre (2005)

UMI

LCR

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

LMI
UMI
LMI
HIC
HIC

AFR
LCR
AFR
OECD
OECD

x
x
x
x
x

2000
2001
2005
2006
2006

IPCC (2006)
PAHO (2005)
USAID (2009)
OECD (2008)
OECD (2008)

LMI

MENA

x

2002

METAP (2004)

UMI

ECA

x

2001

Tanzania

LI

AFR

x

2005

CEROI (2001)
Kassim and Ali
(2006)

Thailand

LMI

EAP

x

2008

Shekdar (2009)

Togo2
Tonga
Trinidad and
Tobago

LI
LMI

AFR
EAP

x
x

2005
1994

USAID (2009)
McIntyre (2005)

HIC

LCR

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

T

2001

Tunisia

LMI

MENA

x

2000

METAP (2004)

x

U

2000

Turkey

LMI

ECA

x

2006

OECD (2008)

x

T

2004

x

U

2002

Turkmenistan

Uganda18
United Arab
Emirates3

LMI

ECA

x

2000

LI

AFR

x

2004

Turkmenistan
Ministry
of Nature
Protection
(2000)
Bingh (2004)

HIC

MENA

x

2000

UNESCWA (2007)

Kassim and
Ali (2006)

PAHO (2005)
METAP
(2004)
Turan et al.
(2009)

Bingh (2004)

x

2001

PAHO (2005)

x

2003

UNSD (2009)

x

2000

METAP (2004)

x

2000

METAP (2004)

x

2004

Turan et al.
(2009)

x

2008

Turan et al. (2009)

x

2006

UNSD (2009)

x

2002

Bingh (2004)

RB HIC HIC UMI LI UMI OECD OECD LCR EAP LCR x x x x x 2006 2006 2001 1994 2001 LI EAP x 2004 LMI MENA x 2001 METAP (2004) Zambia19 LI AFR x Zimbabwe2 LI AFR x 2005 Environmental Council of Zambia (2004) USAID (2009) Vietnam West Bank and Gaza Gen. the most recent year available 11 Composition values for Monrovia only 12 Generation values are for Kuala Lumpur 13 Generation and composition values are for Bamako 14 Generation and composition values are for Maputo 15 Generation and composition values are for Lahore 16 All values are for Freetown 17 Generation values are based on Cape Town per capita values 18 All values are for Kampala city only 19 Generation values are from 1996. composition values are for Lusaka only x 2001 METAP (2004) Composition Year of Data Source x x x 2005 2003 1994 OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) McIntyre (2005) x 2000 Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) x 2001 METAP (2004) x 2007 UNSD (2009) .Year of eration Data Source OECD (2008) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) McIntyre (2005) PAHO (2005) World Bank (2004) Collection Urban or Total Year of Data Source Disposal Year of Data Source x x x T T T 2007 2005 2001 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) PAHO (2005) x x x 2005 2005 2001 OECD (2008) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x U 2001 METAP (2004) x T 2005 UNSD (2009) NOTES: 1 Year for generation data is assumed to be 2006 2 Generation rates calculated using a per capita rate of 0.5kg/cap/day 3 Generation value refers to domestic waste (household) only 4 Generation rates are for urban areas only 5 Collection and disposal values are for Pnom Penh only 6 Generation rate is for Dalmatia 7 Genearation value for Mekelle City 8 Collection value is for Jakarta only 9 Generation and composition values are for Tehran 10 Population values are for 1999.44 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX C (continued) Availability of MSW Data by Country Country Income Level Region United Kingdom United States Uruguay Vanuatu Venezuela.

Republic of Income level Region LI UMI HIC LMI HIC UMI HIC HIC LMI HIC HIC HIC HIC HIC LI HIC UMI LMI LI LMI LI UMI HIC UMI LMI LMI UMI HIC HIC HIC LMI LMI HIC LMI HIC LI HIC LMI LMI LI HIC LI SAR EAP OECD ECA OECD ECA OECD OECD MENA OECD OECD OECD OECD OECD AFR OECD ECA EAP EAP ECA ECA MENA OECD AFR EAP ECA ECA OECD OECD OECD EAP EAP OECD EAP OECD AFR EAP EAP ECA ECA OECD MENA 45 . Federated States of Moldova Montenegro Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia Northern Mariana Islands Palau Papua New Guinea Puerto Rico Samoa San Marino Somalia Taiwan. China Timor-Leste Ukraine Uzbekistan Virgin Islands (US) Yemen. People’s Rep. Kosovo Kyrgyz Republic Libya Liechtenstein Mayotte Micronesia. Dem.ANNEX ANNEX D Countries Excluded for Lack of Data Country Afghanistan American Samoa Aruba Azerbaijan Bermuda Bosnia and Herzegovina Cayman Islands Channel Islands Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Faeroe Islands French Polynesia Greenland Guam Guinea-Bissau Isle of Man Kazakhstan Kiribati Korea.

subsidies. Costs associated with uncollected waste—more than half of all waste generated in low-income countries—are not included.7bil = 201. 2025: $7.7 billion $20.2bil = 686.5bil = 426.000.000.000 tonnes X 98% X ((0. 4 Includes sale of any net energy.1Incinerate ($65/ton + $100/ton))). and debt service.5 billion High Income Countries10 $159. operation.46 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX E Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs by Disposal Method 1 Low Income Countries Lower Mid Inc Countries Upper Mid Inc Countries High Income Countries <$876 $876-3.29 0.465 $3. 2025: $84.5 billion $7. 2025: $220.25Incinerate($210/ton + $185/ton))) . discussions with the World Bank’s Thematic Group on Solid Waste.1bil = 369. transfer.75Landfill ($210/ton + $95/ton)) + 0.5bil = 75.85Landfill ($85/ton + $65/ton)) + (0.3bil = 602.15Incinerate($85/ton +$145/ton))) 9 10 2010: $159.000 tonnes X 43% X ($30/ton + $15/ton).466-10.725 >$10.8Landfill ($180/ton + $75/ton)) + (0. or external incentives.000 tonnes X 55% X ($45/ton + $25/ton) 8 2010: $20.5bil = 243. and transport to final disposal site for residential and non-residential waste.000.725 0.000.2 Incinerate ($180/ton + $150/ton))). maintenance. 5 Anaerobic digestion includes sale of energy from methane and excludes cost of residue sale and disposal. Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs 2010 and 2025 Country Income Group Low Income Countries 7 Lower Middle Income Countries 8 2010 Cost6 2025 Cost $1. 6 Cost of SWM (US$) = waste generated (tonnes) X percent of waste collected (%) X [cost of collection ($/ton) + cost of disposal ($/ton)] 7 2010: $1. 2025: $63.2 billion Total Global Cost (US$) $205.000 X 92% X ((0.22 0.000 tonnes X 68% X ($50/ton +$30/ton).000.3 billion $220. Carl Bartone and other industry and organizational colleagues. 1 2 Collection includes pick up.1 billion Upper Middle Income Countries $24.000 tonnes X 80% X ($65/ton + $45/ton) 2010: $24.4 billion 9 $375 billion Source: Authors’ calculations with input from What a Waste report (Hoornweg and Thomas 1999) and the World Bank Solid Waste Thematic Group and Carl Bartone. Costs included are for purchase (including land). All values provided in the table are exclusive of any potential carbon finance.5 billion $63.000.42 0.000 tonnes X 84% X ((0.000.1bil = 956.000 tonnes X 98% X ((0.9Landfill ($65/ton + $50/ton)) + (0. excludes disposal costs of bottom and fly ash (non hazardous and hazardous). 3 Composting excludes sale of finished compost (which ranges from $0 to $100/ton).000.1 billion $84.78 43% 68% 85% 98% Income (GNI/capita) Waste Generation (tonnes/capita/yr) Collection Efficiency (percent collected) Cost of Collection and Disposal (US$/tonne) Collection2 Sanitary Landfill Open Dumping Composting3 Waste -to-Energy Incineration4 Anaerobic Digestion5 20-50 10-30 2-8 5-30 30-75 15-40 3-10 10-40 40-90 25-65 NA 20-75 85-250 40-100 NA 35-90 NA 40-100 60-150 70-200 NA 20-80 50-100 65-150 NOTE: This is a compilation table from several World Bank documents.

ANNEX

ANNEX F

MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100,000
City

Year

Urban
Population

Generation Rate
(kg/capita/day)

Total MSW
Generated (kg/day)

Total Waste
(tons/day)

Africa
Benin
Parakou (UNSD 2009)
Porto Novo (Achankeng 2003)
Burkina Faso (UNSD 2009)
Ouagadougou
Burundi (Achankeng 2003)
Bujumbura
Cameroon (Achankeng 2003)
Douala
Yaounde
Congo, Rep. (Achankeng 2003)
Brazzaville
Cote d’Ivoire (Achankeng 2003)
Abidjan
Egypt (Achankeng 2003)
Cairo
Gambia, The (Achankeng 2003)
Banjul
Ghana
Accra (Achankeng 2003)
Kumasi (Asase 2009)
Guinea (UNSD 2009)
Conakry
Madagascar (Achankeng 2003)
Antananarivo
Mauritania (Achankeng 2003)
Nouakchott
Morocco (Achankeng 2003)
Rabat
Namibia (Achankeng 2003)
Windhoek
Niger
Niamey (Achankeng 2003)
Zinder (UNSD 2009)
Nigeria (Achankeng 2003)
Ibadan
Lagos
Rwanda (Achankeng 2003)
Kigali
Senegal (Achankeng 2003)
Dakar
Tanzania (Achankeng 2003)
Dar es Salaam
Togo (Achankeng 2003)
Lome
Tunisia (Achankeng 2003)
Tunis
Uganda (Achankeng 2003)
Kampala
Zambia (UNSD 2009)
Lusaka
Zimbabwe (UNSD 2009)
Harare

2002
1993

148,450

0.59
0.50

87,671

88

2002

876,200

0.79

692,635

693

1993

1.40

1993

0.70

1993

0.80

1993

0.60

1993

1.00

1993

0.50

1993

0.30

1993
2006

1,610,867

0.40
0.60

966,520

967

2007

3,000,000

0.24

725,274

725

69,430

69

1993

0.30

1993

0.90

1993

0.60

1993

0.70

1993
2006

242,800a

1.00
0.29

1993
1993

1.10
0.30

1993

0.60

1993

0.70

1993

1.00

1993

1.90

1993

0.50

1993

6.00

2005

1,300,000

0.90

1,171,994

1,172

2005

2,500,000

0.08

207,500

208

47

48

URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS

ANNEX F (continued)

MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100,000
City

Year

Urban
Population

Generation Rate
(kg/capita/day)

Total MSW
Generated (kg/day)

Total Waste
(tons/day)

East Asia & Pacific
China** (Hoornweg et al. 2005)
Anshan, Liaoning
Baotou, Inner Mongolia
Beijing, Beijing
Benxi, Liaoning
Changchun, Jilin
Changde, Hunan
Changsha, Hunan
Changzhou, Jiangsu
Chengdu, Sichuan
Chifeng, Inner Mongolia
Chongqing, Chongqing
Dalian, Liaoning
Daqing, Heilongjiang
Datong, Shanxi
Dongguan, Guangdong
Fushun, Guangdong
Fuxin, Liaoning
Fuyu, Jilin
Fuzhou, Fujian
Guangzhou, Guangdong
Guiyang, Guizhou
Handan, Hebei
Hangzhou, Zhejiang
Harbin, Heilongjiang
Hefei, Anhui
Hengyang, Hunan
Heze, Shandong
Huaian, Jiangsu
Huaibei, Anhui
Huainan, Anhui
Huhehaote, Inner Mongolia
Hunjiang, Jilin
Huzhou, Zhejiang
Jiamusi, Heilongjiang
Jiaxing, Zhejiang
Jilin, Jilin
Jinan, Shandong
Jingmen, Hubei
Jining, Inner Mongolia
Jinzhou, Liaoning
Jixi, Liaoning
Kaifeng, Henan
Kunming, Yunnan
Lanzhou, Gansu
Leshan, Sichuan
Linqing, Shandong
Linyi, Shandong
Liuan, Anhui
Liupanshui, Guizhou
Luoyang, Henan
Mianyang, Sichuan
Mudanjiang, Heilongjiang

2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000

1,453,000
1,319,000
10,839,000
957,000
3,093,000
1,374,000
1,775,000
886,000
3,294,000
1,087,000
4,900,000
2,628,000
1,076,000
1,165,000
1,319,000
1,413,000
785,000
1,025,000
1,397,000
3,893,000
2,533,000
1,996,000
1,780,000
2,928,000
1,242,000
799,000
1,600,000
1,232,000
814,000
1,354,000
978,000
772,000
1,077,000
874,000
791,000
1,435,000
2,568,000
1,153,000
1,019,000
834,000
949,000
769,000
1,701,000
1,730,000
1,137,000
891,000
2,498,000
1,818,000
2,023,000
1,451,000
1,065,000
801,000

0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90

1,307,701
1,187,101
9,755,101
861,301
2,783,701
1,236,600
1,597,501
797,400
2,964,600
978,301
4,410,000
2,365,200
968,400
1,048,501
1,187,101
1,271,701
706,501
922,501
1,257,301
3,503,701
2,279,701
1,796,400
1,602,000
2,635,200
1,117,800
719,101
1,440,000
1,108,800
732,600
1,218,600
880,200
694,800
969,301
786,600
711,901
1,291,501
2,311,200
1,037,701
917,101
750,600
854,101
692,101
1,530,901
1,557,000
1,023,301
801,901
2,248,200
1,636,200
1,820,701
1,305,901
958,501
720,901

1,308
1,187
9,755
861
2,784
1,237
1,598
797
2,965
978
4,410
2,365
968
1,049
1,187
1,272
707
923
1,257
3,504
2,280
1,796
1,602
2,635
1,118
719
1,440
1,109
733
1,219
880
695
969
787
712
1,292
2,311
1,038
917
751
854
692
1,531
1,557
1,023
802
2,248
1,636
1,821
1,306
959
721

ANNEX

ANNEX F (continued)

MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100,000
City

Year

Nanchang, Jiangxi
Nanjing, Jiangsu
Neijiang, Sichuan
Ningbo, Zhejiang
Pingxiang, Jiangxi
Qingdao, Shandong
Qiqihar, Heilongjiang
Shanghai, Shanghai
Shantou, Guangdong
Shenyang, Liaoning
Shenzhen, Guangdong
Shijianzhuang, Hebei
Suining, Sichuan
Suqian, Jiangsu
Suzhou, Jiangsu
Taian, Shandong
Taiyuan, Shanxi
Tangshan, Hebei
Tianjin, Tianjin
Tianmen, Hubei
Tianshui, Gansu
Tongliao, Jilin
Wanxian, Chongqing
Weifang, Shandong
Wenzhou, Zhejiang
Wuhan, Hubei
Wulumuqi, Xinjiang
Wuxi, Jiangsu
Xian, Shaanxi
Xiangxiang, Hunan
Xiantao, Hubei
Xianyang, Shaanxi
Xiaoshan, Zhejiang
Xinghua, Jiangsu
Xintai, Hebei
Xinyi, Jiangsu
Xinyu, Guangdong
Xuanzhou, Anhui
Xuzhou, Jiangsu
Yancheng, Jiangsu
Yichun, Jiangxi
Yichun, Jilin
Yixing, Jiangsu
Yiyang, Hunan
Yongzhou, Hunan
Yueyang, Hunan
Yulin, Guangxi
Yuyao, Zhejiang
Yuzhou, Henan
Zaoyang, Hubei
Zaozhuang, Shandong
Zhangjiagang, Jiangsu
Zhangjiakou, Hebei
Zhanjiang, Guangdong
Zhaodong, Heilongjiang

2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000

Urban
Population
1,722,000
2,740,000
1,393,000
1,173,000
1,502,000
2,316,000
1,435,000
12,887,000
1,176,000
4,828,000
1,131,000
1,603,000
1,428,000
1,189,000
1,183,000
1,503,000
2,415,000
1,671,000
9,156,000
1,779,000
1,187,000
785,000
1,759,000
1,287,000
1,269,000
5,169,000
1,415,000
1,127,000
3,123,000
908,000
1,614,000
896,000
1,124,000
1,556,000
1,325,000
973,000
808,000
823,000
1,636,000
1,562,000
871,000
904,000
1,108,000
1,343,000
1,097,000
1,213,000
1,558,000
848,000
1,173,000
1,121,000
2,048,000
886,000
880,000
1,368,000
851,000

Generation Rate
(kg/capita/day)
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90

Total MSW
Generated (kg/day)
1,549,800
2,466,000
1,253,701
1,055,701
1,351,800
2,084,400
1,291,501
11,598,301
1,058,400
4,345,200
1,017,901
1,442,701
1,285,200
1,070,101
1,064,701
1,352,701
2,173,501
1,503,901
8,240,400
1,601,101
1,068,301
706,501
1,583,101
1,158,301
1,142,101
4,652,101
1,273,501
1,014,301
2,810,701
817,200
1,452,600
806,400
1,011,600
1,400,400
1,192,501
875,701
727,200
740,701
1,472,400
1,405,800
783,901
813,600
997,200
1,208,701
987,301
1,091,701
1,402,200
763,200
1,055,701
1,008,901
1,843,200
797,400
792,000
1,231,200
765,901

Total Waste
(tons/day)
1,550
2,466
1,254
1,056
1,352
2,084
1,292
11,598
1,058
4,345
1,018
1,443
1,285
1,070
1,065
1,353
2,174
1,504
8,240
1,601
1,068
707
1,583
1,158
1,142
4,652
1,274
1,014
2,811
817
1,453
806
1,012
1,400
1,193
876
727
741
1,472
1,406
784
814
997
1,209
987
1,092
1,402
763
1,056
1,009
1,843
797
792
1,231
766

49

000 1.357 62.30 0.200 2.907 77.000 193.863 2.000 534 2001 268.21 2. Bahamas Barbados* Barbados Bolivia* Cochabamba El Alto La Paz Oruro Potosi Santa Cruz de la Sierra Sucre Tarija Brazil Abaetetuba Aguas Lindas de Goias Alagoinhas Alvorada Americana Ananindeua Anapolis Angra dos Reis Aparaceida de Goiania Apucarana Aracaju Aracatuba Year Urban Population Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) Total MSW Generated (kg/day) Total Waste (tons/day) 2000 2000 2000 2.000 47.767 17.974.247 336.960 3.677 66.863.549 2007 1.000 1.000 76.000 0.040 14.760 1.904 975 605.392 107.064 2007 303.181.896.660 192.070.06 2007 1.16 0.51 792. Hong Kong SAR (UNSD 2009) Hong Kong China.876 135.300.152 105.29 0.00 2007 185.534 169.113.701 1.018 285.918 2.353 201.783 1.36 0.44 0.000 410.806.000 2.27 0.89 0.33 0.868 430 227 420 66 45 600 77 63 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 119.064.392 232.200 1.000 202.75 0.200 102.975 3.000 0.827 461.955 790.501 964.518 472.896 4.926.133 1.56 Eastern Europe & Central Asia (UNSD 2009) 2007 1.900 1.392.766 3. Shandong Zigong.968 182.90 0.000 35 47 76 210 174 500 180 89 102 95 410 125 .728.391 568. Henan Zibo.216 226.746 130.90 1.000 210.000 City Zhengzhou.82 Latin America and the Caribbean (PAHO 2005) 2001 2001 2001 2001 12.49 14.072.128.714 3.129 2007 525.532.000 2.000 125.24 974.58 1.54 0.000 2.000 180.792 0.352 599.784 419.50 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.551.01 1.53 0.593 393.14 0.467 1.551 250 192 232 2001 200.47 17.962.061 249. Macao SAR (UNSD 2009) Macao Indonesia (UNSD 2009) Jakarta Philippines (UNSD 2009) Manila Quezon City Albania Tirana Belarus Minsk Croatia Zagreb Georgia Batumi Kutaisi Tbilisi Argentina Area Metropolitana Buenos Aires Bahia Blanca Neuquen Salta Capital Bahamas Nassau.783 0.085 119.000 173.88 7.569 288.384 605 568 1.675.660.74 35.182 2006 784.911 4.40 0.95 255.026 629.549.408 965 2007 6.95 1.60 0.544.000 95.95 0.62 0.00 2005 2.095 183.800 1.90 0.33 0.407.024 7.254 0.352 255 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 717.67 534.932 793 2005 8.000 89.000 0.46 430.406 45.88 0.900 500.000 2.88 0.971 1.729 2007 1.230 135. Sichuan China.

700 140.000 54.000 160.847 250.012 350 3.39 1.000.49 0.71 0.828 107.396 663.88 0.146 152.17 1.285 253.474 2.000 153.000 116.68 0.126 170.596 324.57 1.40 0.879 161.84 0.400 75.012.33 Total MSW Generated (kg/day) 59.000 125.000 200.700 50.87 0.76 0.000 1.41 1.000 3.000 City Year Araguaina Araguari Arapiraca Araraquara Araras Atibaia Bage Barbacena Barra Mansa Barreiras Barretos Barueri Bauru Belem Belford Roxo Belo Horizonte Betim Blumenau Boa Vista Botucatu Braganca Paulista Brasilia Cabo de Santo Agostinho Cabo Frio Cachoeirinha Cachoeiro de Itapemirim Camacari Camaragibe Campina Grande Campinas Campo Grande Campos dos Goytacazes Canoas Carapicuiba Cariacica Caruaru Cascavel Castanhal Catanduva Caucaia Caxias Caxias do Sul Chapeco Colatina Colombo Contagem Cotia Crato Criciuma Cubatao Curitiba Diadema Dourados 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Urban Population 113.702 355.000 183.196 111.471 104.000 115.479 139.000 130.53 0.587.600 219.675 261.000 480.43 0.000 72.466 182.017 148.093 344.92 0.79 1.977 126.05 0.200 80.200 390.39 1.186.064 164.000 95.557 140 200 125 180 160 130 480 1.000 165.564 174.01 1.000 185.000 96.800 150.99 0.974 186.646 170.849 103.000 340.94 0.59 0.49 0.400 296.76 1.331 969.000 350.143 101.987 104.99 1.42 0.600 330.280.369 134.000 496.ANNEX ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.92 1.767 114.000 440.56 0.000 1.300 118.989 306.000 145.700 35.03 0.641.808 200.81 1.000 92.83 0.87 1.000 128.000 250.306 125.064 1.500 1.051.200 130.03 0.281 316.568 108.000 106.000 220.85 0.72 1.949 Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) 0.76 1.79 0.420 108.753 131.000 72.700 281.73 0.78 0.419 146.913 208.35 1.400 180.000 2.526 306.75 0.000 1.329 538.202 150 220 115 153 129 1.49 0.711 183.496 105.556.614 434.031 2.86 0.500 90.76 0.000 Total Waste (tons/day) 60 90 185 158 75 166 50 95 130 232 79 390 440 2.69 0.309 1.200 79.238.33 0.000 100.756 360.187 282 219 51 .634 245.000 232.621 406.000 158.727 128.315 357.000 207.201.73 1.000 200.000 117 35 96 92 1.967 112.641 496 296 207 250 340 200 145 54 100 183 107 330 72 80 72 1.58 1.76 0.75 0.57 0.73 0.

000 750.27 1.900 493.98 0.52 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.000 110.000 435.202 106.567 212.366 581.83 0.000 90.000 127.53 0.682 113.000 70.000 109.000 230.759 Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) 0.94 0.95 0.934 429.377 342.62 1.000 90.700 300.133 456.500 62.000 130.72 1.104 147.315 2.685 125.131 232.479 196.737 133.63 0.600 850.675 147.082 132.000 140.200 206.663 480.61 0.308 797.000 78.61 0.543 249.000 1.70 0.03 0.000 195.556 191.543 287.127 230.800 597.11 0.100 64.100 83.000 City Duque de Caxias Embu Feira de Santana Ferraz de Vasconcelos Florianopolis Fortaleza Foz do Iguacu Franca Francisco Morato Franco da Rocha Garanhuns Goiania Governador Valadares Gravatai Guarapuava Guaratingueta Guaruja Guarulhos Hortolandia Ibirite Ilheus Imperatriz Indaiatuba Ipatinga Itaborai Itabuna Itajai Itapecerica da Serra Itapetininga Itapevi Itaquaquecetuba Itu Jaboatao dos Guararapes Jacarei Jaragua do Sul Jau Jequie Ji-Parana Joao Pessoa Joinville Juazeiro Juazeiro do Norte Juiz de For a Jundiai Lages Lauro de Freitas Limeira Linhares Londrina Luziania Macae Macapa Maceio Year 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Urban Population 775.000 250.000 250.812 1.796 323.629 155.200 98.89 1.717 152.17 1.000 720.402 258.55 0.461 283.400 200.64 0.79 0.50 0.456 207.000 80.000 1.67 1.000 260.34 1.000 85.94 0.617 447.523 133.000 273.291 108.000 290.96 0.66 0.489 112.58 1.044 222.000 115.000 159.08 0.66 1.161 104.219 264.27 0.000 1.949 142.496 187.093.000 Total Waste (tons/day) 730 140 751 83 435 2.397 157.48 0.000 95.028 493 206 230 291 330 80 90 160 64 720 100 250 380 1.007 247.050 212.66 1.75 0.79 0.21 0.046 112.200 80.050 .604 174.375 195 273 109 64 195 1.942 135.000 60.027.51 0.122 117.000 120.59 1.065 141.000 380.36 0.280 300 127 83 60 261 850 95 110 80 227 90 200 116 250 140 86 62 98 190 130 450 120 78 115 70 70 1.77 0.98 0.57 1.000 450.15 1.64 1.58 0.56 0.000 2.738 108.18 1.32 Total MSW Generated (kg/day) 730.62 0.000 227.500 64.02 0.82 0.566 147.433 272.000 116.000 190.000 100.800 83.050.71 1.60 0.749 1.400 70.141.72 1.000 195.500 330.375.279.000 140.494 129.95 0.072.559 162.

000 193.200 2.66 1.881 262.03 0.342 288.98 0.76 0.900 1.55 0.000 180.000 140.55 0.87 0.64 0.544 116.66 0.228 330.904 186.841 712.078 Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) 1.000 115.500 140.000 64.058.500 1.97 0.94 0.000 280.73 0.830 1.905 104.87 0.81 0.900 155.97 0.193 367.376.63 1.000 125.51 0.000 250.300 50.93 0.08 0.000 60.690 168.000 101.000 52.400 90.59 1.71 1.000 101.985 329.700 240.89 0.317 153.000 151.000 101.059 240 101 82 60 2.636.237 323.026 102.05 0.627 273.360.71 0.600 570.700 90.282 124.29 0.552 150.538 286.64 1.500 141.218 5.000 140.300 82.340.40 0.392 124.000 180.241 306.352 2.451 131.158 135.000 385.158 218.38 0.58 0.508 504.537 126.000 200.458 123.31 0.47 0.422.75 0.405.60 0.100 462.599 236.340 193 90 181 100 65 1.742 137.418 920.24 0.616 1.000 25.000 239.227 115.000 179.300 82.923 253.000 Total Waste (tons/day) 215 2.059 168.180.200 125.000 208.53 0.637 141 53 .661 106.835 168.223 250 675 51 140 694 155 386 570 25 81 140 125 50 101 82 200 180 140 300 125 60 240 90 281 1.000 232.04 1.500 284.05 0.83 Total MSW Generated (kg/day) 215.66 1.52 1.56 0.100 7.ANNEX ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.947 213.000 125.53 0.900 100.000 60.732 197.500 1.000 192.64 0.712 459.74 1.000 81.846 104.355 127.593 102.98 0.20 1.339 132.10 0.58 0.000 240.000 675.98 0.679 173.857.186 121.020 179.67 0.223.000 300.84 0.000 450.443.000 50.97 1.000 693.56 0.993 1.63 1.582 189.72 1.107 170.776 193.99 0.902 652.700 83.180 52 115 193 284 233 83 208 462 152 1.549 246.376 101 240 179 450 141 125 7.653 363.590 334.000 City Mage Manaus Maraba Maracanau Marilia Maringa Maua Mogi Guacu Moji das Cruzes Montes Claros Mossoro Natal Nilopolis Niteroi Nossa Senhora do Socorro Nova Friburgo Nova Iguacu Novo Hamburgo Olinda Osasco Palhoca Palmas Paranagua Parnaiba Parnamirim Passo Fundo Patos de Minas Paulista Pelotas Petrolina Petropolis Pindamonhangaba Pinhais Piracicaba Pocos de Caldas Ponta Grossa Porto Algre Porto Velho Pouso Alegre Praia Grande Presidente Prudente Queimados Recife Resende Ribeirao das Neves Ribeirao Pires Ribeirao Preto Rio Branco Rio Claro Rio de Janeiro Rio Grande Rio Verde Rondonopolis Sabara Salvador Santa Barbara D Oeste Year 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Urban Population 205.000 141.000 2.

384 358.538 649.181 184.000 358.961 252. Concepción Biobío.000 55 91 160 75 134 640 460 567 200 133 620 312 205 50 368 662 140 100 740 20.983 703.59 1.028 10.67 0.000 167.855.300 620.32 1.000 75.54 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.00 0.52 0.252 303.844 262.611 115.000 180.000 20.80 0.18 0.000 346.000 133.316 193.40 1.000 138.000 133.47 1.84 0. Temuco B.690 197.83 0.344 161.43 0.723 228.90 0.051 501.276 493.69 1.523 539.85 2.12 0.000 City Santa Cruz do Sul Santa Luzia Santa Maria Santa Rita Santarem Santo Andre Santos Sao Bernardo do Campo Sao Caetano do Sul Sao Carlos Sao Goncalo Sao Joao de Meriti Sao Jose Sao Jose de Ribamar Sao Jose do Rio Preto Sao Jose dos Campos Sao Jose dos Pinhais Sao Leopoldo Sao Luis Sao Paulo Sao Vicente Sapucaia do Sul Serra Sete Lagoas Sobral Sorocaba Sumare Suzano Taboao da Serra Taubate Teixeira de Freitas Teofilo Otoni Teresina Teresopolis Timon Uberaba Uberlandia Uruguaiana Varginha Varzea Grande Viamao Vila Velha Vitoria Vitoria da Conquista Vitoria de Santo Antao Volta Redonda Chile Antofagasta.494 117.298 227.644 244.08 1.700 640.23 0.65 1. Calama Araucanía. Antofagasta Antofagasta.700 200.000 455.000 112.936 108.600 100.78 0.081 129.313 204.360 138.300 160.200 391.03 0.475 161.000 160.468 196.36 0.000 367.779 138.119 449.434.000 1.347 214.000 50.49 0.059 115 42 391 452 100 112 125 175 330 315 346 160 160 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 318.03 1.00 0.80 0.402 245.80 1.900 115.000 125.500 95.000 160.000 73.856 290 73 359 145 138 455 180 133 167 163 95 52 1.476 173.69 0.58 0.327 255 90 253 171 162 173 235 .177 140.998 215.159 192.063 0.51 0.965 292.92 0. Talcahuano Year Urban Population Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) Total MSW Generated (kg/day) Total Waste (tons/day) 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 107.000 175.058.700 290.79 1.751 321.91 0.000 91.000 52.429 345.000 740.061 250.58 0.95 1.77 0.551 122.707 171.600 140.331 417.000 330.000 162.99 1.88 0.81 1.000 312.03 0.609 242.692 252.48 0.51 0.33 1.700 145.000 205.424 715.000 460.70 0.000 566.O’Higgins.023 89.348 0.547 870. Rancagua Biobío.000 133.486 129.66 0.10 0.849 235.89 0.903 243.55 0.953 172.94 255.559 107.66 55.214 126.165 107.69 0.000 315.304 262.900 661.000 451. Chillán Biobío.65 0.953 216.000 100.96 0.871 155.998 891.000 42.632 184.

181.ANNEX ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100. La Pintana Santiago.940 109.540 275.000 256.60 0.679.980 56.87 0.400 44.00 1.650 149.792 185.000 644.760 298.65 0.000 1.000 403.970 4.258 472.000 248. Talca Santiago.938 140.370 742.000 129.220 200.000 119.440 212.600 154.299 193.231 148.069 148. Curicó Maule.546 154 254 154 213 233 138 275 119 251 43 186 55 .00 0.340 250.95 1.80 0.000 345.61 0.390 120.982 275.40 0.60 0.000 246.020 275.42 0.58 0.890 152.000 230.81 0.02 0. Valdivia Magallanes.036 160.000 854.72 0.340 253. La Serena Los Lagos.674 129.721.68 1.893 131.72 0.276.50 1.80 0.00 0.020.732 152.722 299 150 69 1.000 349.546.000 285.51 0.000 206.000 310.520 69.80 1.312 365.085 468.000 353.88 0.148 145.96 146. Coquimbo Coquimbo.299 203.000 382.21 1.346 327. Maipú Santiago. Providencia Santiago.240 66.000 116. Punta Arenas Maule.040 119. La Florida Santiago.63 0.01 1.475 175.141 145.035 96.559 120.460 365.950 120. Valparaíso Valparaíso.000 170 110 1.000 117.55 0. Santiago Tarapacá.49 0.640 116.000 166.60 0.90 0.674 190.268 275.000 City Coquimbo.938 59.000 114.931 0.600 253.38 0.000 401.000 234.66 0. Arica Valparaíso.800 43.000 0.000 113.71 1.61 0.558.95 1.000 1.63 0.320 186.60 169.290 153.874 148.67 0. Recoleta Santiago.580 138.000 234.137 169.40 1. Viña del Mar Colombia Armenia Barrancabermeja Barranquilla Bello Bogotá Bucaramanga Buenaventura Buga Cali Cartagena Cartago Cúcuta Dosquebradas Envigado Florencia Floridablanca Girardot Ibagué Itagüí Maicao Manizales Medellín Montería Neiva Palmira Pasto Pereira Popayán Santa Marta Sincelejo Soacha Sogamoso Soledad Year Urban Population Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) Total MSW Generated (kg/day) Total Waste (tons/day) 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 163.000 232.890 232.62 0.000 115.800 172.874 120.000 2.46 0.909.475 175.00 0.72 0.982 286.800 1.00 0.77 0.500 68.31 1.400 1.021 173 4.44 0.930 1.000 543.454 147 152 145 176 59 97 120 193 148 366 129 472 169 179 328 132 276 275 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 293.000 6. Cerro Navia Santiago.224 179.04 0.760 296.58 0. Puerto Montt Los Lagos.000 145. Osorno Los Lagos.699 120.000 317.679 743 57 296 66 45 121 116 119 254 153 69 248 1.00 1.000 183.

118 1.60 0.414.65 1.640 124 134 48 80 97 63 128 226 68 2001 2001 1.639. Santa Ana Grenada Grenada Guatemala Antigua Guatemala Guatemala Jutiapa Quetzaltenango San Benito San Pedro Carchá Guyana Georgetown Haiti Cap-Haïtien Carrefour Croix des Bouquets Delmas Dessalines Year Urban Population Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) Total MSW Generated (kg/day) Total Waste (tons/day) 2001 2001 2001 2001 157.735 130.935 154.662 154.480 105.358 172.141 201.520 50.381 0.078 109.833 105.85 297.000 City Tuluá Tunja Valledupar Villavicencio Costa Rica Alajuela Desamparados San José Cuba Bayamo Camagüey Ciego de Ávila Cienfuegos Ciudad de La Habana Guantánamo Holguín Manzanillo Matanzas Pinar del Río Sancti Spíritus Santa Clara Santiago de Cuba Tunas Ecuador* Quito Santo Domingo de los Colorados El Salvador La Libertad .832 308.802 115.637 249.737 203.247 63.442 134.388 110.274 1.421 0. San Miguel San Salvador .20 0.95 0.288 118.300 147.906 97.90 0.605 167.390 118 88 236 147 2001 2001 2001 234.47 67.60 0.44 0.57 0.623 2.280 85 250 43 202 50 .600 298 2.75 0.186.000 112.061 416.75 0.56 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.206 75.81 0.51 117.44 0.30 84.632 222.Apopa San Salvador .974 124.440 79.Soyapango San Salvador.203 139.50 0.144 48.173 1.58 0.846 133.60 0.770 326.301 143. San Salvador Santa Ana.866 167.60 0.909 172.551 0.493 58.54 0.824 96 141 75 59 105 163 388 106 2001 95.348 127.975 0. San Salvador .548 285.541.286 479.599 0.154 67.763 116.800 226.70 0.85 1.585 200 281 333 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 154.384 0.218 81 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 248.220 220.326 130 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 136.82 0.157 366.345 452.203 332.72 0.85 0.61 0.000 0.56 0.50 0.Ilopango.859 68 154 49 116 1.422 48.58 0.60 0.836 141.019 2.750 88.400 275 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 141.30 0.53 275.51 0.02 199.664 130.613 388.803 335.526 281.000 289.Mejicanos San Salvador .897 2.200 200.843 110.38 1.941 293.177 162.50 0.254 162.85 81.781 43.41 0.80 0.75 0.581 130.000 122.217 268.63 95.480 236.841.000 1.79 0.90 0.000 278.Nueva San Salvador San Miguel.000 109.325.415 117 110 293 111 2001 180.502 117.307 144.

265 1.69 88.354 677. Sinaloa Delicias.458.275 268.27 0.20 0.94 0.35 0.250 107. Veracruz Campeche. St.414 169.929 135. Campeche Celaya.Ann) Portmore Retirement(Westmoreland.733 207.Mary and St. Colima Comitán de Domínguez.340 57. Nuevo León Atizapan de Zaragoza.52 0.30 0. México Atlixco.30 0.870 219.724 0.67 0.53 1. Chihuahua Chilpancingo.721 483. Guanajuato Chalco.065 178.60 0.085 164. Morelos Culiacán. Chiapas Córdoba.311 316.948 159.358 44.89 1.547 196.377 452.00 357.190 331 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 728. Guanajuato Year Urban Population Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) Total MSW Generated (kg/day) Total Waste (tons/day) 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 138.155 1. Benito Juárez.937 364. St.265 357 2001 2001 159. St.366 26.53 685.215 130.838 69. Morelos Cuernavaca.466 297.731 279. Michoacán Apodaca.60 0.94 0.30 41. Coahuila Aguascalientes.896 658.268 107.63 0.271 656. Chihuahua Dolores Hidalgo.92 0.190 1.276 660.191 1.90 0.94 1.452 125.544 83.704 348.102 36.452 45.672 125.673 131.25 0.Trelawny & St.010 117.363 342.94 0.221 105.281 444.155 1.402 819.784 388.834 333. Puebla Boca del Río. Clarendon and St.071 31.17 0.ANNEX ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.92 0.97 0. St.94 0.60 0.30 0.00 331.012 232.458 2001 331.017 117.Elizabeth) Mexico Acapulco.546 62.241 676.384 0.015 124.433 126.94 0.019 522.580 186. Blanco.00 142.724 142 453 2001 1. Veracruz Cuauhtemoc.474 113. Tabasco Carmen.381 42 83 36 26 46 86 31 44 45 660 49 37 2001 2001 2001 2001 126.480 138.Thomas) Southern(Manchester.974 124.785 104.051 49.92 0. México Chetumal. Hanover.956 209.854 86.95 0.974 452. Guerrero Acuña.80 0.311 79.160 197. Veracruz Colima.And.481 549.60 0. Campeche Cancún.85 0.867 126.245 130.178 116.535 88 549 80 334 2001 357. Quintana Roo Cárdenas.30 0.035 686 104 522 110 58 348 381 63 125 207 418 117 160 365 280 197 659 186 252 124 56 108 67 197 316 677 108 69 57 .80 0.056 197.94 0.425 108.868 124.504 121.89 0.371 110.683 117.40 0.001 418. Aguascalientes Altamira.100. Chihuahua Cuautla.845 143.806 152.374 755. Othon P.603 0.James) Riverton ( Kgn.70 0.94 0.048 55. Quintana Roo Chihuahua.266 45.Cath.875 219.54 1.00 1.000 City Gonaïves Jacmel Jean Rabel Léogâne Les Cayes Pétion Ville Petit Goâve Petite Rivière de l’Artibonite Port de Paix Port-au-Prince Saint Marc Saint Michel Honduras Choloma Distrito Central La Ceiba San Pedro Sula Jamaica* North Eastern Wasteshed( Portland. Guerrero Coatzacoalcos.739 67.53 0.748 0.460 37. Tamaulipas Apatzingan.398 380.25 0.105 155.776 475.53 0.458.995 107.030 252.

76 0.53 1.54 0.689 197.776 679.89 1.245 258.934 1.310 224.931 801.864 362. Oaxaca Obregón.037 556.85 1. Jalisco Guadalupe.95 0.92 0.941 246.615.018 78.153.564 125.655.18 0.492 283.922 198.38 0.230 109. Michoacán Naucalpan. Guanajuato Lerdo.405 249. Puebla Puerto Vallarta.80 0.424 657.398 96. Baja California Sur Los Mochis-Topolobampo. México Mexicali. Tamaulipas Mante.967 121. Coahuila Poza Rica. Baja California Sur Lagos de Moreno.470 76. Federal District Minatitlán. Tamaulipas Year 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Urban Population 495.173 141.324 556 1.94 1. México Los Cabos.269 97 117 57 362 156 60 121 419 362 705 223 734 11. Hidalgo Piedras Negras.205 1.447 438.58 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.99 1. Sinaloa Guaymas.000 City Durango. Zacatecas Guanajuato. Chihuahua Hidalgo.225 381.13 0.99 0.92 1.13 0. Michoacán León.54 0.38 0.93 0.446 191.955 160.121 199.998 113.324.71 0. Ahome.47 0.025 98. Sonora Nuevo Laredo.442 155.894 136 542 333 .975 135. Chihuahua La Paz.407 361. Coahuila Monterrey.458 1.727 362.688 355.921 263.778 1.878 129.279 237. Sonora Nezahualcoyotl.621 122.531 11.85 0.409 Total Waste (tons/day) 461 2. Nuevo León Morelia.398 223.981 801 103 133 264 136 615 77 57 224 117 423 1. Veracruz Puebla.893.245 2. México Navojoa.489 1.543.698 615.93 0. Guanajuato Juárez.636 628.94 0. Querétaro Reynosa. Veracruz Monclova.54 0.566 155 467 238 336 117 199 123 160 1. Michoacán Huixquilucan.565.443 427. Nuevo León Gómez Palacio.95 1. Sonora Hidalgo del Parral.033.94 1.574 159.407 174. Zacatecas General Escobedo.318 1.033 133 1.930 467.047 714.223.394 333. Durango Guadalajara.489 1.819 317.857 119.05 1.569 1.085 1.236 619.925 135.18 0.166 279. Baja California Fresnillo.070 190.523 8.909 113.408 132.908 59.818 336.649 117. México Nogales. México Iguala. Durango Ecatepec.118.42 0.965 1.877 259.20 1. Baja California México.801 861. México Ensenada.386 117.377 116.966 385.10 0.76 Total MSW Generated (kg/day) 461.13 0.94 1.398 152.944 705.650. Colima Matamoros.417 56.412 1.22 1.54 1. Sonora Hermosillo.670 154.269.927 1.94 1.671 127. Cajeme.98 1.179 144.696 Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) 0. Jalisco Lázaro Cárdenas.166 276.95 0.041 289. Sinaloa Madero.28 0.256 198.112. Guanajuato Guasave.705 103. Veracruz Pachuca.591 68. Sonora Orizaba.264. Tamaulipas Mazatlán. Yucatán Metepec.390 106. Sinaloa Mérida.19 0.962 1.00 0.05 0.185 101.174 132. Jalisco Querétaro.491 103. Tamaulipas Oaxaca.712 128. Tamaulipas Manzanillo.071 419.94 1.98 0.98 0.890.180 164.528 542.994 423.119 355 98 289 258 1.372.699 779.50 1.838 130.20 0.93 1.92 0.890 78 191 1.139 1.955 144.28 0.574 194. Durango Lerma.752 57.83 0.289 111.400 733.442 184.343 357.395 445.94 0.747 183. Guerrero Irapuato. Nuevo León Guadalupe.543 284 69 161 1.980.94 1.

San Luis Potosi Veracruz.87 0.078 127.94 0.415 462.779 251.71 1.92 0. Veracruz Zacatecas. Jalisco Toluca.239 587.94 1.222 74 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 124.726 562.80 0.05 0. México Tonalá.511 141.62 0.086 463.53 0. México Tlaquepaque.749 134.04 1.161 259.53 0.62 0.54 1. Tamaulipas Tapachula.208 330. México Valle de Santiago.286 139.266 75 91 677 70 46 59 .43 75. Nayarit Tijuana.514 0. Michoacán Zapopan. Nuevo León Silao.ANNEX ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.86 0. Guanajuato San Juan Bautista de Tuxtepec. Puebla San Miguel de Allende.520 128.516 115.862 94.885 130. Puebla Tepatitlán. Jalisco Tepic.340 658. Jalisco Tlalnepantla.072 138.53 0.76 0. Veracruz Victoria.076 307.002 67.845 952.10 1.494 139.05 1.805 134. Guanajuato Saltillo.257 443.062 70.920 397. Chiapas Uruapan.049 233.91 0.553 147.679 678. Guerrero Tecoman.85 0. Chiapas Taxco.085 90.722 161.95 0. Centro.756 749.612 531.895 184. Hidalgo Tuxpan.508 502.447 139.61 0.782 268.920 70.979 277.964 596. Jalisco Torreón.049 256. San Luis Potosi Tampico.044 413.235 135.511 404.912 123.063 276.528 252.92 0.807 121.537.22 1.254 231. Zacatecas Zamora. Colima Tehuacán.836 53.967 425. Guanajuato Soledad de Graciano. Chiapas San Francisco del Rincón.94 0.94 0. Coahuila San Andrés Tuxtla. San Luis Potosi San Luis Río Colorado.461 126.415 323.54 0. Tabasco Xalapa.008 54. Sonora San Martín Texmelucan. Nuevo León Santa Catarina. Coahuila Tulancingo.000 City Río Bravo.458 71.060 125.648 533.862 113.107 147.861 0.136 73.80 0.71 0. Oaxaca San Juan del Río. Baja California Tlajomulco. Guanajuato San Nicolas de los Garza.20 1.942 80 142 503 77 125 54 72 92 658 139 98 72 596 140 277 71 98 252 260 95 54 213 64 257 1. Jalisco Zitacuaro.369 108.539 185.53 0.889 101.54 0.550 1.556 212.94 0.899 92.107 137.393 497.339 722. Guanajuato Valles.20 0.068 115.16 1.063 298.012 71.425 1.926 463.61 0. Michoacán Valle de Chalco Solidaridad.54 0.620 228.743 100.94 0.018.20 0.222.18 0.031 71.457 124.812 266.53 0.279 480.925 676.752 252.52 1.262. Nuevo León San Pedro Garza García .998 64. Querétaro San Luis Potosi.509 77.730 143.587 798.53 79.037 98.969 350.809 134.538 135 750 563 798 414 503 115 68 464 253 397 70 138 426 251 462 324 118 114 1.645 147.84 1.966 1.50 0.788 124. Veracruz San Cristobal de las Casas.17 1. Tamaulipas Villahermosa. Tamaulipas Salamanca.97 0.830 117.731 100.94 0.844 687. Michoacán Nicaragua Chinandega Leon Managua Masaya Tipitapa Panama Year Urban Population Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) Total MSW Generated (kg/day) Total Waste (tons/day) 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 104.20 0.306 97.92 0. Veracruz Tuxtla Gutiérrez.804 1.765 502.029 46.

157 1. San Martín de Porres Lima.177 219.716 64.162 121.52 0.656 293.07 673.902 200.73 0. Villa El Salvador Lima.357 112.034 205.54 0.64 0.541 222.350 170. Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines* St.147 228.945 74.20 113.04 1.837 352.068 217.267 203.261 452.70 3.59 0.268 103.767 165.720 157.932 163.399 223.112 264.351 36 2001 287.52 0.641 448.975 0. Callao Cercado Callao.56 0. Chorrillos Lima. Ventanilla Junín.433 202.916 0.649 186.476 341. Villa María del Triunfo Piura.745 1.60 0.733 154.345 134.690 173.94 0.554 286.81 0.62 0.856 0. Huancayo Lima.926 246.56 0.615 87. San Juan de Lurigancho Lima.399 105.059 124.000 City Arraiján Ciudad de Panamá Colón La Chorrera San Miguelito Paraguay Asunción Ciudad del Este Luque San Lorenzo Peru Callao.70 0.31 1. Santiago de Surco Lima.507 184.034 91. La Molina Lima.78 0.00 287.155 387.61 98.270 751. Vincent Suriname Greater Paramaribo Trinidad and Tobago Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo Diego Martin San Juan/Laventille Tunapuna/Piarco Uruguay Year Urban Population Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) Total MSW Generated (kg/day) Total Waste (tons/day) 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 149. Callería Saint Lucia St. Puente Piedra Lima.131 287 2001 2001 2001 2001 162.20 2.479 139.79 0.164 123.131 1.748 674 233 184 218 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 449.579 232.66 0.734 153.08 1.184 99 666 164 87 179 2001 2001 2001 2001 513. Carabayllo Lima.645 469. Los Olivos Lima.71 0. Santa Anita Lima.259 179.787 366 101 121 72 228 88 154 244 103 139 151 222 324 204 64 91 113 128 452 275 352 105 80 220 203 187 65 174 2001 162.50 0. San Borja Lima.716 101.142 183.379 112.61 0.13 0. San Miguel Lima.59 1.58 0. Lima Cercado Lima.94 0.752 251.747 166.908 148.34 36.60 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.946 665.207 72.195 274.745 114 74 503 449 .745 0.409 324.57 0.70 0.345 191 2001 106.363 80.365 125. Lurigancho Lima.70 365.202 344. Independencia Lima.567 364. El Tambo Junín. San Juan de Miraflores Lima.295 203.918 708.449 122.05 0.203 410.18 191. Comas Lima.20 1.618 202.55 0. Rímac Lima.779 105.861 192. Castilla Ucayali.87 0.282 148. Ate Lima.68 0.968 128.368 87.438 174.004 503. El Agustino Lima.454 150. La Victoria Lima.745 64.023 244.344 448.08 1.971 106.70 1.

273 2001 147.42 0.10 0.060 530.88 7.303 161.677.31 0.968 932.104.258 1.970 2.518.044.90 1.182 2001 1.933 2001 283.390 162 2.57 0.020 194 521 88 1.50 1.084 88. 2008) Tehran Iraq (UNSD 2009) Baghdad India (CPCB 2005) Agartala Agra Ahmedabad Aizwal Allahabad Amritsar Asansol Banglore Bhopal Bhubaneswar Chandigarh Chennai Coimbatore Dehradun Delhi Dhanbad Faridabad Gandhinagar Greater Mumbai Guwahati Hyderabad Imphal Indore Jabalpur Jaipur Jammu Jamshedpur Kanpur Kochi Year 2001 2001 2001 Urban Population Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) 539.161 469 217 1.678 575 233 323 2.43 0.326 1.784.62 0.488 214.67 75.191 42 560 214 906 215 342 1.117 5.088 209.166 169.836.959 1.000 7.044 2005 6.405.322.804 214.621 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 189.075 399.345 2001 1.882 426.77 13.766 2005 8.439 4.800 Middle East & North Africa Total MSW Generated (kg/day) Total Waste (tons/day) 0.28 1.494 43.706 2001 396.645 930.190.160.52 1.306.765.39 0.301.474.000 South Asia 1.390 1.602 216.938 195.390.125 2001 895.69 0.646 468.38 0.45 0.551.518 80 170 2007 7.766.135 3.ANNEX ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.032 808.36 0.25 0.602.57 0.979 2.19 0.85 2.450 809.303.843 42.998 1.217 123.40 0.097.302.666 0.58 0.603 132.51 0.678 77.019.40 0.484 2.354 648.45 0.978.292 323.130 137.168 2001 103.44 0.085 228.15 2.275.520.515 4.22 0.37 0.000 City Canelones Maldonado Montevideo Venezuela Distrito Capital Municipio Barinas Edo Barinas Municipio Caroni Edo Bolivar Municipio German Roscio Edo Guarico Municipio Girardot Edo Aragua Municipio Iribarren Edo Lara Municipio Lagunillas Edo Zulia Municipio Maracaibo Edo Zulia Municipio Pedraza Edo Apure Municipio Simon Rodriguez Edo Anzoategui Egypt (UNSD 2009) Cairo Iran (Damghani et al.343.471 905.286 2001 283.492 1.57 0.204 435.576 342.280 975.674 10.20 0.895 3.651 1.431 57.083 560.999 650.862 475.914 485 124 1.875 78 443 43 5.325 521.52 0.035 76 650 1.989 2001 144.393 966.269 5.193 1.575 0.90 0.097 399 61 .437.39 0.000 1.621.39 0.23 0.070 507.575 369.74 0.055.585 221.603 1.517 574.150 1.711 443.203.942 233.452 199.31 0.874.93 0.302 57 507 435 209 1.693.713 2.432 11.518 1.08 0.71 11.461 1.985 11.406 2.693 531 132 5.23 485.40 0.273 2001 704.319 1.843.915 194.408 80.337 595.234 13.

000 inhabitants .747 967.872 171.41 0.19 0.476 847.30 0.066 1.27 0.077.310 1.167.467 928.660 491.490 431.21 0. markets street sweeping.868 1.46 0.306.398.37 0.39 0.865 2.433.46 0.23 0.773 45.173 0.681 425.27 0. Domestic waste Domestic solid or semi-solid waste generated by human activities a the household level.068.444 220.62 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.918 851.772 2.787 189.34 0.58 0.168 182 203 212 45 38 431 998 171 353 426 375 580 2003 738. PAHO defines municipal waste and domestic waste as follows: PAHO definitions: Municipal waste Solid or semi-solid waste generated in of population centers including domestic and commercial wastes.440 2. ** China cities have populations over 750.983 1.73 0.904 741. small-scale industries and institutions (including hospital and clinics).000 Urban Population Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) Total MSW Generated (kg/day) Total Waste (tons/day) City Year Kolkata Lucknow Ludhiana Madurai Meerut Nagpur Nashik Patna Pondicherry Pune Raipur Rajkot Ranchi Shillong Simla Srinagar Surat Tiruvanantapuram Vadodara Varanasi Vijaywada Vishakhapatnam Nepal (Alam 2008) Kathmandu Sri Lanka (UNSD 2009) Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia Moratuwa 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 4.093 132.652.346 352.188 278.110 127.22 0.473 605.867 142.848 374.25 0.052.835 744.48 0.790 0.927 1.53 0.854 154 128 NOTES: * Denotes domestic waste data as MSW figures are unknown. as well as those originated by the.564 579.366.017 204.800 227 2007 2007 209.170 211.227 1.44 0.538.31 226.67 154.876 2.584 130.652 481 741 279 492 513 205 506 130 1.675 505. and from public cleansing.185.30 0.635 513.724 203.091.904 0.59 0.282 982.268 480.555 898.913 2.25 0.175 38.251 997.572.59 2.236 1.698 181.

Hong Kong SAR Hong Kong China.720.883 20 . 2009) Nairobi Mauritania (Parrot et al.45 N/A 611.40 N/A 2.300.000 99 2007 6.30 2007 242.962.660.000 76 2006 2.777.000.200 51 2005 1.500.900 100 2007 2007 2007 1. 2009) Abidjan Guinea (UNSD 2009) Conakry Kenya (Parrot et al.708.450 10 1995 876.000 City Year Urban Population MSW Collection Coverage (%) Africa Benin (UNSD 2009) Parakou 2002 148.000 18 2007 2. 2009) Dakar Tanzania (Parrot et al. 2009) Dar es Salaam Togo (Parrot et al.000 42 2005 1.500. 2009) Nouakchott Niger (UNSD 2009) Zinder** Senegal (Parrot et al.000 90 2007 1.000 15 . 2009) Yaounde Chad (Parrot et al.532. 2009) Ndjamena Côte d’Ivoire (Parrot et al.960 100 62 95 63 .806.000 48 2002 1.800 77 2003 1.000 30 .760 100 2004 8.ANNEX ANNEX G MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.000. Macao SAR Macao Indonesia Jakarta Philippines Manila Eastern Europe & Central Asia (UNSD 2009) Albania Tirana Belarus Minsk Croatia Zagreb Georgia Tbilisi Batumi Kutaisi 2007 1.300.926. 2009) Lome Zambia (UNSD 2009) Lusaka Zimbabwe (UNSD 2009) Harare East Asia & Pacific (UNSD 2009) China.714 95 Burkina Faso (UNSD 2009) Ouagadougou Cameroon (Parrot et al.000 30 .000 100 2007 525.200 100 2006 784.000 43 2003 800.000 83 2007 1.312.200 185.000 30 .000 303.20 2002 2.40 2007 3.

004 100 Salta Capital 2001 472.000 100 2001 268.231 100 Santiago.348 100 Coquimbo.347 100 B.953 100 Biobío. Chillán 2001 161.026 El Alto 2001 629.64 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100. Bahamas Barbados* Barbados Bolivia* Cochabamba 2001 717.344 100 Biobío.148 100 Los Lagos.931 100 .544. Antofagasta Antofagasta.036 100 Coquimbo.000 100 100 Cordoba 2001 1.127 100 Rosario 2001 906.312 100 Santiago. La Serena 2001 160.677 100 Rafaela 2001 100. La Pintana 2001 190.O’Higgins. Calama 2001 138.061 100 Biobío.353 87 Oruro 2001 201.783 88 Santa Cruz de la Sierra 2001 1.402 100 Araucanía. Coquimbo 2001 163.085 100 Santiago. Cerro Navia 2001 148.674 100 Santiago.230 92 Potosi 2001 135. La Florida 2001 365.955 76 La Paz 2001 790. Recoleta 2001 148. Temuco 2001 245. Talca 2001 203.792 100 Tarapacá. Valparaíso 2001 275.779 99 Chile Antofagasta.792 100 90 Bahamas Nassau.390 100 Santiago. Arica 2001 185. Valdivia 2001 140.783 93 2001 318.000 88 Sucre 2001 193.018 Bahia Blanca 2001 285.982 100 Valparaíso.874 100 Maule.299 100 Maule.220 100 Santiago.971 100 2001 200.874 100 Santiago.475 100 Los Lagos. Osorno 2001 145. Santiago 2001 200. Rancagua 2001 214. Concepción 2001 216.268 100 Valparaíso. Providencia 2001 120.938 100 Los Lagos.559 100 Magallanes.283. Puerto Montt 2001 175.876 85 Tarija 2001 135.396 100 Neuquen 2001 202.000 City Year Urban Population MSW Collection Coverage (%) Latin America and the Caribbean (PAHO. Talcahuano 2001 250. Curicó 2001 120. 2005) Argentina Area Metropolitana Buenos Aires 2001 12. Punta Arenas 2001 120. Viña del Mar 2001 286.518 100 Parana 2001 245.000 100 Rio Cuarto 2001 154.113. Maipú 2001 468.

000 97 Cartagena 2001 854.632 222.832 308.000 94 Popayán 2001 206.000 95 Girardot 2001 117.843 110.897 2.000 95 81 100 100 100 98 98 2001 2001 2001 234.000 99 Florencia 2001 116.737 203.000 97 Sincelejo 2001 234.186.000 310.000 98 Santa Marta 2001 382.000 100 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 285.909.000 278.000 Bello 2001 353.000 100 Montería 2001 256.000 100 Barrancabermeja 2001 183.000 100 100 Barranquilla 2001 1.000 114.000 95 Ibagué 2001 403.000 80 Buga 2001 113.217 268.000 289.000 100 Manizales 2001 345.000 Buenaventura 2001 230.000 100 Medellín 2001 1.000 157.000 98 Maicao 2001 115.770 326.000 97 Cartago 2001 129.000 97 Bogotá 2001 6.000 100 100 Pasto 2001 349.935 154.000 Pereira 2001 401.000 97 Itagüí 2001 246.000 112.384 82 40 100 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 154.000 100 Neiva 2001 317.000 100 84 Dosquebradas 2001 166.000 100 100 Bucaramanga 2001 543.846 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 Soacha Sogamoso Soledad Tuluá Tunja Valledupar Villavicencio Costa Rica Alajuela Desamparados San José Cuba Bayamo Camagüey Ciego de Ávila Cienfuegos Ciudad de La Habana Guantánamo Holguín Manzanillo 65 .558.000 City Year Urban Population MSW Collection Coverage (%) Colombia Armenia 2001 293.288 118.000 98 Cúcuta 2001 644.000 80 Floridablanca 2001 232.000 100 Cali 2001 2.000 98 Palmira 2001 234.000 Envigado 2001 145.276.181.ANNEX ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.

909 172.66 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100. San Miguel San Salvador . Michoacán Apodaca.190 56 68 66 48 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 728.926 244.Nueva San Salvador San Miguel. Santa Ana Grenada Grenada Guatemala Antigua Guatemala Guatemala Quetzaltenango San Benito Guyana Georgetown Haiti Cap-Haïtien Carrefour Croix des Bouquets Delmas Gonaïves Jacmel Les Cayes Pétion Ville Port-au-Prince Saint Marc Honduras San Pedro Sula Jamaica* North Eastern Wasteshed( Portland.Mary and St.220 220.345 452. Coahuila Aguascalientes.384 85 2001 2001 2001 2001 357.James) Riverton ( Kgn.286 479.551 100 2001 2001 2001 2001 248.605 167.000 100 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 141.Ilopango. Aguascalientes Altamira.100.Hanover.000 City Matanzas Pinar del Río Sancti Spíritus Santa Clara Santiago de Cuba Tunas Dominican Republic La Romana Quito Santo Domingo de los Colorados Ecuador* Quito Santo Domingo de los Colorados El Salvador La Libertad .Soyapango San Salvador.Ann) Retirement(Westmoreland.724 1. St.803 335.458.Apopa San Salvador .381 100 100 91 98 100 100 2001 2001 2001 201.466 297.245 130.700 2.203 139. Nuevo León MSW Collection Coverage (%) Year Urban Population 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 133.155 331.845 143. San Salvador .Cath.504 152. Tamaulipas Apatzingan.010 117.019 2.157 366.177 162.841.358 172.421 80 83 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 136.Mejicanos San Salvador .480 138.And.307 144.975 94 82 73 50 85 95 81 83 2001 95. Guerrero Acuña.078 109.271 656.200 200.868 45 16 40 16 45 80 45 22 22 45 2001 483.425 108. St.Trelawny & St. Elizabeth) Mexico Acapulco.581 122.265 452.452 1.548 285.061 416. St. Clarendon and St.541.Thomas) Southern(Manchester.085 164.866 138.774. San Salvador Santa Ana.301 143.735 80 70 90 80 2001 180.776 85 85 90 85 85 100 . St.802 115.039 100 60 90 2001 2001 1.

Yucatán Metepec.215 130. Guanajuato Juárez. Guanajuato Chalco. Durango Ecatepec. Tabasco Carmen. Othon P. Benito Juárez. Morelos Culiacán.289 111.268 107. Puebla Boca del Río.230 109.705 103.160 197. Michoacán Huixquilucan.185 101.564 125. Chihuahua Dolores Hidalgo. Colima Matamoros.012 232.878 129.929 135. Sonora Hermosillo.778 1.275 268.225 381.179 144.ANNEX ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.065 178. Campeche Cancún.395 445.407 174. Nuevo León Guadalupe. Tamaulipas Mante. Guanajuato Lerdo.672 125.390 106.236 619. Michoacán León.909 113.047 714. México Chetumal. Sinaloa Guaymas. Baja California Fresnillo.281 444. Chihuahua La Paz.784 388. Sonora Hidalgo del Parral.875 219.956 209.776 679.699 MSW Collection Coverage (%) 90 85 85 80 90 80 85 95 85 80 95 85 80 85 85 90 85 90 85 90 85 85 90 90 95 85 100 85 90 100 85 90 85 85 100 85 85 85 85 90 90 85 85 85 90 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 95 85 67 .671 127. Veracruz Colima. Chihuahua Chilpancingo. Baja California Sur Lagos de Moreno. Guerrero Coatzacoalcos. Campeche Celaya.673 131.017 117. Tamaulipas Mazatlán. Durango Guadalajara.747 183.712 128.650.998 113. México Atlixco.748 495.655. Chihuahua Cuautla.205 1. Sinaloa Delicias. Colima Comitán de Domínguez.966 385.689 197.443 427. Blanco. México Iguala.121 199. Guanajuato Durango. Zacatecas Guanajuato. México Los Cabos. Quintana Roo Cárdenas. Chiapas Córdoba. Tamaulipas Manzanillo.166 279. Veracruz Campeche. Nuevo León Gómez Palacio.264.085 1.922 198. Durango Lerma.374 755.962 1. Quintana Roo Chihuahua. Veracruz Cuauhtemoc. Guerrero Irapuato. Zacatecas General Escobedo.941 246. Sinaloa Mérida.241 676.166 276. México Year Urban Population 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 475.105 155.870 219. Jalisco Guadalupe. Sinaloa Madero.683 117.000 City Atizapan de Zaragoza.414 169.727 362. Chihuahua Hidalgo. Ahome.363 342.153. Jalisco Lázaro Cárdenas. Morelos Cuernavaca. México Ensenada. Baja California Sur Los Mochis-Topolobampo.442 184. Guanajuato Guasave.

447 438. Tamaulipas Salamanca.969 350. Sonora Nezahualcoyotl.279 480.078 127.807 121. Querétaro San Luis Potosi. Puebla Tepatitlán. Michoacán Naucalpan. Sonora San Martín Texmelucan. México Navojoa. Guanajuato Saltillo.809 134.457 124. Tamaulipas Oaxaca.550 1. Veracruz Pachuca.819 317. Jalisco Querétaro.645 147.235 135. Jalisco Toluca.730 143. Hidalgo Tuxpan.262. Colima Tehuacán. San Luis Potosi San Luis Río Colorado. Chiapas San Francisco del Rincón.523 8. Hidalgo Piedras Negras.636 628.955 144.912 123. Guanajuato San Juan Bautista de Tuxtepec.539 185.072 138.446 191.173 141.68 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.412 1.398 152.063 276. Baja California Tlajomulco. Jalisco Tlalnepantla. Chiapas Taxco. Nayarit Tijuana. Coahuila Monterrey. Baja California México. Coahuila Tulancingo. Guanajuato Soledad de Graciano. Nuevo León Silao. México Tonalá.112. Guanajuato San Nicolas de los Garza.063 298.520 128.838 130.180 164.844 687. Tamaulipas Río Bravo.679 678.857 119. Oaxaca San Juan del Río. Nuevo León Santa Catarina.461 126. Veracruz Monclova.343 357.696 104.076 307.574 194.318 1.000 City Mexicali. Veracruz San Cristobal de las Casas.648 533.049 233. Oaxaca Obregón.339 722. Jalisco Tepic.254 231.223. Coahuila San Andrés Tuxtla. México Tlaquepaque. Querétaro Reynosa.805 134. Sonora Nuevo Laredo.458 1.372.895 184. Puebla San Miguel de Allende.877 259. Federal District Minatitlán.424 657.620 228.743 100. Coahuila Poza Rica. México Nogales. Sonora Orizaba. Guerrero Tecoman. Nuevo León San Pedro Garza García .801 861.257 MSW Collection Coverage (%) 80 100 85 85 100 85 90 85 80 85 100 80 85 90 95 100 85 95 85 100 85 85 90 90 85 85 90 85 90 85 90 85 90 100 100 100 90 85 85 85 85 85 90 85 80 95 85 95 95 85 95 100 85 85 .889 101. Veracruz Puebla.405 249. Nuevo León Morelia.239 587.615. Cajeme. Jalisco Torreón.731 100. Puebla Puerto Vallarta. San Luis Potosi Tampico.393 497. Veracruz Year Urban Population 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 779. Tamaulipas Tapachula.

645 469.641 448. La Molina Lima. Michoacán Zapopan.203 410.788 124.447 139.068 80 70 80 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 149. Zacatecas Zamora.164 123. Centro.918 708.722 161.332 119. Tamaulipas Villahermosa.885 130. San Borja Lima. Ate Lima. Veracruz Victoria. Huancayo Lima.734 153. San Miguel 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 443. Tabasco Xalapa.782 268.059 124.861 192. El Tambo Junín.553 147. Comas Lima. San Juan de Lurigancho Lima. La Victoria Lima.438 174.902 200. Rímac Lima.034 205.511 404.018. Chiapas Uruapan.845 952.107 147.202 344.365 125.612 531. San Luis Potosi Veracruz. Independencia Lima.767 165. San Martín de Porres Lima.433 202.142 183. México Valle de Santiago.745 63 80 66 64 95 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 513.908 75 57 66 70 89 78 89 90 80 66 75 75 85 87 65 73 89 63 47 65 74 80 69 . Carabayllo Lima. Los Olivos Lima.270 751.425 1.350 114.399 154.208 330. Michoacán Valle de Chalco Solidaridad. Lima Cercado Lima.812 266. Chorrillos Lima.000 MSW Collection Coverage (%) City Year Urban Population Tuxtla Gutiérrez. Ventanilla Junín.554 286.357 112. Guanajuato Valles. Lurigancho Lima.345 134. San Juan de Miraflores Lima.112 264.656 293.155 387. Puente Piedra Lima.745 99 35 60 97 42 54 26 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 449.282 148.449 122. Callao Cercado Callao. El Agustino Lima.469 223. Michoacán Nicaragua Chinandega Leon Managua Panama Arraiján Ciudad de Panamá Colón La Chorrera San Miguelito Paraguay Asunción Capiatá Ciudad del Este Fernando de la Mora Lambare Luque San Lorenzo Peru Callao. Veracruz Zacatecas.ANNEX ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.984 170.514 85 85 80 85 85 90 90 80 90 85 90 90 85 2001 2001 2001 124.747 166. Jalisco Zitacuaro.086 463.

273 704.131 82 2001 2001 2001 2001 162.926 246.125 895. Villa El Salvador Lima.182 75 95 90 1.787 189.273 344.779 105.000 77 6.405. . Santiago de Surco Lima.784.567 364.989 144.800 80 100 68 88 80 90 87 100 80 100 7. hence it is assumed that waste collection coverage is for domestic waste and not MSW ** Urban population data from 2007. Domestic waste Domestic solid or semi-solid waste generated by human activities a the household level.345 1.593 147.765.390 1.752 251.295 203.70 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100. Castilla Ucayali. Waste collection coverage data from 2006 PAHO definitions: Municipal waste Solid or semi-solid waste generated in of population centers including domestic and commercial wastes.168 396. Callería Saint Lucia St.916 90 2001 287.000 86 2003 738. small-scale industries and institutions (including hospital and clinics). and from public cleansing.303. Villa María del Triunfo Piura. as well as those originated by the.130 137.157 100 2001 106. Santa Anita Lima.790 96 90 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Middle East & North Africa (UNSD 2009) 2007 2005 South Asia NOTES: * Domestic waste data used as MSW figures not available.933 283.000 City Lima.971 106. Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines* St.975 100 100 100 100 2001 2001 2001 539.856 71 79 77 80 77 70 2001 162.173 94 2007 2007 209. markets street sweeping.836. Vincent Suriname Greater Paramaribo Trinidad and Tobago Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo Diego Martin San Juan/Laventille Tunapuna/Piarco Uruguay Canelones Maldonado Montevideo Venezuela Distrito Capital Municipio Barinas Edo Barinas Municipio Caroni Edo Bolivar Municipio Girardot Edo Aragua Municipio Iribarren Edo Lara Municipio Lagunillas Edo Zulia Municipio Maracaibo Edo Zulia Municipio Pedraza Edo Apure Municipio Simon Bolivar Edo Anzoategui Municipio Simon Rodriguez Edo Anzoategui Egypt Cairo Iraq Baghdad Nepal (Alam 2008) Kathmandu Sri Lanka (UNSD 2009) Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia Moratuwa MSW Collection Coverage (%) Year Urban Population 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 148.720 157.476 341.286 283.

Arica Valparaíso. Talcahuano Coquimbo. Calama Araucanía.288 118. Osorno Los Lagos.000 City Urban Population Sanitary Landfill (%) Controlled Landfill (%) Open Dump (%) Watercourses (%) Other (%) Latin America & Caribbean (PAHO 2005) Argentina Area Metropolitana Buenos Aires Bahia Blanca Neuquen Parana Salta Capital Bolivia Cochabamba El Alto La Paz Oruro Potosi Santa Cruz de la Sierra Sucre Tarija Barbados Antofagasta.061 250.953 216.874 120.148 145. Cerro Navia Santiago. Curicó Maule.000 202.299 203.402 245.982 286.938 140.A.186.955 790.843 110.ANNEX ANNEX H MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100. Chillán Biobío.A.231 148.832 308.475 175.518 245.344 268.931 0 0 98 100 35 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 83 0 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 86 0 100 0 100 75 0 0 48 0 100 75 100 100 0 96 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N.677 472.018 285. Antofagasta Antofagasta. N. 0 0 9 0 0 13 11 13 7 15 6 9 10 318.268 275.A. La Florida Santiago. Talca Santiago.026 629.779 138.971 100 80 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 717. Temuco B.348 163.783 1.897 2. Maipú Santiago. Puerto Montt Los Lagos. Punta Arenas Maule.559 120.O'Higgins.935 154. Santiago Tarapacá. Rancagua Barbados Biobío.792 185.783 87 0 87 89 85 85 83 90 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 5 0 0 9 0 0 N. La Serena Los Lagos. Concepción Biobío.036 160. Recoleta Santiago.217 268. Providencia Santiago. Viña del Mar Cuba Bayamo Camagüey Ciego de Ávila Cienfuegos Ciudad de La Habana Guantánamo Holguín Manzanillo 12.353 201.874 148.674 468.792 161. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 2 0 17 0 0 25 0 0 0 4 17 15 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 14 5 0 1 154.544. Valdivia Magallanes.846 0 0 0 14 0 0 20 20 9 100 100 0 90 100 80 0 90 0 0 85 11 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 71 .347 214.000 193.113.220 200.876 135. Coquimbo Coquimbo.312 365.230 135.632 222. Valparaíso Valparaíso.390 120.

000 157.000 234.000 256.000 145.307 144.381 0 20 0 93 100 81 100 80 88 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 293.000 115.909.000 183.000 166.078 109.424 2.398 129.220 220.737 138.000 6.000 City Matanzas Pinar del Río Sancti Spíritus Santa Clara Santiago de Cuba Tunas Colombia Armenia Barrancabermeja Barranquilla Bello Bogotá Bucaramanga Buenaventura Buga Cali Cartagena Cartago Dosquebradas Envigado Florencia Floridablanca Ibagué Itagüí Maicao Manizales Medellín Montería Palmira Pasto Popayán Santa Marta Sincelejo Soacha Sogamoso Soledad Tuluá Valledupar Costa Rica Alajuela Cartago Desamparados Goicoechea Heredia Pérez Zeledón Pococí Puntarenas San Carlos San José Dominican Republic San Francisco de Macorís Santiago de los Caballeros Santo Domingo Urban Population Sanitary Landfill (%) Controlled Landfill (%) Open Dump (%) Watercourses (%) Other (%) 133.133 326.367 108.000 100 0 100 97 100 0 0 100 0 100 82 100 99 0 0 99 98 0 100 100 0 100 99 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 95 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 18 0 1 0 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 5 234.000 129.000 349.345 452.000 114.580 594.000 353.926 0 0 83 0 0 10 100 100 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 .000 1.177 162.000 1.774.000 2.940 203.214 135.000 206.72 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100.000 285.000 345.000 246.276.000 543.000 234.000 230.000 310.000 116.375 109.000 278.219 109.000 382.000 854.558.000 113.181.384 100 100 90 100 100 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 30 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 70 0 0 3 2 210.000 403.000 232.770 123.

870 219.Hanover.155 331.929 135.452 1.301 143. Aguascalientes Altamira. Quintana Roo Chihuahua.000 0 90 0 10 0 141.421 84 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 16 9 479. Guanajuato Chalco. Guerrero Coatzacoalcos.Cath.414 169. Clarendon and St.100.956 209.Ann) Portmore Retirement(Westmoreland. Chihuahua Chilpancingo.Thomas) Southern(Manchester. Benito Juárez. Colima Urban Population Sanitary Landfill (%) Controlled Landfill (%) Open Dump (%) Watercourses (%) Other (%) 1.000 City Ecuador Quito Santo Domingo de los Colrados El Salvador San Salvador. Puebla Boca del Río. St.875 219.190 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 728.866 138.200 200.Trelawny & St.061 416.581 0 40 0 0 60 180.480 138. Veracruz Colima.458. México Atlixco.275 268. Blanco.281 444.ANNEX ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100. Campeche Cancún. St.673 131.803 335. México Chetumal.Mary and St. Coahuila Aguascalientes.776 475.010 117. Tabasco Carmen. Quintana Roo Cárdenas.286 81 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 5 95.085 164.784 388. St.867 0 100 0 0 0 357.605 285.845 143.James) Riverton ( Kgn. Campeche Celaya.425 108.541.Elizabeth) Southern(Manchester. Veracruz Campeche.241 676. Othon P.265 159.841. St.Soyapango Grenada Grenada Guatemala Guatemala Guyana Georgetown Haiti Cap-Haïtien Carrefour Croix des Bouquets Delmas Gonaïves Jacmel Les Cayes Pétion Ville Port-au-Prince Saint Marc Honduras Distrito Central Jamaica North Eastern Wasteshed( Portland.504 152.268 94 0 94 0 0 93 94 0 0 0 94 0 0 94 0 0 93 0 0 94 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 94 0 0 94 0 94 0 94 94 0 94 94 0 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 73 .012 232.160 197.974 452. San Salvador San Salvador .And.245 130. St.868 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 38 80 44 60 35 54 38 30 54 25 0 0 0 0 0 23 26 0 23 10 62 20 56 40 65 23 36 70 23 819.551 90 0 0 0 10 2. Michoacán Apodaca. Tamaulipas Apatzingan. Nuevo León Atizapan de Zaragoza.Elizabeth) Mexico Acapulco.271 656. Guerrero Acuña.190 331.724 1.466 297.683 117.

000 City Comitán de Domínguez. Veracruz Cuauhtemoc.962 1. Chiapas Córdoba.215 130.236 619.712 128. Distrito Federal Minatitlán.615. Michoacán Huixquilucan. Morelos Cuernavaca. Sinaloa Madero.395 445.289 111. Baja California Sur Lagos de Moreno.185 101.223.672 125.878 129. Michoacán León. Chihuahua La Paz.748 495.650.205 1.458 1.153.564 125. México Navojoa.166 276. Tamaulipas Mante. Jalisco Lázaro Cárdenas. Zacatecas Guanajuato.699 779.230 109. México Los Cabos. Colima Matamoros. Sonora Hidalgo del Parral. Nuevo León Guadalupe. Yucatán Metepec.74 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100. Zacatecas General Escobedo.225 381. Guanajuato Guasave. Sonora Hermosillo. Nuevo León Gómez Palacio. Durango Lerma. Veracruz Monclova. Durango Guadalajara. Baja California Sur Los Mochis-Topolobampo. Ahome. Sinaloa Guaymas.941 246. México Nogales.705 103. Chihuahua Cuautla.173 141.778 1. Tamaulipas Manzanillo.671 127. Morelos Culiacán. Sinaloa Delicias.264. Jalisco Guadalupe. México Ensenada. Coahuila Monterrey. Guerrero Irapuato. Guanajuato Lerdo.065 178.655.801 861.747 183.412 1.363 342.166 279. Sonora Urban Population 107.776 679.443 427. Chihuahua Dolores Hidalgo.998 113. Guanajuato Juárez.105 155.727 362.390 106.819 Sanitary Landfill (%) 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 0 92 94 0 0 93 0 0 93 0 94 94 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 92 0 0 94 94 0 0 0 94 0 93 0 0 92 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 94 Controlled Landfill (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 92 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 70 0 Open Dump (%) 94 94 94 0 94 0 94 94 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 94 0 94 94 0 92 0 0 92 94 0 0 94 94 0 0 94 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 94 0 94 0 94 23 0 Watercourses (%) Other (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 7 8 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 8 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 6 .689 197. Baja California México. México Iguala.523 8.922 198.179 144.112.121 199. Nuevo León Morelia.180 164. Sonora Nezahualcoyotl.955 144. Guanajuato Durango.407 174. Tamaulipas Mazatlán. Baja California Fresnillo. Durango Ecatepec.909 113.636 628.966 385. Michoacán Naucalpan.085 1.047 714.374 755.442 184. México Mexicali.017 117.574 194. Sinaloa Mérida. Chihuahua Hidalgo.

063 298.809 134.550 1. Oaxaca Obregón.279 480. Puebla Tepatitlán. San Luis Potosi Tampico.461 126.807 121.539 185. San Luis Potosi Veracruz. Nuevo León San Pedro Garza García .885 130.049 233. Chiapas Uruapan. Veracruz Tuxtla Gutiérrez. Coahuila San Andrés Tuxtla. Puebla Puerto Vallarta.696 104.457 124.889 101.262.620 228.520 128. Querétaro Reynosa. Tamaulipas Salamanca.812 266. Tamaulipas Villahermosa. Guanajuato Saltillo.877 259. Querétaro San Luis Potosi. Hidalgo Tuxpan.078 127.447 438.208 330. Sonora San Martín Texmelucan. Puebla San Miguel de Allende.086 463. Guanajuato San Juan Bautista de Tuxtepec. Baja California Tlajomulco. Tamaulipas Río Bravo. Jalisco Toluca.857 119. Jalisco Tlalnepantla.ANNEX ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100.511 Sanitary Landfill (%) 96 0 0 94 94 94 94 93 94 94 0 94 0 94 0 0 0 0 94 94 0 0 94 93 93 93 94 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 94 94 92 94 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 Controlled Landfill (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 94 0 0 0 0 94 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 Open Dump (%) 0 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 94 94 92 94 0 0 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 94 94 0 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 94 94 94 94 0 0 94 Watercourses (%) Other (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 75 .076 307.398 152. Coahuila Tulancingo. Oaxaca San Juan del Río. Jalisco Tepic. Colima Tehuacán. Veracruz Pachuca.645 147.730 143. Chiapas San Francisco del Rincón.782 268.235 135.912 123.254 231. México Tonalá. Guanajuato Soledad de Graciano. Guanajuato San Nicolas de los Garza.679 678. México Valle de Santiago.063 276.838 130.648 533. Coahuila Poza Rica. Nuevo León Santa Catarina.000 City Nuevo Laredo. Michoacán Valle de Chalco Solidaridad.339 722.372. Veracruz Victoria.446 191. San Luis Potosi San Luis Río Colorado.393 497.239 587. Tamaulipas Oaxaca. Guanajuato Valles. México Tlaquepaque. Hidalgo Piedras Negras.805 134.612 531. Centro. Nayarit Tijuana.318 1.343 357.072 138.844 687. Nuevo León Silao. Cajeme.257 443. Jalisco Torreón.553 147.405 249. Tamaulipas Tapachula. Chiapas Taxco. Tabasco Urban Population 317. Sonora Orizaba.895 184.743 100.969 350.731 100. Jalisco Querétaro.424 657. Veracruz San Cristobal de las Casas. Veracruz Puebla. Guerrero Tecoman.

034 205. Rímac Lima. San Juan de Lurigancho Lima.D. El Tambo Junín. Zacatecas Zamora. La Victoria Lima.554 286.365 125. El Agustino Lima. Callao Cercado Callao.D. Villa El Salvador Lima. Huancayo Lima. Lima Cercado Lima.D.861 192. Callería Urban Population Sanitary Landfill (%) Controlled Landfill (%) Open Dump (%) Watercourses (%) Other (%) 404. Los Olivos Lima. Santiago de Surco Lima. Jalisco Zitacuaro.345 134.788 124. Castilla Ucayali. San Borja Lima.971 106.D.747 166.908 148.112 264. San Juan de Miraflores Lima.722 161.926 246. Independencia Lima.369 108. Santa Anita Lima. San Miguel Lima. Carabayllo Lima. 66 64 N. N. Chorrillos Lima.656 293.438 174. La Molina Lima. Michoacán Nicaragua Chinandega Managua Masaya Tipitapa Panama Arraiján Ciudad de Panamá Colón La Chorrera San Miguelito Paraguay Asunción Luque Peru Callao.447 139. San Martín de Porres Lima.476 341. N. N.D. Ventanilla Junín.645 469.142 183.861 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 58 0 71 61 0 0 0 0 42 51 29 39 149. 37 20 34 36 5 513. Ate Lima.641 448.282 148. Veracruz Zacatecas.425 1.D. Villa María del Triunfo Piura.449 122. N.433 37 0 61 100 0 0 0 0 2 0 449.203 410.856 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 80 0 0 0 0 76 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 67 51 59 63 79 0 79 0 71 59 67 66 0 0 58 65 79 56 42 58 0 71 63 0 68 71 69 62 18 35 26 21 3 14 3 2 12 28 20 21 11 5 27 19 3 32 46 29 20 13 21 15 16 12 16 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 14 15 16 18 16 18 18 17 13 13 13 13 17 15 16 18 12 12 13 14 16 16 15 16 17 15 15 .202 344.155 387.514 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 94 94 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 8 6 124.752 251.76 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100.018.357 112.918 708.745 0 80 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 63 N. Lurigancho Lima. Puente Piedra Lima.059 124. Michoacán Zapopan. N.734 153.767 165.399 170.D.107 952.164 123. Comas Lima.270 751.902 200.068 115.567 364.000 City Xalapa.

Vincent Suriname Greater Paramaribo Trinidad and Tobago Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo Diego Martin San Juan/Laventille Tunapuna/Piarco Uruguay Canelones Maldonado Montevideo Venezuela Municipio Guacara Carabobo Municipio Valencia Edo Carabobo Urban Population Sanitary Landfill (%) Controlled Landfill (%) Open Dump (%) Watercourses (%) Other (%) 162. Vincent and the Grenadines St. Lucia St.390 1.720 157.ANNEX ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100.131 0 0 100 0 0 162.000 City St.295 203.145 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 77 .157 70 18 0 0 13 106.975 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 539.303. Lucia St.916 80 0 0 0 20 287.779 105.182 0 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142.227 742.130 137.

43.74.770 4.326 14.674 1.26.75.354 6.48.78 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX I MSW Composition Data for Cities Over 100.30.439 43.645 9.43.28.08.09.21.968 35.06.575 3.000 Region/Country/ City Year Urban Population Organic (%) Total Recyclables (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) 4 — 1 28 13 5 1 12 Africa Ghana (Asase 2009) Kumasi 2008 1.78.03.895 38.032 8.998 12.75.484 23.32.01.713 59 46 41 54 35 65 50 52 52 50 57 41 50 30 51 54 47 42 34 47 62 54 54 60 49 52 58 46 52 43 — South Asia 14 16 12 21 19 14 14 22 22 13 11 16 16 22 20 16 16 23 13 16 17 23 22 19 13 21 17 12 21 16 .882 35.862 4.085 2.19.610.258 10.75.135 35.515 43.280 9.022 9.89.66.450 8.985 29.393 9.354 1.452 1.867 Cambodia (Kum et al.04.959 11.492 14.69.37.99.585 2.55.95. 2005) Phnom Penh 2002 Egypt Cairo Jordan Amman Saudi Arabia Riyadh Syria Aleppo Tunisia Tunis Yemen Aden India (CPCB 2005) Agartala Agra Ahmedabad Aizwal Allahabad Amritsar Asansol Bangalore Bhopal Bhubaneswar Chandigarh Chennai Coimbatore Daman Dehradun Delhi Dhanbad Faridabad Gandhinagar Gangtok Greater Mumbai Guwahati Hyderabad Imphal Indore Itanagar Jabalpur Jaipur Jammu Jamshedpur 64 — East Asia & Pacific 3 65 — 4 Middle East & North Africa (Al-Yousfi) 2002 67 — 18 3 3 2 7 2002 55 — 14 13 3 2 13 2002 34 — 31 2 3 16 14 2002 59 — 13 12 8 1 8 2002 68 — 10 11 3 2 6 2002 57 11 11 3 5 14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28 38 48 25 45 21 35 26 25 38 32 42 34 48 29 30 37 35 53 37 21 23 24 21 38 27 25 42 27 41 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 1.22.938 1.20.

555 8.66.51.95.44.093 1.119 5.927 13.77.85.747 9.473 6.575 77.066 13.444 2.20.06.868 10.066 10.337 10.904 48 46 57 57 51 47 50 55 55 47 40 62 52 50 48 62 51 42 51 63 72 43 62 57 73 47 45 59 46 12 27 19 23 11 16 19 17 11 16 25 17 13 24 28 17 16 11 10 17 14 37 18 11 14 15 17 17 24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 41 27 23 20 38 37 31 27 35 37 35 21 35 26 24 21 32 47 39 20 14 20 20 32 13 38 38 23 30 738.476 8.030 45.52.32.38.463 1.98.984 25.42.865 99.28.876 21.91.98.772 20.33.918 8.440 24.68.282 9.467 9.67.51.867 50.000 Region/Country/ City Year Kanpur 2005 Kavarati 2005 Kochi 2005 Kohima 2005 Kolkata 2005 Lucknow 2005 Ludhiana 2005 Madurai 2005 Meerut 2005 Nagpur 2005 Nasik 2005 Panjim 2005 Patna 2005 Pondicherry 2005 Port Blair 2005 Pune 2005 Raipur 2005 Rajkot 2005 Ranchi 2005 Shillong 2005 Silvassa 2005 Simla 2005 Srinagar 2005 Surat 2005 Tiruvananthapuram 2005 Vadodara 2005 Varanasi 2005 Vijaywada 2005 Visakhapatnam 2005 Nepal (calculated from Alam 2008) Kathmandu Urban Population Organic (%) Total Recyclables (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) 25.82.47.236 59.ANNEX ANNEX I (continued) MSW Composition Data for Cities Over 100.05.983 13.835 7.72.173 68 — 8 — 2 11 11 79 .227 10.

50 0.252.603 40.6 0.959 63 6.188 11.75 0.000 1.9 1.000 6.194 69.000 750.75 0.668.000 5.423.088 23.000 24.047.000 237.15 2.3 1.778.7 0.726.096 3.136.204.000 25.000 6.000 18.53 1.8 2.000 405.000 1.000 42.95 2.000 76.03 0.115.822 1.000 526.000 48.839 13.000 397.23 0.903 8.151 10.162 1.15 1.000 3.000 2.000 10.535 19.000 17.03 1.34 1.50 1.425 1.684.722.333 2.036 3.782.493 1.287.000 55.445.8 1 2.000 8.000 16.7 0.596 26.7 0.000 228. Rep.282 511.658 8.096 1.000 6.50 1.566.37 1.000 2.813 4.882.000 875.288 29.000 2.2 0.274.000 6.000 8.50 0.6 0.947.479 13.000 2025 MSW GenUrban eration Per Population Capita (kg/ capita/day) 2.356 740 6.934 2.8 1.195 9.575.000 2.000 26.755 66.000 7.420 2.000 1.831.78 1.10 1.174 2.000 5.33 0.000 526.000 428.368.690 356 1.10 2.000 8.863 890 149.6 0.018.283.87 0.547.781 712 Total Population 3.25 1.000 1.7 0.164 13.000 19.526.225.000 46. The Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo.980.596 12.096 247 6.074.65 2.68 2.18 1.687 878.918 359 9.7 4.000 7.912.000 3.233.65 2.716 2.684.548 27.407 46.000 5.329 137 41.209.203 151 80.577.000 2.447 595.050 225.3 2.062 17.000 1.027.057.658 1.231.970 29.689 574.524 19.070 18.000 44.335 8.450.260 4.914.48 0.894. Congo.362.435.833.324.184 931.103.908.288 4.000 10.000 5.018 5.000 822.078 13.397.273 124.460.328 0.000 46.54 1.000 12.288 14.957.368.945 438 1.566.959 1.974 2.46 0.000 27.040.525.808 88 14.000 346.02 0.735.922 7.000 35.000 30.8 1.563.599.2 2. El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Income Level LMI LMI LMI HIC UMI LMI HIC HIC HIC HIC LI HIC UMI HIC UMI LI LMI LMI UMI UMI HIC UMI LI LI LMI HIC LMI LI LI UMI LMI LMI LI LI LMI UMI LI UMI UMI HIC HIC HIC UMI LMI LMI LMI LMI LI HIC LI UMI Region ECA MENA AFR LCR LCR ECA OECD OECD LCR MENA SAR LCR ECA OECD LCR AFR SAR LCR AFR LCR EAP ECA AFR AFR AFR OECD AFR AFR AFR LCR EAP LCR AFR AFR AFR LCR AFR ECA LCR ECA OECD OECD LCR LCR LCR MENA LCR AFR ECA AFR EAP Current Available Data MSW GenTotal MSW Generation Total Urban eration Per Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/ capita/day) day) 1.511.293.000 972.000 107.759 7.735 2.51 0.591.616 137 795 1.622.677.000 903.625.40 3.000 819.28 0. Dem.488.227 330. Arab Rep.681.392 1.000 2.356 7.628 161.7 1.000 206.056. Rep.30 2.445.289 7.367 3.5 1.390.000 389.664 5.266.33 1.041 83.7 1.006.000 43.7 1.906 274.1 2.85 1.498 24.011.960 554 8.000 760.690 1.224 3.000 12.393.265.822 3.000 303.759 13.513.418.36 0.77 2.265.754 50.33 2.113 2.000 98.903.481.21 0.175 282.000 37.596.493 520.000 9.55 0.286.50 1.000 5.415 5.24 1.000 9.000 15.678.23 2.596 92.507.000 17.6 1.549.339 1.000 8.504.996.1 Total MSW Generation (tonnes/day) 2.170 .082 49.288 384 6.844 4.000 557.000 426.75 1.5 1.326 10.920 545 5.907 33.742.5 1.217.342 36.024.000 9.1 0.003 1.80 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX J MSW Generation by Country — Current Data and Projections for 2025 Country Albania Algeria Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Bahamas.000 5.634.942 339.027.470.699 329 1.707 7.973.779 144.000 5.850.75 4 1.000 1.566.75 0.284 18.000 7.525 16. Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt.000 124.000 31.662.964.47 0.899.910.3 0.145 1.049 1.000 11.45 0.000 905.13 0.000 55.7 1.6 1.523.81 2.336 46.400 57.269 851 36.3 1.793 5.7 0.75 1.410 860.172.977 10.000 4.266.384 438 5.179 368 1.549.29 0.000 152.587.000 15.578.000 17.000 206.87 1.233.194.8 0.000 23.583 9.763.805 700.000 14.000 31.862.000 1.671 38.10 0.597 2.447.504.2 1.07 1.1 1.465 728 6.257 5.000 69.718 608 8.179.2 1.77 1.539.50 0.43 4.657 12.499 10.08 1.48 5.000 12.000 101.5 2.826 2.285 18.006.13 1.288 822 630 16.551.000 22.22 0.528 21.000 6.033 252.147.729.230 8.4 1.855.973.

000 58.659.052 5.295 4.000 55.000 11.33 1.000 24.522 708.350.268 680 3.769 6.019.385 .680.633 9.9 1.45 0.769.12 2.000 473.263 390.733.301 1.000 3.000 1.85 2.030 90.000 16.784.154 2.6 1.000 61.783.85 0.832.000 850.464.398 2.000 1.114 14.4 1.80 0.10 2.000 230.000 4.755.000 4.000 1.954.000 233.00 5.000 2.993.907 3.176.000 2.4 4 1.50 1.544.698 46.236.014 1.000 674.06 0.000 29.726.772.03 1.950 47.895.103 7.000 8.102.504 2.549.604 280.524.305.134 6.094 519.353.000 23.152 9.493 5.478.972 4.71 1.275.991 107.623.934.538 832 1.140 7.055.7 0.24 0.288.720.000 2.610 14.3 2 3.000 19.486.85 0.000 21.227.969 84.499.7 0.7 0.464.219.850.600 3.432 10.000 124.954.641 70.47 1.000 33.000 535.301.077.753.769.994.8 1.2 1.318 Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong.92 7.000 38.000 9.203.527.52 2.34 0.946 3.000 569.99 1.144.000 8. China Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran. Islamic Rep.956 805 11.000 49.193.000 2.493.466 1.000 108.000 2.18 1.000 538.6 3 2.209 1.988.353.054 92 22.639 151.8 2 2 1.370.48 0.952.7 1.8 1.11 0.447.959 89.762 1.75 1.548.022 534 376.865.197.816 12.226.000 4.50 0.560.011.206 79.316.485 4.000 20.000 1.1 2.776.75 0.5 0.000 9.000 8.04 0.589 61.014 904 23.1 2 7.203 126.6 1.296 60.855.374.692 16.926 51.205.52 0.588 2.211.000 6.30 1.000 31.31 1.989 7.977.938.275.805.736 4.857 15.000 416.3 0.000 7.000 3.66 1.000 411.000 121.148 321.180 3.000 3.096 247 144.85 0.890 12.966.698 5.496 15.962 86.000 8.425 3.5 2 2.260 10.227.809 1.110 13.734 1.550.000 13.456.064 384.58 2.000 271.000 5.2 0.466 4.7 1.09 2.341.000 7.655 513 8.234 0.569 3.904 438 109.139 215.5 1.163 461.072.000 178.00 1.158 10.71 2.000 65.000 1.589.000 683.706.000 2.162 1.65 1.305.967 31.000 1.926.237.987.012 1.027.75 1.187.406.000 314.272.389 7.982 8.70 1.403 6.000 102.000 2.460.000 88.000 37.341.000 48.69 2.324 5.78 0.000 6.247 21.000 2.258 1.616 356 427 1.151 21.000 1.510 38.644 7.713.000 14.722.000 8.233 4.916.53 1.000 431.000 11.653.000 3.000 3.000 42. China Macedonia.00 2.45 1.50 1.000 53.397 15.000 535.534 685 603 1.120 39.000 11.000 57.000 7.867 44.342 1.965.833.8 2.000 0.342 1.695.389 12.564.683.675 822.192. Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kenya Korea.000 7.5 2.713.95 1.000 3.908.700 6.698.23 0.92 1.067 1.179.000 27.112.000 2.000 40.918 175 2.847.000 5.534.000 337.05 0.000 2.256.2 1.682.14 0.ANNEX 81 ANNEX J (continued) MSW Generation by Country — Current Data and Projections for 2025 Country Income Level Region Current Available Data MSW GenTotal MSW Generation Total Urban eration Per Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/ capita/day) day) Total Population 2025 MSW GenUrban eration Per Population Capita (kg/ capita/day) Total MSW Generation (tonnes/day) Finland France HIC HIC OECD OECD 3.45 1.890 2.000 19.18 0.12 521 438 3.474 904 685 1.13 1.816 1.429.000 41.079.562 1.158.530.000 28.195 99.717.7 0.171 58.000 80.483 179 1.249 2.448.000 2.760 1.216 11.24 5. South Kuwait Lao PDR Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Lithuania Luxembourg Macao.271 117.250 2.197 9. FYR Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal UMI LI LMI HIC LI HIC UMI LMI LMI LI LMI HIC HIC HIC LMI LMI LMI HIC HIC HIC UMI HIC LMI LI HIC HIC LI UMI UMI LMI UMI HIC HIC LMI LI LI UMI LMI LI HIC LI UMI UMI LMI LMI LI LI LMI LI AFR AFR ECA OECD AFR OECD LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR EAP OECD OECD SAR EAP MENA OECD MENA OECD LCR OECD MENA AFR OECD MENA EAP ECA MENA AFR ECA OECD EAP ECA AFR AFR EAP SAR AFR MENA AFR AFR LCR EAP MENA AFR EAP AFR SAR 1.9 2.945.499 85 10.30 1.930.520 1.029.000 10.731.290 1.000 3.1 1.614.979 16.1 0.151 3.95 2 0.000 8.534 2.000 66.615.493.05 0.330.50 2.9 0.44 0.776 466.56 0.16 3.46 0.001.000 86.900.476.589.000 3.904 127.305.244.816 3.974 15.836 230 2.000 1.041 936 2.921 40.72 0.000 12.560 146.

000 417.493 33.000 958.30 2.000 10.205 23.187.842 3.71 14.623.8 2.992.921.148.000 9.439.052.404 60.000 89.720.30 0.255 2.389.299 3.500 1.170.401.26 1.501.029.063 73.130 5.80 0.000 2.041 129 904 7.000 1.783.712.000 8.848.000 216.630 13.25 32.066.000 7.7 1.76 0.000 67.37 0.333 343.438 630 18.21 4.091 9.956.410 15.687 6.452 1.143 2.000 2.98 0.000 21.941.076 3.137 15.479 2.8 1.662.85 31.329 11.000 9.027 822 44 20.000 5.781 22.029.068.678.945 13.042.573.05 2.267.625 88.400 6.33 1.250.3 1.771 14.187 5.308.000 27.000 36.000 15.000 1.400 3.082 100.56 2.5 0.13 5.45 1.959.000 64.259 48.061.981.386.04 0.233 82 2.21 1.12 3.000 128.862 50.299 43.162.320 18.300.085 120.000 6.600.337.193.398 4.949.21 0.063.9 1.95 0.959 10.240 107.980 0.717 4.000 69.073 2.000 9.192 219 53.780 2.073.525.000 3.629 732 72.453.1 4 4 4 1.05 1.000 3.000 115.700.494.000 224.096.764.008.165 2.256 140 50.25 0.164 1.000 705.6 1.000 60.605.577 11.584.7 1.000 34.000 23.693.776 27.000 7.510 58.104.425 39.639.831.082 4.000 11.3 1.830.390.000 1.846.142 50.000 8.425 72.7 4 2 2.98 10.000 155.000 5.019 3.55 1.36 0.814.909.000 5.329 14.021 28.293 3.5 0.000 2.000 482.352.000 7.119 48.953.493 1.147 2.000 4.566 56.860.653.162.960.242.331 270.069 44.356 .6 1.229.105 150 3.85 1.000 5.49 1.797.989.000 3.301 2.206 12.000 46.5 10 1.000 1.7 0.70 27.812 17.000 23.082 1. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Income Level Region Current Available Data MSW GenTotal MSW Generation Total Urban eration Per Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/ capita/day) day) Total Population 2025 MSW GenUrban eration Per Population Capita (kg/ capita/day) Total MSW Generation (tonnes/day) HIC HIC LMI LI LI HIC HIC LI UMI LMI LMI LMI UMI HIC HIC UMI UMI LI LI HIC LI UMI UMI LI HIC HIC HIC LI UMI HIC LMI UMI UMI UMI OECD OECD LCR AFR AFR OECD MENA SAR LCR LCR LCR EAP ECA OECD MENA ECA ECA AFR AFR MENA AFR ECA AFR AFR EAP OECD ECA EAP AFR OECD SAR LCR LCR LCR 13.000 3.000 20.2 0.81 1.109.49 1.146 78.79 2.45 4.673 15.000 12.000 61.85 1.584.999.000 112.854.85 0.068 40.300.000 8.878.000 94.616 1. Kitts and Nevis St.000 5.630 3.774.737 1.00 2.15 2 1.85 1.503.886 1.713 3.075.000 14.027 54.000 36.803.315 20.000 4.197.214 9.15 1.6 0.000 4.000 1.978.478.129.485.926 15.000 96.000 5.000 210.82 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX J (continued) MSW Generation by Country — Current Data and Projections for 2025 Country Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia Solomon Islands South Africa Spain Sri Lanka St.932 86.438 3.307 9.52 0.350 35.000 34.162 144.388.643 6.329 12.00 0.899.000 126.648.000 4.244 5.205 759.52 0.549 130 2.77 0.102.661.45 1.000 104.61 1.228.000 86.467 622 354 15.21 1.014 12.70 0.777 3.000 125.1 3 1.52 3. Lucia St.280 1.357 9.79 1.320 92 256 128 LMI UMI LMI HIC HIC LMI LI LI LMI LI LMI HIC LMI UMI LMI AFR LCR AFR OECD OECD MENA ECA AFR EAP AFR EAP LCR MENA ECA ECA 12.890.93 0.036.49 0.026.000 37.000 3.061.000 466 137 12.519.000 26.236.110 3.068 82 192 82 16.127 101.65 0.000 2.000 195.51 1.178.172 2.740 29.840 22.830.424 7.75 0.063.267.673 4.000 8.000 8.839.88 2.89 0.402 1.61 2.418.983 7.000 52.000 183.490.104.000 59.000 30.000 389.10 5.15 1.205 4.9 1.629.000 5.05 1.84 1.68 1.992 26.442 986.245 135.2 2.941 2.645 6.557.830 77.593.398.000 19.929.50 0.37 1.000 4.038.85 3.000 25.000 3.239 4.654.614.883 15.10 0.962 4.634.000 16.910 10.105 109.925.000 6.328.000 5.000 29.85 2.000 17.000 1.220.612.438 2.000 37.000 291000 8.40 0.000 68.000 3.4 0.000 29.123 1.35 1.

566.389 339 240 1.000 59.411.545 379 257 1.6 3 1.010.879.293 0.059.080 241.78 1.012.709 2.15 1.811 LCR 33 400 1.286 1.313 10.507 35.969.069.255 7.393 3.930.65 2 1.53 1.55 0.56 728.092.713.738.86 584.11 3.000 40.85 2.909 3.939 734 0.16 665.000 15.545 682 466 1.700 329 110 25.255 7.804 Upper Middle Income 35 572 1.21 0.277 Summary by Income Level Income Level Number of Countries Included Current Available Data Projections for 2025 Urban MSW Generation Total Urban Population (millions) Per Capita (kg/capita/day) Projected Population Total (tonnes/day) Total Population (millions) Projected Urban MSW Generation Urban Population (millions) Per Capita (kg/capita/day) Total (tonnes/day) Lower Income 38 343 0.000 7.000 3.357.14 1.85 441.637 676 0.001.392 MENA 16 162 1.320 OECD 27 729 2.742.840 EAP 17 777 0.539.972.8 0.13 1.515 701.000 106.000 9.708 4.555 0. RB Vietnam Zambia Zimbabwe Income Level LI HIC HIC HIC UMI LMI UMI LI LI LI Region AFR MENA OECD OECD LCR EAP LCR EAP AFR AFR Current Available Data MSW GenTotal MSW Generation Total Urban eration Per Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/ capita/day) day) 3.ANNEX 83 ANNEX J (continued) MSW Generation by Country — Current Data and Projections for 2025 Country Uganda United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Vanuatu Venezuela.59 987.000 34.342.548.705 Summary by Region Current Available Data Region Number of Countries Total Urban Included Population (millions) Projections for 2025 Urban MSW Generation Per Capita (kg/ capita/day) Total (tonnes/day) Projected Population Total (millions) Projected Urban MSW Generation Urban (millions) Per Capita (kg/ capita/day) Total (tonnes/ day) AFR 42 261 0.000 16.590 Total 161 2.000 3.42 6.532.34 1.586 888 619 1.5 1.478.802 1.77 567.356 2025 MSW GenUrban eration Per Population Capita (kg/ capita/day) Total Population 54.983 24.333.272 Lower Middle Income 42 1.66 1.52 1.862.28 1.959 2.430 22.000 328.321 4.648 4.120 1.011 2.09 437.45 192.000 113.12 254.19 3.60 204.58 0.06 1.774 5.124 1.032 842 2.505.649.268.192 97.089 72.039 High Income 46 774 2.43 369.648 4.000 35.417 SAR 7 426 0.184 110.230 1.025.705 .48 354.07 1.373.000 305.336 54.000 0.46 0.7 Total MSW Generation (tonnes/day) 6.153 518 0.179 4.190.342 624.287 1.79 2.546 1.091.539.411 1.26 2.380 ECA 19 227 1.000 6.42 6.287 1.000 354.112 912 2.140 2.618.068 842 2.545 Total 161 2.982 1.07 173.19 3.95 738.532.000 6.982 1.080 1.161 33.069.865.000 65.65 169.526.450.081 4.011.000 339 51.000 5.3 0.

84 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX K MSW Collection Rates by Country Country Albania Algeria Andorra Antigua and Barbuda Armenia Austria Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Brazil Bulgaria Cambodia Canada Colombia Comoros Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Czech Republic Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt. South Latvia Lebanon Luxembourg Income Region Collection (%) Urban/Total LMI UMI HIC HIC LMI HIC UMI HIC LMI LI UMI UMI LI HIC UMI LI UMI HIC UMI HIC HIC UMI UMI LMI LMI LMI HIC HIC HIC LMI HIC LI HIC UMI LMI LMI LI LMI HIC HIC HIC LMI LMI HIC HIC UMI HIC LMI HIC UMI UMI HIC ECA MENA OECD LCR ECA OECD ECA OECD LCR AFR LCR ECA EAP OECD LCR AFR LCR ECA LCR OECD OECD LCR LCR LCR MENA LCR ECA OECD OECD ECA OECD AFR OECD LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR EAP OECD OECD EAP MENA OECD OECD LCR OECD MENA OECD ECA MENA OECD 77 92 100 95 80 100 100 100 50 23 83 81 75 99 98 20 74 92 76 100 100 94 69 81 30-95 71 79 100 100 60 100 85 100 100 72 89 11 68 100 90 100 80 56 76 100 62 100 95+ 99 50 100 100 T U T T T T T T T T T T U T T T T T T T T T T T U T T T T T T U T T T T T T T T T U T T T T T U T T U T . Arab Rep. El Salvador Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong. China Hungary Iceland Indonesia Iraq Ireland Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Korea.

RB West Bank and Gaza Zambia Income Region Collection (%) Urban/Total HIC LI LI HIC LMI UMI UMI HIC LMI LI HIC LMI HIC UMI LMI UMI HIC UMI LI UMI UMI LI HIC HIC HIC UMI UMI UMI UMI HIC HIC LMI LI HIC LMI UMI LI HIC HIC UMI UMI LMI LI EAP AFR AFR MENA EAP AFR LCR OECD MENA SAR OECD LCR OECD LCR LCR LCR OECD ECA AFR ECA AFR AFR EAP OECD ECA LCR LCR LCR LCR OECD OECD MENA AFR LCR MENA ECA AFR OECD OECD LCR LCR MENA AFR 100 18 40 100 60 98 91 100 72-100 94 100 73 99 77 51 74 100 90 21 65 95 33-55 100 100 93 98 100 91 80 100 99 80 48 100 95 77 39 100 100 86 86 85 20 T T T T T T T T T U T T T T T T T T T T T U T T T T T T T T T U U T U T U T T T T U T 85 . Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St.ANNEX ANNEX K (continued) MSW Collection Rates by Country Country Macao. China Madagascar Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Monaco Morocco Nepal Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Panama Paraguay Peru Portugal Romania Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Tanzania Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uganda United Kingdom United States Uruguay Venezuela.

00 100.62 55.70 55.00 MENA 10 55.00 ECA 12 50.00 High Income 35 76.00 SAR 1 Total 95 Region MSW Collection (%) 94.00 100.00 EAP 6 60.00 LCR 28 10.20 95+ Upper Middle Income 27 50.00 Total 95 Summary by Region Number of Countries Included Lower Limit Upper Limit AFR 12 17.00 100.00 Lower Middle Income 20 50.60 95+ OECD 26 76.00 100.86 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX K (continued) MSW Collection Rates by Country Summary by Income Level Income Level Number of Countries Included MSW Collection (%) Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Income 13 10.62 100.00 100.00 .

20 — 12.50 100.00 — — 54.95 69.90 11.00 69.40 4.04 — — — — — — — 6 9 — — 12 — 74 — 14 — — — 2 39 — — — — — — — — 32 — — — — 0.77 — — — — 12.37 — — — — — — — — — 37 24 — — — — — — — — — — — 60 37 — — — — — — — — — 95 — — 34 100.20 Compost (%) 1.90 — — — 17.39 27.57 100.00 22.03 — — 10 78 4 76 — 0 — — — — — 6 15 — — — 1 50 — 100 — 13 63 — — 132 — 17 — 38 87 .24 15. China2 Madagascar2 Malta Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Monaco4 Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua UMI MNA HIC LCR LMI HIC HIC UMI HIC LMI UMI LI LMI HIC UMI UMI UMI HIC UMI HIC HIC HIC UMI HIC UMI LMI LMI LI HIC HIC HIC HIC HIC HIC UMI HIC LMI HIC LI UMI UMI UMI HIC HIC LI HIC LMI UMI UMI HIC LMI HIC HIC LMI ECA OECD OECD ECA OECD LCR ECA EAP AFR OECD LCR LCR LCR ECA LCR ECA OECD OECD LCR OECD LCR LCR LCR LCR EAP OECD OECD OECD MENA OECD LCR OECD MENA OECD ECA ECA MENA ECA OECD EAP AFR MENA EAP AFR LCR OECD MENA OECD OECD LCR Dumps (%) 96.28 — — — — — — — 1 9 — — 33 — — — — — — 8 — 19 — 4 — 6 — — — — 23 — — Recycled (%) WTE (%) Other (%) 2.97 54.74 0.00 — — — 30.57 — 8 — — — — 45 3 16 34 10 — — 17 — 49 — — 8 4 23 — — — 31 2 3 4 4 25 15 — — — 21.00 46.90 — — — 100.00 95.00 — — 1.48 — — — 0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — 13.80 1.54 — 31.10 — — 60.00 — — — — — — — 100.80 Landfills (%) 0.80 — 1.09 100.72 4. China Hungary Iceland2 Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan3 Korea. South Kyrgyz Republic Latvia Lebanon Lithuania Luxembourg Macao.00 26.10 — 3.75 96.34 26.10 — — — 5.27 25.00 87.66 6.10 — 34.78 5.00 92 90 22 59 — 55 90 72 66 90 54 100 3 85 36 100 40 46 44 19 21 97 88 — 91 97 27 1 2 85 28 — — 44.74 — — 5.20 79.29 2.00 99.00 71.00 82.00 11.ANNEX ANNEX L MSW Disposal Methods by Country Country Income Region Algeria Antigua and Barbuda Armenia Australia Austria Belarus Belgium Belize Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominica Greece Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Hong Kong.78 — — 0.00 22.

Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Landfill includes non-controlled dumping sites. Recycled amount refers to both recycled and composted waste. 2. Percentages may not add up to 100 because residues of some treatments. see Annex C. are landfilled. . 4. landfill includes ash from incineration. where the waste is classfied and then sent to different destinations. Landfilling refers to all waste disposed on land. 5. 1. 3. other includes wastes imported from France for incineration with energy recovery. RB West Bank and Gaza LI HIC UMI LMI UMI UMI HIC UMI HIC HIC HIC HIC UMI AFR OECD LCR LCR LCR ECA OECD ECA EAP OECD ECA OECD LCR — — 20 42 19 — — — — — — — — 64 26 56 44 66 92 64 75 15 78 86 52 100 — 15 — — — 3 6 — — 1 — 33 — 4 34 — — — 4 9 — 47 1 — 9 — — 25 — — — 0 21 — — 12 — 7 — 32 0 24 14 15 — — 25 49 7 14 — — UMI UMI LCR LCR — — 70 78 — — — — — — 30 22 UMI HIC HIC LCR OECD OECD 100 — — — 5 1 — 10 16 — 34 34 — 50 50 0 1 — LMI MENA >60 <25 <5 <15 — — LMI HIC EAP LCR — 6 — — — 14 — — — 85 94 LMI UMI LI HIC HIC UMI UMI LMI MENA ECA AFR OECD OECD LCR LCR MENA 45 66 — — — 32 59 69 50 30 100 64 54 3 — 30 0 1 — 9 8 — — — 5 — — 17 24 — — 1 — 0 — 8 14 — — — — 3 — 1 — 66 41 — NOTES: For sources and year of data. MSW includes industrial waste from manufacturing industries. 6. Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uganda United Kingdom United States Uruguay Venezuela. such as incineration and composting. All waste is taken to landfills.88 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX L (continued) MSW Disposal Methods by Country Dumps (%) Landfills (%) Compost (%) Recycled (%) Country Income Region WTE (%) Other (%) Niger Norway Panama Paraguay Peru Poland Portugal5 Romania Singapore6 Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain St. such as recycling and composting plants.

ANNEX ANNEX L (continued) MSW Disposal Methods by Country Summary by Income Level Income Level Number of Countries Included Lower Income Lower Middle Income Upper Middle Income High Income Total 7 17 27 39 90 Summary by Region Region AFR EAP ECA LCR MENA OECD SAR Total Number of Countries Included 6 6 13 27 10 0 28 90 89 .

Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Income Level Region LMI UMI HIC UMI LMI HIC HIC LI UMI HIC LMI LI LMI LMI UMI HIC LI LMI HIC UMI UMI UMI HIC UMI HIC HIC HIC UMI LMI LI UMI HIC HIC LI LMI HIC LI HIC LMI LI LMI HIC HIC HIC LMI LMI LMI HIC HIC HIC UMI HIC ECA MENA OECD LCR ECA OECD OECD SAR ECA OECD LCR AFR SAR LCR LCR EAP EAP AFR OECD LCR LCR LCR ECA LCR ECA OECD OECD LCR MENA AFR EAP OECD OECD AFR ECA OECD AFR OECD LCR AFR LCR EAP OECD OECD SAR EAP MENA OECD MENA OECD LCR OECD Organic (%) 38 70 19 40 51 47 35 71 29 39 60 52 58 24 61 44 55 48 24 50 54 50 46 69 38 18 29 39 60 88 68 33 32 35 39 14 64 47 44 58 49 38 29 26 35 62 43 25 40 29 57 26 Paper (%) 10 10 26 24 12 23 22 5 28 17 20 3 17 6 15 22 3 4 47 19 11 21 20 12 27 8 27 14 10 4 15 40 20 10 34 34 3 20 18 9 24 26 15 26 3 6 22 31 25 28 13 46 Plastic (%) 8 5 14 14 10 4 11 7 10 5 5 7 13 8 15 2 10 5 3 10 10 18 12 10 11 4 1 36 12 2 8 10 9 — 3 22 4 9 13 4 10 19 17 17 2 10 11 11 13 5 18 9 Glass (%) 5 1 11 5 9 7 8 — 13 7 5 2 4 2 3 4 8 4 6 2 5 2 7 5 1 4 5 1 3 1 3 5 10 2 3 12 — 5 5 1 2 3 2 4 1 9 2 5 3 13 5 7 Metal (%) 5 2 3 2 5 5 5 — 7 3 5 2 1 1 2 5 7 5 13 2 2 2 4 2 9 2 6 1 2 1 3 5 3 2 5 5 1 5 4 1 2 2 2 3 — 8 9 4 3 2 4 8 Other (%) 34 12 27 15 14 13 19 16 13 29 5 1 7 59 5 13 17 35 8 4 18 7 11 3 13 63 32 10 13 4 4 7 26 51 16 12 28 16 16 27 12 12 35 24 59 4 13 23 16 22 3 12 . China Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran. Islamic Rep. Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Guinea Guyana Hong Kong.90 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX M MSW Composition by Country Country Albania Algeria Andorra Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Brazil Brunei Darussalam Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominican Republic Egypt. Arab Rep.

China Macedonia. South Lao PDR Latvia Lebanon Liberia Luxembourg Macao. FYR Madagascar Malaysia Mali Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Niger Nigeria Norway Pakistan Panama Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Senegal Serbia Sierra Leone Singapore Slovak Republic Solomon Islands Spain Sri Lanka St.ANNEX ANNEX M (continued) MSW Composition by Country Country Jordan Korea. Vincent and the Grenadines Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uganda United States Uruguay Income Level Region LMI HIC LI UMI UMI LI HIC HIC UMI LI UMI LI LMI UMI UMI LMI LI LI LI HIC HIC LI LMI HIC LMI UMI UMI LMI UMI HIC UMI LI UMI LI HIC HIC LMI HIC LMI UMI HIC HIC LMI LMI LI LMI HIC LMI UMI LI HIC UMI MENA OECD EAP ECA MENA AFR OECD EAP ECA AFR EAP AFR EAP AFR LCR MENA AFR EAP SAR OECD OECD AFR AFR OECD SAR LCR LCR EAP ECA OECD ECA AFR ECA AFR EAP OECD EAP OECD SAR LCR OECD OECD MENA EAP AFR EAP LCR MENA ECA AFR OECD LCR Organic (%) 62 28 46 57 63 43 45 4 20 52 62 18 20 70 51 69 69 54 80 35 56 38 57 30 67 44 55 41 38 34 46 44 5 85 44 38 65 49 76 34 — 29 65 48 46 47 14 68 40-65 78 25 54 Paper (%) 11 24 6 — 18 10 22 4 24 4 7 4 15 12 15 19 12 8 7 26 21 2 11 33 5 25 7 19 10 21 11 10 37 — 28 13 6 21 11 32 68 20 10 15 4 31 32 9 7-18 3 34 20 Plastic (%) 16 8 10 — 7 13 1 24 11 1 12 2 15 9 6 4 10 16 3 19 8 2 18 9 18 11 4 14 10 11 3 3 12 — 12 7 17 12 6 12 2 15 12 14 10 5 24 11 5-14 1 12 11 Glass (%) 2 5 8 — 5 1 12 4 5 1 3 1 5 2 6 4 3 7 3 4 3 — 5 4 2 8 3 3 12 7 11 1 10 — 4 8 5 8 1 8 11 4 4 5 2 3 3 2 2-6 1 5 3 Metal (%) 2 7 12 — 3 2 4 1 3 1 6 4 20 3 3 3 2 8 1 4 7 1 5 4 — 5 2 5 8 4 5 3 5 — 5 3 6 4 1 6 2 3 2 4 2 8 16 4 1-6 2 8 5 Other (%) 6 28 21 43 4 31 16 63 37 41 10 1 22 4 18 2 4 7 7 12 5 57 4 20 7 7 28 18 23 23 24 39 31 15 7 31 2 7 5 8 17 29 7 14 35 5 12 6 7-24 16 16 8 91 .

Summary by Income Level Income Level Lower Income Lower Middle Income Upper Middle Income High Income Total Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) Number of Countries Included Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit 22 27 18 20 88 76 2 3 21 34 1 2 20 18 1 1 8 9 1 1 12 20 1 2 57 59 25 5 70 7 37 3 36 1 13 1 8 3 43 35 109 4 56 4 68 1 24 1 13 1 16 5 63 Summary by Region Region AFR EAP ECA LCR MENA OECD SAR Total Number of Countries Included 19 17 12 18 10 6 27 109 Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit 18 4 5 14 40 14 35 88 71 65 69 70 56 80 2 2 10 6 9 8 3 21 31 37 32 25 68 17 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 20 24 12 36 16 22 18 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 5 9 13 8 5 13 4 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 5 20 9 16 9 13 1 1 2 11 3 2 5 5 57 63 43 59 16 63 59 .92 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX M (continued) MSW Composition by Country Country Vanuatu Vietnam West Bank and Gaza Zambia Zimbabwe Income Level Region LMI LI LMI LI LI EAP EAP MENA AFR AFR Organic (%) Paper (%) 71 60 61 50 40 Plastic (%) 11 2 14 5 21 Glass (%) 8 16 7 5 20 Metal (%) 3 7 3 2 4 Other (%) 4 6 2 2 4 3 9 13 37 11 NOTE: For sources and year of data. see Annex C.

9 2.6 2. The percentages given may therefore not add up to 100%.3 2 2 11.9 18 3.5 2 15 4.8 11.6 1.5 1.9 16.5 3.3 5. The region-specific values are calculated from national.3 3.1 3.7 2 Rubber/ Leather Plastic Metal Glass Other 1 0.4 Eastern Europe Northern Europe Southern Europe Western Europe 30.4 7.4 21.6 2.9 8.6 2.7 10.1 17 6.5 3 1 1.5 25 9.9 43.8 44.4 7. Some regions may not have data for some waste types .5 6.3 5.3 43.5 4 2.8 9.3 12.6 11 Australia & New Zealand Rest of Oceania 36 67.2 7.4 Textiles Asia 3.4 1.5 30 6 24 2.1 18.6 7 10 8 14.3 2.5 2.7 3.7 2. 2.4 51.9 Africa 1. partly incomplete composition data.6 5.8 0.5 2.8 30.blanks in the table represent missing data.1 23 40.4 6.5 2.9 9.5 41.2 13.9 4.8 16.6 14.9 23.7 3.7 2.7 1.6 1.2 13 3.4 1.1 23.5 7.5 4.ANNEX ANNEX N IPCC Classification of MSW Composition Region Food Waste Paper/ Cardboard Wood Eastern Asia South-Central Asia South-Eastern Asia Western Asia & Middle East 26.1 5.2 13.5 1 Europe 4.8 12.8 3.8 3.5 4.9 43.6 17 27.9 5 6.2 40.9 0.9 24. 93 .5 1.5 7.7 17.7 9.8 7 6.9 46.5 Oceania America 3.5 4.3 13 3.3 1.2 21.5 10 10.8 36.5 2.5 North America Central America South America Caribbean 33.5 3.9 9.2 6.7 2.3 6.7 16.8 Eastern Africa Middle Africa Northern Africa Southern Africa Western Africa 53. Data are based on weight of wet waste of MSW without industrial waste at generation around year 2000.1 NOTES: 1.8 0.

ca . report. So too will the day-to-day challenges of garbage collection.org) that allows participating cities across the world to standardize the collection of their indicators and analyze and share the results and best practices on service delivery and quality of life. Suite 1100 Toronto. Ontario M5S 1T9 Canada Tel + 416-966-2368 Fax +416-966-0478 www. verifying. and the myriad of other services that make life more productive and enjoyable. A Board of Directors and an Advisory Board oversee the Global City Indicators Facility and provide technical and advisory support to the Facility. and facilitating the provision of water. international organizations. The Global City Indicators Program is run by the Global City Indicators Facility based at the University of Toronto. The Global City Indicators Program was initiated by the World Bank through funding from the Government of Japan. electricity. education. facilitate capacity building. and improve their performance and quality of life. The Global City Indicators Program process encompasses monitoring. and academia. Standardized indicators are essential in order to measure the performance of cities. such as poverty reduction. For more information. The Global City Indicators Program (GCIP) is a decentralized. reporting. climate change. The Global City Indicators Program. driven by cities themselves. Through the collection and analysis of city data in a comparative format and data domain. economic development. Similar to a Wikipedia approach. responding to the house on fire and larger disasters.utoronto.cityindicators. city managers and the public will be able to monitor the performance of their cities over time based on a core set of indicators. The Boards are made up of representatives from cities. which manages the development of indicators and assists cities in joining the Program. The Global City Indicators Program is organized into two broad categories: city services (which includes services typically provided by city governments and other entities) and quality of life (which includes critical contributors to overall quality of life. fills this important gap. city-led initiative that enables cities to measure. capture trends and developments. health care. The two categories are structured around 18 themes. and share best practices through an easy-to-use web portal. the Global City Indicators Program is a dynamic web-based resource (www. though the city government may have little direct control on these activities). and amending the indicators. and the creation and maintenance of an inclusive and peaceful society. Managing cities effectively and efficiently is critical and becoming more complex as population growth and economic development are taking place in urban areas. Indicators need to be anchored on baseline data and need to be sufficiently broad to capture social and economic aspects of urban development.org cityindicators@daniels. Today’s big challenges. and support cities in becoming global partners. The pace of change within and among cities is increasing. elected officials.cityindicators. will all need to be met through the responses of cities. in addition to enhancing government accountability to the public. GCIP assists cities in providing support to decision makers in making informed policy decisions.94 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX O The Global City Indicators Program No single standard or comprehensive system to measure and monitor city performance and urban quality of life exists today. please contact the Global City Indicators Facility at: 170 Bloor Street West.

M. Bingh. Shrestha. Globalization. Bangladesh. 2008.jsp?id=283762&idioma=I &sector=&type=NEWS (accessed October 2009). 2009.REFERENCES References Achankeng. Solid waste generation up 7. G. 95 . UNEP and GIRD-Adrenal. Solid Waste Removal in Maputo and Durban. A. S. Atudorei. Denmark Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ghana. Available at: http://www. University of Science and Technology.capetown. Deihimfard. Bosnia-Herzegovina.html (accessed October 2009). 2004. Prepared by Bangladesh DoE. Western Balkan (Albania. Washington. Bangladesh Department of Environment. EPA. Available at: http://www. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. capital of Nepal. Waste Management — A regional market overview. July 3 . 2008. Environmental Council of Zambia. Dhaka. Asase. and Kumasi. Waste Concern. Wits University. European Environment Agency. Smith (Ed.asp?id=4056 (accessed November 2009). 2004. Municipal Solid Waste — Waste generation and composition data. 1999.eu/atlas/viewdata/ viewpub.” Waste Management 29:2779-2786. Business News Americas.gdri-africancities.necz. R. Yanful. India). Nawaz. SAARC Workshop on Solid Waste Management. “Waste.. Grest. Eric. Available at: http://cpcb. 3rd Edition. L.za/en/SolidWaste/Pages/default. Solid waste management. Chowdhury. opportunities and challenges. October 10 . Al-Yousfi. E. 2009. CEROI. Haight. 2009. Available at: http://dataservice. Alam. L. State of the Environment in Dushanbe. IDRC.S.” Waste Management 29:1971-1981. Savarypour. storage. G. “Comparison of municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: A case study of the cities of London.pdf (accessed November 2009). UNEP.” Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases. 2006a.in/oldwebsite/ Municipal%20Solid%20Waste/Waste_generation_and_ Composition. 2004. June 2006.bnamericas. and M. B. O. EPA 430-R-06-005. Solid waste management and greenhouse gases — A life-cycle assessment of emission and sinks. Case Study — Region 8 — Bucharest – Ilfov. DC. Chalam. Urbanization and Municipal Solid Waste Management in Africa. Pakistan. 2008. Sound Environmental Management of Solid Waste — The Landfill Bioreactor.88% in 2003 – Bolivia. National Solid Waste Management Strategy for Zambia. Zand. Mensah. Ontario. Philippe and Catherine Gaillochet..zm/reports/National%20 Solid%20Waste%20Management%20Strategy.).4. CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board. 2004. Cities Environment Reports on the Internet. September 2006. Norway. Denmark Ministry of Foreign Affairs .europa. 2008. Asomani-Boateng. Batool. Damghani. “Reusing organic solid waste in urban farming in African cities: a challenge for urban planners. Karanjit. R. Environmental Protection Agency. European data set.gov. 2005.aspx (accessed November 2009). Croatia.nic. Third. Second. DC. A. Municipal waste generation per capita. Available at: www. Groupement de recherche international.org (accessed October 2009). Economica: Paris. Opportunities for utilizing waste biomass for energy in Uganda. 2003. Oslo. collection and transportation of municipal solid waste — A case study in the city of Kathmandu.Trade Council of Denmark. Workshop on Informality and Access to Services in Cities of Africa. 2006b. J. and M. M.S. 2001.” Waste Management 28:929-934.” In Urban Agriculture in West Africa — Contributing to Food Security and Urban Sanitation. 2008. 2004.12. B.com/content_print. Washington. J.” Waste Management 28:1088-1097. European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services. & Serbia). Stanford. Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management in Romania. Belarus Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.eea. U. African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific 2003 Conference. City of Cape Town. E. From Waste to Resources: World Waste Survey. “Municipal solid waste management in Tehran: Current practices. 2008. Amponsah. Fourth National Communication. “Generation. U.org. R. S. Available at: http://www. and ITN-BUET. “Municipal solid waste management in Lahore City District.. Hasan. EPA. M.

Ngara T.R. D.M. “Improving the solid waste management in Phnom Penh city: A strategic approach. “Sustainable solutions for solid waste management in Southeast Asian countries. Cameroon. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ngoc.” Waste Management 28:468-472. L. 2005. Pan American Health Organization. World Bank.. National Environmental Action Plan.cepis.” Waste Management 27:1680-1689. Z. Kgathi.009). M. 2008. International Solid Waste Association. East Asia and Pacific Region. D. Jin. and S. V. “The municipal solid waste system and solid waste characterization at the municipality of Veles. A. “Instruments for sustainable solid waste management in Botswana. Mongolia’s Initial National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Solid waste collection by the private sector: Households’ perspective—Findings from a study in Dar es Salaam city.Special Edition for the Mauritius International Meeting for the 10year Review of the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. Israel National Report on Climate Change — First National Communication to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2005. Macedonia. Chaudhry. and M. Imam.96 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES — KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Hanrahan. Kenya Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Coordinating Lead Author. ISWA. Sotamenou. D. “Municipal solid waste management in Africa: Strategies and livelihoods in Yaoundé. Ran.R. Olson. and B. Latvia Ministry of Environment. 2009. Hoornweg. Available at: http://www. 9. Sharp. Thomas. J. 2008. Lithuania Ministry of Environment. Miwa K.” Habitat International 30:769-780. Available at http://www. D. Ramakrishna. Cambridge University Press. Lithuania’s Third and Fourth National Communication on Climate Change. December 2009. B. 2004.. IPCC. Vienna.” Waste Management 26:1045-1051. OECD. Kamgnia Di. “Solid waste management in Abuja.org/residuossolidos/evaluacion/i/index. Bolaane. Harnpornchai. L. World Bank Environment Unit South Asia Region. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Hristovski. B. 2001. 2005. Parrot.R. Tanzania. Eggleston H. (Eds).. 2001. N. S. 2005. McIntyre.html#Scene_1 (accessed November 2009). Cheeseman. World Bank. East Asia Infrastructure Department. Kum. Municipal Solid Waste in India — Overview and Challenges. IPCC.” Waste Management 29:986-995. PAHO. 2006. “Solid waste management in Macaco: Practices and challenges. Chapter 10 — Waste management. Israel Ministry of the Environment. Hild. 2006. Burge. Schnitzer. Wang. and L. Government of Macedonia. 2000. J. OECD Environmental Data — Waste. 1999. Dave.S. Mohammed. 2009.. Bogner. Urban Development Working Papers No. First National Communication of Kenya to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. OECD. J. U and H. IGES. Wilson. A. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. S.” Waste Management 29:1982-1995. White Paper. R. Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations. Kassim. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.. L.. What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia.” Waste Management 25:101-109. A. D. Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Programme Solid Waste Management Centre. M.. Macedonia. Nigeria.ops-oms. and Tanabe K. Report on the Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in Latin America and the Caribbean. and C. D. S. Lam. Peterson. and B. Urban and Local Government Working Paper. 2005. O. . 1996. Meyer (eds).. Metz.metap-solidwaste. Ali. Pacific Environment Outlook .A. Davidson. 2006. P. K. 2006. Buendia L. 2009. UNEP and SPREP PROE.. Srivastava. Mongolia Ministry of Nature and the Environment. 2002. 2006. Bosch. Hoornweg. Waste and Climate Change.” Waste Management & Research 19:342-353. Fourth National Communication of the Republic of Latvia to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.C. Austria. 2007. org/ (accessed October 2. METAP. P. and N. 2007.

Available at: http://unstats. G..grida. 2008. Peterson. “Excise Tax on New Tires Proposed: Scrap Tires Arise As Special Disposal Problem.” Waste Management 29:465-469. “An Overview of the Issue of Solid Waste Management in Sri Lanka. W. National Conference on Solid Waste Management. Available at: http://maps. Compendium of Environmental Statistics in the ESCWA Region. and F. UNSD. S. December 15 -17. USA.” Waste Management 29:1438-1448. Tchobanoglous. United Nations Environment Programme Regional Resource Centre for Asia and the Pacific. 2006. Solomon.” UNEP/ GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. UNESCWA. Ruijs. Northern Ethiopia. Hagos. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. Slovenia’s Fourth National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bunch. 2002. Malaysia.” Waste Management 29:2787-2790. UNEP. Tang. 2005.thepatrioticvanguard. M. Vigil. H. “Sustainable solid waste management: An integrated approach for Asian countries.). Patriotic Vanguard. Inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases.org/unsd/ENVIRONMENT/qindicators. Singapore. H. O.. K. 2000. Havana. Available at http://www. Yangden..pdf (accessed July 2010) UN-Habitat. M. 2003. 2007. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. “Municipal solid waste composition: for 7 OECD countries and 7 Asian cities. A. Turan. 1993. 2009. http://unfccc. M.” Waste Age. State of the Environment — Maldives. Hassan. S. Shekdar.un.” The Patriotic Vanguard Newspaper. Government of Singapore. Assessment of Solid Waste Management in Liberia. Payet. Z.int/resource/ docs/2005/sbi/eng/18a02. 2007.htm (accessed November 2009). and J. Moore. U. M.php3?id_article=955# (accessed October 2009).. T. Results of the first national solid waste survey in the urban areas of Bhutan. Hlaing.” Waste Management 28:2003-2012. “World Bank Report: Solid Waste Management in Freetown. UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Thimphu.. 2003. A.. Saeed. India. UNEP. “Assessment of municipal solid waste generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur.com/article. 2009. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities. 2009. UNSD Environmental Indicators — Waste. Çoruh. 2009. Bhutan. Waste Management Experts Meeting.” Environmental Research Journal 3(3):81-86. UNFCCC. 2007. “Municipal solid waste management strategies in Turkey. 97 . Chennai. and S. Kumaran (Eds. Turkmenistan: Initial National Communication on Climate Change.REFERENCES Pasang. 2009. 2007. McGraw-Hill.. 2005. 2009. S. August 18-20-2008. Wang. Slovenia Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning. Addendum to: Sixth compilation and synthesis of initial national communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York. 2003. R. M. and G. Suresh and T. 1979. May 1979. N. Heart. Inc. October 27 — November 1. 2003. Indonesia. United Nations Environment Programme in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia. Phuntsho. G. and D. Yearbook of Statistics Singapore. “The state of solid waste management in Nigeria. “Household waste disposal in Mekelle city. Tadesse. “Neighbourhood-based waste management: A solution for solid waste problems in Jakarta. Thiesen. United Nations Statistics Division. 2008.” Waste Management 29:2209-2213. V. Perera. Samake. 2004. C. Sitorus.no/go/graphic/municipal_solid_ waste_composition_for_7_oecd_countries_and_7_ asian_cities (accessed April 2010). Ergun. December 6. Akdemir. Mujeebu. 2009.” Waste Management 27:1924-1938. Solid Waste Management in Indian Ocean Islands and Seychelles. A. Cuba.” In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Environment and Health. 2009. “State and Management of Solid Wastes in Mali: Case Study of Bamako. Turkmenistan Ministry of Nature Protection.

2001. 2005. 2nd Ed. ENCAP (Environmentally Sound Design and Management Capacity Building for Partners and Programs in Africa). Koprivanac. . and CIDA. G. Anschütz.htm (accessed November 2009). Experiences from the Urban Waste Expertise Programme (1995-2001). Croatia. van de Klundert. WASTE.the Concept. Vietnam Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.nl (accessed May 2010). Tools for Decision-makers. Integrated Sustainable Waste Management.encapafrica. Kučar-Dragičević. S. 2008. and J. Vego. 2004. 2009. N. Vietnam Environment Monitor 2004 — Solid Waste. World Bank. Available at http://www. A.org/egssaa. Available at: http://www.” Waste Management 28:2192-2201. Jointly prepared by World Bank. WASTE.98 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES — KNOWLEDGE PAPERS USAID.. Environmental Guidelines for SmallScale Activities in Africa.“Application of multi-criteria decision-making on strategic municipal solid waste management in Dalmatia.waste.

.

contact: KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Urban Development and Local Government Unit Sustainable Development Network The World Bank 1818 H Street. 20433 USA WHAT A WASTE Email: urbanhelp@worldbank.worldbank. NW Washington. No.org Website: www. 15 .org/urban A Global Review of Solid Waste Management March 2012. DC.For more information about the Urban Development Series.