R11 - SWM ADDIS ABABA - Final Waste Characteriz

ADDIS ABABA CITY GOVERNMENT - ETHIO-FRENCH COOPERATION
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT –

STRATEGIC AND TECHNICAL STUDIES AND
WORKS SUPERVISION
SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

R11 – FINAL REPORT
OCTOBER 2014
ARTELIA Ville et Transport

ECHIROLLES
International Activities
6 rue de Lorraine
38130 Echirolles
Tel. : +33 (0)4 76 33 43 62
Fax : +33 (0)4 76 33 43 33
DATE : OCTOBER 2014 REF : 1 31 3065 ARTELIA, L’union de Coteba et Sogreah

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ADDIS ABABA
AGENCE FRANCAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT / ADDIS ABABA CITY GOVERNMENT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT
R11 - FINAL REPORT - SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
CONTENT
1 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 7
1.1 - BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 7
1.2 - OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 7
1.3 - OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT ............................................................................................ 8
2 - REVIEW OF THE KNOWLEDGE ON THE PREVIOUS SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ........... 9

2.1 - EXISTING DATA ON THE WASTE GENERATION IN ADDIS ABABA CITY ................................... 9
2.2 - DATA FROM ADDIS ABABA CITY GOVERNMENT ................................................................ 9
2.3 - DATA ON INDUSTRIAL WASTE AND HOSPITAL WASTE GENERATION ...................................... 9
2.4 - EXISTING STUDIES .......................................................................................................... 9
3 - DETERMINATION AND SAMPLING AREAS WASTE ............................................ 12

3.1 - SOCIO-ECONOMIC ZONING CHOICE ................................................................................. 12
3.2 - SAMPLING AREAS FOR HOUSEHOLDS ............................................................................. 12
3.3 - DETERMINATION OF SAMPLING AREAS FOR COMPANIES ................................................... 16
3.4 - DETERMINATION OF SAMPLING AREAS FOR STREET CLEANING WASTE .............................. 17
3.5 - DETERMINATION OF SURVEYS AREAS FOR INDUSTRIES, WORKSHOPS AND HOSPITAL .......... 18
4 - PLANNING AND PREPARATION OF CHARACTERIZATION CAMPAIGN .................. 19

4.1 - PLANNING AND DETERMINATION OF DATES ..................................................................... 19
4.2 - PREPARATION OF CHARACTERIZATION CAMPAIGN ........................................................... 20
5 - SCREENING AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ................................................. 24

5.1 - MODECOM METHODOLOGY USED ................................................................................ 24
5.2 - SAMPLES COLLECTION: CHECKING AND WEIGHING .......................................................... 24
5.3 - DENSITY MEASUREMENT ............................................................................................... 25
5.4 - REDUCTION OF SAMPLE SIZE ......................................................................................... 26
5.5 - DEFINITION OF THE WASTE CATEGORIES......................................................................... 26
5.6 - DETAILLED DESCRIPTION OF SCREENING AND SORTING STEPS ......................................... 27
5.7 - LABORATORY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 28
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 2

6 - FIRST WASTE CHARACTERIZATION CAMPAIGN - DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF THE

RESULTS ................................................................................................ 30
6.1 - HOUSEHOLDS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION - ADDIS ABABA CITY ...................................... 30
6.2 - HOUSEHOLDS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION – BURAYU ..................................................... 37
6.3 - HOUSEHOLDS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION – SEBATA ...................................................... 41
6.4 - STREET CLEANING WASTE CHARACTERIZATION............................................................... 45
6.5 - COMMERCIAL / INSTITUTIONAL WASTE CHARACTERIZATION .............................................. 47
6.6 - INDUSTRIAL, WORKSHOPS AND HOSPITAL WASTE CHARACTERIZATION SURVEYS ................ 52
7 - SECOND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION CAMPAIGN - DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF THE

RESULTS ................................................................................................ 57
7.1 - HOUSEHOLDS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION - ADDIS ABABA CITY ...................................... 57
7.2 - HOUSEHOLDS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION – BURAYU ..................................................... 65
7.3 - HOUSEHOLDS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION – SEBATA ...................................................... 71
7.4 - STREET CLEANING WASTE CHARACTERIZATION............................................................... 77
7.5 - COMMERCIAL / INSTITUTIONAL WASTE CHARACTERIZATION .............................................. 81
8 - CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 86
8.1 - SYNTHESIS AND CHARACTERIZATION DATA COMPARISON................................................. 86
8.2 - COMPARISON WITH OTHER AFRICANS COUNTRIES (AND ELSEWHERE)............................... 89
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sticker model for distribution and collection bags........................................................... 20
Figure 2: Pictures of the sorting table manufacturing .................................................................... 21
Figure 3: Questionnaire’s model ................................................................................................... 23
Figure 4: Pictures of the waste reception on the sorting location................................................... 25
Figure 5: Pictures of the density measurement ............................................................................. 25
Figure 6: Reducing of samples: coning and quartering technique ................................................. 26
Figure 7: Pictures of the sorting waste .......................................................................................... 28
Figure 8: Waste production per household size – Addis Ababa .................................................... 31
Figure 9: Waste production per household size – Burayu ............................................................. 37
Figure 10: Waste production per household size – Sebata ........................................................... 41
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 3

Figure 11: Allocation of waste generation - Industries ................................................................... 52

Figure 12: Allocation of waste generation - Hospitals.................................................................... 55
Figure 13: Waste production per household size – Addis Ababa .................................................. 59
Figure 14: Waste production per household size – Burayu ........................................................... 66
Figure 15: Waste production per household size – Sebata ........................................................... 72
Figure 16: Average waste composition in Africa............................................................................ 90
Figure 17: Waste composition in low income countries ................................................................. 90
LIST OF TABLE
Table 1 : Household Solid Waste Generation ............................................................................... 10

Table 2 : Source of solid waste in Addis Ababa ............................................................................ 11
Table 3 : Physical composition of the Addis Ababa solid waste .................................................... 11
Table 4 : Distribution of households and areas for each characterization...................................... 15
Table 5 : Average number of people per household and area for each characterization –
Addis Ababa ................................................................................................................................. 15
Sebata .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Burayu .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 8 : Seasonal data in Addis Ababa ....................................................................................... 19
Table 9 : Definition of the waste categories for waste characterization ......................................... 27
Table 10 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households – Addis Ababa City ............................. 30
Table 11 : Waste specific production per household by area – Addis Ababa City ......................... 30
Table 12 : Waste density in the bin- – Addis Ababa City ............................................................... 32
Table 13 : Waste composition produced by the low income households....................................... 33
Table 14 : Waste composition produced by the middle income households.................................. 33
Table 15 : Waste composition produced by the high income households...................................... 34
Table 16 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from Addis Ababa households ............................... 35
Table 17 : Rate of heavy metal in organic fraction from Addis Ababa households ........................ 36
Table 18 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households - Burayu.............................................. 37
Table 19 : Waste specific production per household by area - Burayu .......................................... 37
Table 20 : Waste density in the bin ............................................................................................... 38
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 4


Table 24 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households - Sebata.............................................. 41
Table 25 : Waste specific production per household by area - Sebata .......................................... 41
Table 26 : Waste density in the bin - Sebata................................................................................. 42
Table 31 : Waste composition produced by the residential area street waste ............................... 46
Table 32 : Waste composition produced by the commercial street waste...................................... 46
Table 33 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households – Commercial / Institutional................. 47
Table 34 : Waste specific production per company by area .......................................................... 47
Table 36 : Waste composition produced by Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel ............................... 49
Table 37 : Waste composition produced by institutions................................................................. 49
Table 38 : Waste composition produced by shops and stores....................................................... 50
Table 39 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from companies ..................................................... 51
Table 40 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households – Addis Ababa City ............................. 57
Table 41 : Waste specific production per household by area – Addis Ababa City ......................... 57
Table 42 : Waste density in the bin- – Addis Ababa City ............................................................... 59
Table 46 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from Addis Ababa households ............................... 63
Table 47 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households - Burayu.............................................. 65
Table 48 : Waste specific production per household by area - Burayu .......................................... 65
Table 53 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from Burayu households ........................................ 69
Table 54 : Rate of heavy metal in organic fraction from Burayu households ................................. 70
Table 55 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households - Sebata.............................................. 71
Table 56 : Waste specific production per household by area - Sebata .......................................... 71
Table 57 : Waste density in the bin - Sebata................................................................................. 72
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 5


Table 61 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from Sebata households ........................................ 75
Table 62 : Rate of heavy metal in organic fraction from Sebata households ................................. 76
Table 64 : Waste composition produced by the residential area street waste ............................... 78
Table 65 : Waste composition produced by the commercial street waste...................................... 78
Table 66 : Waste composition produced by the office area street waste ....................................... 78
Table 67 : Rate of heavy metal in organic fraction from companies .............................................. 80
Table 68 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households – Commercial / Institutional................. 81
Table 69 : Waste specific production per company by area .......................................................... 81
Table 71 : Waste composition produced by Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel ............................... 82
Table 72 : Waste composition produced by institutions................................................................. 83
Table 73 : Waste composition produced by shops and stores....................................................... 83
Table 74 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from companies ..................................................... 84
Table 75 : Rate of heavy metal in organic fraction from companies .............................................. 85
Table 76 : Data comparison for Addis Ababa City......................................................................... 86
Table 77 : Data comparison for the two surrounding towns........................................................... 87
Table 78 : Data comparison for the street cleaning ....................................................................... 87
Table 79 : Data comparison for the commercial / institutional waste characterization ................... 88
Table 80 : Current waste generation per capita and per region..................................................... 89
Table 81 : Municipal solid waste generation per city in Africa........................................................ 89
Table 82 : Municipal solid waste composition by country in Africa................................................. 91
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 6

1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 - Background
The capital of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa (“New Flower”), is located almost at the centre
of the country. Addis Ababa is the diplomatic capital for Africa (OAU, ECA), regional
headquarters like UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR, FAO, ILF, ICO, and ITU. According to
the Central Statistical Agency, the population of the city is 2,917,295 inhabitants in
2010 who live in 10 sub-cities1 and 204 kebeles divided for administrative purpose
Addis Ababa is a centre for modern economic and social activities that infrastructure
services are found relatively in better situation than other cities of Ethiopia.
However their development is too slow to meet the demand of the increasing
population due to both natural growth and rural urban migration. In particular, the
inadequacy of the solid waste management is a major environmental issue. Addis
Ababa City Government has set solid waste management as one of its top priority
and its immediate priority is to close the Koshe Rappi dumpsite and to replace it by
a new sanitary landfill located on the territory of Sendafa (Oromiya).
The site of Koshe Rappi will be rehabilitated in two phases, a first phase of 19
hectares being rehabilitated through another engineering contract in parallel with
this assignment and an area of 17.4 hectares included at the design and works
supervision stages in this assignment. Transfer stations are part of this contract,
with the aim of optimizing the transport of daily waste quantities to the future
Sendafa landfill site.
1.2 - Objective of the project

The main objectives of the project are the achievement of four main components:
 Construction of secondary roads in the city in order to improve the collection
rate ;
 Construction of transfer stations for optimization of transport;
 Construction of a new sanitary landfill in Sendafa;
 Closure of the actual dumpsite Koshe Reppi.
The physical components above are supported by a set of assistances related to a

global Solid Waste Management Strategy for Addis Ababa urban area; the
Identification of a Technical assistance program for Solid Waste Management
Project Partners included the related tender documents, a solid waste
characterization, detailed design, tender documents and supervision services for the
works contract.
The necessary studies of the assignment to reach the above are to:
 Prepare of a global Solid Waste Management Strategy for Addis Ababa urban
area, including the economic (social benefits and valorization…), institutional
(private sector involvement) and financial part of the system in order to develop a
sustainable, efficient and effective service.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 7

 To identify a Technical assistance program for Solid Waste Management

Project Partners, including of course but not necessarily only the municipality and
preparation of the related tender documents.
 To undertake a Solid Waste characterization
 To prepare of detailed design and tender documents for the construction of
the new sanitary landfill in Sendafa, the closure of the actual dumpsite Koshe
Reppi with land use plan, the construction of transfer stations in order to minimize
the transportation costs to the new sanitary landfill, the construction of secondary
roads in the city in order to improve the collection rate.
 To Support to the Contracting Authority and the Beneficiary to achieve a
sound procurement of works contract and to exert High quality supervision
services for the several Client works contract.
1.3 - Objective of the report

This report is the final report for the Solid Waste Characterization. The objectives of
the waste characterization are to:
 Conduct a detail study of waste characterization that will be the base for
further solid waste management plans, research, private sector involvement and
design of waste management facilities including the new landfill site and transfer
stations.
 Prepare a manual as a document for future use
 Carry out training sessions for the staff of the Recycling and Disposal Project
Office and Cleaning Management Agency at the City Administration to equip them
for carrying out such waste characterization campaign, which will be needed for
the future.
It presents:
 Review of the knowledge on the previous solid waste characterization
 Determination and sampling areas waste
 Planning and preparation of characterization campaign
 Sampling methodology and sorting
 Characterization results analysis – Interpretation of the results
We have organized two characterization campaigns:

 During the intermediate season : from April 09th to May 28th, 2013
 During the high rainfall season : from August 22th to September 25th, 2013
The waste characterization survey for industrials and hospitals was conducted in
June 2013.
Moreover, we had to redo the waste characterization for the rainfall season in
September 2014, in order to perform another physicochemical analysis because in
2013, the chemical analysis data from this characterization were inconsistent.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 8

2 - REVIEW OF THE KNOWLEDGE ON THE PREVIOUS SOLID WASTE

CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 - Existing data on the waste generation in Addis Ababa City

Several sources of data exist, and allow for a first approach to the quality and
quantity of waste generated in the city of Addis Ababa:
 Possible estimates carried out by Addis Ababa City Government, based on
ratios or statistic weighing
 Data on industrial waste and hospital waste generation
 Existing studies
2.2 - Data from Addis Ababa City Government

The Addis Ababa Cleaning Agency (AACA) organize and supervise the solid waste
collection and transportation (primary collection, private companies and institutions).
According to data provided by ATO Ermias (meeting on 2013/02/25), about

1 100 000 m3 of solid waste are deposed at Koshe Repi Landfill, but only 68 to
70% of waste collected.
2.3 - Data on industrial waste and hospital waste generation

Production data for industrial and hospital waste can be provided by the Addis
Ababa Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). We have not been able to meet
the General Manager to obtain these data.
2.4 - Existing studies

Several studies provide data on the quantity and quality of waste generated in AA :
 Nor-consultant, a private consulting company which first made a study of
solid waste in Addis Ababa and published its findings in 1982
 Gordon Sturdy, a Louisberger expert consultant, who in collaboration with
Addis Ababa Health Bureau, made available its findings in June 1994 and
November 1995
 Addis Ababa University, senior civil engineering students’ report of solid
waste study findings of Kebele 29, Woreda 5. All studies were based on sampled
data analysis. Some studies have classified the results in terms of income
grouping.
 Poyry, in 2010, a first study on the feasibility of closing the Koshe repi landfill
and opening a new site has been completed
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 9

2.4.1 - Per capita solid waste generation

From previous studies, the level of the household waste generation which could be
useful data is shown in table
Income Group Nor-Consult Gordon, Sturdy Gordon, Sturdy

(1982) (1994) (1995)
High Income
gram/capita/day 280 350 477
liter/capita/day 1.0 1.08 2.226
Density, Kg/m3 280 322 220
Middle income
Density, Kg/m3 390 395 196
Low income
gram/capita /day 150 170 260
Density,Kg/m3 380 310 206
General Population
Density, Kg/m3 370 336 205
Table 1 : Household Solid Waste Generation
Considerable seasonal variation in the per capita solid waste generation has been
reported. A significant variation is also reported on per capita per day generation for
the general population. Gordon, Sturdy (1995) and A. Kume (1997), for example,
have estimated the per capita per day solid waste generation for the general
population to be less than 0.5 liters with a density between 300-400 kg/m3 in wet
seasons and between 160-250 Kg/m3 in dry seasons. The average wet and dry
density was estimated at 350 Kg/m3. Gordon, Sturdy (1995) has also found 477
gram/capita/day as the highest per capita generation by weight and 2.226
liters/capita/day as the highest per capita generation by volume.
By Poyry, the waste generation is estimated to 0.3 Kg/day/cap.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 10

2.4.2 - Classifying solid waste generation by source

The sources of solid waste of the city of Addis Ababa as reported by Nor Consult is
summarized in the next table:
No Source Percent (%)

1 Domestic House Holds 70.0
2 Commercial/Retail 9.0
3 Street Sweeping (Soil & Refuse) 6.0
4 Industrial Manufacturing 5.0
5 Hotels 3.0
6 Hospitals 1.0
Total 100
Table 2 : Source of solid waste in Addis Ababa
In 2010, POYRY used the same data for his study.
2.4.3 - Physical characteristics of the household solid waste

The studies by Nor consult, Addis Ababa University, and Louis Berger International
show similarity in the physical composition of the household solid waste in the next
table.
Constituent Percent by weight
Vegetables 1.93
Paper 2.90
Rubber 0.19
Leather 0.41
Wood 2.89
Plastic 1.58
Bone 2.11
Textile 1.39
Ferrous metals 0.69
Aluminum 0.00
Glass 0.79
Combustible (leaves, grass) 26.26
Noncombustibles (grit, sand,etc) 3.84
Fines <10 mm 30.82
Fines<55 but>10mm 25.87
Table 3 : Physical composition of the Addis Ababa solid waste
And most of fines parts are bio degradable waste;
2.4.4 - Summary
Previous studies suggest that the solid waste generation is about 0.3 kg/day/cap.
The source of solid waste of the city of Addis Ababa is about 70% from household.
About physical characteristics, there are certainly more than 40% of organic wastes
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 11

3 - DETERMINATION AND SAMPLING AREAS WASTE
3.1 - Socio-economic zoning choice

Sampling areas selection is very important to ensure the relevance of
characterization campaign. Waste characterization was performed on the following
areas:
1 - Representative residential socio-economic areas:

 low income area, (below 2,000 Birr / month / Household)
 average income area (between 2000 and 10,000 Birr / month / Household)
 high income area, (above 10,000 Birr / Month / Household)
2 - Socio-economic activities:
 commercial areas, shopping malls,
 hotels and restaurants areas,
 institutional areas,
 industrial areas,
 Private and public hospitals and clinics (with number of beds),
 Others activities that could generate specific types of waste.
3.2 - Sampling areas for households
3.2.1 - selection criteria for households areas

The goal was to select homogeneous and representative sampling areas from Addis
Ababa and two surrounding town. However, it doesn't exist in Addis Ababa the
selection criteria which define specifically each area:
The level and distribution of poverty in Ethiopia is extensive. According to the results
obtained from the 1995/96 and the 1999/2000 Household Income, Consumption and
Expenditure (HICE) surveys and Welfare Monitoring (WM) survey of the Central
Statistical Agency (CSA)1, about 37 percent in urban areas are found to be below
poverty line.
The previous studies (10 years ago) have shown that the low income group has
been estimated about 66%, the middle income group of 26% and the high income
1 The Federal Democratic Republic of ETHIOPIA, CENTRAL STATISTICAL AGENCY, 2004/5

Household Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey (HICE), Volume II, Statistical Report, July
2007, Addis Ababa)
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 12

group about 8%. Based upon this assumption, the document published by Addis
Ababa city and surrounding Oromia integrated development plan “Local economy
assessment and proposal” (2013), has pointed out the major goal of the city that by
enhancing the living condition of the middle income group to increase the level to
50% by 2038.
The study has organized the low income groups those who earn up to 1170 ETH
birr/month/person, for middle income, from 1171 to 4650 ETH birr/month/person and
for high income above 4651 ETH birr/month/person.
The challenge for this study was categorizing areas according to their income group
at Woreda and Sub-city level for sample collection of household wastes. Due to the
fact that there is no information as expected, For the purpose of the study the team
has put some criteria to distinguish the three income groups mainly through
observing the settlement pattern. Regarding Addis Ababa, we can observe that most
of the settlements are mixed (poor and wealthy/ low and high income), even places
that are known as area for richest “HABTAMOCHE SEFER” are filled with middle
income families and the lowers. Therefore, the criteria to identify areas most
applicable is as follows.
Low income areas

 Shanty / slum areas
 Old and small structure of houses
 Mixed with kebele houses
 Center and old city
Middle income areas
 Areas near and around the center / old city
 Most of the houses are private
 Medium size houses and fenced
 Mixed with a small number of small structure houses
High income areas
 Areas traditionally or commonly known as high income areas
 Near the city expansion areas
 Big structure houses with big plots, well fenced and clean
 Could be mixed with meddle income groups
 Areas where we found private and rental housing agency properties
3.2.2 - Determination of sampling areas for household

Foreword
There is currently no agreed international standard for waste stream analysis or
waste characterization although many European countries have national
procedures: EPA for Ireland and UK, Modecom for France… We adapted these
methods for the screening and sorting operations, commonly considered, in France
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 13

and other European countries as reference in the matter. For i.e., in the procedure
of characterization of the EPA, the minimum number of households to be included in
a survey is 50 households for an area around 500 households (10%). In our
process, we are working on areas around 800 households (because the city of
Addis Ababa is divided in to 549 zones each zone comprising 800-1000 households
– source: OVERVIEW OF ADDIS ABABA CITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM / February 2010). Also, we can consider that such characterization
campaign is “scientifically” accurate.
This is why, as mention in our technical offer, “the Consultant will prepare a
sampling program from homogeneous and representative sampling areas from
Addis Ababa and two surrounding towns:
 Low income residential areas: 100 households
 Middle income residential areas: 100 households
 High income residential areas: 100 households “
Also, these 300 households have been share out between Addis Ababa City and the
two surrounding towns (Burayu and Sebeta which were chosen by AACA).
Therefore, as the minimum number of survey shall be 50, it was decided to divide as
follow:
 Addis Ababa: 200 households
o Low income residential areas: 50 households
o Middle income residential areas: 100 households
o High income residential areas: 50 households
 Burayu: 50 households
 Sebeta: 50 households
For the second characterization campaign, we worked with the same areas, but the
number of households per area was slightly modified, in order to have a larger
sample:
 Addis-Ababa: we allocated differently each sample (70 households per
area) (Total: 210 households)
 Burayu and Sebeta: we increased the total sample households to 60 for
each town). (Total: 120 households)
But at any time, each sample is still representative and we can also consider that
this characterization campaign is “scientifically” accurate.
The Confidence Level (CL) for the Addis-Ababa waste characterization
According to the report “DEVELOPING INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT PLAN - Volume 1: Waste Characterization and Quantification with
Projections for Future - TRAINING MANUAL” – p13 table 3.1, the number of
samples depends primarily on the cost versus its utility. For higher statistical
accuracy and confidence level, the number of samples will be more. There are
statistical procedures to calculate the number of samples at each confidence level.
Usually for solid waste data, the confidence level (C.L) is set at 80% or 90%
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 14

And, for the Addis-Ababa waste characterization the CL will set at 80%.
Also, we can consider that the waste characterization campaign which have been
carried out, were “scientifically” accurate.
Determination of sampling areas for Addis Ababa City
From the previous criteria, we have located the following areas:
Area First waste Second waste

characterization characterization
Low income residential 50 households 70 households
Cherkos - Warada 10 Cherkos - Warada 10
Middle income residential 50 households 70 households

Cherkos- Warada 9 Cherkos- Warada 9
50 households
Nefas Silk Lafto - Warada 6
High income residential 50 households 70 households
Yeka - Warada 13 Yeka - Warada 13
Table 4 : Distribution of households and areas for each characterization
In appendix, it is presented the maps of the three sampling areas that have served
for the waste characterization
Appendix 1 : Repartition of the population for the waste characterization in
Addis Ababa
The following table shows the average number of people per household and area for
each characterization:
Area average number of average number of

people per household people per household
First waste Second waste
Low income residential 5.94 5.64
Middle income residential 6.08 6.71
High income residential 4.66 4.87
Table 5 : Average number of people per household and area for each
characterization – Addis Ababa
Determination of sampling areas for Sebata

 Low income residential areas – 10 (20) households – Kebele 2 – Loc. 4
 Middle income residential areas – 20 households – Kebele 20 – Loc. 10
 High income residential areas – 20 households – Kebele 2 – Loc. 10
Note: the number of households is the same for the both waste characterizations;
except the italic number which is for the second waste characterization
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 15

The following table shows the average number of people per household and area for
each characterization:

characterization – Sebata
Determination of sampling areas for Burayu

 Low income residential areas – 16 (20) households – G/Burayu
 Middle income residential areas – 17 (20) households – G/Burayu
 High income residential areas – 17 (20) households – G/Burayu
Note: the first number is for the first waste characterizations; and the italic number is
for the second waste characterization
The following table shows the average number of people per household and area:

characterization – Burayu
3.3 - Determination of sampling areas for companies

The list of the commercial and institutions companies which are selected for the
solid waste characterization is:
a) Shops and Stores [Area: Addis Ketema Sub-City]

1. Household Utensils Selling Shop
2. Building Material Shop
3. Spice Shop
4. Cosmetics Shop
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 16

5. Plastic Materials Selling Shop

6. All Types Of Items Retailer (Shop)
7. Glass and Utensils Store
8. Clothing Shop
9. All Items Retailing Shop
10. Soap / Detergent Shop
b) Institutions [Area: Kirkos Sub City Mexico Square

1. Construction Business Bank
2. Ethiopian Roads Authority
3. Transport Construction & Design Enterprise
4. Agazian Primary School
5. Ethiopian Commerce Office
6. Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation
7. National College
8. Kirkos Sub City Court Office
9. Oromiya Housing Development Agency
10. St.Michael Church
c) Bars/Restaurant/ Hotels [Area: Yeka Sub-City Along Megenagna]

1. Lem Hotel
2. Gebaon Hotel
3. Damas Hotel
4. Addis Ababa Road Transport Staff (Employees) club
5. Lidet Bar and Restaurant
6. Debre Damo Hotel
7. Soli Café
8. Gaber Bar and Restaurant
9. Haziz Traditional Restaurant
10. Tewolde Bar & Restaurant
Regarding workshops, we have agreed with AACG to conduct survey work like
hospitals and industries...as the type of waste produced from most workshops is the
same and difficult to get.
3.4 - Determination of sampling areas for street cleaning waste

Two streets cleaning were selected:
 Residential area from Cherkos – warada 10 – Length: 0.8 km
 Commercial area from Arada – warada 10 – Location: Piassa – Length : 0.7
km
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 17

3.5 - Determination of surveys areas for industries, workshops and hospital

For industries, workshops and hospital, it was decided to organize a waste
characterization survey. The companies selected are:
 Industries
Name Address Product
2RN Solomon Furniture & Wood Products Yeka Household and Office Furniture
AB Plastic Bole Different Types of Plastic Products
Addis Block Factory PLC Nefas Silk Lafto Hollow Block, Window sill, Terazzo Tiles
Akaki Textile 4 PLC Akaki-Kality Operation non started
ASKU PLC Burayu Bottled Water and Soft Drinks
Bebazeto Trade & Industry PLC Akaki-Kality Roof Cover (sheets) and Pipes
Berhanena Selam Printing Press Arada Printing materials
Burayu Development PLC Burayu Packaging Materials (Boards, Labels, tubes)
Ethiopian Plastic Industry Bole Different Plastic Products
GAST Solar Mechanics PLC Nefas Silk Lafto Different Types of Paints
GATEPRO PLC Nefas Silk Lafto Different Metal Products
Hoizon Addis Tire SC Akaki-Kality Car Tire
KAOJJ Food Products Factory PLC Kolfe Keranio Flour and Biscuits
National Tobacco Ethiopia SC Arada Tobacco and Tobacco Products
BNefas Silk Paint Factory Nefas Silk Lafto Different Types of Paints
Pasqua Gussepie Items Made from Metallic Products
BGI Ethiopia, Saint George Brewery Lideta Bottled and Draught Beer
Sebeta Agro-Industry Sebeta Milk and other dairy products
Star Soap & Detergent Industries PLC Akaki-Kality soap and other detergents
Unity Trading PLC Burayu Plastic Bags
Yergalem Addis Textile Factory PLC Nefas Silk Lafto Textile Products
 Workshops
Birhan Engineering PLC Nefas Silk Lafto Metal Products
KD Engineering PLC Nefas Silk Lafto Metal Products
Worede Garage Nefas Silk Lafto Car Garage
Zewdie Metal Work Shop Nefas Silk Lafto Dismantling cars to use as spare part
 Hospital
Arada Health Center Arada Health center
Arsho Medical laboratory Plc Arada Laboratory
Betezata General Hospital Plc Kirkos Hospital
Ethiopian Health & nutrition Research
Institute Gulele Research
Ras Desta Hospital Arada Hospital
Saint Gabriel General Hospital Plc Bole Hospital
Sement Health Center Arada Health center
Teklehaimanot General Hospital Lideta Hospital
Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital Lideta Hospital
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 18

4 - PLANNING AND PREPARATION OF CHARACTERIZATION CAMPAIGN
4.1 - Planning and determination of dates

The seasons can impact solid waste composition and characteristics because of:
 Meteorological conditions (higher humidity, …);
 Changes in food habits (seasons of high consumption of corn, fresh
chickpeas, sugar cane…generating high volumes of waste);
On meteorological point of view in Addis Ababa, the season corresponding to the

planned characterization campaign can be identified as:
 A the dry season which takes place from October to February (mean rainfall
below 35 mm/month and maximum 5 rain days per month);
 A high rainfall season from June to September (mean rainfall over 120
mm/month and over 18 days of rain days per month);
 An intermediate season from March to May (65 to 85 mm/month and 7 to 10
rain days per month).
Table 8 : Seasonal data in Addis Ababa
Month Mean Temperature °C Mean Total Mean
Daily Daily Rainfall Number of
Minimum Maximum (mm) Rain Days
Dry Season Jan 15 24 15 3
Feb 16 24 35 5
Intermediate Mar 17 25 65 7
Season
Apr 17 24 85 10
May 18 25 75 10
High rainfall Jun 17 23 120 20
Season
Jul 16 21 235 27
Aug 16 21 245 26
Sep 16 22 140 18
Dry Season Oct 15 23 30 4
Nov 14 23 5 1
Dec 14 23 5 1
As requested in the terms of reference, we have organized two characterization

campaigns:
 During the intermediate season : from April 09th to May 28th, 2013
 During the high rainfall season : from August 22th to September 25th, 2013
The waste characterization survey for industrials and hospitals was conducted in
June 2013.
Moreover, we had to redo the waste characterization for the rainfall season in
September 2014, in order to perform another physicochemical analysis because in
2013, the chemical analysis data from this characterization were inconsistent.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 19

4.2 - Preparation of characterization campaign

Before carrying out the waste characterization it is necessary to properly prepare:
 The waste collection
 The waste sorting
 The waste characterization survey
4.2.1 - Waste collection

The waste collection requires resources in equipment and staff:
 Equipment with plastic bags, and cars
 Staff, for the plastic bags distribution / collection, and for supervising the
organization
Equipment used
For each campaign we used one bag per day and per households. So, we used for:
 The first waste households characterization campaign : 1,905 bags
 The second waste households characterization campaign : 2,960 bags
Similarly for the commercial and institutions companies, we used:
 The first waste companies characterization campaign : 230 bags
 The second waste companies characterization campaign : 270 bags
For the distribution and the collection, Metaferia has provided a pick-up car.
Before being distributed each bag is identified by a sticker on which it is noted:
 Area sampling group : group, sub city, warada
 Household identity : house number, number of persons in the households
 Deposit and collection date
Sampling group Subcity warada House Number of persons

(L : Low Income (A : Arada number in the household
M : Middle Income C : Cherkos
H : High Income) N : Nefas silk lafto
Y : Yeka
N : Bole)
LA5 – 10 – 6p
d/m – d/m
Deposit date Collection date
Figure 1: Sticker model for distribution and collection bags
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 20

Staff used
The main difficulty was to do accepting households to participate in the waste
characterization. So we used each micro-enterprise which works on these locations.
A supervisor organized each distribution and collection bags.
4.2.2 - Waste sorting

General equipment for the sorting waste
The organization of the Characterization requires:

 1 sorting table with 4 trays as described below and in the schemas seals
 1 scale 0-50 kg, accuracy 0.1 kg
 18 plastic bins (capacity 40-60 liters each, all the same model)
 1 plastic container 1 L of 240 to calculate the density
 2 shovels
 2 rakes
 2 brooms
 2 plastic tarps around 3x4m minimum
 100 plastics bags
 water for the sorting staff and for the trained staff,
 equipment for the staff: overall, gloves, boots, dust masks, glasses,
The sorting table is rigid metal and consists of 5 parts:
 A frame with 4 screening levels: Length = 1800 mm Width = 1000 mm
Height = 1300 mm
 A tray without holes at 0: this plate is welded to the frame for better stability
 A removable tray at one with circular holes of 8 mm diameter (distance
between the holes of about 5 mm)
 A removable tray to level 2 with circular holes of 20 mm diameter (distance
between the holes of about 8 to 10 mm)
 A removable tray to level 3 with circular holes of diameter 100 mm (distance
between the holes of about 25 mm)
Trays levels 1, 2 and 3 can be removed by sliding on rails on which they are based.
The trays must withstand approximately 120-150 kg each.
We did manufacture the sorting table between the 04 April and 08 April.
Figure 2: Pictures of the sorting table manufacturing
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 21

The staff and the manpower for the sorting waste

For the waste characterization we used:
 1 supervisor. He was the team leader sort. His job was mainly to control the
quality of sorting and filling data sorting
 7 workers. Each worker has a specific task.
o 1 person for an assistance to the supervisor : check the collection
bag, weigh each bags, weigh each waste sorting categories,
measuring the waste density
o 5 persons sorted the waste
o 1 person was in charge of sorting waste: waste preparation for
sorting, weighing waste, bin removal
4.2.3 - Waste characterization survey

For the investigation of waste characterization, we conducted a questionnaire that
included the following topics:
 General information (company / medical institution name, address, products
/ patients…)
 Waste generation (types of waste, quantities, seasonal variation)
 Current waste management (management type, type of waste, annual cost)
 Companies need and expectations
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 22

Figure 3: Questionnaire’s model
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 23

5 - SCREENING AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
5.1 - MODECOM methodology used

The guidelines of the World Bank for waste characterization are given in the
following document: “Draft terms of reference – Waste characterization and data
collection, public consultation and field investigations on site selection for transfer
stations, sanitary landfill and other waste disposal facilities”
The first task is about the waste characterization:
“Task 1 – Waste Composition and Character Analysis Sample the mixed municipal
solid waste stream from at least 10 representative urban areas in XX and another 3
in XX by taking statistically viable composite samples from collection trucks which
serve various types of representative neighborhoods, including but not limited to:
low-income squatter settlements, low-income permanent residential neighborhoods,
middle-income permanent residential neighborhoods, middle-income permanent
residential and commercial neighborhoods, high-income residential neighborhoods,
central commercial district. Analyze the waste composition (i.e., percentage of wet
weight) for various components, including but not limited to: vegetable/putrescible
organics, paper, cardboard, film plastic, hard durable plastic, stone, rubber, textile,
wood, bone, leaves and other garden wastes, ferrous metals, other metals, soil, ash,
and construction rubble. Analyze the moisture content of each sample by oven
drying. Analyze the carbon to nitrogen ratio of the solid wastes sampled. Analyze
lower heating calorific value (i.e., as received gross value). Compost, in a batch
system developed for this purpose, a composite of all of the samples taken and
analyze the resulting compost for heavy metals (i.e., cadmium, chromium, zinc,
mercury, lead) and refractory organics (i.e., pesticides).”
This document provides guidance on the method used to characterize the waste,
but it is not a methodological guide.
In fact, there is currently no agreed international standard for waste stream analysis
or waste characterization although many countries have national procedures for
procedures for analyzing their waste. (“Municipal Waste Characterization -
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Ardcavan, Wexford, Ireland.)
Therefore, as indicated in our offer, we adapted the MODECOM method for the
screening and sorting operations, commonly considered, in France and other
European countries as Reference in the matter. This method provides more
information on size fractions which allows further determination of treatment method
and design of treatment facilities compared to the one required by Addis Ababa City
Government.
5.2 - Samples collection: checking and weighing

The samples will be collected in plastic bags distributed earlier to the sampled
households and business units before the beginning of the sampling campaign. The
bags will be weighed at the sample collection time by hand scales, and labeled with
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 24

the sample number and weight. Few questions will be asked to the household such
as the number of persons present in the household during the last 24 hours.
The samples will be collected in the morning and sorted in the afternoon, the day of
their collection.
Figure 4: Pictures of the waste reception on the sorting location
5.3 - Density measurement

The density is determined on the mixed wastes before
they are placed onto the sorting table during the
screening and sorting operations.
The container with a known volume (256 L) will be filled

with waste, with no compaction, and then weighed
before being emptied on the screening/sorting table.
Density (kg/litters or tons/m3) is equal to weight (kg)

divided by the volume (litters).
Figure 5: Pictures of the density measurement
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 25

5.4 - Reduction of sample size

The sample should be reduced to a more manageable size as the actual
classification of materials will be carried out by hand. The ideal sample size for
characterization is between 100 - 200 kg (minimum 100 kg) and the size
reduction is achieved by a Coning and Quartering technique. This involves the
following:
 The sample is placed on the floor and thoroughly mixed by a shovel.
 The sample is then placed in a uniform pile of approximately 0.8 m high.
 The pile is divided into four quarters using straight lines perpendicular to each
other.
 Either pair of opposite corners is removed to leave half the original sample.
 The process is repeated until the desired sample size i.e. 100-200 kg is
obtained.
 The surplus ‘two-quarters’ from the last size reduction should be retained for
laboratory analysis (see the paragraph “laboratory analysis” below).
Care should be exercised to avoid selection of larger sized particles to reduce

sample bias.
Figure 6: Reducing of samples: coning and quartering technique
5.5 - Definition of the waste categories

The MODECOM methodology is based on screening and sorting the waste on a
screening/sorting table composed of:
 a first screening level, on the top, with 100 mm diameter holes,
 a second screening level, intermediate, with 20 mm diameter holes,
 a third screening level, on the bottom, with 8 mm diameter holes,
 a fine materials recovery box without holes on the ground.
As a result, the waste is parted in four categories on the sorting table:

 the BIG SIZE, whose diameter is more than 100 mm,
 the MEDIUM SIZE, whose diameter is between 20 and 100 mm,
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 26

 the FINE SIZE 8 - 20 mm, whose diameter is between 8 and 20 mm,

 the FINEST SIZE < 8 mm, whose diameter is less than 8 mm.
The BIG SIZE and at least 1/8 of the MEDIUM SIZE are sorted in 13 categories
according to the following table:
Table 9 : Definition of the waste categories for waste characterization
Categories Definition
Organics Food waste, garden waste
Paper Newspapers, scholar paper...
Board Packing board...
Tetra Pak milk and fruit juice packaging with board outside +
aluminium inside
Plastics PE+PP bags
PE+PP others (bottles…)
Polystyrene (yogurt, packing protection...)
PET bottles (mineral water, cooking oil…)
PET others
HDPE (some shampoo bottles…)
Others
Metal Iron
Aluminium
Textile Used clothes and rags
Hygienic textile Baby’s nappies, tampons, handkerchiefs
Glass Bottles, “pots”
Special wastes and WEEE Battery, aerosols, radio, shaver…
Healthcare waste Needles…
Unclassified combustible Wood, bones, leather, shoes...
Unclassified incombustible Ceramic, stones...
Other fine part 1 Finest waste between 8 and 20 mm
Other fine part 2 Finest waste between < 8 mm
5.6 - Detailled description of screening and sorting steps

After being weighed, a waste load (around 25-40 kg) is placed on the upper
perforated plate. Waste loads volume shall not too high to allow an efficient
screening. Then the big fraction (Ø>100 mm) remaining on this upper plate is sorted
manually according to the above mentioned categories.
During the sorting phase, each different category of waste is put in special plastic
garbage cans. When a garbage can is full, it is weighed, the weight is recorded in
characterisation sheets and the contents are stored aside.
The waste with diameter <100 mm fall down on the second screening plate (20 mm
diameter holes). These waste are screened in order to separate the MEDIUM PART
(20 to 100 mm) for the FINE PART (<20 mm).
these parts is weighed, and they can be described visually (approximate proportion
of organic waste, sand and other materials).
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 27

Figure 7: Pictures of the sorting waste
5.7 - Laboratory analysis
5.7.1 - Samples preparation

The surplus ‘two-quarters’ from the last cone and quartering step are set aside for
analysis. The two quarters are combined and a further cone and quartering
performed. In order to obtain a representative sample, a sample of 1 kg is making
up. A scale with a good precision is necessary to make such sample.
The exact weight of the sample is recorded immediately, before evaporation occurs.
5.7.2 - Parameters to be analysed

We worked with the “Geoscience Laboratory Center” from Addis Ababa. The main
difficulty was that this laboratory was not able to perform all analyzes we wanted.
However, the most important analyzes were performed:
For the mixed waste
The parameters analyzed have been as follows:
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 28

 Air dried lost: it is the moisture content of the waste measured in the open
air, after the exposed to air does not give more moisture to evaporate. It’s
an important data for organic recovery and thermal treatment
 Moisture content (on dry waste): it’s the quantity of water contained in the waste
after heating 105°c. With the previous parameter we get the total moisture content
of the waste
 Volatile matter (on dry waste) : Volatile matter in waste refers to the components of
waste, except for moisture, which are liberated at high temperature in the absence
of air. This is usually a mixture of short and long chain hydrocarbons, aromatic
hydrocarbons and some sulfur. ( generally from organic waste)
 Fixed carbon (on dry waste) : The fixed carbon content of the waste is the carbon
found in the material which is left after volatile materials are driven off. This differs
from the ultimate carbon content of the coal because some carbon is lost in
hydrocarbons with the volatiles. Fixed carbon is used as an estimate of the amount
of coke that will be yielded from a sample of waste. This fixed carbon is usually
produced of plastic waste
 Ash (on dry waste): Ash content of waste is the non-combustible residue left after
waste is burnt. It represents the bulk mineral matter
 Calorific value: is the amount of heat released during the combustion of a specified
amount of waste. The calorific value of the waste decreases with moisture content.
It’s a key parameter to determinate the feasibility of thermal treatment
 Ph: is a measure of acidity or alkalinity. Ph is an important factor to determine the
opportunity of using organic matter contained in the solid waste as organic ferliliser
For the organic waste
The parameters analyzed have been as follows:

 Heavy metals (Cu – Cupper, Zn – Zinc, Pb – Lead, Co – Cobalt, Ni – Nickel): The
concentration of heavy metals in organic products can leave impossible an using as
amendment
 Ph: is a measure of acidity or alkalinity. Ph is an important factor to determine the
opportunity of using organic matter contained in the solid waste as organic fertilizer
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 29

6 - FIRST WASTE CHARACTERIZATION CAMPAIGN - DATA AND

INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
6.1 - Households waste characterization - Addis Ababa City
6.1.1 - Sampling and weighing collection

Recovery of plastic bags
On all 200 households surveyed, 1,905 plastic bags were placed on 10 days, and
1751 have been recovered. The return rate of plastic bags is 92%.
Table 10 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households – Addis Ababa City
number of plastic bags number of plastic bags

Area Rate %
deposit collected
Low income 517 471 91%
Middle income 877 821 94%
High income 511 459 90%
TOTAL 1905 1751 92%
Initially it was found that most households refused to give their waste (fear that
makes them pay something), especially for the high income households.
Waste production by area
For each household, the quantity of waste per person is divided by the duration of
production (mainly one day). The following table gives a summary of the specific
waste generated by socio-economic area.
Table 11 : Waste specific production per household by area – Addis Ababa
City
Specific waste production Low Middle High TOTAL

Income income Income
Number of data 471 821 459 1 751
Average (kg/cap/day) 0.21 0.33 0.59 0.37
Standard deviation 0.16 0.24 0.36 0.25
(kg/cap/day)
We can see through this table that the specific waste production per household
varies with socio-economic area living. Indeed we find that
 The high income households area have the highest specific output of about
0.59 kg / capita / day on average;
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 30

 It is an average of 0.33 kg / capita / day in the middle low income household

area
 Only 0.21 kg / capita / day in the low income household area
Furthermore, we see an increasing variation around the average when the social
household level increases.
The analysis of these data shows:

 Waste production per households: more the household social level is higher,
more the consumption is important and therefore the waste production. A
high income household will generate three times more waste as a low
income household
 Homogeneity of waste production per household: there are two high
tendencies. The low-income households generate uniformly their waste.
There are few differences in waste production between households (in fact,
the low income households do not have much choice in their consumption
pattern, which is the same whatever the organization of the household). But
for the high income households, there is a greater disparity in their
consumption patterns. These households have greater financial resources,
and therefore have a greater choice of consumption. The production of their
waste can be more variable between households and an other
Waste production per household size
The following graph shows the impact of waste generation per person depending on
household size and area
Figure 8: Waste production per household size – Addis Ababa
Waste production per capita

001
001
kg / cap / day
001
001
000
000
000
- 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Nb of person per household
Low Income Middle Income High Income
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 31

We can do two observations. The first observation is that whatever the social status
of households, output per person decreases with household size. Second finding the
households for 4 or more people, the individual production is higher than the
average social group.
6.1.2 - Waste characteristics

Quantity of sorted waste
The first campaign started on April 9 through training. It was completed on April 20.
During this period it has been sorted 3,629 kg:
 Low income household: 599 kg
 Middle income household: 1,734 kg
 High income house: 1,296 kg
Waste density
The waste density was measured without compacting bin. The contents of the
plastics bags after weighing were directly returned in a rolling bin of 256 liters, which
were then weighed without settling. Within each area at least 9 to 12 waste density
measurements were made. The following table gives the result of the density
variation in the bin according socioeconomic area.
Table 12 : Waste density in the bin- – Addis Ababa City
Number of
Area Average Min Max
measure
Low income 9 0.17 0.12 0.22
Middle income 12 0.18 0.11 0.22
High income 9 0.17 0.14 0.22
Area Average 30 0.18 0.11 0.22
The average waste density from the city of Addis Ababa is relatively homogenous
whatever the area, around 0.18.
The value of this density is in line with what we could expect. The density is mainly
due to two factors: the proportion of organic waste in the bin, and the moisture
content of waste related to the seasons. As indicated in the following paragraph, the
rate of organic waste is about 50-55%, and the waste characterization was
performed through the intermediate season (not dry / not wet).
In Europe for example, the average waste density is under 0.15. The season impact
is low on the quality and quantity of waste produced and the rate of organic waste is
around 30 - 35%
In Cameroon for example, the moisture content could be high and the rate of
organic waste is above 70%. So, the waste density is around 0.28.
In dry season and intermediate season, the rate of volume reduction after any
compacting during transport will be correct.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 32

Waste average composition
All pre-identified fractions were sorted manually during the campaign. Within each
stratum, we have on the results, set a gross composition, that is to say the
percentage of the wet material. This composition is of course strongly influenced by
the humidity of the waste rate can vary from one season to another. The tables
below summarize the measurements of waste.
Table 13 : Waste composition produced by the low income households
Weight by class size Composition
Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 78,5 240,1 318,6 53,2%
Paper 11,9 15,5 27,4 4,6%
Board 12,9 3,5 16,3 2,7%
Tetra Pak 0,9 0,7 1,6 0,3%
Plastics 36,5 10,0 46,5 7,8%
Metal 5,9 5,0 10,9 1,8%
textile 15,3 5,5 20,8 3,5%
Hygienic textile 9,3 1,7 11,1 1,8%
Glass 8,6 10,7 19,2 3,2%
Special waste and WEEE 4,3 2,3 6,6 1,1%
Healthcare waste 8,4 4,9 13,3 2,2%
Unclassified combustible 15,7 8,0 23,6 3,9%
Unclassified incombustible 2,5 5,8 8,3 1,4%
other fine part 42,2 32,5 74,7 12,5%
TOTAL 210,7 313,6 42,2 32,5 599,0 100%
% 35,2% 52,4% 7,0% 5,4% 100,0%
Table 14 : Waste composition produced by the middle income households

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 218,0 692,9 910,9 52,5%
Paper 50,5 26,8 77,3 4,5%
Board 47,5 7,7 55,3 3,2%
Tetra Pak 2,7 0,0 2,7 0,2%
Plastics 133,2 27,4 160,5 9,3%
Metal 15,3 14,5 29,8 1,7%
textile 44,7 15,3 60,0 3,5%
Glass 33,4 14,9 48,3 2,8%
other fine part 109,2 95,9 205,2 11,8%
TOTAL 662,3 866,2 109,2 95,9 1733,7 100%
% 38,2% 50,0% 6,3% 5,5% 100,0%
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 33

Table 15 : Waste composition produced by the high income households

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 128,9 506,1 635,0 49,0%
Paper 38,5 23,8 62,3 4,8%
Board 40,5 15,6 56,0 4,3%
Tetra Pak 2,4 1,5 3,9 0,3%
Plastics 128,4 22,1 150,6 11,6%
Metal 24,4 13,6 38,0 2,9%
textile 27,5 7,3 34,8 2,7%
Glass 55,6 6,5 62,1 4,8%
other fine part 64,9 36,7 101,7 7,8%
TOTAL 546,2 648,1 64,9 36,7 1295,9 100%
% 42,1% 50,0% 5,0% 2,8% 100,0%
From the point of view of granulometric composition, size 20 - 100 mm is

predominant (50%) and homogeneous across all social classes. 75-80% of the size
corresponding to organic waste. The fine particles (<20 mm) represent about 10% of
wet weight of waste. These fine particles are composed mainly of fermented organic
matter.
From the point of view of the waste composition, the proportion of organic waste is
predominantly (49-53%), and decreases with the household social level in favor of
packaging waste (cardboard, plastic ...). The important part of biodegradable waste
can be considered a potential organic recycling (composting) or recovery from
biogas discharge after storage of waste under anaerobic conditions. The typology
waste would not be conducive to the heat recovery (waste to energy facility) without
a waste preparation.
Plastics wastes represent an average of 8 to 11% of waste. This is the second

most important content of household waste. The proportion of plastics wastes
increase with the social environment. This is mainly due to the fact that the higher
social classes consume more packaged products.
The greater part of the time these plastics wastes are mixed with organic waste and
therefore unclean. The moisture content of plastic materials and contaminated
character are constraints to recycling. Indeed, recovery requires washing and drying
before being recycled. Taking into account the non-biodegradability of this type of
waste, it is imperative to establish a system of sorting and recovery to limit their
impact on the environment.
Papers (4.5-4.8%), textiles (1.7-3.5%), cardboard (2.7 to 4.3%), glass (2.8 to 4.8% )
and sanitary textiles (1.8-4.9%) are poorly represented in the waste. Paper and
cardboard are usually contaminated by organic matter, cannot be subject to
recovery easily. Glasses and sanitary textiles are more represented in high-income
households (4.8%).
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 34

Other categories, such as Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and
household hazardous waste are found in trace amounts (<2%).
Focus on waste recycling
The waste material recycling mainly concern:

 Waste which the size is over 100 mm (indeed, the waste which have a size
below 100 mm are difficult to recycle because of the technical process)
 The plastic waste, cardboard, tetra pak, papers, metal and glass
Given these criteria, we can estimate the maximum potential of waste recycling to
15% by weight, ie by collecting 100% of that all this waste are recycled, so they are
not contaminated by organic waste.
However, we can reasonably consider that less than 10% of waste from Addis
Ababa are recyclable.
6.1.3 - Chemical parameters

On mixed waste
We collected 8 samples of mixed waste to carry out physic-chemical analyzes. The

results are reported in the following table:
Table 16 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from Addis Ababa households

Number of sample 2 3 3
Total moisture content 86,36% 67,72% 62,30%
Air dried lost 80,68% 63,13% 58,86%
Composition
on dry waste
Moisture 5,68% 4,58% 3,44%

Volatile Matter 40,90% 39,45% 58,61%
Fixed carbon 10,11% 11,34% 10,46%
Ash 43,32% 44,63% 27,49%
Ph 6,62 6,32 5,46
Calorific Value kJ/kg (dry waste) 9 224 10 025 13 638
Calorific Value kJ/kg (wet waste) 1 782 3 695 5 611
As might be expected, the moisture content in the waste is very important (more
62%). This moisture content comes from the high proportion of organic waste. It is
more important (85%) in the low income area. It is a disabling parameter for
thermal recovery treatment.
The other parameters show a relative homogeneity between the carbon elements
and minerals. It has a low impact on the waste treatment by composting or energy
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 35

recovery, but with about 50% of volatile matter, a treatment by landfill would recover
a significant amount of bio-gas.
The average value of Ph is a bit low for a compost quality, if a treatment by

composting was considered. (best value between 7.5 to 8.5)
The calorific value of the waste is relatively high on a dry product (between 9000
and 13,000 kJ / kg), which is very favorable for heat recovery. However, on the wet
product the calorific value is low (between 2000 and 5600 kJ / kg), which is
prohibitive for a thermal treatment.
This large difference is due to the high content of organic matter (ie wet) which
penalizes the product.
In a technical Guidance Report from the World bank (“Municipal Solid Waste
Incineration”- 1999), it’s said:”
“Key criteria for incineration: The average lower calorific value of the waste must be
at least 6 MJ/kg (i.e 6 000 kJ / kg) throughout all seasons. The annual average
lower calorific value must not be less than 7 MJ/kg (i.e 7 000 kJ / kg)”
Thus, without previous treatment (drying / aering), wastes that are currently
collected cannot be advisable to thermic treatment
On the organic waste
We collected 9 samples of organic waste to carry out physic-chemical analyzes.
The parameters analyzed have been heavy metal (Cu, Zn, Pb, Co, Ni). The
concentration of heavy metals in the organic fraction is one of factor that indicates
whether this fraction can be composted, and can produce an good organic
amendment
Results are reported in the following table in comparison with the standard French
norm of organic amendment:
Table 17 : Rate of heavy metal in organic fraction from Addis Ababa
households
Number of
Area Cu (ppm) Zn (ppm) Pb (ppm) Co (ppm) Ni (ppm)
sample
Low income 3 58,67 133,41 4,59 19,77 17,53
Middle income 3 72,18 121,63 5,72 19,71 15,27
High income 3 60,44 104,58 40,85 24,29 17,97
French regulation 300 600 180 n.a 60
ppm: parts per million or g / kg.
It appears that the results are homogeneous between each sampling. The rate of
heavy metals is well below the limits of regulation. If the compost was produced with
these organic wastes, it would be of good quality compared to the metal content.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 36

6.2 - Households waste characterization – Burayu

On all 50 households surveyed, 400 plastic bags were placed on 8 days, and 301
have been recovered. The return rate of plastic bags is 75%.
Table 18 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households - Burayu

Area Rate %
deposit collected
TOTAL 400 301 75%
Table 19 : Waste specific production per household by area - Burayu

Number of data 95 96 110 301
(kg/cap/day)
doesn’t vary with socio-economic area living (unlike data from Addis Ababa City).
Indeed we find that an average of 0.49 kg / capita / day, slightly more than the
average production of the middle income area from Addis Ababa City.
Figure 9: Waste production per household size – Burayu
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 37


002
002
kg / cap / day 002
002
001
001
001
001
001
000
000
000
- 2 4 6 8 10
Nb of person / household
households for 6 or more people, the individual production is in the average of the
social group.

The first campaign started on May 20. It was completed on May 27. During this
period it has been sorted 1 680 kg:
 Middle income household: 582 kg
 High income house: 567 kg
Waste density
were then weighed without settling. Within each area at least 8 waste density
Table 20 : Waste density in the bin
Number of
measure
Low income 8 0.22 0.17 0.25
Middle income 8 0.23 0.17 0.30
High income 8 0.26 0.20 0.34
Area Average 24 0.24 0.17 0.34
The average waste density from Burayu is relatively homogenous whatever the
area, around 0.24. The value of this density is higher than these from Addis Ababa
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 38

City, because as indicated in the following paragraph, the rate of organic waste is
about 60 - 65%
Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 95,1 267,9 363,0 68,3%
Paper 8,5 5,8 14,3 2,7%
Board 10,3 3,1 13,5 2,5%
Tetra Pak 0,5 0,0 0,5 0,1%
Plastics 26,4 5,5 32,0 6,0%
Metal 1,2 2,2 3,4 0,6%
textile 4,4 1,1 5,5 1,0%
Glass 2,6 2,6 5,2 1,0%
other fine part 28,5 13,7 42,2 8,0%
TOTAL 178,5 310,6 28,5 13,7 531,4 100%
% 33,6% 58,5% 5,4% 2,6% 100,0%

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 91,2 276,4 367,6 63,1%
Paper 11,0 7,7 18,8 3,2%
Board 13,5 3,7 17,2 3,0%
Tetra Pak 2,0 0,0 2,0 0,3%
Plastics 40,3 15,8 56,0 9,6%
Metal 2,8 2,6 5,5 0,9%
textile 8,8 1,7 10,5 1,8%
Glass 1,5 4,6 6,1 1,0%
other fine part 22,9 12,8 35,7 6,1%
TOTAL 212,0 334,5 22,9 12,8 582,2 100%
% 36,4% 57,4% 3,9% 2,2% 100,0%
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 39


Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 80,8 275,9 356,7 62,9%
Paper 13,8 8,8 22,6 4,0%
Board 14,8 4,5 19,3 3,4%
Tetra Pak 1,4 0,1 1,4 0,3%
Plastics 35,3 15,2 50,5 8,9%
Metal 1,1 3,6 4,6 0,8%
textile 6,5 0,8 7,3 1,3%
Glass 6,4 5,1 11,5 2,0%
other fine part 27,2 12,5 39,7 7,0%
TOTAL 189,3 338,1 27,2 12,5 567,1 100%
% 33,4% 59,6% 4,8% 2,2% 100,0%

predominant (60%) and homogeneous across all social classes. More than 80% of
the size corresponds to organic waste. The fine particles (<20 mm) represent about
less than 10% of wet weight of waste. These fine particles are composed mainly of
fermented organic matter.
predominantly (more than 63%), and is homogeneous between each household
social level. The important part of biodegradable waste can be considered a
potential organic recycling (composting) or recovery from biogas discharge after
storage of waste under anaerobic conditions. The typology waste would not be
conducive to the heat recovery (waste to energy facility) without a waste
preparation.

not contaminated by organic waste. However, we can reasonably consider that
less than 8% of wastes from Burayu are recyclable.

No chemical parameter has been measured.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 40

6.3 - Households waste characterization – Sebata

Table 24 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households - Sebata

Area Rate %
deposit collected
TOTAL 370 253 68%
Table 25 : Waste specific production per household by area - Sebata

Number of data 45 121 87 253
(kg/cap/day)
We can see through this table that the specific waste production per household is
the same between the low and middle income (0.41 kg / capita / day), and like for
Addis Ababa, the rate is higher for the high income (0.70 kg / capita / day).
Like for Burayu, the waste production seems to be more important than in Addis
Ababa City.
Figure 10: Waste production per household size – Sebata
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 41


003
003
003
002
002
kg / cap / day
002
002
002
001
001
001
001
001
000
000
000
-1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
The finding is the same as for Burayu. We can do two observations. The first
observation is that whatever the social status of households, output per person
decreases with household size. Second finding the households for 6 or more
people, the individual production is in the average of the social group.

Waste density
were then weighed without settling. At least 19 waste density measurements were
made. The following table gives the result of the density variation in the bin
according socioeconomic area.
Table 26 : Waste density in the bin - Sebata
Number of
measure
Low income 5 0.27 0.16 0.39
High income 6 0.36 0.25 0.55
Area Average 19 0.34 0.16 0.55
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 42

As for Burayu, the average waste density from Sebata is relatively homogenous
whatever the area, around 0.34. The value of this density is higher than these from
Addis Ababa City and Burayu, because as indicated in the following paragraph, the
rate of organic waste is more than 70%
Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 31,4 70,6 102,0 81,4%
Paper 1,8 0,6 2,4 1,9%
Board 1,2 0,3 1,5 1,2%
Tetra Pak 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0%
Plastics 5,0 0,9 5,8 4,7%
Metal 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,4%
textile 1,5 0,2 1,7 1,4%
Glass 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0%
other fine part 4,1 2,1 6,2 5,0%
TOTAL 42,5 76,5 4,1 2,1 125,2 100%
% 34,0% 61,1% 3,3% 1,7% 100,0%

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 56,1 174,2 230,4 71,6%
Paper 4,7 2,6 7,3 2,3%
Board 5,3 1,4 6,7 2,1%
Tetra Pak 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0%
Plastics 13,3 2,9 16,2 5,0%
Metal 0,3 2,8 3,1 1,0%
textile 1,3 1,1 2,4 0,7%
Glass 2,2 1,5 3,7 1,2%
other fine part 15,9 13,1 29,0 9,0%
TOTAL 95,4 197,3 15,9 13,1 321,7 100%
% 36,4% 57,4% 3,9% 2,2% 100,0%
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 43


Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 142,0 474,0 615,9 78,8%
Paper 7,2 5,6 12,8 1,6%
Board 8,8 5,0 13,8 1,8%
Tetra Pak 1,4 0,2 1,5 0,2%
Plastics 41,0 16,9 57,9 7,4%
Metal 0,2 3,1 3,3 0,4%
textile 4,1 0,9 5,1 0,6%
Glass 7,4 3,6 11,0 1,4%
other fine part 19,3 7,2 26,5 3,4%
TOTAL 233,1 522,1 19,3 7,2 781,7 100%
% 29,8% 66,8% 2,5% 0,9% 100,0%

predominant (around 60%) and homogeneous across all social classes. More than
90% of the size corresponds to organic waste. The fine particles (<20 mm)
represent about less than 5% of wet weight of waste. These fine particles are
composed mainly of fermented organic matter.
predominantly (more than 70%), and is homogeneous between each household
social level. The important part of biodegradable waste can be considered a
potential organic recycling (composting) or recovery from biogas discharge after
storage of waste under anaerobic conditions. The typology waste would not be
conducive to the heat recovery (waste to energy facility) without a waste
preparation.

not contaminated by organic waste.
However, we can reasonably consider that less than 5% of wastes from

Sebeta are recyclable.

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 44

6.4 - Street cleaning waste characterization

period it has been sorted 192 kg:
 Residential Area street waste: 136 kg
 Commercial street waste: 56 kg
Waste density

Number of
measure
Residential Area street waste 2 0.18 0.14 0.25
Commercial street waste 2 0.15 0.14 0.15
Area Average 4 0.17 0.14 0.25
The average street waste density is relatively homogenous whatever the area,
around 0.17. The value of this density is close to that found in Addis Ababa. One of
the main reasons is that the rate of organic waste is about 40 - 45% (see the
following paragraph)
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 45

Table 31 : Waste composition produced by the residential area street waste

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 28,1 33,9 61,9 45,5%
Paper 2,2 1,3 3,4 2,5%
Board 10,7 0,5 11,1 8,2%
Tetra Pak 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,1%
Plastics 16,2 1,7 17,8 13,1%
Metal 0,8 0,7 1,4 1,0%
textile 3,4 0,6 4,0 2,9%
Glass 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,2%
other fine part 12,8 8,5 21,2 15,6%
TOTAL 66,6 48,2 12,8 8,5 136,0 100%
% 49,0% 35,4% 9,4% 6,2% 100,0%
Table 32 : Waste composition produced by the commercial street waste

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 12,4 11,9 24,3 43,4%
Paper 1,7 1,8 3,4 6,1%
Board 2,9 0,7 3,5 6,3%
Tetra Pak 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,3%
Plastics 6,0 0,9 6,8 12,2%
Metal 0,1 0,6 0,6 1,1%
textile 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,4%
Glass 0,5 0,7 1,2 2,1%
other fine part 5,7 2,7 8,3 14,9%
TOTAL 24,3 23,2 5,7 2,7 55,9 100%
% 43,5% 41,6% 10,1% 4,8% 100,0%
From the point of view of granulometric composition, size over 100 mm is

predominant (45 - 50%). Organic matter is the majority, but now there are more
plastic and cardboard. Waste size between 20 and 100 mm is still formed with many
organic waste but also inert waste.
The fine particles (<20 mm) represent more than 15% of wet weight of waste. These
fine particles are composed mainly of inert waste matter.
predominantly (more than 40%), and is homogeneous between each area. What is
different now is that we find more cardboard, paper and plastics (20 – 25%)
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 46


less than 10% of wastes from streets are recyclable.

No chemical parameters have been measured.
6.5 - Commercial / institutional waste characterization

230 plastic bags were placed on 8 days, and 253 have been recovered. The return
rate of plastic bags is 68%.
Table 33 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households – Commercial /
Institutional
number of plastic number of plastic

Area Rate %
bags deposit bags collected
Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel 80 47 59%
Institutions 80 80 100%
Shops and stores 70 39 56%
TOTAL 230 166 72%
For each area, the quantity of waste per company is divided by the duration of
waste generated by area.
Table 34 : Waste specific production per company by area
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 47

Specific waste production Cafe, Bar, Institutions Shops and

Restaurant and stores
Hotel
Number of data 47 80 39
Average (kg/comp./day) 34,76 7,59 6,49
We can see through this table that waste institutions and shops / stores is very close
(6-7 kg / comp. / day). For Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel waste is more important.
The average is around 34 kg / day, but depends strongly on the size of the company
and the company activitie.

 Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel: 1 634 kg
 Institutions: 607 kg
 Shops and stores: 253 kg
Waste density
variation in the bin according each area.

Number of
measure
Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel 8 0,31 0,25 0,35
Institutions 8 0,07 0,05 0,11
Shops and stores 6 0,06 0,04 0,1
Area Average 22 0,15 0,04 0,35
The waste density of Café, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel is higher because these
companies produce lot of biodegradable waste. The waste density of instituitons and
shops / stores is low, because the main waste production is packaging (plastics,
board and paper).
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 48

Table 36 : Waste composition produced by Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel
Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 230,3 806,1 1036,4 63,4%
Paper 15,2 26,2 41,4 2,5%
Board 19,5 3,2 22,7 1,4%
Tetra Pak 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0%
Plastics 99,1 14,3 113,3 6,9%
Metal 6,4 33,7 40,1 2,5%
textile 10,4 1,9 12,3 0,8%
Glass 41,2 17,4 58,6 3,6%
other fine part 80,8 28,0 108,8 6,7%
TOTAL 523,5 1001,7 80,8 28,0 1634,0 100%
% 32,0% 61,3% 4,9% 1,7% 100,0%
The average waste composition from Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel is close to
that of households: mainly organics (60%), and few packaging (10%), with a mostly
waste class size between 20 - 100 mm.
Table 37 : Waste composition produced by institutions

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 24,6 52,4 76,9 12,7%
Paper 171,2 34,0 205,2 33,8%
Board 85,6 4,1 89,7 14,8%
Tetra Pak 9,6 2,4 12,0 2,0%
Plastics 64,9 8,1 73,0 12,0%
Metal 2,7 4,7 7,4 1,2%
textile 13,3 4,1 17,4 2,9%
Glass 4,9 1,7 6,7 1,1%
other fine part 23,8 29,8 53,5 8,8%
TOTAL 397,8 156,0 23,8 29,8 607,3 100%
% 65,5% 25,7% 3,9% 4,9% 100,0%
For the institutions, the waste composition is specific. We find mainly packaging and
papers: more than 60% and mostly with a class size over 100 mm. (it means that tis
product could be easy to collect separately in order to recycling). The part of
organics waste is low.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 49

Table 38 : Waste composition produced by shops and stores

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 13,0 8,4 21,3 8,4%
Paper 5,1 5,5 10,7 4,2%
Board 68,4 4,9 73,3 28,9%
Tetra Pak 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0%
Plastics 30,9 2,9 33,7 13,3%
Metal 0,4 0,9 1,4 0,5%
textile 1,8 1,1 2,9 1,1%
Glass 52,0 12,6 64,6 25,5%
other fine part 13,8 13,7 27,6 10,9%
TOTAL 179,8 46,0 13,8 13,7 253,4 100%
% 71,0% 18,2% 5,5% 5,4% 100,0%
For the shops and stores the result is the same as for institutions. We find mainly
packaging (board, plastics), which are a big size.

Given these criteria, we can estimate the maximum potential of waste recycling to:
 Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel: 11% by weight
 Institutions: 56% by weight
 Shops and stores: 62% by weight
Thus, there’s a real possibility to recycle a significant part of these waste

We collected 3 samples of mixed waste to carry out physic-chemical analyzes.
The results are reported in the following table.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 50

Table 39 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from companies
Cafe, Bar,
Restaurant and Institutions Shops & Stores
Hotel
Total moisture content 99,80 65,35 42,75
Air dried lost % 89,22 60,00 37,84
Composition
on dry waste
Moisture % 10,58 5,35 4,91

Volatile Matter % 37,22 69,80 62,93
Fixed carbon % 8,25 8,36 11,58
Ash % 43,95 16,49 20,58
Calorific Value kJ/kg (dry
10800 12942 15069
waste)
Calorific Value kJ/kg (wet
1056 5177 9367
waste)
Ph 7,98 6,12 6,10
As might be expected, the moisture content is higher in each category, and

especially in the Café, bar, hotel, restaurant waste (more 99%). This moisture
content comes from the high proportion of organic waste (restaurant) or degradable
product like paper or board (shops, institutions)
With more than 40% of volatile matter, a treatment by landfill would recover a
significant amount of bio-gas.
The calorific value of the waste is relatively high on a dry product (between 11,000
product the calorific value is low (between 1,000 and 9,367 kJ / kg). In fact, 1,000
kJ/kg is prohibitive for a thermal treatment, but 9,367 kJ / kg is very good.
penalizes the product. In brief, waste product by Café, Restaurants, and Hotel are
not good for thermal treatment like incinerator plant, but better for composting. And
on the over hand, waste from institution or shops and stores could be better for
waste to energy unit. However, we have seen that the waste contain many
recyclable materials. If these materials shall be collected, the waste physical
composition will change, and it should be more difficult to incinerate
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 51

6.6 - Industrial, workshops and hospital waste characterization surveys
6.6.1 - Industrials companies

Sampling reliability
21 companies were surveyed, of various sizes ranging from 26 to 750 employees,

for a total of more than 6,000 employees. More fifteen activities are represented:
plastics products, furniture products, packaging products, paint products, Bottled
and Draught Beer, milk product…
Waste generation
On average on the sampling, the annual waste production by employees is about
1.12 ton.
Approximately 55% of waste is recyclable products, mainly packaging (board,
plastics, pallet), and manufacturing waste (wood, glass and metal).
The share of organic waste (7%) corresponds mainly to the falls of production (milk,
beer ...)
Few of hazardous waste is generated (2%). they come from the plastic, textile and
paint manufacturing.
The others waste are mixed waste (sweeping waste, office waste…) (36%), which
are difficult to sort and to recycle.
Allocation as of waste generation
2%
36% Recycable waste
55% Organic waste

Other waste
7%
Hazardous waste
Figure 11: Allocation of waste generation - Industries
Current waste management

Companies do not have much knowledge about the management of their waste.
50% do not know who manages the company's waste. For those who know, they
usually say that it’s the private companies who collect waste. However, when we
analyze the comments that companies have been made, we believe that the city of
Addis Ababa shall collect much of the waste.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 52

Cost
Only one company said that it pays something. The others do not know or do not
want to say
Comments
Many companies did comments:
 “we paid with water bill”
 “The city administration should control the condition of waste containers and
collect them regularly”
 “The city administration shall develop a mechanize that help to reuse and
recycle waste products from out enterprise”
 “The waste collection done by micro-enterprises is not regular and timely so
the city administration shall make the service to be regular”
 “ The City administration must increase the number of containers to avoid
spilling of waste, to cover containers while transporting waste to dumping
site, provide waste management trainings to industries, modernize waste
collection services”
 “The city administration has to facilitate timely (regular) collection of waste”
 “Timely Collection of containers”
 “There is no clear cut relationship between our company and Addis Ababa
city administration waste management office”
 “The waste collection enterprise does not usually come on time and making
solid waste storage difficult (small space available for storage), Some of the
items produced from our factory can be recycled (converted to useful
material), packing materials used to be sold to private associations but now
they are discarded as dumped in the container”
 “The city administration shall develop a mechanize that help to reuse and
recycle waste products from out enterprise”
 “In order to facilitate waste collection, a waste hauling truck should be made
available”
 “The officials should facilitate timely collection of waste, In order to avoid
spillage of waste on the roads, the trucks should be provided with cover ,
containers should be placed far from residential areas”
 “The waste collection service should be timely (regular)”
It appears that the main comments relate to a better relationship with the city
administration, and a wish for a better waste public service.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 53

6.6.2 - Workshops
4 companies were surveyed, of various sizes ranging from 9 to 75 employees, for a

total of more than 120 employees. The main activities surveyed were garages and
metal products companies
Waste generation
0.18 ton.
Companies say that more than 90% of their waste is recycled. Indeed, it is mainly
of metal waste and packaging.

As the waste is mostly recyclable, companies reuse them internally (metal).
However, they also use the services of private companies and the informal sector.
Addis Ababa city does not appear to be involved in the management of their waste.
Cost
The companies say that they pay a cost for their waste management, to the informal
sector or private companies, around 1,200 to 2,200 birr / year for a production of
500 kg to 1,000 kg of materials (mainly metals)
Comments
 “collect the waste regularly (at least once or twice a week)”
 “The city administration should monitor the collection of waste on a regular
basis “
 “The city administration should practice recycling of wastes”
As for industries, it appears that the main comments relate to a better

relationship with the city administration, and a wish a waste public service.
6.6.3 - Hospitals
9 hospitals, clinics and health centers were surveyed, of various sizes ranging from
100 to 1 300 employees, for a total of more than 3,400 employees.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 54

Waste generation
0.29 ton.
More than 37% of waste is infectious, hazardous and special waste. (needles,
cottons, bandages, blood, battery, dead animals…)
Organic waste represents about 29% of the quantities. It is mainly food waste.
Recyclable waste (20%) is mainly office papers and packaging cardboard and
plastic
The others waste are mixed waste (sweeping waste, office waste…) (14%), which
are difficult to sort and to recycle.
Allocation as of waste
generation
37% 20% Recycable waste

Organic waste
29%
14% Other waste
Hazardous waste
Figure 12: Allocation of waste generation - Hospitals

In terms of waste management, we find all the situations:
 Burn using internal incinerator (2 companies): Hazardous Waste
 Collection by Addis Ababa City Government : mainly mixed waste (including
food waste)
 Collection by private companies : non-infectious waste (mixed waste,
recycling waste)
 Collection by informal sector : both hazardous & nonhazardous waste
Therefore, there is no organization type. The greatest difficulty in the management
of the waste is for infectious waste, because some Hospital / Clinic… give their
waste to micro-enterprises which we do not really know what they become.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 55

Cost
Of the nine companies surveyed, five companies say paying for their waste
management (4,800 to 28,800 birr / year).
Comments
 “As the existing incinerator is becoming old, we want the city administration
to rehabilitate the waste incinerator or construct a new one inside our health
center, We want the city administration waste management office to build
big size ash storage well in the health center compound”
 “To organize and create a centralized waste management system (collection
& disposal) for infectious and hazardous wastes covering all health
institutions, A central hazardous and non-hazardous waste management
facility should be established in Addis Ababa,• no need to build a separate
incinerator for each health facility,• outsourcing of waste disposal will
minimize cost and protect the health providers and population from different
incidents”
 “We request the city administration to place a skip (container) inside our
compound to store the ash from the incinerators”
 “We need the city administration to construct or built state of the art
technology based infectious waste incinerator in each health institution
special in hospitals, Improve waste management especially by providing
transportation vehicles for private waste collection companies”
 “We need a central drug burning incinerators to be established in Addis
Ababa so that expired drugs from all medical institutions can be burned”
 “To have an organized waste management system in the city, As the city
administration is unable to manage the waste service, it would be better if
the service is outsourced to the private sector”
 “The waste collection service provided by the city administration is not
adequate”
 "A place to burn infectious waste, City administration shall arrange a place
for disposal of Ash from Incinerators, To supply the hospital big size skips
for collection of non-infectious waste”
It appears that there is a strong demand from hospitals and clinics in the
waste management from Addis Ababa City, and especially regarding the
management of hazardous and infectious waste by incineration
Appendix 2 : Waste characterization survey of 34 companies
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 56

7 - SECOND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION CAMPAIGN - DATA AND

INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
7.1 - Households waste characterization - Addis Ababa City

On all 210 households surveyed, 1,820 plastic bags were placed on 9 days, and
1,629 have been recovered. The return rate of plastic bags is 90%.
Table 40 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households – Addis Ababa City

Area Rate %
deposit collected
TOTAL 1,820 1,639 90%
In comparison with the first campaign:
As for the first campaign, it was more difficult to collect the waste in the high income
area (fear that makes them pay something, or that we found “something” in their
waste). Nevertheless, the return rate is good.
Table 41 : Waste specific production per household by area – Addis Ababa
City

Number of data 506 602 531 1 639
(kg/cap/day)
The observations are the same as for the first campaign.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 57

varies with socio-economic area living. Indeed we find that
 The high income households area have the highest specific output of about
0.65 kg / capita / day on average;
 It is an average of 0.34 kg / capita / day in the middle low income household
area
 Only 0.21 kg / capita / day in the low income household area
Furthermore, we see an increasing variation around the average when the social
household level increases.
The analysis of these data shows:

 Waste production per households: more the household social level is higher,
more the consumption is important and therefore the waste production. A
high income household will generate three times more waste as a low
income household
 Homogeneity of waste production per household: there are two high
tendencies. The low-income households generate uniformly their waste.
There are few differences in waste production between households (in fact,
the low income households do not have much choice in their consumption
pattern, which is the same whatever, the organization of the household). But
for the high income households, there is a greater disparity in their
consumption patterns. These households have greater financial resources,
and therefore have a greater choice of consumption. The production of their
waste can be more variable between households and an other
 The only small difference with the first campaign is that the daily waste
production per capita is slightly more important.
households for 4-5 or more people, the individual production is higher than the
average social group.
The conclusions are the same.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 58

Figure 13: Waste production per household size – Addis Ababa

2,00
1,80
1,60
1,40
kg / cap / day
1,20
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
- 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

The second campaign started on August 23th. It was completed on August 30th.
During this period it has been sorted 3,194 kg:
 Middle income household: 1,077 kg
 High income house: 1,641 kg
Waste density
were then weighed without settling. Within each area at least 8 or 9 waste density
Table 42 : Waste density in the bin- – Addis Ababa City
Number of
measure
Low income 8 0.24 0.16 0.34
High income 9 0.19 0.16 0.25
Area Average 26 0.20 0.15 0.34
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 59

The average waste density from the city of Addis Ababa is relatively homogenous
for the middle and the high income area, around 0.19. (This data is slightly higher
than in the first campaign – 0.18). But in the low income area the average of the
waste density is still more important, around 0.23
The density is mainly due to two factors: the proportion of organic waste in the bin,
and the moisture content of waste related to the seasons. As indicated in the
following paragraph, the rate of organic waste is about 50-60%, for the middle and
high income area, and around 70% for the low income area. And then the waste
characterization was performed through the wet season. Therefore these data are
relevant.
Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 135,3 193,2 328,5 69,0%
Paper 8,1 4,5 12,7 2,7%
Board 9,8 1,5 11,3 2,4%
Tetra Pak 0,6 0,5 1,1 0,2%
Plastics 26,5 5,2 31,7 6,7%
Metal 1,8 1,2 3,1 0,6%
textile 11,3 1,3 12,6 2,7%
Glass 2,9 4,5 7,4 1,6%
other fine part 29,2 14,0 43,3 9,1%
TOTAL 210,0 222,6 29,2 14,0 475,8 100%
% 44,1% 46,8% 6,1% 3,0% 100,0%
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 60


Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 265,6 383,7 649,3 60,3%
Paper 27,8 13,4 41,2 3,8%
Board 33,5 5,3 38,8 3,6%
Tetra Pak 2,5 0,6 3,1 0,3%
Plastics 83,8 16,5 100,3 9,3%
Metal 7,5 4,9 12,4 1,2%
textile 23,3 4,5 27,8 2,6%
Glass 11,2 9,3 20,5 1,9%
other fine part 59,2 32,5 91,7 8,5%
TOTAL 518,9 466,6 59,2 32,5 1077,3 100%
% 48,2% 43,3% 5,5% 3,0% 100,0%

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 282,8 526,4 809,2 49,3%
Paper 68,6 27,3 95,9 5,8%
Board 75,4 10,9 86,3 5,3%
Tetra Pak 4,7 2,5 7,2 0,4%
Plastics 149,9 44,5 194,4 11,9%
Metal 20,0 6,8 26,8 1,6%
textile 51,4 4,5 55,8 3,4%
Glass 20,9 13,1 34,0 2,1%
other fine part 71,4 15,8 87,2 5,3%
TOTAL 855,4 698,1 71,4 15,8 1640,7 100%
% 52,1% 42,5% 4,4% 1,0% 100,0%
From the point of view of granulometric composition, the two sizes 20 - 100 mm
and over 100mm are equivalents (between 42-52%) and homogeneous across all
social classes. The organic waste is still in the medium size 20-100 mm (more than
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 61

75% of this class size is the organic waste). The fine particles (<20 mm) represent
less than 10% of wet weight of waste.
In comparison to the first campaign, the wastes are larger (because there are
organics)
predominantly (49-69%), and decreases with the household social level in favor of
packaging waste (cardboard, plastic ...). But, it’s very important to explain the
evolution in each area, between the two campaigns.
For the low and middle income groups, there’s a significant increase in the organic
waste generation (First campaign: around 53%; Second campaign: 60% and 69%).
During the wet season, these households change their consumption patterns:
more vegetables products and less packaging products
For the high income group, the waste generation remains the same
Plastics wastes represent an average of 6 to 12% of waste. This is the second

most important content of household waste. The proportion of plastics wastes
increase with the social environment. This is mainly due to the fact that the higher
social classes consume more packaged products.
The greater part of the time these plastics wastes are mixed with organic waste and
therefore unclean. The moisture content of plastic materials and contaminated
character are constraints to recycling. Indeed, recovery requires washing and drying
before being recycled. Taking into account the non-biodegradability of this type of
waste, it is imperative to establish a system of sorting and recovery to limit their
impact on the environment.
Papers (2.7-5.8%), textiles (2.2-3.4%), cardboard (2.4-5.3%), glass (1.6-2.1%) and

sanitary textiles (1.0-7.3%) are poorly represented in the waste. Paper and
cardboard are usually contaminated by organic matter, cannot be subject to
recovery easily. Glasses and sanitary textiles are more represented in high-income
households.
Other categories, such as Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and
household hazardous waste are found in trace amounts (<0.5%).
These results are similar as in the first waste characterization.

 The plastic waste, cardboard, tetra pack, papers, metal and glass
15% by weight (10% for low income group to 20% for high income group), ie by
collecting 100% of that all this waste are recycled, so they are not contaminated by
organic waste.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 62

However, we can reasonably consider that less than 10% of waste from Addis
Ababa are recyclable.
These results are once again similar as the first waste characterization.

On mixed waste

results are reported in the following table.
Table 46 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from Addis Ababa households

Air dried lost % 51,69 68,09 47,57
Composition on
Moisure % 4,32 8,12 6,11

dry waste
Fixed carbon % 10,00 12,37 15,25
Ash % 50,77 33,10 38,58
Calorific Value kJ/kg (dry waste) 8768 12158 12877
Calorific Value kJ/kg (wet waste) 4236 3879 6751
Ph 7,96 8,00 8,07
As might be expected, the moisture content in the waste is important (more 50%).
This moisture content comes from the high proportion of organic waste. It is a
disabling parameter for thermal recovery treatment.
and minerals. It has a low impact on the waste treatment by composting or energy
recovery, but with about 40% of volatile matter, a treatment by landfill would recover
a significant amount of bio-gas.
The average value of Ph is correct for a compost quality, if a treatment by

composting was considered.
The calorific value of the waste is relatively high on a dry product (between 8000
product the calorific value is low (between 3 800 and 6 700 kJ / kg), which is
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 63

In a technical Guidance Report from the World bank (“Municipal Solid Waste
Incineration”- 1999), it’s said:”
“Key criteria for incineration: The average lower calorific value of the waste must be
at least 6 MJ/kg (i.e 6 000 kJ / kg) throughout all seasons. The annual average
lower calorific value must not be less than 7 MJ/kg (i.e 7 000 kJ / kg)”
Thus, without previous treatment (drying / aering), wastes that are currently
Once again, these values are close from the previous values of the first waste
characterization.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 64

7.2 - Households waste characterization – Burayu

Table 47 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households - Burayu

Area Rate %
deposit collected
Low income 200 199 100%
TOTAL 600 591 99%
Table 48 : Waste specific production per household by area - Burayu
Specific waste production Low income Middle income High Income

Average (kg/cap/day) 0,35 0,38 0,33
Standard deviation 0,21 0,24 0,20
(kg/cap/day)
doesn’t vary with socio-economic area (unlike data from Addis Ababa City). Indeed
we find that an average around 0.35 kg / capita / day, close to the average
production of the middle income area from Addis Ababa City.
Compared to the first waste characterization, these data are lower. However, we
can estimate that these data are more reliable, firstly because the number of sample
is much larger, and secondly that the standard deviation is low.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 65

Figure 14: Waste production per household size – Burayu

1,60
1,40
1,20
kg / cap / day
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
- 2 4 6 8 10
social group.
These data are the same as in the first waste characterization.

The first campaign started on September 05th. It was completed on September 19th.
During this period it has been sorted 1 160 kg:
Waste density
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 66

Number of
measure
Low income 10 0.19 0.13 0.28
Middle income 10 0.20 0.15 0.28
High income 10 0.22 0.16 0.31
Area Average 30 0.20 0.13 0.31
The average waste density from Burayu is relatively homogenous whatever the
area, around 0.20. For this campaign, the value of this density is the same as Addis
Ababa City, because as indicated in the following paragraph, the rate of organic
waste is around 66% (as for Addis Ababa).
Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 88,8 120,0 208,8 56,5%
Paper 7,5 4,3 11,8 3,2%
Board 13,6 3,4 17,1 4,6%
Tetra Pak 0,8 0,7 1,5 0,4%
Plastics 19,6 4,3 24,0 6,5%
Metal 2,4 2,0 4,4 1,2%
textile 7,2 1,9 9,1 2,5%
Glass 4,2 3,7 8,0 2,2%
other fine part 24,0 11,6 35,7 9,6%
TOTAL 177,5 156,6 24,0 11,6 369,8 100%
% 48,0% 42,3% 6,5% 3,1% 100,0%

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 89,4 143,5 232,9 59,1%
Paper 7,2 5,3 12,5 3,2%
Board 12,9 2,4 15,2 3,9%
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 67

Tetra Pak 0,5 0,1 0,6 0,1%

Plastics 21,3 5,3 26,6 6,7%
Metal 2,5 2,8 5,3 1,4%
textile 10,6 1,7 12,4 3,1%
Glass 4,1 10,2 14,3 3,6%
other fine part 21,7 9,3 30,9 7,8%
TOTAL 175,1 188,2 21,7 9,3 394,2 100%
% 44,4% 47,7% 5,5% 2,4% 100,0%

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 100,5 128,1 228,6 57,8%
Paper 7,7 4,6 12,3 3,1%
Board 10,2 2,5 12,7 3,2%
Tetra Pak 1,7 0,9 2,6 0,7%
Plastics 21,4 4,2 25,6 6,5%
Metal 1,7 2,0 3,7 0,9%
textile 8,5 2,0 10,5 2,6%
Glass 3,7 3,7 7,4 1,9%
other fine part 31,1 16,9 48,0 12,1%
TOTAL 182,7 165,1 31,1 16,9 395,8 100%
% 46,2% 41,7% 7,9% 4,3% 100,0%
From the point of view of granulometric composition, size > 100 mm is

predominant (45%) and homogeneous across all social classes. More than 50% of
the size corresponds to organic waste. The fine particles (<20 mm) represent about
less than 10% of wet weight of waste. These fine particles are composed mainly of
fermented organic matter.
These data are slightly different from the first waste characterization, but it remains
in the same lines.
predominantly (around 60%) and is homogeneous between each household social
level. The important part of biodegradable waste can be considered a potential
organic recycling (composting) or recovery from biogas discharge after storage of
waste under anaerobic conditions. The typology waste would not be conducive to
the heat recovery (waste to energy facility) without a waste preparation.
These data are the same that the first waste characterization (64% of organic
waste).
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 68


less than 8% of wastes from Burayu are recyclable.
Once again, these data are consistent with the first waste characterization.

On mixed waste

Table 53 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from Burayu households

Air dried lost % 44,82 55,50 60,33
Composition on
Moisure % 4,33 5,30 5,45

dry waste

Fixed carbon % 10,26 13,34 19,40
Ash % 62,55 55,19 45,89
Ph 7,06 8,21 7,60
As might be expected, the moisture content in the waste is important (more 50%).
This moisture content comes from the high proportion of organic waste.
and minerals.
The average value of Ph is a correct for a compost quality, if a treatment by

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 69

The calorific value of the waste is relatively high on a dry product (between 6 800
product the calorific value is low (between 3 700 and 4 700 kJ / kg), which is
Thus, without previous treatment (drying / airing), wastes that are currently
The parameters analyzed have been heavy metal (Ph, Cu, Zn, Pb, Co, Ni). The
whether this fraction can be composted, and can produce a good organic
amendment
Table 54 : Rate of heavy metal in organic fraction from Burayu households
Area Ph Cu (ppm) Zn (ppm) Pb (ppm) Co (ppm) Ni (ppm)

Low income 8.56 3898.77 246.69 0 33.32 49.62
Middle income 9.28 8136.26 1 596.84 21.39 27.37 65.39
High income 9.94 81.88 899.79 34.12 29.85 45.20
French regulation 7.5 / 8.5 300 600 180 n.a 60
Expect for the value of Cu, the rate of heavy metals is well below the limits of
regulation. If the compost was produced with these organic wastes, it would be of
good quality compared to the metal content.
Regarding the Ph values, they are a bit high for a good compost. A pre-treatment
will be required in order to obtain a good quality compost.
One explanation for the high value of the copper inside the organic waste may be
that some pieces of metal were mixed with the waste.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 70

7.3 - Households waste characterization – Sebata

Table 55 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households - Sebata

Area Rate %
deposit collected
TOTAL 540 512 95%
Table 56 : Waste specific production per household by area - Sebata
Specific waste production Low Income Middle income High Income

Average (kg/cap/day) 0.24 0.30 0.34
Standard deviation 0.19 0.17 0.18
(kg/cap/day)
varies with socio-economic area: more the standard of living increases, more. the
waste is important. However, the waste generation per capita is more
homogeneous, and lower than for Addis Ababa city.
As for Burayu, compared to the first waste characterization, these data are lower.
But we can estimate that these data are more reliable, firstly because the number of
sample is much larger, and secondly that the standard deviation is low.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 71

Figure 15: Waste production per household size – Sebata

0,80
0,60
kg / cap / day
0,40
0,20
0,00
1 3 5 7 9
Unlike other areas, the data on Sebata does not show real decreasing trend of
waste according to the number of persons per household. However, for the
social group.

During this period it has been sorted 858 kg:
Waste density
were then weighed without settling. At least 22 waste density measurements were
made. The following table gives the result of the density variation in the bin
according socioeconomic area.
Table 57 : Waste density in the bin - Sebata
Number of
measure
Low income 8 0.20 0.13 0.24
High income 8 0.26 0.23 0.29
Area Average 22 0.23 0.13 0.32
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 72

As for Burayu, the average waste density from Sebata is relatively homogenous
whatever the area, around 0.23. The value of this density is in the same of order that
Addis Ababa City and Burayu, because as the key factor are the organic waste
generation, we notice that we find the same data as we find for Addis Ababa and
Burayu, around 60%
Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 76,3 64,8 141,1 60,4%
Paper 3,2 1,6 4,9 2,1%
Board 4,8 1,0 5,8 2,5%
Tetra Pak 0,4 0,3 0,8 0,3%
Plastics 14,4 2,2 16,6 7,1%
Metal 1,0 0,9 1,8 0,8%
textile 3,1 0,4 3,6 1,5%
Glass 1,3 0,9 2,2 1,0%
other fine part 21,3 12,4 33,7 14,4%
TOTAL 118,9 80,9 21,3 12,4 233,5 100%
% 50,9% 34,7% 9,1% 5,3% 100,0%

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 105,6 103,2 208,8 64,5%
Paper 7,1 2,1 9,2 2,8%
Board 6,4 1,2 7,6 2,4%
Tetra Pak 2,9 0,3 3,1 1,0%
Plastics 15,2 2,1 17,3 5,3%
Metal 2,4 0,5 2,9 0,9%
textile 8,4 0,6 8,9 2,8%
Glass 3,0 1,5 4,5 1,4%
other fine part 16,2 7,4 23,6 7,3%
TOTAL 179,1 121,1 16,2 7,4 323,7 100%
% 55,3% 37,4% 5,0% 2,3% 100,0%
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 73


Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 84,0 74,8 158,8 53,0%
Paper 5,0 2,6 7,6 2,5%
Board 9,8 1,9 11,7 3,9%
Tetra Pak 0,3 0,5 0,8 0,3%
Plastics 18,2 2,9 21,0 7,0%
Metal 1,1 1,1 2,2 0,7%
textile 4,5 0,3 4,8 1,6%
Glass 1,7 1,0 2,6 0,9%
other fine part 15,1 5,0 20,1 6,7%
TOTAL 183,9 95,8 15,1 5,0 299,8 100%
% 61,3% 32,0% 5,0% 1,7% 100,0%

predominant (between 50%-60%) and homogeneous across all social classes. More
than 50% of the size corresponds to organic waste. The fine particles (<20 mm)
represent about less than 5% of wet weight of waste. These fine particles are
composed mainly of fermented organic matter.
predominantly: more than 60% except for the high income group (45%). The
important part of biodegradable waste can be considered a potential organic
recycling (composting) or recovery from biogas discharge after storage of waste
under anaerobic conditions. The typology waste would not be conducive to the heat
recovery (waste to energy facility) without a waste preparation.

10%-12% by weight, ie by collecting 100% of that all this waste are recycled, so they
are not contaminated by organic waste.
However, we can reasonably consider that less than 6% of wastes from

Sebeta are recyclable.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 74


On mixed waste

Table 61 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from Sebata households

Air dried lost % 66,37 69,44 53,41
Moisure % 6,88 10,36 11,02
Composition
on dry waste

Fixed carbon % 2,30 12,71 16,20
Ash % 60,28 31,49 30,32
Ph 8,44 7,31 6,93
The moisture content in the waste is important (more 60%). This moisture content
comes from the high proportion of organic waste.
and minerals.
The average value of Ph is a correct for a compost quality, if a treatment by

The calorific value of the waste is relatively high on a dry product (between 6 800
product the calorific value is low, expect for the high income sample, which is
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 75

amendment
Table 62 : Rate of heavy metal in organic fraction from Sebata households

Low income 9.30 38.20 350.32 0 30.27 33.88
Middle income 9.32 35.97 245.47 0 28.21 35.97
High income 9.89 133.57 331.68 3.00 24.76 36.02
The rate of heavy metals is well below the limits of regulation. If the compost was
produced with these organic wastes, it would be of good quality compared to the
metal content.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 76

7.4 - Street cleaning waste characterization

The first campaign started on September 19th. It was completed on September 25th
 Residential Area street waste: 778 kg
 Commercial street waste: 540 kg
 Office area street waste : 1 070 kg
Waste density

Number of
measure
Office area street waste 7 0.21 0.19 0.24
Residential Area street waste 7 0.20 0.14 0.22
Commercial street waste 6 0.25 0.21 0.31
Area Average 20 0.22 0.14 0.31
The average street waste density is relatively homogenous whatever the area,
around 0.20. The value of this density is close to that found in Addis Ababa. One of
the main reasons is that the rate of organic waste is about 40 - 50% (see the
following paragraph)
These data are similar as for the first waste characterization.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 77

Table 64 : Waste composition produced by the residential area street waste

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 219,0 142,2 361,2 46,4%
Paper 18,5 7,2 25,7 3,3%
Board 58,4 5,1 63,4 8,2%
Tetra Pak 1,0 2,3 3,2 0,4%
Plastics 79,1 6,6 85,7 11,0%
Metal 0,5 3,5 4,0 0,5%
textile 22,1 2,4 24,6 3,2%
Glass 3,4 3,6 7,0 0,9%
other fine part 60,0 28,3 88,3 11,3%
TOTAL 439,5 250,7 60,0 28,3 778,4 100%
% 56,5% 32,2% 7,7% 3,6% 100,0%
Table 65 : Waste composition produced by the commercial street waste

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 101,3 90,7 191,9 35,6%
Paper 18,4 8,5 26,9 5,0%
Board 61,6 4,9 66,5 12,3%
Tetra Pak 1,3 0,6 1,9 0,4%
Plastics 49,7 2,5 52,2 9,7%
Metal 1,0 1,6 2,6 0,5%
textile 11,6 0,4 12,0 2,2%
Glass 8,8 3,9 12,8 2,4%
other fine part 60,8 19,0 79,8 14,8%
TOTAL 292,1 168,1 60,8 19,0 539,9 100%
% 54,1% 31,1% 11,3% 3,5% 100,0%
Table 66 : Waste composition produced by the office area street waste

Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 330,4 199,4 529,8 45,5%
Paper 16,1 8,8 24,9 2,5%
Board 68,7 6,9 75,6 8,2%
Tetra Pak 2,3 0,9 3,2 0,1%
Plastics 134,5 9,6 144,2 13,1%
Metal 6,3 2,7 9,0 1,0%
textile 38,1 1,2 39,3 2,9%
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 78

Glass 11,0 5,7 16,7 0,2%

other fine part 50,2 26,0 76,2 15,6%
TOTAL 687,0 306,6 50,2 26,0 1069,8 100%
% 64,2% 28,7% 4,7% 2,4% 100,0%

predominant (55 - 65%). Organic matter is the majority, but now there are more
plastic and cardboard. Waste size between 20 and 100 mm is still formed with many
organic waste but also inert waste.
The fine particles (<20 mm) represent more than 15% of wet weight of waste. These
fine particles are composed mainly of inert waste matter.
predominantly (more than 40%), and is homogeneous between each area. What is
different now is that we find more cardboard, paper and plastics (20 – 25%)
As previously, these data are very similar as for the first waste characterization.

20%-25% by weight, ie by collecting 100% of that all this waste are recycled, so they
are not contaminated by organic waste. However, we can reasonably consider
that more than 15% of wastes from streets are recyclable.

We collected 1 sample of organic waste to carry out physic-chemical analyzes.
amendment
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 79

Table 67 : Rate of heavy metal in organic fraction from companies

Street cleaning 7.76 58.82 179.36 32.68 26.14 25.42
waste
The rate of heavy metals is well below the limits of regulation, if the compost has
been produced with these organic wastes, it would be of good quality compared to
the metal content.
The Ph value is according the standard in order to obtain a good compost without
carry out a pre-treatment.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 80

7.5 - Commercial / institutional waste characterization

270 plastic bags were placed on 11 days, and 199 have been recovered. The return
rate of plastic bags is 74%.
Table 68 : Recovery rate of plastic bags from households – Commercial /
Institutional
number of plastic number of plastic
Area Rate %
bags deposit bags collected
Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel 100 65 65%
Institutions 100 54 54%
Shops and stores 70 65 93%
TOTAL 270 199 74%
The data are the same as for the first waste characterization.
For each area, the quantity of waste per company is divided by the duration of
waste generated by area.
Table 69 : Waste specific production per company by area
Specific waste production Cafe, Bar, Institutions Shops and

Restaurant and stores
Hotel
Average (kg/comp./day) 21.45 24.43 3.21
We can see through this table that waste institutions and Café / Bar / Restauraut are
very close (20-25 kg / comp. / day). For Shops and Stores waste is less important.
The average is around 3 kg / day.

 Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel: 1 394 kg
 Institutions: 1 320 kg
 Shops and stores: 209 kg
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 81

Waste density
variation in the bin according each area.

Number of
measure
Shops and stores 4 0.14 0.11 0.18
Institutions 10 0.11 0.07 0.14
Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel 8 0;37 0.32 0.43
Area Average 22 0.21 0.07 0.43
The waste density of Café, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel is higher because these
companies produce lot of biodegradable waste. The waste density of institutions and
shops / stores is low, because the main waste production is packaging (plastics,
board and paper).
These data are very similar as for the first waste characterization.
Table 71 : Waste composition produced by Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel
Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 430,7 594,5 1025,2 73,5%
Paper 21,0 9,7 30,8 2,2%
Board 19,6 3,4 23,0 1,6%
Tetra Pak 2,5 0,3 2,8 0,2%
Plastics 82,2 7,4 89,6 6,4%
Metal 20,0 17,5 37,6 2,7%
textile 14,3 1,1 15,4 1,1%
Glass 28,4 10,8 39,2 2,8%
other fine part 43,1 13,3 56,4 4,0%
TOTAL 666,0 672,0 43,1 13,3 1394,5 100%
% 47,8% 48,2% 3,1% 1,0% 100,0%
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 82

The average waste composition from Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel is close to
that of households: mainly organics (70%), and few packaging (10%), with a mostly
waste class size between 20 - 100 mm.
Table 72 : Waste composition produced by institutions
Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 63,1 187,3 250,4 19,0%
Paper 335,3 80,6 415,9 31,5%
Board 346,0 12,3 358,3 27,2%
Tetra Pak 1,8 0,2 2,0 0,2%
Plastics 116,1 11,2 127,4 9,7%
Metal 5,2 5,0 10,1 0,8%
textile 11,9 3,1 15,0 1,1%
Glass 6,5 0,7 7,2 0,5%
other fine part 28,6 21,8 50,3 3,8%
TOTAL 945,8 323,3 28,6 21,8 1319,5 100%
% 71,7% 24,5% 2,2% 1,6% 100,0%
For the institutions, the waste composition is specific. We find mainly packaging and
papers: more than 60% and mostly with a class size over 100 mm. (it means that tis
product could be easy to collect separately in order to recycling). The part of
organics waste is low (less than 20%)
Table 73 : Waste composition produced by shops and stores
Categories
> 100 mm 20 - 100 mm 8 - 20 mm < 8 mm kg %
Organics 6,9 10,2 17,1 8,2%
Paper 2,3 1,6 3,9 1,9%
Board 40,1 2,4 42,5 20,3%
Tetra Pak 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,1%
Plastics 20,4 3,0 23,4 11,2%
Metal 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,1%
textile 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,1%
Glass 48,1 25,7 73,7 35,3%
other fine part 13,3 16,9 30,2 14,5%
TOTAL 128,2 50,5 13,3 16,9 208,9 100%
% 61,4% 24,2% 6,4% 8,1% 100,0%
For the shops and stores the result is the same as for institutions. We find mainly
packaging (board, plastics) (around 50%), which are a big size.
In conclusion, the data for this second waste characterization confirm those
of the first waste characterization
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 83


Given these criteria, we can estimate the maximum potential of waste recycling to:
 Cafe, Bar, Restaurant and Hotel: 12% by weight (first waste charac. 11%)
 Institutions: 53% by weight (first waste charac. 56%)
 Shops and stores: 60% by weight (first waste charac. 62%)
Thus, there’s a real possibility to recycle a significant part of these waste

On mixed waste
We collected 3 samples of mixed waste to carry out physic-chemical analyzes.
The results are reported in the following table.

Table 74 : Mixed waste chemical parameters from companies
Cafe, Bar,
Restaurant and Institutions Shops & Stores
Hotel
Air dried lost % 54,02 44,06 34,96
Compositio
Moisure % 3,54 6,65 9,14

n on dry
waste

Fixed carbon % 7,18 1,00 10,89
Ash % 65,75 68,29 25,49
Calorific Value kJ/kg (dry
4835 2211 18019
waste)
Calorific Value kJ/kg (wet
2223 1236 11720
waste)
Ph 10,07 11,85 6,70
As might be expected, the moisture content is high in each category, and especially
in the Café, bar, hotel, restaurant waste (about 60%). This moisture content comes
from the high proportion of organic waste (restaurant) or degradable product like
paper or board (shops, institutions)
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 84

The % of volatile matter is not significant for Café, Bar, Restaurant, Hotel and
institutions, but enough for Shops & Stores in order to produce a significant amount
of bio-gas if the landfill would be used.
For the calorific value, the observation is the same as previously. The calorific value
of the Shops & Stores waste is very high on a dry product (18,000 kJ / kg), which is
very favorable for heat recovery. However, for the other waste, the calorific value is
very low, that it is prohibitive for a heat treatment, without pre-treatment (air dryer
treatment).
penalizes the product. In brief, waste product by Café, Restaurants, Hotel and
institutions are not good for thermal treatment like incinerator plant, but better for
composting. And on the over hand, waste from shops and stores could be better for
waste to energy unit. However, we have seen that the waste contain many
recyclable materials. If these materials shall be collected, the waste physical
composition will change, and it should be more difficult to incinerate.
amendment
Table 75 : Rate of heavy metal in organic fraction from companies

Cafe, Bar, Restaurant 9.62 83.04 220.01 0.00 24.84 34.07
and Hotel
Institutions 9.97 545.32 310.88 26.94 25.48 26.21
Shops & Stores 8.77 109.62 19.59 0.00 18.00 22.77
The rate of heavy metals is well below the limits of regulation, except for institutions
(but we are no explanations). If the compost was produced with these organic
wastes, it would be of good quality compared to the metal content.
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 85

8 - CONCLUSION
8.1 - Synthesis and characterization data comparison
8.1.1 - Addis Ababa

The following graph puts in parallel the results of two characterizations for Addis
Ababa city:
Fisrt campaign
Average generation (kg/cap/day) 0.21 0.33 0.59
Average density 0.23 0.19 0.19
Organic waste generation (%) 53% 53% 49%
Recyclable waste generation (%) 13% 16% 22%
Second campaign
Average generation (kg/cap/day) 0.21 0.34 0.62
Average density 0.24 0.19 0.19
Table 76 : Data comparison for Addis Ababa City
First, whatever the season, and whatever the sample area, the average waste
generation, and the average density are closed.
Secondly, the season has a significant impact on the organic waste generation, and
for all the sample area. The generation is about 53% in the dry season, but more
over 70% in the wet season. As it’s explained in the next paragraph, these data are
close of these that we find in other African countries.
At last, we find the same impact on the recyclable waste generation that is
decreased in the wet season = about 12% in average, but like the waste is very wet,
we can assume that less 6% can really be recycling in the wet season.
In conclusion, we can say that in Addis Ababa:

 the average generation is around 0.30 kg/cap/day,
 the waste household density is about 0.22,
 the organic waste generation is between 55% - 60%
 the recyclable waste generation is about 12%, but only 7-8% can be really
recycling (the product is too wet)
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 86

8.1.2 - the two surrounding tows

The following graph puts in parallel the results of two characterizations for Burayu
and Sebeta:
Burayu - 1th Sebeta - 1th
LI MI HI LI MI HI
Average generation (kg/cap/day) 0,46 0,49 0,49 0,41 0,41 0,70
Average density 0,22 0,23 0,26 0,27 0,35 0,36
Organic waste generation (%) 68% 63% 63% 81% 72% 79%
Recyclable waste generation (%) 9% 12% 19% 7% 8% 8%
Burayu - 2de Sebata - 2de

LI MI HI LI MI HI
Average generation (kg/cap/day) 0,35 0,38 0,33 0,24 0,30 0,34
Average density 0,19 0,20 0,22 0,2 0,23 0,26
Organic waste generation (%) 56% 59% 58% 60% 65% 53%
Recyclable waste generation (%) 13% 12% 12% 11% 11% 12%
Table 77 : Data comparison for the two surrounding towns
Unlike the data characterization of Addis Ababa, those in Burayu and Sebata are
very different between the two seasons. In fact, between the two campaigns, we
readjusted the test areas, the sample size (increasing the number of households),
and the number of days of sample
Thus, the data from the second characterizations are certainly more reliable, and we
notice that they are similar to that of Addis.
8.1.3 - Street cleaning

The following graph puts in parallel the results of two characterizations for the street
cleaning:
First campaign
Residential street Commercial street Office area street
Average density 0,18 no data 0,15
Organic waste generation (%) 46% no data 43%
Recyclable waste generation
22% no data 20%
(%)
Second campaign
Residential street Commercial street Office area street
Average density 0,20 0,25 0,21
Recyclable waste generation
21% 26% 22%
(%)
Table 78 : Data comparison for the street cleaning
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 87

The data are relatively close whatever the season. The share of organic waste is
lower than in the households and we find more packaging waste. Please note that
during the second season, we also adjust the sampling including increasing the
number of days sorting and distance swept streets.
8.1.4 - Commercial / institutional waste characterization

The following graph puts in parallel the results of two characterizations for the
Commercial / institutional waste characterization:
First campaign
Cafe, Bar,
Restaurant and Institutions Shops and stores
Hotel
Average generation (kg/compagny/day) 34,76 7,59 6,49
Second campaign
Cafe, Bar,
Restaurant and Institutions Shops and stores
Hotel
Average generation (kg/compagny/day) 21,45 24,43 3,21
Table 79 : Data comparison for the commercial / institutional waste

characterization
Another time, the data are similar. The share of recyclable waste is important and
constant whatever the season for the institutions and for Shops & Stores (around
55% to 62%).
For the Café / Bar / restaurant / Hotel, the organic waste generation is constant
around 65-70%.
We can notice some difference for the average generation of waste for the
institutions, because we changed some sample area. (but the average composition
stay the same).
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 88

8.2 - Comparison with other Africans countries (and elsewhere)

The goal of this section is to compare the data obtained from the waste
characterization of Addis Ababa, with the known data in Africa and elsewhere. All
data presented are from a document produced by the World Bank in March 2012
"WHAT A WASTE - A Global Review of Solid Waste Management”.
8.2.1 - The waste generation

The graph below shows the current waste generation per capita and per region:
Africa (AFR), East Asia & Pacific (EAP), Eastern & Central Asia (ECA), Latin America & the Caribbean (LAC), Middle East & North Africa (MENA),
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), South Asia (SAR)
Table 80 : Current waste generation per capita and per region
Africa has one of the lowest waste generation in the world (about 0.65 kg/cap/day),
and the following table shows the main differences between several cities in Africa.
Country City Year Generation rate (kg/cap/day)
Benin Parakou 2002 0.59
Burkina Faso Ouagadougou 2002 0.79
Cameroun Yaoundé 2012 0.80
Congo Rep. Brazzaville 1993 0.60
Egypt Cairo 1993 0.50
Gambia Bamjul 1993 0.30
Ghana Kumasi 2006 0.60
Guinea Conakry 2007 0.24
Madagascar Antananarivo 1993 0.30
Morocco Rabat 1993 0.60
Niger Zinder 2006 0.29
Nigeria Lagos 1993 0.30
Rwanda Kigali 1993 0.60
Senegal Dakar 1993 0.70
Zambia Lusaka 2005 0.90
Zimbabwe Harare 2005 0.10
Table 81 : Municipal solid waste generation per city in Africa
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 89

Thus, there is large disparity in production between the cities, which depend mainly
on the level of the income of each. More the population has a low income, less it
produces waste.
For Addis Ababa city, with about 66% of low income area, we have an average
waste generation around 0.30 kg/cap/day.
The data from the waste characterization of Addis Ababa are in agreement
with this document.
8.2.2 - The waste composition

As shown in the graph below, Africa waste are composed in average of more than
57% of organic waste, and about 30% of recyclable waste:
Figure 16: Average waste composition in Africa
However, in low income area, the level of organic waste is larger (64%), and there’s
less recyclable waste (19%)
Figure 17: Waste composition in low income countries
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 90

Finally, by comparing the waste composition data of Addis Ababa with the data in
over Africa countries, these are very close:
Country Income Organic% Paper% Plastic% Glass% Metal% Other%

level
Benin LI 52% 3% 7% 2% 2% 34%
Cameroon LMI 48% 4% 5% 4% 5% 34%
Ethiopia LI 88% 4% 2% 1% 1% 4%
Gambia LI 35% 10% 2% 2% 51%
Ghana LI 64% 3% 4% 1% 28%
Guinea LI 58% 3% 4% 1% 1% 33%
Liberia LI 43% 10% 13% 1% 2% 31%
Madagascar LI 52% 4% 1% 1% 1% 41%
Mali LI 18% 4% 2% 1% 4% 71%
Mauritius UMI 70% 12% 9% 2% 3% 4%
Mozambique LI 69% 12% 10% 3% 2% 4%
Niger LI 38% 2% 2% 1% 57%
Nigeria LMI 57% 11% 18% 5% 5% 4%
Senegal LI 44% 10% 3% 1% 3% 39%
Sierra Leone LI 85% 15%
Togo LI 46% 4% 10% 2% 2% 36%
Uganda LI 78% 3% 1% 1% 2% 15%
Zambia LI 50% 5% 5% 2% 2% 36%
Zimbabwe LI 40% 21% 20% 4% 4% 11%
Table 82 : Municipal solid waste composition by country in Africa
Although the share of the organic fraction of waste varies from one country to
another, it remains relatively high. The Ethiopia would have a significant production
(about 88%)
Concerning the proportion of recyclable packaging waste in the proportion remains

low, although generally less than 15%
In conclusion, the data from the waste characterization of Addis Ababa are
consistent with those of the regional data. The sampling protocol, the methodology
of sorting can be perfectly reproduced in order to get new data and to improve the
knowledge of the waste generation on Addis Ababa.
_______________
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 91

APPENDIX 01: REPARTITION OF THE POPULATION FOR

THE SECOND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION IN ADDIS
ABABA
/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 92

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 93

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 94

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 95

R11 - SWM ADDIS ABABA - Final Waste Characteriz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

R11 - SWM ADDIS ABABA - Final Waste Characteriz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADDIS ABABA CITY GOVERNMENT - ETHIO-FRENCH COOPERATION

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT –

SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

ARTELIA Ville et Transport

DATE : OCTOBER 2014 REF : 1 31 3065 ARTELIA, L’union de Coteba et Sogreah

2 - REVIEW OF THE KNOWLEDGE ON THE PREVIOUS SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ........... 9

3 - DETERMINATION AND SAMPLING AREAS WASTE ............................................ 12

4 - PLANNING AND PREPARATION OF CHARACTERIZATION CAMPAIGN .................. 19

5 - SCREENING AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ................................................. 24

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 2

6 - FIRST WASTE CHARACTERIZATION CAMPAIGN - DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF THE

7 - SECOND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION CAMPAIGN - DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF THE

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 3

Figure 11: Allocation of waste generation - Industries ................................................................... 52

Table 1 : Household Solid Waste Generation ............................................................................... 10

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 4

Table 23 : Waste composition produced by the high income households...................................... 40

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 5

Table 58 : Waste composition produced by the low income households....................................... 73

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 6

1.2 - Objective of the project

The physical components above are supported by a set of assistances related to a

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 7

 To identify a Technical assistance program for Solid Waste Management

1.3 - Objective of the report

We have organized two characterization campaigns:

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 8

2 - REVIEW OF THE KNOWLEDGE ON THE PREVIOUS SOLID WASTE

2.1 - Existing data on the waste generation in Addis Ababa City

2.2 - Data from Addis Ababa City Government

According to data provided by ATO Ermias (meeting on 2013/02/25), about

2.3 - Data on industrial waste and hospital waste generation

2.4 - Existing studies

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 9

2.4.1 - Per capita solid waste generation

Income Group Nor-Consult Gordon, Sturdy Gordon, Sturdy

Table 1 : Household Solid Waste Generation

By Poyry, the waste generation is estimated to 0.3 Kg/day/cap.

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 10

2.4.2 - Classifying solid waste generation by source

No Source Percent (%)

2.4.3 - Physical characteristics of the household solid waste

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 11

3 - DETERMINATION AND SAMPLING AREAS WASTE

3.1 - Socio-economic zoning choice

1 - Representative residential socio-economic areas:

3.2 - Sampling areas for households

3.2.1 - selection criteria for households areas

1 The Federal Democratic Republic of ETHIOPIA, CENTRAL STATISTICAL AGENCY, 2004/5

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 12

Low income areas

3.2.2 - Determination of sampling areas for household

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 13

The Confidence Level (CL) for the Addis-Ababa waste characterization

According to the report “DEVELOPING INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE

/ 1 31 3065 / OCTOBER 2014 14

Determination of sampling areas for Addis Ababa City

From the previous criteria, we have located the following areas:

Area First waste Second waste

Middle income residential 50 households 70 households

Table 4 : Distribution of households and areas for each characterization

Area average number of average number of