From WASTE to RESOURCE

FINAL REPORT of SOMERS Livestock Solutions for the feasibility study “Valorization of Organic Waste in Binh Dinh Province” VIE0703511-ValOrgW

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................. 1 LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... 4

FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................................. 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 6 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 1. ASSESSMENT OF ORGANIC WASTE TREATMENT OPTIONS IN VIETNAM ..................... 11 1.1. Desk review .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.2. Separation at plant ...................................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Separation at source ................................................................................................................... 12 1.4. Vegetable waste ......................................................................................................................... 14 1.5. Kitchen waste ............................................................................................................................. 15 1.6. Animal waste .............................................................................................................................. 15 1.7. Lessons learned from different composting models ............................................................... 16 1.8. Overall conclusion of field visits ................................................................................................ 17

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION AND MAPPING OF THE BIOLOGICALLY TREATABLE WASTE STREAM 19

CHAPTER 3. IDENTIFY POTENTIAL PRODUCTS, BUSINESSES AND SERVICES .................................. 23 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 23 3.2. Inclusive Business ....................................................................................................................... 23 3.3. Overview of factors to be considered in organic waste valorization .....................................24 3.3.1. Triple P .................................................................................................................................24 3.3.2. Separation at source ...........................................................................................................24 3.3.3. Localized or centralized? ................................................................................................... 26 3.3.4. The principle of bringing nutrients back in the food chain ............................................. 28 3.3.5. Waste typology determines technology .......................................................................... 28 3.4. Developing practical models for Binh Dinh .............................................................................. 32 3.4.1 How to make money from waste? ...................................................................................... 32 3.4.2. Four recommended practical models for Binh Dinh ........................................................ 34

2

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

CHAPTER 4. MARKET SURVEY ON PRODUCTS MADE FROM ORGANIC WASTE .............................. 53 4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................53 4.2 Results .........................................................................................................................................53 4.2.1 Overview of the market .......................................................................................................53 4.2.2 Results of interviews with customers of 2 cases studies .................................................. 57 4.2.3. Interviews with farmers that use various organic fertilizers/soil enhancers ................. 58 4.2.4. Interviews with a few large buyers of compost and organic fertilizers .......................... 61 4.3 Market analysis .......................................................................................................................... 62 4.3.1. Analysis of factors that affect the price............................................................................ 62 4.3.2. Assessment of market potential of compost producers in Binh Dinh. ........................... 64 4.4. Conclusion & Recommendations ............................................................................................. 65

CHAPTER 5. REPORT ON THE STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP ...............................................................67

3

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Composting plants of household waste: ‘Separation-at-plant’ models.................................. 11 Table 1.2. ‘Separation-at-source’ Initiatives ........................................................................................... 13 Table 1.3. Vegetable waste composting models .................................................................................... 14 Table 1.4. Re-feeding kitchen waste ...................................................................................................... 15 Table 1.5. Vermi composting of animal waste ....................................................................................... 15 Table 1.6. Comparison of central and local organic waste separation & treatment ............................. 18 Table 2.1. Total waste produced in 4 districts (Ton/day) ....................................................................... 19 Table 2.2. Total waste collected (or treated at source) in 4 districts (Ton/day) in volume and percentage ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Table 2.3. The organic component of waste from markets and households ....................................... 20 Table 2.4. Development of the total amount of organic waste collected (or treated at source) in 4 districts (Ton/day) ................................................................................................................................. 20 Table 2.5. Total amount of organic waste produced and collected/treated for each district* ............ 21 Table 3.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Separation at source and at plant ................................ 26 Table 3.2. Types of organic waste, their composition and the preferred valorization strategy. ......... 29 Table 4.1. Overview of location and number of interviews: ..................................................................53 Table 4.2. Price of different fertilizers in the market. ...........................................................................55 Table 4.3. Reason that the farmers use organic fertilizer. ................................................................... 59 Table 4.4. Factors that buyers like the most when using organic fertilizer. ........................................ 59 Table 4.5. Customers’ satisfaction on current products. ..................................................................... 60 Table 4.6. Customers’ opinions on the price of current products......................................................... 61 Table 4.7. The possibilities that the farmers are willing to pay more for better products ................... 61 Table 4.8. Customers’ expectation on the price of potential products ................................................ 61 Table 4.9. Impact of cost of transportation on the retail price ......................................................... 64

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. Decision scheme on logistics of waste management and handling. .................................... 27 Figure 3.2. Schematic representation of various options for organic waste valorization. .................. 28 Figure 4.1. The value chain of current organic fertilizer in Vietnam ..................................................... 56 Figure 4.2. Price range of different kinds of fertilizer: ......................................................................... 63

4

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

FOREWORD
This study was conducted by SOMERS Livestock Solutions under the lead of Raf Somers. Team members included Huynh Thi Thu Thuy, Bui Lan Huong, Pham Phuong Ha, Nguyen Thi Thuy Duyen and Gert Jan Monteny. The authors would like to thanks everyone who contributed to this study and report by providing information, allowing us to visit their facilities, giving critical feedback etc. Special thanks go to Paul Olivier who shared all of his innovative ideas and helped us to develop the valorization models. The authors would particularly like to thank all individuals, agencies and organisations who welcomed our suggestions and who are already piloting our models in Binh Dinh province. The authors also thank the PMU of the WSSP for their collaboration.

5

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Water Supply and Sanitation Program (WSSP) has organised a feasibility study ‘Valorization of Organic Waste in Binh Dinh Province” to identify and analyse viable options for recycling and revaluing organic waste in 4 target districts. The ultimate goals are to reduce the waste to be buried, to contribute to the protection of the environment, and to create a positive social and economic impact. The feasibility study includes an assessment of current practices of organic waste treatment in Vietnam, a survey of the specific organic waste stream in 4 target districts and an investigation of the market for organic waste products. Based on the results of these 3 surveys, feasible models for waste valorization in Binh Dinh were developed. The starting point was to identify social and economic incentives that drive organic waste separation and treatment. In other words, people and income generation are the central points. People are at the center of the waste management. People generate waste and without their active cooperation and participation it is not possible to implement sustainable integrated waste management systems. Waste management should be approached as an income-generating activity offering both large and small scale enterprises, as well as thousands of waste collectors, the opportunity to make a living from the collection, recovery, recycling, treatment, and disposal of waste. The case studies provide valuable insights in different operations and initiatives in Vietnam. The survey includes large-scale integrated waste management facilities that separate waste at plant, initiatives to separate waste at source, composting and vermicomposting models as well as integrated farming systems. The field survey in Binh Dinh revealed that a total of 377 ton of waste is produced per day in the four districts, of which 101 ton (26.7%) is collected. Analysis of waste samples from households and market showed that 55.2% and 78.7%, respectively, is organic. The average organic fraction of mixed waste is 58.4%. The marketing survey showed that many organic compost and fertilizer products are available on the Vietnamese market. The highest price is paid for imported organic fertilizers and vermicompost, followed by complete organic fertilizer with added NPK, and finally animal manure compost. The lowest price is paid for compost made from household waste, which receives an exfactory price between 50 and 800 VND per kg. The major factors affecting the retail price are quality, the distance between producer and buyer, and the distribution channel. For the marketing of compost, it is important to understand that compost from household waste has low levels of nutrients (NPK), but it does bring many benefits to the soil: it increases the water holding capacity, improves the structure and it is a product that slowly releases nutrients. We conclude that when a stable quality compost is produced in Binh Dinh, one should be able to sell to large buyers and/or to nearby farmers. The recycling business in Vietnam works well because there is money to be made. The organic waste valorization entrepreneurs and enterprises need to learn from the recycling business and to apply the same rules. This study provides a number of models that show how organic waste can be turned into money. However, the study also shows that it can easily become a money loosing activity when an in principle correct technology is implemented at the wrong location or scale.

6

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

An important discussion in waste management is to separate the organic fraction at source or in a centrally integrated waste management plant. Although the 2nd option has the clear advantage that it is more convenient, this report provides clear facts to support why any long term integrated waste management plan should aim for separation at source. The most important reason is that the main idea of organic waste treatment is to bring back the nutrients into the food chain. Therefore, bringing organic waste in contact with non-organic (toxic or polluting) materials can be dangerous for workers, consumers, and the environment. A second important reason is that in the long run, separation at source is more economic. The first model presented in this study involves not only the separation at source, but also the treatment technology. The mesophillic compost bin is especially designed to treat the waste of one or several households at the source. The most important advantage of this model is that all waste that is treated at source will never create transport and treatment costs for the authorities. The second model presented in the study provides the highest opportunity for economic revaluing of organic waste. The model promotes the re-feeding of the food fraction of organic waste to pigs, a practice that is actually already widely used all over Vietnam. The report provides guidelines to make this practice more safe and sustainable. The third model is based on the entrepreneurship of the waste collectors, who already, as no other, know how to make money from waste. The model encourages them to learn to make money from organic waste. The possibilities include: feeding it to black soldier fly larvae, vermicomposting, and thermophillic composting. The forth, and final model is probably the most well-known method of organic waste treatment: composting. The current study promotes windrow composting using a compost fleece. An important finding is that composting provides much lower economic return compared to the other models. The economic calculation shows that subsidies would be needed to encourage composting. In conclusion, we highly recommend to encourage organic waste valorization. Active participation of the population is a must. Waste should not be considered as the concern of the government only, but as the joint responsibility of everyone. Additionally, we believe that waste should not be considered as a concern, but as a resource and an opportunity for income generation. It is clear that there is not a single solution. An integrated waste management plan will involve many actors. It is also clear that there is not just one winner. Every single person benefits from a better waste management! It would be great if this study can convince local communities, entrepreneurs and businesses about the potential of the waste valorization and if it can encourage the project leaders and partners to provide relevant support to these entrepreneurs and businesses.

7

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

INTRODUCTION
The Water Supply and Sanitation Program The Water Supply and Sanitation Program (WSSP) is a bilateral cooperation between the governments of Vietnam and Belgium. It aims to improve the quality of life and the environment of the inhabitants of 6 Districts in Binh Dinh Province by: Capacity building of government agencies Raising awareness on the use of water and on protecting the environment Constructing drink water supply systems Implementing solid waste treatment schemes

In August 2010, the program launched a feasibility study on the development of biological reprocessing facilities for organic waste from industries, businesses, markets, and households in 4 districts of Binh Dinh province. The feasibility study included an assessment of current practices of organic waste treatment in Vietnam, a survey of the specific organic waste stream in the 4 targeted districts, and an investigation of the market for organic waste products. Based on the results of these 3 surveys, feasible models for waste valorization in Binh Dinh were developed.

Great potential to reduce the amount of waste to be dumped, buried or incinerated The modern lifestyle of people coincides with the production of a lot of waste. But the main question is how much of that waste is actually waste? There will always be a fraction of the waste that needs to be buried or incinerated. But a large proportion of the collected waste can be recycled or transformed in a valuable resource!

Vietnam scores currently well in terms of recycling of non-organic fractions, but the amount of organic waste which is revalued remains low.

8

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

The multiple benefits of proper organic waste treatment The organic waste component has a great potential for valorization (re-use with added value). Organic waste treatment is not only good for the protection of the environment, but it can also create economic benefits. The figure below shows the economical, ecological and social benefits of proper organic waste management.

Challenges of organic waste treatment Organic waste needs to be free from non-organic material to assure optimal processing and sales of the treated product. Small objects like a battery, scrap metal and plastics, can obstruct a composting process. The best moment to separate non-organic and organic material is right at the beginning of the waste chain. Ideally, households and industries would need to separate organic waste from the rest of the waste. In case the organic waste is not separated immediately, it becomes increasingly difficult as time passes by. For example, organic waste deteriorates and becomes messy when storage time increases.

The hypothesis of feasibility study The hypothesis and the approach of the feasibility study are presented in the table below. Hypothesis Approach of the feasibility study

The technology, knowledge Confirm this statement by making an assessment of current and experience is available in organic waste treatment facilities. Vietnam It is difficult to sort out the Investigate the complete waste chain and identify possible organic waste at the start of solutions such as the chain - Active participation of the population, possibly with

9

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

rewards like free compost for household use. Find new solutions to involve waste collectors (scavenger) in the organic waste treatment. Public/Private partnerships for investment in specific in waste treatment options. Creation of direct links between industries/markets and potential users (livestock farmers) to avoid that the resource ever enters the waste chain.

The market price of organic Conduct a market survey and identify possibilities to create fertilizers is too low to added value by: support an organic waste - Adding specific additives treatment business. - Improved packaging & marketing Approaching new markets Produce several products in one facility

10

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

1 CHAPTER 1. ASSESSMENT OF ORGANIC WASTE TREATMENT OPTIONS IN VIETNAM 1.1. Desk review
A desk review resulted in a list of 65 organic waste treatment initiatives, some of which were no longer in operation due to a various number of reasons. From this list, 21 cases were selected for further investigation. These cases were based on five main components (scale, type, ecology, feasibility, and reproducibility), which are relevant to the objectives of the Binh Dinh’s valorization waste management project. The relevancy was based on conclusions from desk studies; therefore, some judgment might not have been fully accurate. The complete report of the desk review, including the list of all organic treatment plants can be found in Annex 1. In collaboration with the WSSP project, a final list of 14 cases was selected for field visit. The complete report of the field visits is attached as Annex 2.

1.2. Separation at plant
The field survey included four initiatives where organic waste is separated at the plant. The main characteristics are presented in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1. Composting plants of household waste: ‘Separation-at-plant’ models Name & Location 1 Viet Tri Waste Treatment Co. Viet Tri city, Phu Tho province Key figures Built in 1998, operated by URENCO 120 ton mixed waste/day Subsidy: 100,000 vnd per ton Produces 30 ton compost/day sold at 80,000VND/ton to 300,000VND/ton 80 staff 10% is landfilled. 2 Gia Lam Waste treatment plant, Kieu Ki commune, Gia Lam district, Hanoi Compost plant built in 2007, operated by URENCO 14 ha of land, 7 for the plant and 7 for the dump 8 to 10 ton separated organic waste, 4X per week + 70 ton of mixed waste/d 22 compartments with a capacity of 200 m3 each >50% is landfilled Organic waste collection takes place 4 times per week (Total 32 to 40 ton/week) Another 70 ton mixed waste is roughly manually separated Forced ventilation, regularly turned 100% domestic technology To reduce the workload, mixed waste is composted and nonbiodegradable material is sieved out in the end. Low quality compost. Brief description Fresh waste is manually separated, humidity / temperature and forced ventilation are controlled by the internal temperature of compost, mechanical sieving and additional E.M (effective microorganism). Forced ventilation, regularly turned Remarks Plant was only built for 60 ton but currently treats 120 to 150 ton /day. Low quality compost Low price

11

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

3

Thuy Phuong Municipal Waste Treatment and Composting Plant, Tam Sinh Nghia Co. Hue

Upgraded in 2006, private company 200 ton mixed waste/day of which 60 to 65% organic 180 staff 15 compartments of 270m3 selling compost at 1,000,000 vnd per ton <10% landfilled

Mixed organic waste is separated by combining manual and automatic separation. Forced ventilation, regularly turned Compost is enhanced before selling

Too much energy for the forced ventilation and manual separation. Still odor. Aerated static composting with turning => unsteady product. Composting in underground place takes too much space. Too many labors.

4

Agricultural Cooperative Nhon Phu, Quy Nhon city, Binh Dinh province.

Built in 2005 1.5 ton mixed waste per day 8 compartments of 10 m3 selling compost at 700,000 vnd/ton

Small plant receives mixed household waste, which is manually separated. Static aeration, natural ventilation

Advisable to shred waste at the start of the process.

Lessons learned from ‘Separation at plant’ models Organic waste is the largest fraction of the total waste stream in all of the investigated plants. Efficient separation of organic waste can significantly reduce the amount of waste to be landfilled. However, once all kinds of waste are mixed, total separation becomes impossible, and even partial separation is difficult. In Nhon Phu, the separation is done 100% manually, while the three other plants combine mechanical and manual separation. In the case of Gia Lam, the separation is only done roughly and mixed (organic and non –organic) waste is composted. The non-organic fraction is sieved out at the end of the process. In all cases, the limited separation has negative impact on the quality of the compost. The mechanical separation has high energy consumption and is inaccurate to separate organic and non-organic fractions. All cases of manual separation cause a serious health risk for the workers’ health and well-being (glass, needles, chemicals, etc…). Several plants have a problem with bad odour and pollution of the environment (water, air). All attempts to separate the organic waste, including manual and mechanical separation, with domestic and imported technologies, should be welcomed, since they avoid that organic waste is dumped in the landfill. However, given the serious drawbacks of all ‘separation-at-plant’ systems, none of these schemes can be considered as fully sustainable solutions. The long term vision for waste management authorities should aim at separation at source.

1.3 Separation at source
The field survey included three initiatives that separate organic waste at the source. The main characteristics are presented in Table 1.2.

12

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Table 1.2. ‘Separation-at-source’ Initiatives Name & Location 5 Agricultural and Environmental Service Cooperatives Co Bi commune, Gia Lam district, Hanoi Brief description 1200 households 10 waste collectors 0.6 ton waste/day Separated collection of Organic (4 times/week) and non-organic (3 times/week). Separation done by households, but waste collectors should be pro-active. Organic waste is composted to be used by cooperative’s members or transported to URENCO. 6 Hoi An Tan Hiep Island and mainland Pilot project on the mainland with household separation & composting with 30 households successful. Now expanding to 400 households. Each household has 3 compost bins. Project on Tan Hiep Island failed because of too little space, too few bins and too little awareness. Remarks Execution of separation is not so good because waste collectors don’t spent sufficient time on awareness raising. Focus seems to lay on separation itself, not on producing compost.

7

Xuan Tho commune Dalat Lam Dong

Segregation and composting at source using compost bin, black soldier fly, redworm and natural composting process. Pilot Phase with 30 households.

Initial results are positive. The natural infestation of BSF results in a huge reduction in volume and weight.

Lessons learned from ‘Separation-at-source’ models Several initiatives have been taken in Vietnam to separate the organic waste at source. Overall, the success is limited. Some models experimented with separate collection of organic and nonorganic waste (e.g. collection with different trucks on different days), while others focussed on composting at source. From the current survey, it can be concluded that none of the models for separate collection have been successful. However, the pilot models of composting at source in Dalat and Hoi An showed more promising results. From all initiatives, it has become clear that awareness raising and involvement of the community is crucial for a successful implementation. Furthermore, it is certainly not sufficient to organize a single training event. A long-term awareness raising campaign and a close follow up are compulsory! It is important that the community understands the negative consequences of not separating and becomes fully aware of the environmental, social and economic benefits of sustainable waste treatment solutions. Separation should not be a goal on itself, but an important first step in a total waste solution concept. Awareness raising and follow up actions should include the following activities: Community meetings: Informative meetings about the multiple benefits. Hands-on examples of ‘what products to put in which waste bin’.

13

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

-

School programmes to educate and stimulate youth. Waste watchers: volunteers or professionals who control the content of waste bins. This could be linked to a system of ‘bonus & penalty’.

Another important observation is that different stakeholders need to be involved: Community groups, (mass) organizations, local authorities, local businesses, waste management authorities, NGO’s, etc. In the design of any programme, appropriate voluntarily or compulsory participation should be considered with care. We concluded that it is difficult to convince people to separate waste correctly, when they don’t understand the concept and don’t believe in the concept. Consequently, it is difficult to make a difference if only a small percentage of the households participate. A voluntarily pilot phase, followed by a compulsory mainstream phase, is believed to be a feasible approach. As best practice, we recommend the model from Dalat.

1.4. Vegetable waste
The field survey included two initiatives where vegetable waste is composted. The main characteristics are presented in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3. Vegetable waste composting models Name & Location 8 Organik farm which locates at Xuan Tho commune, Dalat, Lam Dong Brief description Composting of vegetable waste in windrow under TopTex cover Fast composting process Remarks Simple, effective, environment friendly composting process. Applicable for any scale. Good quality compost 9 Wholesale Vegetable Market, Trai Mat, Dalat, Lam Dong Composting plant at the vegetable market. Model of composting can be simplified. Idea of composting at the market is suitable. Good quality compost

Lessons learned from pure organic waste composting models A number of positive conclusions can be drawn from both models: When locating a compost plant at the source, a lot of money can be saved on transport. A pure input (pure organic waste) results in a 100% safe and high quality compost, which is suitable for 100% organic farming (since it never came in contact with non-organic waste) Some vegetable waste can be used for direct feeding of animals, which has a higher economic return than making compost The Toptex composting model appears to be most promising composting model at any scale.

14

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

-

The goal of both models is to make high quality compost; there is a clear economic drive behind the models. The ‘waste’ is truly considered as a resource. An extra benefit is the reduction of waste to be landfilled

1.5. Kitchen waste
The field survey included two initiatives that are based upon the re-use of kitchen waste. The main characteristics are presented in Table 1.4.
Table 1.4. Re-feeding kitchen waste Name & Location 10 Tan Tao ward, Binh Tan district, Ho Chi Minh City Brief description Kitchen waste is collected, cooked and used as pig feed. Feeding kitchen waste is considerably cheaper than commercial feed. Pig manure is used for biogas production. Biogas effluent is used to feed fish. 11 Aquaculture, Binh Tan Farmer Association, Ho Chi Minh City Kitchen waste is collected and used as feed for fish. Probably even more profitable than pig feeding, but limited application possibilities. Remarks Simple but very efficient way for valorization of waste. Interesting example of on farm reuse of organic waste.

Lessons learned from kitchen waste re-use models Re-using kitchen waste as animal feed is a traditional practice anywhere in Vietnam. The cases investigated in our study were highly supported by the local division of the farmer’s union. They actively promote this practice and lobby for support by the relevant authorities (for example to allow transport of waste). The pig and fish model fully turn waste into a resource. The best evidence for the economic benefit of both models is that farmers pay for the ‘kitchen waste’. The driving force is the positive economics. In the investigated area, 5000 pigs are fed an average of 6.5 kg of kitchen waste per day. Furthermore, 46 aquaculture farms are using about 400 kg per farm per day, resulting in a recovery of more than 50 ton of waste per day. This shows the huge potential of these models in terms of waste reduction.

1.6. Animal waste
The field survey included three initiatives that apply vermicompost. The main characteristics are presented in Table 1.5.
Table 1.5. Vermi composting of animal waste Name & Location 12 Vermicompost Huong Trung Ltd. and Tien Phong Pig Husbandry Cooperative Brief description Large scale worm farm with a mix of cattle and pig manure as feed source. Worms are collected and centrifuged to make a liquid Remarks The plant could not sell all of the worms produced as fresh worms. That is why currently a liquid fertilizer is produced.

15

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

fertilizer. Worm manure is enhanced with trichoderma and micro –minerals and is sold as compost. 13 Hong Ky dairy farm, Soc Son, Hanoi , Vietnam Integrated farm where manure from cows and horses is used for biogas production and worm feeding. The worms are fed to frogs, while effluent of the biogas unit and the worm castings serve as fertilizers. Commercial worm farm that purchases cow manure as worm feed. Multiple worm products are produced. This small scale model shows that different products can be produced in one integrated system.

14

PHT earthworm farm Soc Son, Hanoi

A small but very profitable business.

Lessons learned on animal waste models The value of animal waste as an organic fertilizer is well known. Nevertheless, huge amounts of animal manure are still dumped into the environment in Vietnam. Very few animal production units make efforts to compost the manure, because it is poorly understood that composted manure is a much better organic fertilizer than fresh manure. Unfortunately, using fresh manure results in a loss of nutrients. Valorization models of animal manure include biogas production, composting and vermicomposting. Biogas is the ideal technology to treat animal slurry (mix of liquid and solid fraction of animal excreta), while composting and vermicomposting are appropriate technologies to treat the solid fraction of manure. The superior agronomic value of vermicompost and the additional value of the worms itself appears to be well understood by several entrepreneurs who buy animal manure to produce worms and vermicompost (worm castings). Even though the feasibility study conducted focused on finding practical solutions for organic household and market waste, some interesting lessons can be drawn from the animal waste (manure) models. Manure can be used to add value to household waste compost (see chapter 3). Worms can be an output of household waste treatment (see BSF + red worm model). All visited models adapt the technology to make products for which there is a good market.

1.7. Lessons learned from different composting models
The following models for composting are considered: Compost piles with forced ventilation (Viet Tri, Hue, Gia Lam) Compost boxes with static aeration (Binh Dinh) Composting piles or rows under Toptex cover (Dalat) Windrow (Dalat)

16

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

-

Compost bins (Dalat, Hoi An)

In principle, all of these composting methods are (technically) feasible. However, some are more economic than others. The main costs of composting are related to: Construction, including floor, compartments, boxes and roof Land area used Electricity cost for forced ventilation Labor costs Equipment

Small scale non-commercial models They should be cheap and practical. Two models can be recommended: (1) compost bin and (2) small compost piles under Toptex cover. The compost bin technology results in a large reduction of both the volume and the weight of the treated product, thanks to the natural infestation with BSF larvae that use the product as their feed. This is the ideal model if reduction of the amount of waste is the main goal. Small compost piles under Toptex are a suitable model if the main goal is to produce compost for local use. Medium and large scale commercial models For larger scale operation, composting piles with static or forced ventilation or windrow composting can be considered. Toptex is recommended for the following reasons: All other models require a roof to avoid rainwater to enter the compost heaps. A roof is not only a serious investment, but is also vulnerable to storms. Toptex is more environmentally friendly because of the reduction of greenhouse gas emission Composting under Toptex goes faster than in an open air windrow. No electricity cost needed for forced ventilation.

The only disadvantage is that more frequent turning is required compared to forced ventilation models. Turning equipment can be expensive. As labour is still relatively cheap, it is recommended that turning should be done manually.

1.8. Overall conclusion of field visits
From the field visits, it can be concluded that valuable experiences with recovery, treatment, and re-use of organic wastes are already present in Vietnam. None of the models studied provide the ‘perfect model’ for Binh Dinh. Nevertheless, several models provide valuable components for suitable models to be applied in Binh Dinh. The challenge is to put the useful components together to a suitable roadmap for an organic waste valorization strategy in Binh Dinh. This roadmap should be a part of a master plan for sustainable waste management in the province. From the field studies we concluded that the solutions can best be based on a combination of good practices, rather than in one centrally managed high tech solution. The combination should certainly include: Active participation of the community

17

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

-

Promotion of small entrepreneurs Avoiding unnecessary transport of waste Strong support, but not necessarily strong involvement, of the authorities

In summary, Table 1.6 gives a comparison of different aspects related to central and localized organic waste separation and treatment.
Table 1.6. Comparison of central and local organic waste separation & treatment

Central separation and treatment Centralized waste management High investment High operational costs (labor, electricity, waste water treatment) Long distance transport Problems with odour, leachate, etc. Unpleasant and dangerous job creation

At source separation and local treatment Socialized waste management Low investment Low operational costs

No or short distance transport Reduced risk for disease transmission Creating opportunities for small entrepreneurs

18

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

2 CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION AND MAPPING OF THE BIOLOGICALLY TREATABLE WASTE STREAM
In order to determine the potential of organic waste valorization, it is important to know how much waste is produced and collected, and the percentage of the organic fraction. A detailed report of the study that took place in October 2010 is attached as Annex 3. Below, a summary with the main findings is presented.

METHODOLOGY The current amount of waste produced and collected A detailed survey was undertaken to determine the current amount of waste produced in the 4 districts. This survey included interviews with relevant stakeholders as well as a desk study of related documents. Predicting the future amount of waste produced and collected and/or treated Projections of the amount of waste that will be produced in the future are based on an estimated population growth of 1.16% per year, the estimate rate of urbanization, and the estimated average amount of waste produced per person (0.5 kg per day in communes and 0.8 kg per day in towns). Prediction of the future amount of waste that will be collected or treated at source is based on an estimated levels of waste collection/treatment. Waste characterization In order to determine organic waste as a percentage of the total amount of waste, samples taken from market and household wastes in the 4 districts were taken and separated manually into different fractions. All fractions were weighed and the percentage of organic fraction was calculated.

RESULTS Current and future amount of waste produced and collected/treated The total amount of waste produced in the 4 districts in 2010, 2015 and 2020 is presented in Table 2.1 and 2.2. Currently, only 26.7% of the waste is collected. It is estimated that this will increase to 76.8 % by 2020.
Table 2.1. Total waste produced in 4 districts (Ton/day)

District Phu My Tay Son An Nhon Hoai Nhon Total

2010 91 72 101 113 377

2015 107 81 107 122 417

2020 113 86 124 129 452

19

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Table 2.2. Total waste collected (or treated at source) in 4 districts (Ton/day) in volume and percentage

District Phu My Tay Son An Nhon Hoai Nhon Total

2010 13 (14%) 22 (31%) 28 (28%) 38 (34%) 101 (27%)

2015 54 (51%) 47 (58%) 66 (62%) 69 (57%) 236 (57%)

2020 85 (75%) 66 (77%) 100 (81%) 96 (74%) 347 (77%)

Characterization of waste Table 2.3 shows the waste characterization of the samples taken from households and markets collected by the waste management companies in the 4 districts. These results are the weighted average of all samples taken on each location. The total average is calculated based on the real amount of waste produced on each location and the average percentage of organic waste for that location (weighted average). The average organic fraction in market waste (78.7%) is higher than in household waste (55.2%). The overall average is 58.4%1.
Table 2.3. The organic component of waste from markets and households

Market waste Ton/day Tay Son Phu My An Nhon Hoai Nhon Total 1 3 5 5 14 % Org. 68.9 70.2 74.8 89.7 78.7

Household waste Ton/day 21 10 23 23 87 % Org. 59.9 62.5 52.2 52 55.2

Total waste Ton/day 22 13 28 28 101 % Org. 60.3 64.3 56.2 57 58.4

Prediction of future organic waste production and collection/treatment. The development of the total amount of organic waste that will be treated at source or collected and treated in the coming decade is presented in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4. Development of the total amount of organic waste collected (or treated at source) in 4 districts (Ton/day)

District Phu My Tay Son An Nhon Hoai Nhon Total

2010 8.4 13.3 16 22 59.7

2015 34.7 28.2 36 39 137.9

2020 54.7 40 56 55 205.7

1

These percentages are calculated based on the characterization of samples of collected waste from residential area and do not take into account the agricultural waste and waste that is already given or sold by households to scavengers or treated at source, e.g. as pig feed’; etc…

20

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

A summary of current (2010) and estimated (2015, 2020) population growth, and the amount of total and organic waste produced and collected/treated for each district is provided in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5. Total amount of organic waste produced and collected/treated for each district*

District Phu My

Year Population Generated waste Collection rate Collection/treatment volume % Organic Organic waste produced Org. waste collected/treated Population Generated waste Collection rate Collection/treatment volume % Organic Organic waste produced Org. waste collected/treated Population Generated waste Collection rate Collection/treatment volume % Organic Organic waste produced Org. waste collected/treated Population Generated waste Collection rate Collection/treatment volume % Organic Organic waste produced Org. waste collected/treated

Unit Persons Ton/day % Ton/day % Ton/day Ton/day Persons Ton/day % Ton/day % Ton/day Ton/day Persons Ton/day % Ton/day % Ton/day Ton/day Persons Ton/day % Ton/day % Ton/day Ton/day

2010 171,613 91 14.5 13 64.3 59 8.4 124,770 72 30.7 22 60.3 43 13.3 180,797 101 28.1 28 56.2 57 16 209,089 113 33.6 38 57.0 64 22

2015 181,800 107 50.2 54 64.3 69 34.7 132,176 81 57.6 47 60.3 49 28.2 191,530 107 55.4 66 56.2 60 36 221,500 122 56.8 69 57.0 70 39

2020 192,592 113 75 85 64.3 73 54.7 140,022 86 77 66 60.3 52 40 202,899 124 80.8 100 56.2 70 56 234,649 129 74.4 96 57.0 74 55

Tay Son

An Nhon

Hoai Nhon

*exclusive of agricultural waste

Legal framework For integrated waste treatment plants, the Vietnam standards - BXD QCVN 07/2010 states that the volume of solid waste treated by some of the technologies of recycling, reusing, processing organic fertilizer, processing burning fuel etc. must reach ≥ 85% and the rate of remaining solid waste must not exceed 15%.

21

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Fertilizer/compost products used in agriculture must be approved by competent authorities and carried an issued license in the market according to regulation No. 36/2010-TT BNNPTNT dated on June 24th, 2010 by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, about fertilizer production, trading and use; and direction of the Government Office No. 5367/VPCP-KTN dated on August 4th, 2010 about Solutions to enhance production management and fertilizers' quality. Criteria for building fertilizer production plants are based on National technical regulations for projects of urban infrastructure in Vietnam No. 07/2010-BXD promulgated to attach Circular No. 02/2010/TT-BXD dated by the Ministry of Construction on February 5th, 2010.

22

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

3 CHAPTER 3. IDENTIFY POTENTIAL PRODUCTS, BUSINESSES AND SERVICES 3.1. Introduction
The objective of this phase was to develop feasible models for organic waste valorization in the 4 targeted districts in Binh Dinh. All aspects of the models (social, technical, environmental, and economical) are discussed. It is important to realize that there is not just one solution! The true success is in a flexible combination of approaches, which will be promoted and implemented by different actors. Some may be initiated by the community itself and will mainly be driven by social and environmental objectives. Others will be put forward by true entrepreneurs, who are mainly driven by economic objectives. An important common factor is that practically all models are driven by persons rather than by institutions! Experiences have shown that most top down enforced models tend to fail, because they lack good reasons for the people at the base to participate. Bottom up initiatives have much more chance to become successful, because the people who implement them, are clearly aware of the reason why they do it. A very important aspect is that all promising valorization models start with separation of waste at source. This requires a supportive regulatory framework, commitment and determination of implementers and most likely some kind of incentive at the base level (households, markets, businesses). Complete valorization of organic (an inorganic) waste is complex and involves a lot of people. However, this should be considered as an opportunity to join forces and strengthen social bonds with the goal to create social, economic and environmental benefits, which are clearly there: Current entrepreneurs (farmers, waste collectors, businesses) can increase their income New jobs are created Less waste needs to be collected, transported and landfilled by the authorities Less environmental pollutants are produced. Societies have a chance to take care of their own future and to improve everyone’s life by creating cleaner and healthier living conditions

In conclusion, waste valorization is clearly feasible. This study should be considered as a first guideline on how to approach schemes and strategies. It should not be considered as ‘the A to Z roadmap for Binh Dinh’. The real initiatives have to be developed and tested by the promoters and implementers in Binh Dinh. We are confident that each one of the models presented in this report shows sufficient potential to be taken to the next level of implementation, after a process of ‘learning by doing’ in small-scale models.

3.2. Inclusive Business
One of the elements of this phase is to review Inclusive Business (IB). In the text box below, IB is further explained. Our views are strongly motivated by the triple P approach: Planet, Profit, and People. In our study we took the principles of IB as a starting point, meaning that added value for businesses, poor people, and the government (mainly referring to ‘Profit’ and ‘People’) is taken as a basic constraint in the waste valorization models. Moreover, we took environmental constraints (‘Planet’) as an important boundary condition, meaning that the triple P approach is followed to the extent possible. The outcome of this analysis and brainstorm sessions are included in the following paragraphs, and is not further elaborated here.

23

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Text Box 3.1. Inclusive Business2
An inclusive business is a profitable and sustainable entrepreneurial initiative that seeks to contribute to poverty reduction by including lower-income communities within the value chains of companies as employees, suppliers, consumers or distributors, in a win-win situation1. Inclusive businesses create value for all: Opportunities for businesses: Generating profits, developing new markets, driving innovation, expanding labour pools and strengthening value chains by incorporating the poor. Improving their productivity, increasing incomes, accessing technology and information, increasing empowerment to gain more control over their lives. Promoting inclusion-oriented policies to bridge the gaps and align the incentives of both government and private sector firms.

Opportunities for the poor:

Opportunities for government:

3.3. Overview of factors to be considered in organic waste valorization
3.3.1. Triple P
The description and evaluation of the case studies in Vietnam and worldwide best practices (Phase 1) provide a very promising basis for the potential waste valorization schemes for the Binh Dinh area. The feasibility of valorization of organic wastes of any source greatly depends on social, economic, logistical, and technical conditions. The most important social condition is the awareness of the society & governance (national government, local government, NGO’s, local communities) for the need to 3R (Reduce, Recycle and Recover) in order to comply with the general sustainability criteria of ‘triple P’ (Planet, Profit, People). Without awareness, there is no real basis for this compliance. If awareness is being developed, valorization of organic waste has to become an economic activity. Otherwise, motivation will lack or be lost. Basically, costs (investment costs, depreciation and running costs) have to be covered by monetary benefits, including profit, meaning that the activity has to be profitable on the longer term.

3.3.2. Separation at source
We found that separation at the source of organic and non-organic wastes is a ‘must’ for any profitable – and thus economical – organic waste valorization model. In contrast to recyclables that keep their shape and value for a long or even infinite time (e.g. plastics), organic waste deteriorates very quickly. This has two important consequences: The food waste loses its value since it can no longer be used e.g. as animal feed.

2

From SNV Inclusive Business Solutions: Connection People’s Capacities. More info on www.inclusivebusiness.org

24

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

-

The separation of organic waste from other waste becomes difficult or practically impossible the further the decomposition process has taken place.

Nevertheless, several integrated waste management plants in Vietnam attempt to separate the organic fraction after the waste has been mixed with non-organic waste. It is important to realize that such practice has important drawbacks. Manual separation is a time consuming, dirty, dangerous and unpleasant job, whereas semi-manual (highly mechanize) separation is complex, energy consuming, while still some level of manual separation is needed. The most optimal strategy prevents that (a lot of) small non-organic materials mixes with the organic fraction. Especially batteries and medicine will negatively affect the quality of the valorized waste, which makes thorough and complete separation at source essential.

Photos 1 – 3: Non organic residue is still mixed with organic waste after separation. The main idea of organic waste treatment is bringing the nutrients back into the food chain. Therefore, allowing organic waste to get in contact with non-organic (toxic or polluting) materials can be dangerous, for workers, consumers and the environment. In conclusion, we can state that separation at plant is not only uneconomical but also unsafe, and therefore should be avoided. In order to truly valorise organic waste, separation at source is a must. To facilitate this, a combination of a high level of awareness and appropriate logistics are needed. Separation at source is often considered as a nearly impossible task. However, with a good amount of motivation and determination, and especially with the realization that a lot of money can be made from organic waste, separation at source will be feasible. Probably a key reason why many project on separation at source have failed is because the separation was the goal on itself. Experience in HCMC showed that the logistics (facilities) to collect the separated waste were insufficient, resulting in a situation where the separated waste was mixed again during collection. Such practices obviously have a negative influence on the motivation of the people involved in the promotion of separation. We recommend that the community involved in the separation is fully aware of what happens with the different fractions of the waste. They should also be fully aware of who benefits from waste separation: the community, the government and the entrepreneurs. Benefits for the community are related to the reduced negative impact of landfills on environment and health. By reducing the amount of landfilled waste, the negative effects are also reduced. Benefits for the government are related to money that can be saved on waste collection and treatment. The budget saved can be used for other activities for the benefit of the community. Benefits for entrepreneurs are the extra income and/or jobs created.

-

-

25

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Table 3.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Separation at source and at plant 3

Separation at source Advantages
• Less chance of contamination. This can result in a higher-quality compost product. Less money and time spent on handling and separating materials at the composting facility. Provides an educational benefit to residents and might encourage waste reduction and reduced littering. Opportunity to reward responsible villagers Job creation for small entrepreneurs Awareness raising is (promotion and follow up) essential

Separation at plant
• Waste is usually collected with existing equipment and labor resources. Convenient for residents because no separation is required. No need involvement. for community to

• • • •

One place or few places implement and manage Implementation can be quickly

• •

Disadvantages

• • • •

• • •

Higher processing and facility costs. Uses a lot of energy and is therefore polluting End product is not safe since it has been in contact with toxics

Can be less convenient to residents. Some initial investment needed (mainly bins) Well prepared long term strategy is needed (needs time)

The recycling business exists because there is money to be made. The organic waste valorization needs to learn from the recycling business and should apply the same rules. In the current project, the team has assumed and discovered that the government and the society are well aware of the importance of waste processing/valorization as an alternative for (household) waste disposal in landfills. This landfill strategy is therefore not addressed and elaborated in this report.

3.3.3. Localized or centralized?
Another important aspect of economics is related to the logistics. Collection, transport, and processing are costly. Any model that promotes ‘on site’ solutions create an potentially large economic benefit for the authorities since all costs involved in collection, transport and processing are saved! In case ‘on site’ solutions are not feasible in specific areas, for example in the city center, ‘localized’ solution should be preferred above ‘centralized’ solutions. There are several important reasons: A lot of money can be saved by reducing transport

3

See also: Decision Maker’s Guide to Solid Waste Management, Volume II, Table 7.1 http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/dmg2/chapter7.pdf

26

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

-

Localized solutions create more awareness and encourage local communities to be involved Smaller models are often easier to manage, require lower cost technologies and the final products (compost, larvae, worms) can easily find their way back to the local community (for free or to be sold).

Based on the experiences during the project, we found three main logistical categories (see Figure 3.1): Widespread sources (mainly in rural areas) – kg basis Clustered sources (in villages and outskirts of cities), with a relatively restricted number of waste sources in a relatively restricted area – kg-ton basis Hot spots (communities and cities, markets), with a large number of waste sources in a relatively small area – >ton basis

In general, waste processing for widespread (shattered) sources need primarily be done with onsite technology. Collection and more centralized processing is generally not feasible, mainly because of the reason of economy (too high costs for collection and transport). Waste from hot spots can best be processed on centralized locations, since the product availability is high and logistics are optimal. However, also collection and localized processing may appear to be feasible. For clustered sources, in principle, all options are open (on site processing, collection + localized processing, collection + centralized processing). The selection of the optimal solution greatly depends on the local situation, policy, vision etc.

Figure 3.1. Decision scheme on logistics of waste management and handling.

It is obvious that the choice of technology greatly depends on the logistical situation. On site solutions need to be low-budget, easy to handle technologies, whereas central processing technology can be more advanced and sophisticated (integrated). One should also consider that the more complex the technology becomes, the more time and money needs to be spent on training of staff for proper use and maintenance of the technology, to assure sustainable technical functioning. Therefore, a general rule is that if on site solutions are feasible, it is always the most economical solution.

27

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

3.3.4. The principle of bringing nutrients back in the food chain
One of the philosophies in organic waste treatment is to reduce the spilling of nutrients (N: nitrogen; P: phosphorus; K; Potassium) and organic matter into the environment.

Figure 3.2. Schematic representation of various options for organic waste valorization.

Hence, organic waste treatment strategies should focus on keeping the nutrients in the ‘system’ (plant, animal, human; see Figure 3.2). It has to be noted that each intermediate treatment causes losses of nutrients to some extent. Therefore, re-use of leftovers is the most efficient way to achieve this, since no spilling takes place. Direct feeding to pig or fish is the second best option. Medium and high nutrient waste may replace partly or fully the dietary nutrient requirements of livestock. Other promising options are BSF larvae production and vermiculture. These technologies have a relatively high rate of turnover of organic waste, while producing high quality ‘composts’ and worms/larvae that can be used for various purposes (animal feed, fertilizer). Finally, composting of organic matter may be operated. The compost with its nutrients are used to grow plants (e.g. vegetables, crops). Additionally, the organic matter contributes to soil fertility, in terms of soil condition, water binding capacity, and slow release of nutrients from degradation of organic compounds. In this philosophy, re-feeding of organic waste (e.g. to aquaculture or pig production) adds the most value, also in economic terms.

3.3.5. Waste typology determines technology
The type of waste greatly determines the choice of technology, and also the economy. Types of waste investigated in the project are: Household waste (mixed or separated in organic and residual fraction) Market waste (mixed or separated in waste from plant and animal origin) Restaurant waste (kitchen refuse) Animal manure (mainly from pigs)

28

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

All these types of waste have different dry matter content and nutrient value. The dry matter content basically determines the processing strategy. Waste with low dry matter content (high water content) can only be composted or burnt/incinerated with addition of high dry matter content substrate. Yet, these types of wastes may be suitable for anaerobic digestion (biogas production), since that technology basically requires slurry type of substrates. Also, the nutrient content of the waste greatly determines the strategy. Re-feeding low nutrient waste will generate no or limited added value to the chain (e.g. aquaculture), whereas composting of waste with a medium/high dry matter content and nutrient value is basically a waste of potential. Below (Table 3.2), the types of waste encountered in the project and relevant for the Binh Dinh Province are listed, including a categorization of the dry matter content, the nutrient content, and the possible and preferred treatment strategies for each type of waste.

Table 3.2. Types of organic waste, their composition and the preferred valorization strategy.

Source Household Food waste Garden waste Mixed organic Market Animal residue Mixed Food waste Plant residue 1 Plant residue 2 Mixed organic Restaurant Kitchen waste Livestock Solid Manure Slurry

Dry matter content

Nutrient value

Preferred strategy

Medium Low Low

Medium Low Medium

Re-feeding/BSF Compost BSF/compost

Medium Medium Low Low Medium/low

High Medium Low Medium/high Medium/low

Re-feeding Re-feeding/BSF Compost Re-feeding Compost

Medium

Medium

Re- feeding/BSF

Medium Low

Medium High

Compost/BSF Biogas

Note: BSF = Black Soldier Fly (in combination with red worms; vermiculture).

29

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

TEXT BOX 3.2.Basic description of technologies
Re-feeding: In principle, all organic waste can be re-fed to animals. Most added value is obtained when re-feeding waste with a relatively high nutrient (e.g. protein) and/or energy (e.g. fat, carbon hydrates) value. Central idea behind re-feeding is to valorize potential lost nutrients and energy by conversion into animal products (meat, milk). Pig husbandry and aquaculture are the most logical re-feeding options. For pigs, sanitation (e.g. by cooking) of the organic waste is necessary for reasons of food safety, whereas for aquaculture, direct re-feeding can be operated. Black Soldier Fly larvae production: Black Soldier Flies (BSF) can be used to decompose the organic waste to stable organic matter. Larvae of the BSF are produced, being a very good source of protein and fat, and therefore useful for animal feed of a high protein (42%) and fat (34%) content. BSF larvae are some of the most voracious eaters within the natural world. They can effect as much as a 20-fold reduction in the weight and volume of food waste in a period of less than 24 hours. In an area of only one square meter, they can eat up to 40 kg of fresh food waste per day. BSF larvae can eat just about any type of fresh or rotting waste, even meat and dairy products. BSF play an important role in a mesophilic storage and reduction system, but can also specifically produced in a biopod. The cultivation of BSF larvae can be combined with red worms (see vermiculture). Vermiculture: Vermiculture, or worm farming, is typically no real composting process, since the degradation of organic matter is conducted by worms (of various types). Vermiculture is mainly used for valorization of manure, and has only limited us for treatment of household and market waste. Aerobic conditions don’t need to be met. However, during the vermiculture, aeration may result from the worms’ activity. Worms consume organic matter to produce a stable humus (castings). The end product is very suitable as soil enhancer, whereas also nutrients are conserved to some extent. A fair part of the nutrients are fixated in the increase of biomass of the worms. Worms and castings (humus) may be harvested separately, and used for various purposes.

Photos 4 - 6: Stray organic waste (garden, farms) nicely put in windrows to produce compost from vermiculture (Hyderabad, India) Composting: In principle, all organic matter can be put subject to composting. However, a certain Carbon:Nitrogen (C:N) ratio (around or above 20-25), and sufficient porosity of the substrate is needed to start the composting process. Composting is by definition and aerobic process, where instable organic matter (carbon and nitrogen containing compounds) is degraded by microorganisms under the presence and use of oxygen. Due to this microbial oxidation, heat, CO2 and H2O are produced. Depending on the quality of the composting process, also CH4, N2O, and odorous compounds may be produced. The gases are released (evaporated) from the compost heap, resulting in a drying – typically from a dry matter content of 20% to 50% or higher – and a mass loss of the compost heap.

30

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Photos 7 and 8: Stray organic waste (garden) collected and composted (Rumania). The presence of oxygen is essential for a proper composting process with a high quality of the end product and minimal production and loss of potentially polluting gases. Optimal management is trough frequent turning of compost heaps, and passive and active aeration of static piles. An optimal composting process results in a core temperature of 70oC or above, resulting in a partly or fully sanitized product. High quality compost is an odor, pathogen, and weed seed free, stable soil enhancer (stable organic matter) with a plant nutrient value (fertilizer). Anaerobic fermentation: Anaerobic fermentation, or anaerobic digestion, is the combined microbial-chemical conversion of easily degradable organic matter into CH4 (and CO2), under strictly oxygen-free (anaerobic or anoxic) conditions. It is a 3-step process: 1) hydrolysis carried out by a mixture of fermentative bacteria (so called acid formers); 2) acetogenesis, where the products from the hydrolysis step are further degraded to volatile fatty acids, and 3) methane formation. Methane formation can be classified as psychrophilic (< 20 oC), mesophilic (2040oC), and thermophilic (> 40oC). In general, the higher the temperature, the greater the methane formation. However, when heating is needed to get the higher temperature, the overall energy balance may be negative.

Photos 9 and 10.Lighting and cooking using biogas (Vietnam). Inputs to the anaerobic fermentation process need to have a certain dry matter content, preferably slurries (e.g. pig slurry, kitchen refuses), to allow mixing and flow in the digester. The rate of degradation of the main organic compounds, and therefore the potential CH 4 production, increases in the following order: cellulose (wood or wooden materials) hemi-cellulose (plant material – cell walls, straw, cattle manure) proteins (kitchen refuse) fat (kitchen refuse, pig manure) carbohydrates (corn, starch)

Gasification: Gasification is a method for extracting energy from many different types of organic materials. In the

31

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

process of gasification, carbonaceous materials, such as coal, petroleum, biofuel, or biomass, are converted into carbon monoxide and hydrogen by reacting the raw material at high temperatures with a controlled amount of oxygen and/or steam. The resulting gas mixture is called synthesis gas or syngas and is itself a fuel. Syngas may be burned directly for heat production or can be used to produce, electricity, ice or even biodiesel. Almost any type of organic material can be used as raw material for gasification, such as wood, biomass, or even plastic waste. Gasification relies on chemical processes at elevated temperatures >700°C, which distinguishes it from biological processes such as anaerobic digestion that produce biogas. Gasification is an environmentally friendly process. Regardless of the final fuel form, gasification itself and subsequent processing neither directly emits nor traps greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. An important additional output of gasification is biochar, a valuable fertilizer.

3.4. Developing practical models for Binh Dinh
3.4.1 How to make money from waste?
Mixed waste as such has no value and is therefore considered ‘wasted’. However, in the recycling business, a lot of money can be made when specific fractions are separated from the rest of the waste. The more purely each fraction is separated according to its specific characteristic, the higher the total value of the recyclables becomes. These economic incentives drive the waste recycling businesses worldwide. And these relatively simple economics are also known by the scavengers trying to make a living by scouting waste dumps, as well as by the top managers of modern large scale waste separation businesses. Once valorization of organic waste is taken seriously, which means turning waste into a resource and money, it becomes very similar to the recycling business. Most money can be made when the different fractions of organic waste are separated and treated in specific ways. In household and market waste, three fractions are considered: Food waste o Food waste includes uneaten portions of meals and trimmings from food preparation activities in kitchens, restaurants, and cafeterias. Food waste includes cooked and raw fractions.

-

Non-food waste o This includes all other ‘green’ organic waste generated by households or markets such as plant and tree trimmings, residues of agricultural or other professional activities, garden wastes etc.

-

‘Dry’ waste o This is a fraction of the non-food waste that contains high celluloses and of which the DM content is high. This fraction can be gasified.

Food waste Mixed food waste has a medium dry matter and nutrient content. The most economical way to deal with this waste is to feed it to animals as soon as possible. This implies that the food waste needs to be fresh. Once it has started to decompose, it should not be used as animal feed (to avoid disease transmission, food waste should be cooked before feeding it to pigs. In some cases, it could also be advisable to ensilages food waste before feeding it. This anaerobic fermentation process decreases the levels of certain toxins and pathogens and allows storage for several months. Ensilaged food does not need to be cooked before feeding it.)

32

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

The second most economical way to re-use food waste is by feeding it to BSF larvae inside a biopod. This is certainly the best options once the food waste has started to decompose. The available nutrients will be turned into valuable protein and fat by the physical growth of the BSF larvae. A third feasible option, although less economical, is making biogas from food waste. If none of the above is possible, food waste can be composted. However, the dry matter content of food waste alone is too low, so mixing with a dryer substrate such as garden waste is recommended. The practical options for re-use and re-cycling of food waste are presented in the figure below.

Non-food waste The most preferable strategy for managing organic non-food waste is direct use as green fertilizer for crop production (mulching in soil). The degradation takes place in the soil and organic matter and nutrients become available for crop growth. Its suitability depends on the presence of land on site or nearby. Certain fractions of the non-food waste can also be re-used as animal feed (pigs, cattle). However, this option depends on the presence of livestock in the vicinity of the production location and/or the availability of sufficient collection and transport capacity. The waste can also be put subject to recycling strategies, like composting (stabilization of organic matter before putting it back into the soil), the development of new products (e.g. for construction), or as alternative fuel source. These applications require additional investments in technology. Similarly, various technologies exist for energy recovery and soil amendment, e.g. by anaerobic digestion. It has to be noticed that the biogas output from green wastes is often low. So in the majority of the cases, composting is the most feasible option for this fraction.

33

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

‘Dry’ waste The part of the non-food waste that has a high celluloses content (wood, branches, rice husks, etc.) can be gasified. Two important output of gasification are heat from burning the gas and biochar, a valuable fertilizer.

3.4.2. Four recommended practical models for Binh Dinh
Based upon the previous paragraphs, four specific models were developed. Two central issues are considered in our models: (1) People, and (2) Income Generation. People are the central point of integrated waste management. People create the waste and the same people may suffer from improper waste management. So all people need to be aware of the issues and need to be involved in the solutions. Consequently, all our models are based on the understanding by and involvement of people. Three out of the four models are considered as commercial models, in which the driving force is income generation. The models are based on active involvement of the population and on the entrepreneurial spirit of the Vietnamese people: 1. Household and /or community based storage and reduction bins 2. Re-feeding model with pigs 3. Small scale BSF larvae production 4. Commercial medium scale composting

MODEL 1. HOUSEHOLD AND/OR COMMUNITY BASED STORAGE AND REDUCTION BINS Summary Location: Operated by: Promoted by: Commercial Products: Investment: Benefit for authority: On site (household, market or community) Households, communities Government, NGO’s Possibly the bin residue* Compost bins (240,000 VND per bin) No collection, transport, processing costs

* The bin residue is actually a valuable commercial product. It can be collected by scavengers and improve substantially the result of their composting and vermiculture activities.

Short description The mesophilic storage units are concrete or brick storage bins in which the volume and weight of organic waste is reduced by natural processes (growth and reproduction of Bacteria, fungi, larvae, worms). The bins are primarily designed to serve one households. The bins are designed to receive waste that naturally breaks down within a period of about one year (bone and shell are the only exceptions; it will take a longer time to decompose these). Data collected during a

34

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

period of 8 months in Dalat showed a 92% reduction in the weight and a 79% reduction in the volume from this type of treatment of biodegradable waste4. Bins with an open bottom can be placed in a patio and can be surrounded with ornamental trees. Alternatively, a bin with a closed bottom can be put on blocks. Leachate can be collected in small bucket under the bin and can be fed back to the bin for adding N and moisture during composting process. For a more detailed description of the principle, we refer to the paper from Mr. Paul Olivier and his colleagues5.

Factors related to the success of this model This model requires a large degree awareness. Information sessions, training, and follow up is required to ensure a correct use of this technology. Several NGO’s have shown interest to be involved in programs that support bins. Waste disposal The following materials can be treated in the bins: Food preparation waste including nut, fruit and vegetable matter along with their seeds, peelings or shells, poultry, meat and fish cleaning (including feathers, scales, shells, bone and hair). Table scraps include all food waste left over from a pot, dish or plate, along with any bones, scales, and shells. Spent bouquets of flowers Small amounts of garden waste. Large amount of garden waste should be composted (See model 4)

-

The following items should not be deposited in the bins: Materials that do not break down include glass, metal, plastic, rubber, foam rubber, waxcoated items, textile, stone, sand, rock, rock wool, sponge, brick, porcelain, ceramic and other such durable items.

Family or group use Compost bins can be used by one family or by a small group of families. In the first scenario, every household will have one bin, while in the second scenario, a group of bins will be used by a group of families. The group of families could be an apartment, a street or a few houses close to each other. We recommend that the communities themselves choose the best scenario. In some cases,
4 5

Olivier P et al. (2011) Making waste our greatest research. http://www.esrla.com/pdf/composting.pdf Olivier P et al. (2011) Making waste our greatest research. http://www.esrla.com/pdf/composting.pdf

35

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

especially in a more urban environment, families might not have sufficient place to put a compost bin. In such situation, it is necessary to find a location nearby where a group of bins can be located, and which is still convenient for all families to bring their waste. If no nearby location is available, collection and transport of the organic waste is necessary. Community projects The successful implementation of this model will largely depend on the understanding of the benefits of the program by the community and on the willingness of the whole community to make it a success. This means that the planning and implementation of an integrated waste management project should be on a participatory basis. Projects that involve the communities from the planning phase onward tend to be more successful than projects that were planned to the detail by waste managers. We recommend to discuss the schemes of waste management with the communities and to involve them in the appropriate actions. A successful integrated waste management plan contains a combination of different activities. If the community itself has selected the compost bins at household level as a good solution, the chance of success is much larger than when families are suddenly forced to use a compost bin. In many cases, a group of young, responsible people has proven to be the ideal promoter to separate waste at source and to give advice on its treatment. Especially in the start-up phase, many villagers will have questions on what to put into the compost bin and what cannot be composted. Promotion leaflets can help, but in general people will need a more hands-on advice.

Please note that the example above is for thermophillic composting. It is not accurate for the mesophillic bin, but we show it as an example of a useful leaflet.

Young motivated program assistants can assist households to use the compost bin correctly. They can also stimulate and collaborate with the scavengers and help them to create business opportunities in vermicomposting, composting with Toptex or BSF (see Model 3&4) Special reference is made to Children for Green New Nepal, where young people are taking care of their future.

36

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Operation & Maintenance Household bins can receive 3 kg of waste per day. The small lid is opened and the waste is put in the bin. Mesophilic bacteria and fungi require oxygen. That is why the sides of the bin have aeration holes. Additionally, mixing is required to optimize aeration. It is recommended to mix (or stir) once a week, also to avoid creation of odors. Once a year, the bin needs to be emptied and thoroughly cleaned. This is the only time that the large lid has to be opened. The contents of the storage bins can be collected, shredded, and then routed to thermophilic composting operations using a compost fleece (see model 4). The residue in the bins is also suitable for vermicomposting applications. The weekly stirring as well as the yearly collection of the bin’s content can create an interesting business opportunity for scavengers or other interested people. Black Soldier Flies The compost bins may be naturally colonized by BSF larvae. However, the functioning of a mesophilic bin is also secured if BSF larvae are not present. Mesophilic decomposition is driven mainly by bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, protozoa and rotifers – all operating at mesophilic temperatures. But when BSF larvae are present, a bin that might normally handle 3 kg of food waste per day can be fed as much as 30 kg per day. The size and capacity of a bin, however, must always be designed for its functioning without BSF larvae. Potential Impact This model can be implemented in practically all areas of the 4 targeted districts. It is highly recommended for all households in all areas of the project including areas with current waste collection service and areas where currently there is no waste collection service. Many houses in towns have a patio around the house, where a bin can be placed. Alternatively, groups of bins can be located in a suitable, nearby location. At the successful implementation of the this technology, an enormous amount of waste is prevented from becoming a concern of the waste collection services and management.

37

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

MODEL 2: COMMERCIAL RE-FEEDING TO PIGS Characteristics Location: Operated by: Promoted by: Farm Farm owner Government, NGO’s, farmers, associations Commercial Products: Investment: Benefit for authority: Short description Individual pig farmers collect kitchen refuse from restaurants, markets and households and feed it to their pigs. In order to avoid transmission of diseases such as Foot & Mouth disease, all food should be cooked for 1 hour (one hour boiling time)6. For cooking, either biogas or gasifiers are recommended. Factors related to the success of this model This model is already successfully applied in many areas in Vietnam. Very strong economics is the driving factor behind this model. It is important that local authorities support this activity, since a lot of money can be saved on waste collection and processing. Selection of waste Only fresh food waste can be used as pig feed7. Pig farmers are encouraged to find their own supplies of valuable waste. They can make informal or formal arrangements for waste separation and collection. Cooking If the farm already has a biogas unit, it is recommended to use biogas for cooking. Farmers can easily install a cheap cooking device using a re-used water container or oil barrel. In this case, there is no cost for the cooking itself. If no biogas unit is available, the farmers can choose to install a biogas unit, or to buy a gasifier. In the latter case, the farmer has to buy rice husks or other fuels for the gasifier. Furthermore, it is recommended that these farmers grow BSF larvae on pig manure using biopods. The larvae can be cooked together with the waste, since they are an excellent source of protein. Both models (biogas and gasifier + BSF) are promising integrated pig farm models. It is up to the farmers to choose which model fits the farm’s conditions best. We believe that the promotion of biogas is easier since it’s benefits have already widely been demonstrated in Vietnam. It is not recommended to promote gasifiers without solutions for the pig manure treatment or use. Meat Cooking device (can be made of re-used water container or oil barrel.) No collection, transport, processing costs

6

In many countries, feeding organic waste to pigs is forbidden to avoid transmission of diseases. However, some countries like New Zealand still allow this practice but have issued a law that forces farmers to cook the waste at 100°C for at least 1 hour. Vietnam has no regulation at the moment.
7

Some part of the non-food waste could be suitable as cattle feed, but that is not discussed here.

38

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Economic benefit for farmers Feeding is the highest cost in pig rearing (about 70%). Feeding kitchen waste is considerably cheaper than feeding commercial feed. However, growth rate is slower: the fattening period (from 25 to 90 – 100 kg) is about 5 months instead of 4 when fed commercial feed. One pig will eat about 6 kg of waste per day. The table below shows a comparison of the feed cost.
Commercial feed - From 25 to 90 kg in 4 months - About 2 kg feed per pig per day (DM=90%) - Daily gain of about 500 to 600 gram - 122 days * 2kg = 244 kg commercial concentrate - Feed cost: 244 * 8000vnd = 1,952,000 vnd Feeding food waste - From 25 to 90 kg in 5 months - About 6 kg of kitchen waste per day - Daily gain of about 400 to 500 gram - 153 days * 6 kg= 918 kg cooked kitchen waste (DM = 30%) - Feed cost: 918 * 600 vnd= 550,000 vnd (10,000 vnd for 20 kg + 100vnd/kg transportation cost and cooking)

The feed cost (fattening) with commercial feed of 1,952,000 VND can be reduced with 72% to 550,000 VND by feeding food waste. That means that an extra benefit of 1,402,000 VND per pig. The slaughter value of a pig of 90 to 100 kg is about 3,700,000 VND. For a farm with 20 fattening pigs ,an extra income of about 5,600,000 VND per month can be realized (4 pigs are brought to the slaughterhouse every month). It is important to realize that pig farming with commercial feed is not always profitable because of the high feed cost and unstable selling price (pork). However, a farm using food waste will always be profitable! The extra labor needed for the collection of waste is rather limited if good arrangements are made with the suppliers. The cooking can take place while the farmer performs other daily tasks on the farm. Ideally, the pig farm applies an integrated farming model as presented in the table below.

Note: Morning glory is mainly used to treat waste water - microflora is symbiotic in morning glory roots and

39

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

use up surplus nitrogen in water, especially water with surface contamination. If we plant morning glory with aquaculture, this plant will take up nutrients and oxygen needed by fishes. We can plant them together but within a controlled surface area. Normally, farmers use a bamboo frame fixed in the middle of the pond in which morning glory or water hyacinth can grow (and not further).

Potential Impact With the potential of hundreds of small farmers that can apply this practice, thousands of tons of waste can be turned into resources. This model is currently already applied on a rather wide scale, but not as well organized as the case study described in Chapter 1 of this report.

MODEL 3: SMALL COMMERCIAL BSF LARVAE PRODUCTION Characteristics Location: Operated by: Promoted by: Commercial Products: Investment: Benefit for authority: Short description In this model, the waste collectors are encouraged to separated organic waste that can be fed to BSF larvae, who convert it in to protein and fat. With waste collectors, we refer to the people, mostly women, who go from house to house to collect waste and bring it to places where the waste is collected by trucks. They usually use pushcarts. We also refer to waste collectors who are not involved in general waste collection settings and only go around to collect recyclables. The production of BSF could be done at their house or at a central place where waste collectors work together. The larvae can be sold as feed for chicken, frog, turtle, fish, and pigs. The fraction of the waste that is not consumed by BSF larvae is an ideal substrate for red worm production. The waste collectors are already separating a number of recyclables and make an extra income from selling those. Therefore, it is logical that this same person also collects specific organic waste and sells BSF larvae produced on it. It is also expected that at least some households would help the waste collectors and already separate waste suitable for BSF larvae production. Factors related to the success of this model Also this model would require a rather high level of awareness. Both the households and the waste collectors need to be trained and coached in all steps of the treatment process. Selection of waste BSF larvae are some of the most voracious eaters within the natural world. BSF larvae can eat about any type of fresh or rotting waste, even meat, any kind of manure, and dairy products. BSF larvae are potentially able to consume all food waste and some parts of the non-food waste. Worms and BSF larvae don’t like large amounts of anaerobically decomposed food waste. Learning-by-doing will quickly show what kind of waste they eat or not the biopod could also contain red worms since they eat a kind of waste that the BSF don’t eat. Waste collector’s house Waste collector Government, NGO’s, Waste collectors Associations BSF larvae, worms, worm castings Biopods No collection, transport, processing costs

40

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Economic benefit for waste collectors Studies conducted in Vietnam by Paul Olivier and his team show that BSF larvae can consume 40 kg of organic waste per 1 m2 in 24 hours inside a single 4 foot biopod8. In the following calculation, it is assumed that a single waste collector will collect 80 kg of waste suitable for BSF. So the investment would be two biopods at a price of 1,100,000 VND each. Extra monthly income 40 kg waste per day in each 4-foot biopod

2 biopods for 80 kg waste per day

80 kg waste would produce about 5 to 20 kg BSF larvae (150 to 600 kg per month) The selling price for fresh BSF larvae is estimated to be 3,000 VND per kg9. Based on the figures above, an extra monthly income of 450,000 to 1,800,000 VND could be achieved from the production of BSF larvae alone. Additional income would come from the sales of worms and worm castings.

Market assessment for BSF larvae The worms or BSF larvae can be sold in a treated (e.g. grinding, extraction or dried) or an untreated form. When treated, smaller quantities of highly concentrated product can be harvested, packed, and sold e.g. as feed for chicken, fish (aquaculture), and pigs. This offers also possibilities for storage prior to selling. The nutrient characteristics of dried BSF larvae can be compared with that of fishmeal, which is currently sold at 1,200 USD per ton. So, if appropriate technology is available to dry the BSF larvae, the monetary value would be spectacular. Two ton fresh larvae would make 1 ton dried larvae, which means that 1 kg fresh larvae would be valued at 0.6 USD or 12,000 VND. However, for the small-scale operation as presented in this model, treatment of larvae is not feasible, so fresh larvae would be sold. In untreated form, harvesting,

8 9

Olivier P et al. (2011) Making waste our greatest research. http://www.esrla.com/pdf/composting.pdf

A dry BSF larvae meal has a similar nutrient content as fish meal, which is sold at more than 24.000 vnd/kg. This would put the price of fresh BSF at 12,000 vnd/kg (50% DM). However, we estimate that 3,000 vnd is a more realistic figure. However, the real price will depend on how much local farmers are willing to pay for fresh BSF larvae!

41

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

packing and selling must be done in a short time to avoid deterioration of the freshly harvested worms or larvae. The nutrient value of larvae (42% protein; 34% fat on DM-basis) is high. Considerations Although successful experiments with BSF in biopods were conducted in Vietnam with food waste in Dalat and with pig manure in the Mekong delta, this model is still experimental. Because of the strong positive economics, the model looks promising. BSF are naturally present in Vietnam, so there are reasons to believe that it will work in Binh Dinh. Nevertheless, we highly recommend to conduct specific, local trials before promoting this model on a larger scale. Potential impact Successful models are driven by economics. An extra income of one million VND or more is substantial and would certainly encourage the waste collectors to try to get more organic waste for the larvae. This means that less waste would be transported to the landfill! It is obvious that if all waste collectors would fill up their biopods every day, the potential impact could be very significant. Another very important factor for the success of this model is the support and empowerment of the waste collectors. Variations on the model BSF + composting Additional to growing BSF on food waste, the waste collectors can also compost the non-food organic waste using Toptex compost cover (see model 4). However, note that thermofilic composting on micro scale is not so easy to realize. Any disturbance of the compost on micro scale, any nonoptimal condition will disrupt the process when done on micro scale. Larger scale operations are much more robust. Therefore, this is more an activity for a group of waste collectors than for an individual waste collector. In such model, the waste collectors would select waste that is suitable for growing red worms. An ideal substrate for growing red worms is the residue of mesophillic compost bins (see model 1) and BSF biopods. The vermiculture can be combined with the BSF biopods or can be operated separately. In this model, the waste collector or another entrepreneur can combine three different processes to valorize organic waste. Food waste will first go to BSF production. The residue of the BSF goes to the red worms. The non-food organic waste is composted under Toptex. This business woman can sell BSF larvae, worms, worm casting and compost. A challenge for a local waste collector is to find a suitable market for all outputs. In a more developed model, one businessmen (or women!) coaches the waste collectors to do these activities and purchases all the output. He/She then finds a distribution network and does the necessary marketing.

Vermiculture

BSF+ Vermi+ Toptex

Support to the waste collectors! The waste collectors are probably one of society’s greatest resources in integrated waste management. Right now, they know best the value of recyclables. When they realize that real money can be made from valorization of organic waste, new opportunities for income generation arise. But waste collectors need the support by the government and organizations involved in waste management. Their status of heroes of the recycling and valorization must be recognized.

42

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Other possible support includes: Encouraging to form cooperatives and work together Support with collection devices (carts) and safety materials (gloves, masks, etc.) Expand their scope of activities, especially in the valorization of organic waste

Potential support business As an alternative to the model where each waste collector sells his/her BSF larvae, centralized BSF larvae processing is an option worth to consider. In this case, an entrepreneur would collaborate with the waste collectors to grow BSF, who would then be collected, processed, and sold by the entrepreneur.

MODEL 4: COMMERCIAL MEDIUM SCALE COMPOSTING Characteristics Location: Operated by: Promoted by: Commercial Products: Investment: Benefit for authority: Short description This basic model, focusing on centralized collection and composting of organic waste, is operated all over the world. Substrates may vary from separated organic waste from households to organic market waste and even the solid fraction of animal manure. Composting is the best solution for all non-food waste. When (separated) organic wastes are used as substrate, shredding may need to be operated to shorten the composting process. Moreover, organic additions (e.g. straw) may be needed to assure sufficient porosity, dry matter content, and C:N-ratio. Factors related to the success of this model The quality of final compost depends largely on the purity of the input, making source separation and awareness raising important. But, in contrast to the smaller economic models which are driven by strong economics and high awareness, this model needs more support to become economically interesting. A real businessman will probably not invest in a composting plant, so the government should encourage the waste management entities to set up composting facilities. Free use of land, low interest loans, and subsidies must be considered. The persons starting with composting will need technical advice, training and follow up. Localized/centralized Communities/Waste management authorities Government/NGO’s Compost Land, TopTex fleece, some machinery Less waste to landfill

43

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Suitable for markets Large amounts of organic waste are produced on wet markets. The best model to valorize this waste is by separating food waste and non-food waste. Food waste should be fed to animals or BSF, while the non-food waste can be composted. Such composting facilities can then also be used to receive non-food waste from households (in a second phase). Apart from markets, other good locations for this type of waste management technology are areas with clustered sources (e.g. outskirts of cities, villages, communities). In these areas, the transport distances from the source to the composting site are limited. Moreover, areas like these produce sufficient organic waste to make the centralize composting economically viable. Compost techniques Based on the general description and experiences from the field trips, centralized composting can best be done using a Toptex fleece. This material allows water vapor (and gases) to be released from the compost heap, yet avoids entrance of rain water into the heap. Due to the lower gas emission (Toptex forms a barrier for gaseous emissions), this is also the most environmentally friendly composting technique. The process of composting is fairly simple, but some experience is needed make good quality compost. In short, organic waste is shredded, put in heaps and covered by Toptex fleece. To allow sufficient air to enter the heaps, turning is necessary. This can be done manually or by machines. After about 45 days, the compost is sieved and bagged.

Turning frequency Aerobic organisms need oxygen. Aeration is necessary for rapid odor-free decomposition. Aeration and water vapor loss also reduces the high initial moisture content in composting materials. The most important consideration in turning compost, apart from aeration, is to ensure that material on the outside of the pile is mixed with material in the center, where it is subject to high temperatures. Manual turning with forks may be operated. The frequency of turning or total number of turns needed is primarily determined by moisture content and type of material. Moisture is the most important factor The higher the moisture content, the more frequent the turning needs to be. Materials with a high C:N ratio will not have to be turned as often as material which decomposes less rapidly (lower C:N ratio). The best predictor for turning is temperature: after a period of rapid temperature increase (core temperature of the compost heap), temperature drop indicates the need for turning. If the initial moisture content is below 70%, the first turn should be made about the 3rd day. Thereafter, turn approximately as follows until the 10th or 12th day: Moisture 60%-70%: turn at 2 day intervals; approximate number of turns, 4 to 5 Moisture 40%-60%: turn at 3-day intervals; approximate number of turns, 3 to 4 Moisture below 40%: add water.

44

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

When material initially contains more than 70% moisture, turning must be done every day until the moisture content is reduced to less than 70%. Afterwards, the above schedule can be followed.10 Experienced operators can estimate turning and water needs. Alternative technology Another suitable model for composting is static aeration. Organic waste is put in permeable brick walled container units, resulting in passively aerated piles. This kind of models needs to be roofed to avoid rain water to enter the compost heaps, which negatively affects the composting process. In general, the investment and maintenance costs of mechanical turning equipment is higher than aerated piles, but if the turning is done manually, the investment cost in a Toptex model are lower than for static aeration. Waste materials required Inputs to the composting process can be any organic waste based on plant material (separated household waste, garden waste, market waste: cellulose and hemi-cellulose material), or the separated solid fraction of animal manure. Food wastes totally or partly from animal origin (e.g. kitchen refuse, household waste) should be avoided or can only be co-composted in limited quantities. These types of waste often have low organic matter content and low dry matter content, which may hamper the composting process. Moreover, these types of waste may lead to odor production (nuisance), may attract vermin (like rats and mice), and negatively affect the compost quality in general. An important aspect is the C/N ratio. It should be about 30 to 1. Garden waste is mostly C, while kitchen waste is mostly N. So, the amount of kitchen waste that can be composted depends on the C/N ratio of the mixture (substrate). If there is not enough N, kitchen waste may be added. If there is already too much N, addition of kitchen waste should be avoided. The use of additives/inoculants While some composters find active aeration sufficient to enhance microbial activities, others may use inoculation with specific micro-organisms. Inoculum organisms utilized for composting are mainly fungi (Trichoderma sp. and Pleurotus sp.) and effective micro-organisms (EM). EM consist of common and food-grade aerobic and anaerobic micro-organisms: photosynthetic bacteria, lactobacillus, streptomyces, actinomycetes, yeast, etc11 Although popular in Vietnam, EM are normally not necessary in a well-managed composting plant. The residue of mesophilic bins added to a thermophilic composting mix contains enough microbes. EM can be bought locally. Guidelines from the supplier should be followed. CaCO3 is used to neutralize pH to optimal levels for microorganisms and worms, which is between 6 and 8. Biochar can be used to increase the pH. Additives such as soil or bentonite can be used to further optimize conditions, mostly based on trial and error.

10 11

http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/compost/fundamentals/needs_aeration.htm Composting process and techniques. FAO publication. http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5104e/y5104e05.htm

45

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Temperature12 Although composting occurs at a range of temperatures, the optimum temperature range (32°60°C) for thermophilic microorganisms is preferred, for two reasons: (1) it promotes rapid composting, and (2) it destroys pathogens and weed seeds. Larger piles build up and conserve heat better than smaller piles, hence results in a more optimal composting process. Pathogen destruction is achieved when compost is at a temperature higher than 55° C for at least three days. It is important that all portions of the compost material are exposed to this temperature to ensure pathogen destruction in the total heap.

13

End product: compost Composting of organic waste typically results in an end product with high stable organic matter content and low nutrient value, since the nutrient value of the initial product is typically low. The end product is to be used as enhancer of soil quality (humus content, structure, water binding capacity) rather than as fertilizer. Alternatively, when the solid fraction of animal manure is (co-) composted, both the organic matter content and the nutrient content may increase, and need to be taken into account when selling and using. During the composting process, a part of the nitrogen (N) may be lost (e.g. as NH3), but other plant nutrients like phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) are preserved in the end product. The economic value of the organic component of the compost is often hard to determine, since the positive features of soil enhancement product often become visible (e.g. by improved crop production and quality) after many years of use. The economic value of plant nutrients (N, P and K) can be directly derived from the saved costs of the use of chemical fertilizers. Adequate product composition information during sales, and guidelines for use (e.g. per crop type), may increase the economic value of the compost. Since this model is based upon the collection of substrate (organic material) from various sources
12

Decision Maker’s Guide to Solid Waste Management, Volume II, chapter 7 Composting http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/dmg2/chapter7.pdf 13 From the Toptex information leaflet.

46

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

(e.g. households, markets), attention need to be paid to the quality of the substrate collected at each source. Pollution of the substrate, e.g. by non-organic material, will directly affect the compost quality and therefore the economic value in a negative manner. How much labor is needed for a 5 ton/day facility? The presented model starts with separated waste delivered to the plant. The waste will not be checked or separated again, since this would be too much work and it would make the plant not economical. The separation must take place at source. The model presented is based on a situation where sufficient quantities of separated waste is available, e.g. on a market. When the model is used for waste from households, the transportation from the households to the plant creates an extra cost factor. The labor inside the plant includes shredding and mixing of the waste, turning of the compost, and sieving and bagging of the final product. Shredding, mixing and piling For 5 ton of incoming waste per day, we estimate that 2 people handle shredding, mixing and piling 1 ton of waste per hour. So the total amount of labor is 10 working hours. A facility that receives 5 ton of waste per day needs to turn about 20 ton of waste per day14. It is estimated that 2 workers can turn 3 ton of waste per hour, which is equal to 25 kg per minute per person. So the total amount of labor to turn 20 ton is 13.3 working hours. About 1.5 ton of compost will be produced per day. The final compost needs to be sieved and bagged. It is estimated that 2 workers can sieve and bag about 750 kg per hour. So the total amount of labor needed for 1.5 ton is 4 working hours.

Turning the waste

Sieving and bagging

The total amount of labor needed for shredding, mixing, piling, turning, sieving, and bagging is estimated to be 27.3 working hours. Based on 6 hours of effective working per worker per day, a total of 4.6 workers are needed. Which machines are needed? The facility needs a shredder and a mixer. Compacting (compressing) machines are only needed if the input contains a lot of water (like the vegetables in Dalat). Additionally, a sieving machine could be operated. The question if turning should be done manually or by machine is really up to the implementer. We provide some arguments for both systems. Reasons to promote manual turning: Labor is available and affordable. Jobs are created. The volume of 5 ton or less per day does not justify the cost of a turning machine. Turning small piles, allows to put the outside from the old pile in the center of the new pile The labor force would only be reduced from 5 to 4 men units.

14

This calculation is based on turning on day 3, 6, 9, 12, 22 and 32, with the weight of waste gradual decreasing from 5 to 2 ton.

47

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Reasons to promote turning by machines: Labor will not remain cheap Turning compost is a hazardous job for workers (dust inhalation - respiratory problem); Locally made machines are inexpensive. If no machines are available, workers might not turn frequently enough.

Machines that are specifically made for turning compost heaps are expensive, but other equipment such as a tractor and a plough might also be used. Reduction of weight and volume The amounts of carbon, chemical energy, protein, and water in the finished compost are less than that in the raw materials (substrates). The finished compost contains more humus per unit of volume or weight. The volume and weight of the finished compost are less than of the raw material. A study of Renkow and Ruben (1998)15 showed that the reduction in weight and volumes during composting of municipal waste varies from 25 to 70%. Most facilities show a 50% reduction. Data from Vietnam are rare. The only figure we retrieved are from the Thuy Phuong in Hue who reported a 75 to 80% reduction. Organic waste in Vietnam is known to have a higher moisture content, explaining for the higher reduction percentage. In our economic model, we use a 70% reduction rate as a expert judgment average. The economics of a Toptex composting model Investment costs Land area for composting facility Land preparation Machinery (shredder, mixer, sieve,…) Storage facility for the bagged compost, tools, etc. The Toptex fleece Facility for workers Quality control (nutrient value testing), labeling, etc.

Operational costs Labor for shredding, piling, turning, sieving and bagging Management costs Others such as fuel, electricity, etc.

Financial costs Income Sales of compost Interest on a loan

15

M. Renkow and A. R. Rubin (1998) Does municipal solid waste composting make economic sense? Journal of Environmental Management (1998) 53, 339–347 http://mie.esab.upc.es/ms/informacio/economia_tractament_residus/economic_sense_composting.pdf

48

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

-

Subsidy from the Government?

Textbox 3.3. Estimated profitability of a 5 ton/day toptex composting plant

In order to investigate the profitability of such composting plant, all costs and incomes are estimated. However, it should be noted that this will differ from case to case. In the calculation below, it is assumed that land is available. Investment Land Land preparation Machinery (excluding turning equipment) Storage facility & workers facility Tools Toptex Collection units Others Total Estimated cost Available 60,000,000 vnd 40,000,000 vnd 50,000,000 vnd 8,000,000 vnd 22,000,000 vnd 0 vnd 20,000,000 vnd 200,000,000 vnd

In order to finance the investment, a loan of 200,000,000 VND is taken for 3 years. The interest is 1.7%16 per month. It is estimated that 5 workers are needed to operate this plant, and their estimated gross salary is 2,000,000 vnd. Other operational costs, including management are estimated at 5,000,000 vnd per month. Costs per month • Total investment: 200,000,000 vnd – – • Total Sales of compost Five ton of organic waste will make about 1.5 ton of compost. The selling price of 700,000 vnd per ton (the current selling price of Nhon Phu in Binh Dinh) is taken as reference. Over 36 months: Interest: 5,555,555 vnd/month 3,400,000 vnd/month 15,000,000 vnd/month 23,955,555 vnd/month

• Operational costs:

16

Based on an annual interest rate of 20%.

49

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

– – – Balance

5 ton of organic waste makes 1.5 ton compost/day (45 ton/month) Compost value: 700,000 vnd per ton 1.5* 700,000 vnd = 1,050,000 vnd/day (31,500,000 vnd/month)

• Compost sales • Costs per month • BALANCE Break even analysis

31,500,000 vnd/month 23,955,555 vnd/month 7,555,555 vnd/month

In order to cover the costs, the facility needs to sell at least 1.140 ton compost per day at the price of 700,000 vnd/ton or needs to sell all their compost at a minimum price of 532,345 vnd/ton.  23,955,555/700,000 vnd = 34.2 ton/month (1,140 ton/day)  23,955,555/45 ton= 532,345 vnd/ton Conclusion In the current situation, the compost plant doesn’t make much profit in the first 3 years. After the loan has been paid back, the monthly gross profit will be 16,500,000 vnd/month. Furthermore, no costs were calculated for the land, making this an ‘optimistic’ outcome. If this model receives its inputs from private waste collectors and they would be paid 50,000 vnd per ton, the compost plant would make no profit since the total cost to purchase 150 ton per month would be 7,500,000 vnd. This shows that managing such a plant is only feasible when it receives subsidy or gets at least its input for free, delivered to the facility.

How much land is needed for a 5 ton/day facility? The complete composting process takes about 45 days. So in one year, the same place can be used to generate compost for 8.1 times (365/45=8.1). When the turning is done manually, the piles should be maximum 2 meters wide and about 1.25 meter high to allow acceptable workloads. A row of 25 meter length has a volume of 31.25 m3 (25*2*1.25/2=31.25). Since the process takes 45 days, each day 0.69 m3 of fresh substrate per day can be added to each pile (31.25/45). Five ton of waste has a volume of 10 m3. A total of 14.4 rows are needed to receive 10 m3 per day (10/0.69= 14.4). Below, an example is shown of a layout for 15 rows including a processing area and a building on a plot 1,650m2.

50

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

When turning is mechanized, piles can be up to 5 meter wide and 2.5 meter high. A pile of 25 meters long would then have a capacity of 156 m3 (5*2.5*25/2=156m3). Since the process takes 45 days, each day 3.46 m3 per day can be added to each pile (156/45). So for such a volume, about 3 rows are needed (10 m3/3.46 = 2.9 rows). The figure below shows a practical outlay of such a plant.

Small scale Toptex composting The calculations above show that the economics of a composting plant are negative, unless the operation receives subsidy. Increasing the scale of the operation will most likely increase the costs per kg of compost due to increased transport costs and mechanization. A more interesting way might be to scale down the operation to the micro level. If a waste collector has a plot of land available to treat for example 5 ton per month, he/she could potentially get an extra income of about 1,000,000 vnd from selling 1.5 ton of compost. At this scale, shredding is not economical, even though the process of composting is longer. The only investment would be a small Toptex

51

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

fleece (less than 1,000,000 vnd). Please note that waste collectors cannot start with this activity by themselves. They would need support in terms of training, follow up and possibly assistance with selling the compost. This micro scale model could be combined with BSF larvae and/or vermiculture. A subsidy in return for their help to the government to take this fraction of the waste out of the waste stream would make this strategy interesting and (economically) feasible. Potential Impact Composting has a lower valorization potential of waste per unit, but it can be applied on any scale. The proposed composting models do not require a very large investment. Because of large volumes of waste that could be treated in a composting plant, the impact on waste reduction for landfilling is significant

COMBINING ALL MODELS Four different models have been presented. However, these 4 models must not be seen as ‘stand alone’ models. Ideally, all or at least several models become part of a larger plan for organic waste reduction and valorization. All four models can be perfectly applied in the same area. Households would all have a compost bin or would share one with the neighbours. Waste collectors would inform the households which waste they should not throw in the their bin because they want to collect it and feed it to their BSF larvae. Large amounts of garden waste could be brought to a local composting plant. And pig farmers will search for cheap feed supplies for their pigs. Instead of transporting it all to the landfill, different entrepreneurs might start to compete for all the organic waste!

52

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

4 CHAPTER 4. MARKET SURVEY ON PRODUCTS MADE FROM ORGANIC WASTE 4.1. Introduction
A market survey for treated organic waste products is an essential part of the feasibility study. The aim of the market survey was (1) to provide a clear description of the whole value chain; (2) to understand the opinion of current users; (3) to investigate the potential of future products to be produced in Binh Dinh Province and (4) to analyse the factors that drive the market and determine the price. The market survey contained several parts: A first part of the study included a desk study, an online search and interviews with individuals and companies who produce, trade and/or sell products made from organic waste. A second part of the study included interviews with end users of some of the products produced by a few selected case studies described in Chapter 1. Unfortunately, most producers were not keen to share their consumers’ information. A third part of the survey consisted of interviews with current and potential consumers of all kind of organic fertilizers and soil enhancers in areas close to the target area. The interviewees included rice farmers in Binh Dinh, coffee, rubber and pepper farmers in Gia Lai and with the tree and plant company in Quy Nhon City. A final part of the survey concerned extra interviews with users in Hanoi, Lam Dong and HCMC. Hanoi was chosen for its convenience, while Lam Dong was chosen because of its special status as advanced agricultural area in Vietnam. The interviewed farmers in Hanoi were vegetable farmers while the farmers in Lam Dong focus on vegetables and flowers. In HCMC, interviews were conducted with two large plant and tree companies. Table 4.1 . gives an overview of the number of interviews with customers in each area.
Table 4.1. Overview of location and number of interviews

Location Binh Dinh Ho Chi Minh city Gia Lai

No. of interviews 60 2 30

Location Hanoi Lam Dong

No. of interviews 10 30

4.2 Results
4.2.1 Overview of the market
Products Currently, the following groups of organic fertilizers can be allocated: Imported organic fertilizer: expensive, but high and stable quality. Mostly used by Dalat farmers to grow vegetable and flowers with high added value.

53

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

-

Complete organic fertilizer (one product made from chicken and bird waste; the other products have no origin displayed). This type of product has the biggest market share. Its advantage is the completeness with nutrients, which is recognized by the farmers. The price of different products of the same origin is similar and primarily affected by the world market price for fertilizer and raw materials. These products normally have average price, much lower than imported products, but higher than compost. Its strength is the attractive packaging and professional distribution channel. Most of these products are produced by large fertilizer companies, who also sell a wide range of chemical fertilizers through a professional distribution channel. Cattle, chicken, and goat manure (fresh or composted) transported and delivered to the customers in a tank or a bag, simply packed, without labeling. The farmers have a habit to use these types of manure as fertilizer since long time, and they know its quality by practical experience. They trust it 100%. Currently, there is much demand for these types of manure. Therefore it is not always available. Some famers use their own animal manure, but many others have to buy it. These products can be sold outside the province, for example in Gia Lai, where they buy manure from Binh Dinh. All of the previously mentioned aspects make the price of manure to fluctuate and change over time and distance/provinces. Compost from organic waste, either household waste or market waste, delivered to the customers in bags with, or without labeling. This is a relatively new and unknown product. The disadvantage of compost is that the customers need patience to see the results (Improving soil quality and slow release of nutrients).

-

-

Organic fertilizers are put on the market as powder, liquid, or solid.

Some pictures of the products available in the market

54

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

The website of the Department of Crop Production of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development contains a long list of organic fertilizers17, including imported products and locally made products. Important companies for producing and distributing the organic fertilizer are: Dien Trang fertilizer: http://www.phanbondientrang.com/index.aspx Que Lam fertilizer: http://www.phanbonquelam.com/default.aspx?tab0=1 Viet My fertilizer: http://phanbonvietmy.com.vn/index.php Binh Dien fertilizer: http://www.binhdien.com/articlebd.php?id=162&cid=1 PHT: http://www.traigiunquepht.com/home/ An Phu: http://www.trunque.net/

Prices
The price at the study period (Nov 2010) of the different products is presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Price of different fertilizers in the market No. I. 1. 2. II. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. III. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Name of fertilizer Imported organic fertilizer Dynamic Lifter Real strong Complete organic fertilizer Song Gianh Anvi-CN Que Lam Vi sinh binh doan 15 My Viet Gia Lai Gia Lai Gia Lai Gia Lai Lam Dong 2,600vnd/kg 2,200vnd/kg 2,200vnd/kg 2,600vnd/kg 2,400vnd/kg Lam Dong Lam Dong 8-10,000vnd/kg 8-10,000vnd/kg Province Price

Cattle, chicken, goat manure (fresh or simply composted) Cow manure Local cow manure Cow manure from Phan Rang Cow manure Cow manure (wet) Cow manure Goat manure Cow manure Chicken manure Gia Lai Lam Dong Lam Dong Binh Dinh Binh Dinh HCMC Lam Dong Lam Dong Lam Dong 370,000vnd/1m3 260,000vnd/1m3 320,000vnd/1m3 275,000vnd/1m3 200,000vnd/1m3 1,000-1,500vnd/kg 33,000vnd/bag 25kg 15,000vnd/bag 15kg 140,000vnd/bag 50kg

17

http://www.cuctrongtrot.gov.vn/ctt/ChuyenTrang/DMPhanbon.aspx?idnhom=14

55

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

IV. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Compost & Vermi-compost Compost from household waste (ex-work price) Compost from vegetable waste Compost from cow manure, peat, microorganism Compost from household waste Vermi compost (for leave) Vermi compost (for foot of tree) Viet Tri Dalat HCMC Binh Dinh HCMC supplier HCMC supplier 80-300vnd/kg 1,000vnd/kg 2,500vnd/kg 700-800vnd/kg 50,000vnd/l 10,000vnd/l

Distribution channel
The distribution channel for (organic) fertilizers is the same as for many other agriculture products: from the producer to distributors/retailers (1st level and 2nd level) then to the customer (Fig. 4.1)
Figure 4.1. The value chain of current organic fertilizer in Vietnam IMPORT Materials for Fertilizer production Mixing & Reproducing LOCALLY MADE

PRODUCING

Final Complete PRODUCT

DISTRIBUTORS*

END USER

Materials for Fertilizer production Final Complete PRODUCT Source: VDSC

* The distributors operate at different levels: they might be a trader, who buy from the producers and sell to dealers; they can be dealers (1st or 2nd level), or retailers. In this value chain, the distributors play a very important role.

Type of customers
The customers can be divided by different groups presented in the chart below:

56

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

CUSTOMERS

Tree & Plant Co.

FARMER

Fertilizer producers

Others

Long-time Industrial crop • Coffee, Rubber, Pepper, Tea,…

Short-time industrial crop • Sugar cane, peanut, soybean…

Others • Rice • Fruit • Vegetable, Flowers

• Government • Bonsai • Nurseries • …

The farmers can be divided by 2 groups: (1) innovators/early adapters, and (2) followers, with differences in their choices and awareness about organic soil enhancers and fertilizers. The innovative farmers prefer to use the good products for better and sustainable crop quality, even though its price is (sometimes: much) higher. Many farms in the group of followers only use average quality fertilizer because of a reasonable price. They observe their neighbour and just follow. And sometimes they only buy what the dealers sell. Different from the farmers, other buyers - like the tree and plant company- have their own agronomist to calculate how much, when and which ingredients they need.

4.2.2 Results of interviews with customers of 2 cases studies
Case study 1. Nhon Phu, Binh Dinh province Nhon Phu is an Agricultural Cooperative in Binh Dinh. The compost is produced from mixed household waste. The Cooperative sells the compost to their members (farmers) and the Tree and Plant Company of Quy Nhon City. The price is 700-800vnd/kg. Trees and Plants Company of Quy Nhon City is the biggest customer of Nhon Phu Cooperative. Normally, the Cooperative sells to the members and the remainder product will be sold to the Company, around 15-20 tons/year. The Company has much and long term experience in using organic fertilizers. They started to buy compost from the Cooperative from the very beginning, mostly to support the Cooperative. They use different types of organic fertilizer in the same time, so they can compare the quality of the various organic fertilizers (including compost). According to Mr. Phuong, Director of the Company, the quality of the compost of Nhon Phu is not as good as others. However, this quality fits with the price and they consider the price /quality ratio being acceptable. Mr. Phuong also gave a comment on the packaging (specifically the label), which is easily affected by the rain.

57

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

-

Cooperative members: Most of the members grow rice and a small plot of vegetables. The interviewees indicated to be happy with the product. In the beginning, the quality was not good because of the presence of sand in the compost. They recommended the Cooperative to do better separation and after that, they got the better compost. The following advantages and disadvantages of the products were given by the farmers: Advantages i. ii. iii. iv. v. Decrease of pesticides Early harvest Long life crop Better leaves Reasonable price compared with chemical fertilizer Disadvantages i. Using compost doesn’t make the leaves as green as using the animal manure and chemical fertilizer.

Now, the farmers are familiar with the compost of the Cooperative and accept it, mainly based on the price/quality ratio. However, they expect that the Cooperative will continue to improve the quality. Case study 2. Dalat Vegetable Market, Lam Dong province This compost is produced from the waste of wholesale vegetable Market in Trai Mat, Da Lat. The current price is 20,000vnd/bag of 20-25kg, which is around 1,000vnd/kg. Customers are mainly coffee farmers. These farmers show high appreciation for the compost. They say that they would buy more if more would be available. The biggest effect they see is the decrease of pesticides use and better crops. According to them, the impact of the use of compost shows in 20-25 days after application, which is longer compared to animal manure or chemical fertilizers. However, since they know the product and believe in it, this is no problem for them. The farmers are also satisfied because they can reduce a lot of chemical fertilizers, which helps them to reduce the production costs.

4.2.3. Interviews with farmers that use various organic fertilizers/soil enhancers
Why do farmers use organic soil enhancers/fertilizers? The farmers are familiar with fertilizers and they realize that there are many types products available on the market. Farmers use different kinds of products for different crops and in different seasons. Many of them often change the product they use. When asked about the most important reason to use organic products, most farmers mention that the products have ‘good quality’ (40%) and they have the ‘capacity to enhance the soil’ (33%). Only a few farmers consider the environmental aspects (5%) (Table 4.3).

58

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Table 4.3. Reason that the farmers use organic fertilizer

No. 1 2 3 4 5

Reason to use organic fertilizer Good quality Soil enhancer Make use of things available Reasonable price Reduce environment impact

% 40% 33.3% 3.3% 18.3% 5%

When farmers were asked about which aspects they liked most about the products used, they mainly referred to the soil enhancing capacity of the product (34%), the handiness (23%) and the good quality of the product (21.9%) (Table 4.4).
Table 4.4. Factors that buyers like the most when using organic fertilizer

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Factors Soil enhancer Handy Good quality Reasonable price Good for the crop Others

% 34.4% 23.4% 21.9% 7.8% 1.6% 10.9%

Most of the products available in the market are well packed in attractive bags with full product information. However, many farmers said that they only look if the product is suitable for their crop and that they don’t read the detailed information. Several farmers mentioned that they like a nice and professional bag, because it brings trust in the product itself. Farmers are also aware of fake products. To avoid using the fake ones, they choose famous and popular brands. In general, farmers seem well aware about the benefits of organic products (improvement of soil and crop quality). Nevertheless, many farmers do not understand the differences between the different products available on the market. For example, the difference between a soil enhancer and NPK fertilizers appears not well understood. Most of them use products based on learningby-doing (practical experience).

59

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Compost and NPK

What is compost? Compost is a stable, dark brown, soil-like material which can hold moisture, air and nutrients. Compost contains some plant nutrients NPK, though not as much as animal manure or chemical fertilizers. Adding compost to soil can lessen the need for chemical fertilizers because it holds nutrients in the soil, it can also help reduce soil erosion, and improve the structure of the soil thus benefiting drainage and plant roots. In brief, Compost from household and market waste is a SOIL ENHANCER, not a complete fertilizer. More NPK needs to be added to be a complete fertilizer. What is NPK? NPK is nutrients (N: Nitrogen, P: Phosphorus, K: Potassium). Fertilizers have various level of NPK (7:7:7 or 10:5:8,…) to suit specific soil conditions, crop type and stage of the crop. That is why we can see hundreds of fertilizer available on the market. One professional fertilizer company will sell a wide range of products for all different kind of soils, crops and stage of crops.

Are farmers satisfied with current products? In general, farmers seem to be ‘satisfied’ (65%) or even ‘very satisfied’ (27%) with the products that they are currently using (Table 4.5) .
Table 4.5. Customers’ satisfaction on current products

No. 1 2 3 4

Level of satisfaction Very satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied NA

% 26.7% 65% 0% 8.3%

Farmers can easily buy several kinds of organic fertilizer at any time, except compost and manure. The availability of these products is variable and not always available. Do farmers produce their own compost? Farmers have a lot of organic waste, especially after harvesting, but very few farmers use this waste to produce compost themselves. The reason that was indicated is that composting takes too long and it requires a certain area of land. Moreover, many kinds of products are available in the market and they can be bought at any time they want. What do farmers think about the price of the current products? The price of different products fluctuates and the farmers believe that more expensive products bring them better quality crops. The innovative farmers are willing to pay more to have better products. Fifty percent of the interviewed farmers in Lam Dong use (expensive) imported products, but in other areas only local products are used. Most of the farmers (45%) say that the

60

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

price is high, but that they can still afford it. One third (33%) of the farmers says the price is good (Table 4.6).
Table 4.6. Customers’ opinions on the price of current products

No. 1 2 3 4

Customers’ opinions Good price High price but I can still afford Too high price, I will look for a cheaper one NA

% 33.3% 45% 16.7% 5%

Expectations for new products Farmers were asked if they would be interested to try out a new more expensive product if the expected results would also be better compared to other ‘traditionally used’ products. The majority of the farmers answered that they don’t know, but 30% said that would surely try it. Many farmers mention that they want to see the benefits that the product can bring, before deciding to buy more.
Table 4.7. The possibilities that the farmers are willing to pay more for better products

No. 1 2 3

Customers’ opinions Yes, sure I don’t know No

% 30% 63.3% 6.7%

When asked about the expectation of new products, the majority (56.7%) of the farmers said they would expect a product to have a good quality and to be cheap. However, 30% of the farmers are mainly interested in the quality and cares less about price, while only 3% care most about the price (Table 4.8).
Table 4.8. Customers’ expectation on the price of potential products

No. 1 2 3 4

Customers’ expectations Good quality Cheap Good quality & cheap Others

% 30% 3.3% 56.7% 10%

4.2.4. Interviews with a few large buyers of compost and organic fertilizers
Trees and Plants Company of HCMC This is the biggest tree and plant company in HCMC with 14 member companies. Every year, they use about 7-8,000 tons of organic fertilizer for the trees in HCMC. The company has a factory to produce compost. At the moment they are producing 3,000 tons/year of which they use 2,500

61

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

tons themselves and 500 tons/year is sold to other plant companies and to coffee farmers in Lam Dong. Their product is made from peat (bought from mines in Dong Nai, Binh Phuoc) and cattle manure (bought from cattle farms and worm farm in Cu Chi, Hooc Mon). Apart from the compost produced by themselves, they buy extra cow manure as fertilizer. They use mainly organic fertilizers and buy only a very small amount of chemical fertilizers. Saigon Zoo & Botanical Gardens Sai Gon Zoo & Botanical Gardens has an important mission to preserve and maintain classical, valuable and rare botanic species. Saigon Zoo and Botanical Garden has a diversity of fauna and flora. There are 590 animals of 125 species, 1830 trees and plants of 260 valuable species, some of which are over 100 years old, 20 species of orchid, 32 species of cactus, and 34 species of bonsai. In the botanical garden, rare and valuable plants of many species are grown. Some of them cannot be found elsewhere in Vietnam. The company has a need of 100 tons fertilizer per year, but this amount will seriously increase when they complete a 2nd zoo in Cu Chi, HCMC on an area 500ha. They use 95% organic fertilizer. Their requirements are: no odour, and no effect on people’s skin. Currently, they also produce a part of their need by themselves by using leaf, animal manure and microorganism. They are also one of the customers of the Trees and Plants Company of HCMC. Trees and Plants Company of Quy Nhon, Binh Dinh Trees and Plants Company of Quy Nhon is the biggest company who is taking care of all public trees and plants in Quy Nhon City (in streets, parks, boulevards). In total, they have 30,000 trees and 250,000m2 of grass and flowers and they employ 380 workers. Every year, they use 10-15 tons of compost, produced from Nhon Phu Cooperative. Besides, they buy about 20 tons of Song Gianh organic fertilizer. An additional hundred tons of compost is self-produced. They have 2ha of plant nursery, where also their compost is made. However, this area is open and very easily affected by the weather. Hence, the production is not sustainable. In the future, the Company will expand its area both inside and outside the city. They also plan to expand to forestry.

4.3 Market analysis
4.3.1. Analysis of factors that affect the price
The following factors may have an important effect on the product price: Type of product The quality of the product Local supply and demand Distance between producer and buyer Distribution channel Subsidy

Type of product The highest price is currently paid for imported organic fertilizers and vermicompost. Compost from household waste generally receives the lowest price (Fig 4.2).

62

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Figure 4.2. Price range of different kinds of fertilizer

Import fertilizer & Vermi-compost Complete organic fertilizer Cattle/chicken/goat manure (fresh/compost)

Compost (from household/market waste)

The quality of the product It is obvious that the quality of the product has an important impact on the price. Consumers are ready to pay more for products that bring more benefit. The quality of the compost is directly linked to the material which the compost is made of, as well as to the production process. Some companies add nutrients (NPK or Urea) to the compost in order to increase the benefits the products will bring to the soil and the plants. Compost itself has a more long term effect as soil enhancer, while the added nutrients have a rapid effect on the plant growth. Many customers want to see a quick result after using the product so this strategy can boost the sales. Farmers are also ready to pay for this kind of product. Local supply and demand When the demand for a certain product is high and the supply is limited, the price will increase. When the demand is low and the supply is high, the price will decrease. This basic economic rule also applies to compost. It is especially applicable to the local price of animal manure. In areas with few animals and many crop farmers, the price of animal manure will be high, while in areas with many livestock farmers and few crop farmers the value of animal manure will be low. Gia Lai province is a good example of an area with mainly industrial crops (coffee, rubber, pepper) and a limited number of livestock farmers. Crop farmers are forced to buy manure from other provinces such as Binh Dinh. Distance between producer and buyer Transporting compost over long distances can considerably increase the price. Although transport by boat or train might be cheaper, transport by truck is the most common means for inland transport. The impact of the cost of transport is higher when the value of the product per kg is lower, since transporting 10 ton of compost has a similar price as transporting 10 ton of animal feed or 10 ton of coffee. This is demonstrated in the Table 4.10 In the following example, a transport cost of 350 vnd per kg is considered.

63

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

Table 4.9. Impact of cost of transportation on the retail price

Product Compost Animal feed Coffee Distribution cost

Ex-factory price 700d/kg 7,000d/kg 35,000d/kg

Transport cost 350 vnd/kg 350 vnd/kg 350 vnd/kg

Price including transport 1050 vnd/kg 7350 vnd/kg 35,350vnd/kg

Increase in price in % 50% 5% 1%

Every player in the distribution channel needs to make a profit. Therefore, the longer the distribution channel, and the more players involved, the higher the price of the final product. Trader/distributors at higher level usually take low profit margin per kg (estimate: 2-4%) because they sell large volumes . Retailers usually take a higher profit margin (estimate: 5-10%), because they sell lower volumes and have higher operational costs. Subsidy Waste is a sector that receives support and subsidy from the government. The government has many good reason to support composting initiatives. The positive impact of subsidy is clearly shown in the cases of Nhon Phu and Lam Dong. Both operations received support for the investment and partly for the operation. Both facilities confirm that the subsidy is essential for their survival, since the full cost of production is currently higher than the selling price. Similar product- different price? The composting plants of Viet Tri and Thuy Phuong both make compost from organic waste, which has been separated from other waste at the plant. In both cases, a lot of non-organic waste remains mixed with the organic waste until the end of the composting process, when it is finally sieved out. An important difference between the two operations is that Thuy Phuong add nutrients to the compost. The ex-factory price in Viet Tri ranges from 50,000 to 300,000 VND per ton, while Thuy Phuong sell at 1,000,000 VND per ton ex-factory and at 2,000,000 vnd per ton in the central highlands. It is interesting to note that manager of Thuy Phuong said that they still need to increase the price in 2011 in order to cover all their costs. It appears that Thuy Phuong can currently sell all compost produced, while Viet Tri has a large stock. This example demonstrates that it is not easy to make a good profit with selling compost made from household waste. Any new producer should carefully consider about kind of product, the cost of operation, the price, the distribution channel, etc.

4.3.2. Assessment of market potential of compost producers in Binh Dinh.
Agriculture activity in Binh Dinh and Gia Lai Agriculture uses a lot of fertilizers, both chemical and organic. In 2009, the consumption of fertilizers (including all kind of fertilizers) in the whole country was 8-8.5 million tons: 4.5 million tons imported, 2.38 million tons nationally produced, and 2 million tons used from the stock from previous years. The total amount of fertilizers used increases every year. In 2010, the total estimated need of fertilizer is 8.9-9.1 million tons: 5.6 million tons produced nationally. Until Jan 2011, the needs of both imported and locally produced fertilizer is still in increase.18

18

Summary from news: http://www.phanbonmiennam.com.vn/?param=tinct&cate=news&tt_id=1811; http://www.hanoimoi.com.vn/newsdetail/Kinh-te/307424/nam-nay-can-nhap-khau-33-trieu-tan-phan-bon.htm

64

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

It is clear that the success of agriculture in Vietnam is closely linked with the use of chemical fertilizers. Nevertheless, farmers appear to be increasingly aware of the benefits of organic fertilizers as soil enhancers. It is indeed true that agriculture based on chemical fertilizers only is not sustainable! It is predicted that farmers will continue to use large of amounts of chemical fertilizers and that the use of organic products will increase year by year. The rice farmers in Binh Dinh and the industrial crop farmers in Gia Lai form a large potential consumers basis. Binh Dinh has a total rice production area of 53.156ha19 and Gia Lai has a total crop area of 447,588ha20. Many of these farmers confirmed that they are ready to buy a local organic fertilizer if the quality is good and the price is reasonable. Potential large buyers The present study indicates that the Tree and Plant company of Quy Nhon could be willing to buy relatively large amounts of compost and organic fertilizer. And although the Saigon Zoo and botanical garden is located a long distance away from Binh Dinh, they also indicated that they are looking for stable sources of large amounts of good quality compost. Another possibility to be explored is the sales of compost as raw material to big fertilizer companies. These companies can then add specific nutrients to make complete organic fertilizers. Even though the fertilizer companies would probably pay a relatively low price, the important advantage would be to have a large stable buyer. Unfortunately, no large fertilizer companies are located close to Binh Dinh. Current players on the market Nhon Phu Cooperative is a small player that makes compost from organic waste, which has been mixed with other waste. Even though the quality of Nhon Phu is not the best, farmers know what to expect and accept the price/quality ratio. Any new player who can produce compost made from source separated organic waste will produce a higher quality product than Nhon Phu.

4.4. Conclusion & Recommendations
Based on the finding of the study, we believe that there is a market for a good quality compost produced in Binh Dinh. However, the economic analysis in chapter 3 shows that expected profit margin are rather low. Therefore, it is necessary to have a good sales strategy. Our recommended option is to focus on a good basic product: It is very important to produce a stable product with a good quality. Building up trust takes time and farmers should know what to expect from the product. Starting from source separated waste is the best basis for a high quality and safe organic product. We highly recommend to focus on local sales. Transport over long distances and complicated distribution channels will make any product produced in Binh Dinh less competitive in other areas. Practically, we recommend to focus on Binh Dinh and Gia Lai Province. With a focus on a local market and a no-nonsense, stable and good quality product, it is probably not necessary to invest in flashy packaging, but the packaging should ensure that the quality of the product remains.

-

-

19 20

http://www.dostbinhdinh.org.vn/diachibd/tndchc/P1_chuong_8.htm http://www.baogialai.com.vn/channel/722/201011/Nong-nghiep-Gia-Lai-tang-truong-on-dinh-1968077/

65

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

-

For medium scale operations, we recommend to explore all options to find large buyers as discussed above. With deliveries in bulk, extra costs can be saved on packaging, transport, distribution and marketing. Furthermore, it might be more important to be sure that all compost can be sold than to try to get a higher price! We expect that the compost could be sold at a the price of 500-1,000VND per kg. Note that Nhon Phu is currently selling at 700 VND per kg ex-factory. Compost from source separated waste will have a higher quality and should therefore receive a better price. However, when selling the compost as raw ingredient for a professional fertilizer company, one might have to sell at a lower price. Since farmers like to see quick results, it can be considered to add some nutrients to the compost, following the example of Thuy Phuong.

-

-

66

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

CHAPTER 5. REPORT ON THE STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP
The preliminary results of the study were presented on a workshop organized in Quy Nhon city on 7-8 January 2011. The representatives of the waste management authorities and implementers of the province and districts as well as the representatives of some NGO’s participated in the workshop. The agenda of the workshop can be summarized as follows: Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Presentation, discussion and consensus on the baseline situation for solid waste management in the 4 districts (By EP&T) Presentation of the findings of the feasibility study on organic waste valorization in the 4 districts (By SOMERS) Detailed presentations on organic waste valorization options in Vietnam (By persons directly involved in the different waste management options). Open discussion

Part 1. Baseline situation The results of our field survey on the current waste situation in the 4 districts and the results of a similar survey conducted by EP&T were presented by EP&T. The participants agreed that the results reflect the real situation and accepted the data as the baseline. The same data are presented in Chapter 2 of this report. Part 2. Feasibility study The feasibility of organic waste valorization in Binh Dinh was presented in 3 consecutive presentations by SOMERS. The first presentation showed the analysis of the findings of the desk study and the detailed assessment of the case studies of organic waste treatment initiatives in Vietnam. In the end of this presentation, a comparison was made between central and localized waste management. The content of this presentation is reflected in Chapter 1 of this report. The second presentation covered the findings of the marketing survey on products derived from organic waste. The content of this presentation is reflected in Chapter 4 of this report. The final presentation discussed the important issues of integrated waste management, such as separation at source, awareness and involvement of the community, income generation opportunities and the concept of bringing nutrients back into the food chain. In the second part of the presentation, the 4 proposed models were presented. The content of this presentation was the basis for the content of Chapter 3 of this report. Part 3. Organic waste valorization options The first presentation was given by Mr. Nguyen Van Viet, the head of the farmers union of Binh Tan District in HCMC. Mr. Viet confirmed that the pig farmers take full economic advantage of collection food waste from restaurants to feed it to their pigs. He also explained how the farmers union supported the farmers in their activities. (Model 2 in this report) In a second presentation, Mr. Nguyen Ba Hung from Organik farm in Dalat explained technical details related to composting using a Toptex compost fleece. (Model 4 in this report)

67

FINAL REPORT for the Feasibility Study VIE0703511-ValOrgW

SOMERS LIVESTOCK SOLUTIONS

The final presentation of Mr. Paul Olivier covered a lot of topics related to sustainable waste management. His presentation showed that all waste fractions, organic as well as inorganic, provided they are properly separated, are suitable resources to manufacture safe and high quality products derived from waste. Furthermore, such valorization creates higher income, extra jobs and reduces poverty. The main topics covered included the mesophillic compost bin (Model 1 in this report), the BSF larvae (Model 2 in this report), gasification, integrated pig farming and the important role of waste collectors (scavenger). Part 4. Open discussion It should be noted that a lot of information was provided in a limited amount of time and that it was probably one of the first times that the participants were confronted with these new ideas. This might explain why most participants did not have any remarks or questions about the presented models. Nevertheless, some participants noted that the proposed models should be tested in Binh Dinh to proof their effectiveness in the local situation. The consultants replied that they fully agree that pilots are absolutely necessary but also mentioned that the pilot model should be implemented by people who believe in it, rather than by people who want to proof it doesn’t work. The representatives of all districts showed great interest to start with pilot models in their district. (At the moment of the final editing of the current report, all models were already being tested in the districts). One participant asked what would be the main driving force behind separation at source and behind our presented models. The consultants answered that economic incentives should be the driving force. People should realize that money can be made from organic waste. Several questions related to the functioning of the gasifiers but since gasification is not covered in our report, we omit these questions. The existence of the BSF in Binh Dinh province was questioned but Mr. Paul Olivier explained that this fly does not disturb people so that is why you generally don’t notice them. He ensured that BSF are present in Binh Dinh. By means of an entomological study, carried out the project immediately after the workshop, the black soldier fly was found naturally on every dumpsite and in many other areas with organic garbage laying around. At the same time, the study showed in a test with 8 temporary mesophilic bins, spread throughout the province, that these bins become naturally populated by adult Black Soldier Larvae, within a time span of less than two months. The representatives of the NGO’s showed great interest in the presented concepts and seem to be willing to explore further possibilities for collaboration with WSSP. Overall, we can conclude that the participants are interested in the proposed concepts. Nevertheless, it is too early to conclude if the participants considered the options feasible for Binh Dinh or not. Pilot models seem to be a logical next step.

68

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful