Developing an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for

Kabul City, Afghanistan

by

Ahmad Rashid Khoshbeen

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Engineering in
Environmental Engineering and Management

Examination Committee: Prof. Chettiyappan Visvanathan (Chairperson)

Prof. Thammarat Koottatep
Dr. Vilas Nitivattananon

Nationality: Afghan
Previous Degree: Bachelor of Civil Engineering
Kardan University
Afghanistan

Scholarship Donor: Thailand HM Queen

Asian Institute of Technology

School of Environment, Resources and Development
Thailand
December 2018

i
 Acknowledgements

Firstly I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my thesis advisor Prof. C. Visvanathan
for his valuable comments, constant motivation and endless support throughout this study.
The door to his office was always open whenever I ran into a trouble spot or had a question
about my research writing. He constantly allowed this thesis to be my own work, but steered
me in the right direction whenever he thought I needed it.

I would like to thank my committee members Prof. Thammarat Koottatep and Dr. Vilas
Nitivattananon for their constructive suggestions and scholastic guidance to improve the
quality of this thesis.

I wish to express my profound gratitude to HM The Queen of Thailand, Government of

Thailand and AIT administration for granting me the most prestigious scholarship “HM
Queen Scholarship” and making it possible for me to pursue my master degree in Asian
Institute of Technology.

I would like to sincerely thank Mr. Rahul Datar (Consultant to UN-Habitat Afghanistan),
Mr. Rajakumar (Project Manager Clean and Green cities program, UN-Habitat Afghanistan)
and Mr. Srinivasa Popuri (Senior Human Settlements Officer, Regional Office of Asia and
Pacific, UN-Habitat) for their constant support and valuable inputs during my field work in
Kabul City.

I would like to thank Mr. Ahmad Behzad Ghyasi (Director of Sanitation – Kabul
Municipality) for his endless help in arranging field visits, interviews, equipment etc during
my field work. My sincerest thank to Mr. Abdul Wakeel Ahmad Sarhadi (Head of
Agriculture Faculty – Kabul University) for allowing me to use the laboratory facilities for
conducting tests for this study.

Furthermore, I would like to thank all my friendly classmates during the entire study period
and the administrative staff in Environmental Engineering and Management at AIT. We
helped each other, exchanged knowledge, shared happiness, spent sleepless nights in
laboratory and our friendship will remain forever.

Lastly, I would like to thank my beloved parents and siblings for their moral support and
encouragements during my stay in Thailand. Their love was the constant source of strength
for me to complete my master degree at AIT.

ii
 Abstract

The increased solid waste generation and its improper management has imposed serious
impacts around the world, these impacts are also daunting in Kabul city, as the city’s solid
waste has been rapidly increasing due to fast economic and urbanization growth but the city
still lacks a proper waste management plan. The waste audit conducted for this study showed
that with an average per capita of 0.61 kg/day, the city of 5 million people generates 3050
tonnes/day of municipal solid waste. The composition analysis carried out shows that the
municipal solid waste is composed of about 50% biodegradable food waste, and about 40%
non-biodegradable recyclable waste but still the recycling rate in the city is very low. No
segregation of waste at source, dumping of hazardous, construction and demolition waste
with the municipal waste are the major obstacles for recycling of waste in the city.

The data analysis shows that if an estimated 25% waste reduction is achieved gradually by
2023, then the total cost of the system in 2023 will be reduced to 1505.9 million Afs/year
much lesser than the actual cost which is estimated at 2210 million Afs/year. Since currently
there is no segregation at source and recycling rate is very low therefore about 90% of waste
ends up at the landfill. Whereas if the strategies for waste segregation are effectively applied,
it can help boost the recycling rate and in such scenario only about 4-10 % of the non-
recyclables will end up at the landfill and will increase the lifetime of the landfill. Moreover,
willingness to pay of citizens indicate total cost of the waste management system which is
estimated at 111.53 million Afs/month can be recovered effectively.

This study aimed to develop an Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) plan for Kabul
City, based on the overall picture of the existing system and practices along with its gaps
over the entire value chain of services. The study recommends a paradigm shift from
business as usual scenario towards an Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM)
approach in Kabul city. Policy reforms to encourage waste reduction and segregation, and
the establishment of facilities for recycling, treatment and landfilling are proposed.

iii
 Table of Contents

Chapter Title Page

Title Page i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
List of Abbreviations ix

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Objectives of the Study 2
1.3 Scope of the Study 2

2 Literature Review 4
2.1 Description of the Study Area 4
2.2 Solid Waste Management in Kabul City 4
2.3 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 6
2.4 Impacts of Solid Waste 7
2.5 Current Solid Waste Management in Asia 8
2.6 3R and Municipal Solid Waste Management 8
2.7 Integrated Solid Waste Management 11
2.8 Analytical Framework for Cost Recovery 15
2.9 Sampling Size for Questionnaire Surveys 16

3 Methodology 17
3.1 Overall Research Methodology 17
3.2 Study Area 17
3.3 Questionnaire Surveys 17
3.4 Waste Characteristics and Composition (C&C) Analysis 19
3.5 Field Visits 22
3.6 Secondary Data Collection 22
3.7 Data Analysis 23

4 Results and Discussions 24

4.1 Background Information about Study Area 24
4.2 Directorate of Sanitation (DoS) 24
4.3 Responsibilities of Central Unit, Transporting Unit and District
Offices 27
4.4 Collection of MSW 28
4.5 Transportation of MSW 29
4.6 Final Disposal of Solid Waste 30
4.7 Role of Private Sectors in MSW Management 32
4.8 Biomedical Waste Management in Kabul City 33
4.9 Construction and Demolition Waste 34
4.10 Good Initiatives and Unsuitable Practices of Waste Management 35

iv
 4.11 Gaps in the Current Status of Waste Management 39
4.12 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in Kabul City 39
4.13 Recycling of Waste in Kabul city 50
4.14 Questionnaire Survey Analysis 54
4.15 Cost Recovery System 59
4.16 Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Plan for Kabul
City 63

5 Conclusions and Recommendations 80

5.1 Conclusions 80
5.2 Recommendations 82

References 84

Appendices 87

v
 List of Tables

Table Title Page

2.1 Sources and Types of MSW 6

2.2 Types of Environmental and Health Hazards from Solid Waste 8
2.5 Highest Waste Generation in Five Provinces of Thailand 8
3.1 Strata Sampling Locations and Strata Code 19
4.1 Population, Number of Household, Commercial Units and Number of
Administrative Units for District 1 to 17 25
4.2 Population, Number of Household, Commercial Units and Number of
Administrative Units for District 18 to 22 25
4.3 Number of Households based on Monthly Charge 32
4.4 Number of Households Provided with Door to Door Collection 33
4.5 Average Bulk Density of Mix Waste 47
4.6 Types and Average Price of Recyclable Materials in Kabul City 53
4.7 Estimated Profit for the Total Waste Generated 53
4.8 Revenues of DoS for the Year 2017 59
4.9 Cost of Each Component in SWM of Kabul City 60
4.10 Estimated Waste Generation and Costs for Next 10 Years 61
4.11 Total Revenue Collected based on the Amount Charged to Households 63
4.12 Aspects of Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan in Relation to SDGs 66
4.13 Comparison of Cost before and after 25% Reduction of Waste 69

vi
 List of Figures

Figure Title Page

2.1 Comparison of MSW generated per capita in kg/day 7

2.2 Rate of recycling in some Asian countries 11
2.3 Integrated solid waste management approach 12
3.1 Overall methodology framework for the study 18
4.1 Organizational chart of Department of Sanitation 26
4.2 Municipal solid waste collection by DoS workers 28
4.3 Amount of waste transferred to Gazak 2 landfill 29
4.4 Weighing machine weighing truck at Gazak 2 landfill 30
4.5 Waste being dumped without any soil cover at Gazak 2 landfill 31
4.6 Stray dogs seen at the Gazak 2 landfill site 31
4.7 Loading of waste into incinerator 34
4.8 Medical and MSW dumped as mixed waste in hospitals 34
4.9 Soil and dirt extracted from a drainage 35
4.10A Green color (for wet waste) and blue color (for dry waste) bins for
waste segregation 36
4.10B Dry waste dumped in green color bin 36
4.11 GPS map of the vehicles’ route 37
4.12 Solid waste dump in the drainage line 38
4.13 Waste being dumped outside the bin by residents 38
4.14 Solid waste burned at different areas in Kabul city 39
4.15 Average per capita waste generation of Kabul city 40
4.16 Per capita waste generation among different cities 40
4.17-A Composition of mix waste in Ramadan period (5th -11th June 2018) 42
4.17-B Composition of mix waste in None-Ramadan period (24th – 30th
June 2018) 43
4.17-C Composition of mix waste in 14 days total 43
4.18-A High income households (%) (mix waste) 45
4.18-B Middle income households (%) (mix waste) 45
4.18-C Low income households (%) (mix waste) 45
4.18-D Commercial units (%) (mix waste) 46
4.18-E Clinic facility (%) (mix waste) 46
4.19 Moisture content analysis of mix waste 48
4.20 per capita food waste generation 48
4.21 Composition of food waste in 14 days total 49
4.22 Moisture content analysis of food waste 50
4.23 Waste flow through scavenging 51
4.24 Food waste served to livestock 52
4.25 Respondents’ response to know about 3R approaches 55
4.26 Respondents’ response to their food waste management 55
4.27 Respondents’ response to their recyclable waste (paper, plastic, cans
etc) management 55
4.28 Respondents’ response to whether there are buyers for recycling
products 56
4.29 Respondents’ response to participation in waste segregation at
households/offices 56

vii
4.30 Respondents’ response to satisfaction on services provided by
Directorate of Sanitation 57
4.31 Respondents’ response to introduction of taxes for solid waste
collection 57
4.32 Strata wise response to introduction of taxes for solid waste
collection 57
4.33 Strata wise response to introduction of taxes based on polluter pays
principle 58
4.34 Suggestions given by respondents 58
4.35 Respondents willingness to pay 62
4.36 Respondents willingness to pay strata wise 62
4.37 Schematic diagram of ISWM plan’s vision 65
4.38 Poster for residents of Kabul city for segregation of waste 71
4.39-A Current waste flow of Kabul city 76
4.39-B Expected waste flow after ISWM plan implementation 77

viii
 List of Abbreviations

3Rs Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle

Afs Afghani Currency
C&C Characteristics and Composition
C&D Construction and Demolition
CBOs Community Based Organizations
CP Collection Point
CSO Central Statistics Organization
CU Central Unit
DOs District Offices
DoS Directorate of Sanitation
EC European Commission
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ELARD Earth Links and Advanced Resources Development
EPD Environment Protection Department
FWM Food Waste Management
GBRs General Binding Rules
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
HH Households
ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management
KM Kabul Municipality
LAs Local Authorities
LDPE Low Density Polyethylene
MC Moisture Content
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests
MoPH Ministry of Public Health
MRF Material Recovery Facility
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management
NEPA National Environmental Protection Agency
NEA National Environment Agency
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
PCD Pollution Control Department
PETE Polyethylene Terephthalate
POPs Persistent Organic pollutants
PPP Public Private Properties
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
SWM Solid Waste Management
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
TU Transportation Unit
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
UNFPA United Nations Fund for Population Activities
UN-Habitat United Nations Centre for Human Settlements

ix
WB World Bank
WHO World Health Organization
WtP Willingness to Pay

x
 Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

Solid waste management (SWM) is considered to be the most important service that every
city government provides to its residents. The world is sharply racing towards its urban
future and the most important by-product of an urbanization, the Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW), is on the rise faster than the rate of urbanization itself. The total municipal waste
generation in 2016, was about 1.3 billion tonnes per year globally and is estimated to
increase to 2.2 billion tonnes by 2025 (Kawai & Tasaki, 2016). Population growth, rapid
urbanization, and changing lifestyle in developing countries are the major factors that
contributes to the increased generation of solid waste. As a result of the constant increase of
MSW generation, the municipalities are not able to properly manage the MSW. Poorly
managed waste can pose enormous impacts on health, local and global environment,
economy and aesthetics. Proper SWM is an issue faced by almost every country in the world
but this issue is of bigger concern in the developing countries as compared to the developed
countries.

Like any other developing country, Afghanistan is also facing serious threats from the
municipal solid waste generation and its management. Since the country’s redevelopment
has started after years of wars and conflicts, the rate of urbanization is also on the rise. Kabul,
Herat, Kandahar, Mazar e Sharif and Jalalabad can be considered as the cities with highest
amount of solid waste generation in Afghanistan. Even though the national and international
organizations in the country have tried their level best to properly manage the MSW but due
to lack of insufficient financing, poor human and machinery resource capacity, poor service
delivery and less understanding of the residents on the impacts of solid waste generation,
the MSW management is still a concerning issue in the country.

Kabul, the capital of the country, has been facing serious threats from the MSW generation
and its inadequate management at many levels. Among many problems, one of the most
pressing problem the city is facing is the past accumulation, the current generation and
disposal of solid waste. As Kabul city is the capital of Afghanistan and center of economic
growth therefore the city has seen rapid urbanization and economic growth compared to
other cities of the country where four out of every five persons is living in urban areas
(UNFPA & CSO, 2007) and hence the problem of solid waste management is acute in Kabul.

According to Haidaree & Lukumwena, 2017, the total MSW generation in Kabul city in
2017 is about 2000 tonnes per day with per capita generation is about 0.4 kg/day. If we look
at few years back in 2006, the amount of generation of MSW was 1080 tonnes per day with
the capita of 0.4 kg per person per day, out of which only 250 tonnes of MSW was collected
per day by Kabul Municipality, taking the collection efficiency to only 23 % while the rest
of the 77% is waste was left on the streets of the city uncollected that can pose health risks
by causing air pollution, surface and ground water pollution (Visvanathan & Glawe, 2006).
It is expected that in 2020, the MSW generation will rise to 2563 tonnes per day with per
capita of 0.5 kg per person per day and by 2025, amount of MSW generated within the city
will grow to 3300 tonnes per day with a per capita of 0.6 kg per person per day (Haidaree &
Lukumwena, 2017). It is worth mentioning that food waste at 70% comprises the maximum
percentage of the MSW generated in Kabul city (Haidaree & Lukumwena, 2017). Looking

1
at the mentioned numbers, it can be clearly predicted that amount of solid waste will increase
dramatically in the few coming years while the Kabul Municipality lacks a proper
management system to deal with MSW and thus this will increase the threats to health and
economy of the capital of Afghanistan.

Kabul city’s, Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) also lack a proper sanitary
transfer station to organize the solid waste before disposal, improved technologies for
collection, transportation and lacks sanitary landfills for final disposal of waste. Even though
the Kabul Municipality have improved its collection efficiency by increasing number of
transporting vehicles and number of collection bins and have initiated the segregation of
waste at source in the recent past but still the waste management in the city has so many
problems and challenges. The most adopted and advance concept in the world, 3R (Reduce,
Reuse and Recycle) is still a relatively new idea in Kabul, Afghanistan, even though the
possibilities of 3R can be enormous in the city. Such conditions of MSWM clearly indicates
a need for Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) approach that will deal with the
management of waste as a whole from generation to collection and transportation and finally
to disposal.

This study aims at identifying the issues and challenges in line of SWM in Kabul city and
proposing an Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) approach for the improvement
of SWM.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The overall objective of this study is to solve the issues of MSW by developing an Integrated
Solid Waste Management (ISWM) approach for Kabul city, Afghanistan. To achieve the
overall objectives following specific objectives are set, namely:

1. To review the existing Solid Waste Management (SWM) systems and identify both
good and unsuitable practices of waste handling in Kabul city, Afghanistan.
2. To perform composition analysis and characteristics of solid waste generated in
Kabul city, Afghanistan.
3. To identify the possibilities of adopting 3R concepts in Kabul city and investigate
the barriers and constraints.
1.3 Scope of the Study

This research is based on the field survey for primary and secondary data analysis in order
to achieve the above mentioned objectives with following steps:

1. Gathering of data from the existing situation of SWM and review on SWM policies,
legal tools and management technologies of Kabul Municipality.
2. Explore the current waste collection, transfer and disposal system of Kabul
Municipality.
3. Sample collection for total waste generation per capita.
4. Waste audit for analyzing the composition and density of mix waste and food waste.
5. Laboratory test for analyzing the moisture content and pH of mix waste and food
waste.

2
6. Evaluation and assessment of viable 3R options in Kabul with its socio-economic
considerations.
7. Field visits to landfills, transfer stations, incineration facilities, recycling facilities
and private companies

3
 Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Description of the Study Area

Kabul is the capital of Afghanistan as well as its largest city, located in the eastern section
of the country. Kabul city which was once a ghost city ravaged by civil war has now become
a busy and bustling center of the capital. After the defeat of Taliban in 2001, the hope of
increased security and economic possibilities enticed many Afghans to move to Kabul city.
The population of Kabul city in 2004, was 1.925 million (CSO, 2018) but according to
estimates by the (CSO, 2018) in 2017-2018, the current population of Kabul city is 3.961
million.

Rapid Urbanization, Population growth and the constant change in the lifestyle of Kabul
city’s residents, have intensely increased the MSW generation within the city. This increased
in the MSW generation have overloaded the collection and transportation system of Kabul
municipality.

2.1.1 Kabul Municipality

Kabul Municipality (KM) is responsible for MSWM in Kabul city. Kabul Municipality
delivers services only to the formal zones in the city whereas the services are partial in the
informal sectors. These services include the collection of solid waste. Kabul Municipality
collects waste from all the collection points in the city. The number of workers in the KM is
smaller than the extent of services that are needed to be provided in the city.

2.2 Solid Waste Management in Kabul City

2.2.1 National waste management policy of Afghanistan

The national waste management policy is part of the environmental regulatory process in
the framework of the environmental law, which is the first policy in the field of waste
management in Afghanistan and aims to regulate waste. This policy is a legal document that
has been developed in 2010 in response to environmental problems and organizational
deficiencies, including the lack of relevant administrative regulations, standards and figures,
and has been used in developing this policy from the experiences of other Asian and regional
countries.

The waste management policy is developed for the following three main types of wastes.

i. Solid Municipal waste

ii. Medical waste
iii. Highly hazardous waste

Since the National Waste Management Policy exist only in local language therefore the
policy was translated into English language for this study and is provided in Appendix A.
Although the current policy emphasize that all waste types should be segregated at source
and managed separately but the implementation of this policy can be merely seen at any
point of the city. The current policy does not mention any management approach for the

4
construction and demolition waste management which is a major stream of waste. Also the
current policy does not identify the roles of different stakeholders that are involved and
responsible for different types of waste management. Furthermore, the current policy also
misses any rules and regulations on the burning and littering of waste.

2.2.2 Previous studies on solid waste of Kabul City

There has been limited number of studies carried out on the solid waste of Kabul city. These
studies are mostly done by organization like JICA and World Bank while some studies are
also done by the academic researchers. These studies has many gaps regarding the data
information that is provided. A comparison matrix of these studies is provided in Appendix
B while a short summary is given below.

i. The Composition and generation volumes that are reported in these studies have been
made on assumptions or obtained through interviews form Municipality staff and no
waste audit was conducted to analyze the waste composition, characteristics or
volumes.
ii. The study done by (JICA, 2009) shows that per day waste generation is 4390 tonnes
and no per capita per day waste generation is reported. The study by (Azad, 2015)
shows that waste generation is about 3000 tonnes per day with 0.4 kg/capita/day but
the study by (World Bank, 2016) shows a major increase of waste in just one year
and the waste generation is reported at 5454 tonnes per day with the per capita
generation at 0.4 kg/day
iii. Each of these studies have focused on the management of the generated waste. None
of these studies has focused on the implementation of 3R practices, no strategies for
waste reduction, segregation, and recycling, composting, or anaerobic digestion are
reported.
iv. No focus have been given to the hazardous, biomedical, or construction and
demolition waste and each of these studies have only proposed management
strategies for the municipal waste.
v. Even though these previous studies have mentioned the existence of the informal
sector in the city but none of these studies have proposed any plan on how this
informal sector can be brought into a formal group and maximize their efforts.

The DoS have not been able to implement the recommendations and plans proposed from
these studies due to many gaps. The only few activities implemented from these plans are:

i. As almost all the previous studies had recommended that the open collection points
should be changed with bins as the number of open collection points is high therefore
1076 open collection points were changed with 7 m3 and 1 m3 bins and now only
124 open collection points remaining in the city.
ii. Increasing the collection efficiency is also a common recommendation of all the
studies therefore the collection efficiency was increased by procuring 60 vehicles
with capacity of about 18m3 and 150 tricycles of capacity about 1-3m3. The
collection efficiency was also improved through hiring contracted private companies
(through support of UN-Habitat’s CGC program) to collect waste.
iii. All the previous studies have proposed the setting up of transfer stations, therefore
an unsanitary transfer station have been formed at the Sanitation office.
iv. Fuel theft issue was solved with the installations of the GPS trackers.

5
2.3 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

2.3.1 Definition of MSW

Municipal solid waste is composed of all types of waste that is generated from households,
commercial units, and institutional units (Filemon & Uriarte, 2008). The biomedical waste
or hazardous waste generated in hospitals or industries cannot be considered as municipal
waste. The waste that is generated from street sweeping, drainage cleaning and sludge can
also be considered as municipal waste (Kaosol, 2009).

Table 2.1: Sources and Types of MSW (Koottatep, 2016)

Sources Typical MSW Type of MSW

generation
Households Single households, Food waste, plastic (HDPE,
residential LDPE bottles), paper (cardboard),
complexes, and high glass (packaging and non-
rise apartments packaging), aluminum cans etc.
Commercial General stores, Food waste, plastic (HDPE,
units markets, offices, LDPE bottles), paper (cardboard),
workshops, glass (packaging and non-
restaurants etc packaging), aluminum cans etc.
Institutional schools, universities, Food waste, plastic (HDPE,
units government offices LDPE bottles), paper (cardboard),
etc glass (packaging and non-
packaging), aluminum cans,
hazardous waste
Municipal Street cleaning, Street sweepings, landscape and
cleaning drainage cleaning, tree
services recreational places trimmings, general wastes from
etc parks, beaches and other
recreational areas

2.3.2 MSW generation

The waste generation is mainly varied from one region to another, income level, cultural and
geography, consumption behavior of the citizens are some of the factors that plays vital role
in waste generation. The municipal waste of Afghanistan is composed of organic waste, soil
floor sweeping, ash, fine particles and other mixed waste materials (McCarthy, 2011). The
volumes of waste generation and the different categories of materials of which the waste is
composed is much necessary to know in order to prepare a well-developed waste
management plan (Guerrero et al., 2013).

6
 1.2

kg/capita/day
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
Banglades Philippine
Bhutan India Indonesia Nepal Thailand
h s
Solid waste per capita generated 0.25 0.54 0.28 0.9 0.67 0.35 1.1

Figure 2.1: Comparison of MSW generated per capita in kg/day (Guerrero et al., 2013)

2.4 Impacts of Solid Waste

Solid waste is increasing with the changing lifestyles globally but the waste managers are
not able to keep up with the generation rate and to properly manage all the generated waste.
Thus the generated waste is left on roads, and streets uncollected. This uncollected waste
not only effects the aesthetic condition of the city but also pose serious threats to the health
and environment of the residents.

2.4.1 Impact of solid waste on public health

Biomedical waste or hazardous waste like placentae, bandages, chemicals etc, which are not
easily manageable can pose serious threats to the environment and people. These dangers
are severe in developing countries. Some of the well-known and most common diseases that
are born as result of mismanagement of solid waste includes dengue, malaria, fever, loose
motion and Kala Azar (UNEP, 2005). Children, workers involved in waste management,
and rag pickers are the most vulnerable groups to these diseases (UNEP, 2005). People living
near waste dumping sites or open waste collection points are also at risk to these diseases as
their drinking water can be contaminated by leachate or air quality can be effected through
gas emissions (Giusti, 2009).

2.4.2 Impacts on environment

Since most of the generated waste is left uncollected or disposed openly at the landfills, this
waste results into emission of gases like methane which is a major environmental concern
specially in the developing countries that lacks sanitary landfills (Alam & Ahmade 2013).
Another daunting impact of improper waste management is that since waste is composed of
high amount of organic waste that has high moisture content, results into leachate generation
which infiltrates into the ground water and effects the drinking water quality for the residents
living nearby the dumping sites (Alam & Ahmade 2013). Table 2.2 some of the main
environmental and health impacts of solid waste.

7
Table 2.2: Types of Environmental and Health Hazards from Solid Waste

S. Environmental and health Example and causes

No hazards
1 Environmental pollution Air Quality, water quality, soil quality, land use
2 Communicable disease Diarrhea, respiratory infection, skin disease,
jaundice, malaria, dengue
3 Non-communicable disease Poisoning, hearing defects/loss, dust
4 Injury Occupational injury by sharps, needles, glasses,
metals, woods
5 Aesthetics Odor, visibility, dusts etc

2.5 Current Solid Waste Management in Asia

For sustainable development the most challenging part is the adequate solid waste
management system. Waste management in Asia is a growing concern due to the growing
volumes of waste generation and the lack of resources to manage this waste properly.

2.5.1 Municipal solid waste in Thailand

In 2015, Thailand generated a total of 26.85 million tonnes of municipal solid waste. Out of
this total generated waste, Bangkok generated about 16% (4.19 million tonnes) of waste
while other provinces generated the remaining 84% (22.66 million tonnes) of waste (PCD,
2015). Table 2.3 shows the waste generation in five provinces of Thailand with highest
waste generation.

Table 2.3: Highest Waste Generation in Five Provinces of Thailand (PCD, 2015)

S. No Provinces Waste generation (Tonnes/day)

1 Bangkok 11,500
2 Chon Buri 2,487
3 Nakorn Ratchasima 2,293
4 Samut Prakarn 2,049
5 Khon Kaen 1,870

2.6 3R and Municipal Solid Waste Management

2.6.1 3R

i. Reduce

The purpose of waste reduction is to minimize the waste generation that will help to reduce
the harmful effects of waste and will lead towards a sustainable society. One of the most
effective ways to manage waste is to avoid its generation

ii. Reuse

Waste reuse not only helps in less waste generation but also helps in less production or
manufacturing of new materials, which in turn leads to decrease in the burden on natural
resources.

8
 iii. Recycle

Recycling is the conversion of waste materials into reusable products including heat and
energy, which creates scope for production and consumption with reduced burden on our
natural resources. It reduces the environmental degradation caused due to waste generation
and disposal. Recyclable materials include aluminum, batteries, concrete/demolition waste,
glass, other metals, paper, PET, other plastics and electronic wastes.

2.6.2 3R drivers in waste management

Drivers in waste management are factions of associated features. Human drivers, Economic
drivers, and the Institutional drivers are the 3R drivers in waste management (Pariatamby &
Fauziah, 2014).

i. Human Drivers:

The Human driver incorporates three aspects, namely increasing waste generation due to
population growth, human comfort and security, and human awareness. These three aspects
can promote or hinder 3Rs within a system. The first aspect within the “human driver”
indicates the contribution of population growth towards the escalation of waste generation.
As a result, it calls for the need to divert waste from exhausting the landfills. It is closely
related to human comfort and security as existing landfills, which are rapidly filled.

ii. Economic Drivers:

The Economic driver is also a key driver of the 3Rs. Available funding for a 3R operation
is very crucial to ensure its success. The economics drives 3R operations by making data
and information on waste composition available and accessible for future planning.
Economic driver also influence the availability of technologies in promoting 3Rs. Forceful
research and development in the manufacturing designs promotes the invention of products
with high disassembly potential. With suitable disassembly pattern, waste materials such as
electrical and electronic equipment can be diverted from the main waste stream for recycling
options.

iii. Institutional Drivers:

The Institutional driver encompasses legislative, research and development and business
activities. It consists mainly of activities involving participation on various activities that
form an institution. Legislators must aspire to formulate or revise legislation to sort out the
waste composition, cultural trait and 3R capability distinct to their locales. The discernment
and management policies for waste materials evolve with the new findings from new
academic research. New paradigms on waste management and planning including waste to
value-added products conversion can be a holistic approach towards sustainable
development.

2.6.3 3R initiative in Asia

The “3R Initiative” was officially launched at the 3R Ministerial Conference hosted by the
Government of Japan in April 2005, with an aim to promote global action on 3R
(Visvanathan et al., 2007). The 3R initiative and regional 3R forum in Asia aiming to

9
establish sustainable society by promoting 3R. The initiative investigates the following
objectives.

i. To extent economically feasibility need to reduce waste, reuse, and recycle

resources and products.
ii. Encourage cooperation among the various stockholders.
iii. Promote society and technology suitable for the 3R.
iv. Cooperate with developing countries in areas such as capacity building, raising
public awareness, and implementation of recycling projects.

2.6.4 3R practices in Asia

i. The Republic of Korea introduced a volume-based fee system in the country’s waste
management in 1995. The implementation is aimed at promoting waste reduction in
order to reduce the amount of fees charged to the waste generators. The system
managed to successfully reduce daily solid waste per capita generation by 22 % in
2003 as compared to 1994 (Ju, 2005).

ii. The Singapore Government launched a National Recycling Program in 2001. The
public was encouraged to segregate their waste by separating recyclable items from
other waste over a period of 14 consecutive days. The program accomplished a
reduction in the average daily municipal wastes i.e. from 7,700 tonnes/day in 2001
to 7,000 tonnes/day in 2005 (NEA, 2006).

iii. MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) prompted the execution of national 3R

Strategy in most developing nations. Regrettably, the response to 3R was
insignificant due to inadequate orientation in governmental policy, low public
awareness and the lack of pertinent technology. In developing countries like
Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Thailand and the Philippines, waste
reduction strategies are not as successful as in the economically developed countries
such as Japan, Singapore and Korea (Pariatamby & Fauziah, 2014).

iv. While effective legislations are in-place in the high income countries like Singapore
and Japan, the legislation of the “Reuse” approach is very poor among the developing
countries. Therefore, reutilization of discarded material has been inefficient. “Reuse”
practices in the developing countries only exist within the informal sector. In
Bangladesh and India for example, reuse of discarded medical and biomedical waste
was reported to occur outside hospitals. In Bhutan, reusable plastics were widely
utilized as wrapping materials. In Malaysia, the households reuse plastic bags, which
are abundant and cheap, as secondary packaging or garbage bags. Clothing materials
are reused when these materials are donated to the needy (Pariatamby & Fauziah,
2014).

v. An effective policy on e-waste recycling is also available in South Korea. The e-

waste generation had increased almost 100 % between 1995 and 2005 as a result of
strong shopper spending and lesser lifespan duration of electronic goods. The
Extended Producer Responsibility System came into effect in 2003 implying that
manufacturers of electronic appliances are to bear the responsibility of recycling e-
wastes. This is in line with a modicum of authority to increase prices accordingly, so

10
 as to cater for the cost burdened by the e-waste recycling scheme. As a result, a boost
in the amount of e-wastes collected for recycling was achieved (Park, 2006).

Figure 2.2 depicts the level of recycling in selected Asian countries in 2011. The rate of
recycling is highly influenced by the recycling policies in the country and the public
participation. It is proven in many countries including Japan and Singapore that effective
policies with stringent regulations on recycling program encourage the instillation of
recycling habit among the people.

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Thailand Japan Hong Kong Malaysia Singapore South Korea
Recycling rate (%) 13 17 45 7 47 49

Figure 2.2: Rate of recycling in some Asian countries (World Bank, 2012)

2.7 Integrated Solid Waste Management

Integrated solid waste management (ISWM), the current SWM paradigm that has been
widely accepted throughout the developed world, emerged from the policy shift away from
landfilling and the push for a broader perspective that began in the 1990s (Marshall &
Farahbakhsh, 2013). While the ‘modern’ SWM practices that began in the 1970s were
defined in engineering terms – technical problems with technical solutions, the concept of
ISWM strives to strike a balance between three dimensions of waste management:
environmental effectiveness, social acceptability, and economic affordability.

Integrated solid waste management refers to all principals, activities, policies and planning
in order to control the generation, collection, on-site storage, transfer and transport,
processing and disposal of municipal solid waste. Over the years, it has been realized that it
is necessary to design an integrated system as a whole rather than selecting individual
component subsystems that may not work well together (Shekdar, 2009). The concept of
integrated solid waste management systems have gained acceptance. Under this paradigm,
all the component systems are selected simultaneously to allow for rational planning and
effective execution. The resulting system configuration ensures mutual compatibility of the
components, thereby improving overall performance. Integrated solid waste management
has also been defined as the selection and application of suitable techniques, technologies
and management approaches to achieve specific objectives and goals (see Figure 2.3).

11
 Operations
management

Institutional Financial
framework management

Integrated Solid
Waste
Management

Policy and
Public
Legal
participation
framework

Appropriate
technology

Figure 2.3: Integrated solid waste management approach (Shekdar, 2009)

2.7.1 Operations management

Operational systems include material handling and treatment processes by which the waste
generated from different sources is collected, transported, processed and disposed of
regularly. The procedures and practices for each component system need to be defined
clearly, and there must be integrated mechanisms to monitor and control operations
(Shekdar, 2009).

For designing suitable operations management system it is very important to know the
following basic information (Van & Anschütz, 2001).

i. The source: who is generating what type of waste, in what quantities and
where. Households, commercial establishments, institutions such as school,
hospitals and government offices, factories and farms all generate different
quantities and types of waste on different locations in the city.

ii. The composition of waste: this is determined among other things by eating
and cooking habits (affluence, culture) and is subject to seasonal variations
(agricultural production, religious feasts, presence of tourists). These
differences in composition mean that different waste management systems
may be considered for the various sources of waste (e.g. type and size of
collection vehicles) to be able to diversify waste streams for reuse and
recycling and to make use of small scale collection and recycling services.

12
 iii. The density or the weight per m3: a high content of inorganic materials (e.g.
paper, plastics in affluent or office areas) means the waste has a low density.
Much dust, ashes and organic residues in the waste means it has a high density.

The physical infrastructure in the city and neighborhoods should be taken into consideration
when selecting systems and technologies for waste management. Examples are:

i. Road and traffic conditions (wide, narrow, winding, paved, one or two-way
traffic, traffic jams)

ii. Space for transfer or temporary storage of waste

iii. Lay-out of neighborhoods and type of buildings related to socio-economic

differences between neighborhoods: space for separation at source bins,
gardens generating organic waste, presence of markets

iv. Their ability and willingness to co-operate in the operation and management
of the services

v. Their ability and willingness to pay for the services; the level of service and
the mode and cycle of payment they prefer.

vi. The demands they have for the type of service and its frequency.

vii. Their attitudes and behavior in participating in experiments or pilot projects,

particularly relating to separation at source, reuse, recycling and waste
minimization efforts.

viii. Mapping the whole waste management sector in your city is extremely
important when you want to design a new system or to improve an existing
system. It includes identifying who is doing what in the current formal and
informal waste management systems.

2.7.2 Appropriate technology

ISWM has to be designed in accordance with waste characteristics and quantities, and it
must be compatible with prevailing operating conditions. Various handling equipment like
vehicles for transportation, machinery for processing and disposal equipment has to be
appropriately designed in accordance with the waste characteristics. For example, the waste
generated in affluent countries has a low density that requires the use of compactors.
Furthermore, in low income countries where the waste is of low calorific value, thermal
processing may not be appropriate (Shekdar, 2009). Technology should be developed in
keeping with local conditions. Sanitary landfilling technology should be much more widely
adopted so that available landfill space can be utilized for longer periods and so that
reclamation can become more cost-effective. In general it may be necessary to broaden
research and development efforts to better address sustainability issues.

13
2.7.3 Financial management

ISWM is a large, ongoing vital system that requires resources in the form of manpower,
vehicles, machinery and land. The system must be adequately financed in respect to capital
investment and recurring expenditure. This is a critical issue in developing countries, where
a number of municipal agencies attribute low standards to lack of funding. MSW systems
are mostly operated without due consideration of the long-term impacts on the environment.
Budgeting procedures need to consider sustainability issues, especially by including
subsidies to improve the commercial viability of technologies to enable resource recovery.

2.7.4 Institutional arrangement

Effective ISWM requires the definition of clear roles and legal responsibilities of institutions
and government bodies to avoid controversies, ineffectiveness, inaction, and making SWM
systems politically unstable. Even when regulatory and legislative frameworks exist,
governments with weak institutional structures are easily overwhelmed by increasing
demands for SWM as urban populations explode (Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013).

Institutional aspects of ISWM include:

 The degree of decentralization, i.e. distribution of authority, functions, and

responsibilities between central and local governmental institutions;
 The structure of institutional systems responsible for SWM and how they interact
with other urban management sectors;
 Organizational procedures, for planning and management

ISWM management is a municipal responsibility and thus becomes an essential part of local
government operations. The national (central) government and prefecture (state)
government also have responsibilities as far as financial and institutional support is
concerned. Furthermore, in order to improve the efficiency of the system, private sector
participation should also be integrated where possible. Thus, appropriate institutional
arrangements have to be arrived at by identifying the roles of all agencies within the
system.

2.7.5 Policy and legal framework

Policy weaknesses are consequently some of the critical causes of failed SWM systems in
many low-income countries, as inadequate formulation and implementation of realistic
policies is common. While developed countries addressed their SWM needs by putting in
place effective, functioning policy measures. In many cities of the developing world
remedial measures have been elusive; efforts are uncoordinated and the resources invested
in the sector are inadequate (Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013). Additionally, civil unrest and
political instability has contributed to the growing SWM problem in low-income urban areas
by forcing millions of displaced people to seek refuge in major cities.

Every nation should have a policy on integrated solid waste management (ISWM) that
covers aspects such as cleanliness, maintenance of public health standards, preservation of
environmental quality and sustained provision of financing (Shekdar, 2009). The policy
should address sustainability in respect of availability of landfill space for future
generations. To achieve this, it may be necessary to make financial provisions and attempt

14
technological intervention. In developed economies, policy initiatives may address cost-
effectiveness, while in developing economies, lawmakers should address cleanliness and
environmental quality. It is also necessary to have a legal framework in keeping with
national policy. It has been observed that legal documents are often formulated only as a
means of assigning responsibility. It is necessary to broaden the scope of these documents.
The legal framework should ensure that the targets defined in the policy documents are met
within specified timeframes.

2.7.6 Public participation

ISWM is meant for the public, and, without the public’s cooperation, the system cannot be
operated or maintained appropriately. Hence, it is necessary to make the public aware of
ISWM through active participation in the system. In practice, system efficiency is directly
proportional to the number of participating citizens for ISWM systems. Without public
participation, it may be difficult to maintain cleanliness in a city, and resource recovery
systems may become less effective if wastes are poorly separated at the source.

2.8 Analytical Framework for Cost Recovery

An effective SWM system has many instruments and among which cost recovery instrument
is one the most important instrument because of the following 2 main reason.

 Cost recovery instrument plays a vital role in covering the cost of the system and
thus can improve service delivery.
 Cost recovery instruments helps to influence behavior by means of the pricing
mechanism in order to minimize waste generation, avoid negative impacts or to
strengthen resource recovery and recycling.

2.8.1 Cost recovery instrument

For any cost recovery system, first the legal conditions for establishing waste management
fees are clarified, and then the following steps should be considered in order to establish
financial sustainability in SWM system (ELARD, 2005).

i. Determine the current and future costs of the local SWM system.
ii. Determine the Affordability of residents for cost recovery system
iii. Design the user- charging regime
iv. Design user charged billing
v. Implement and monitor the new cost recovery systems.

Each of these steps are discussed in details below:

2.8.2 Determine the current and future costs of the local swm system

For implementing a cost recovery system first of all it is very important to identify the real
cost of SWM. The first step while planning the SWM cost recovery system, should be
identifying the service users in different zones within the local authorities. This can include
the number of total population, number of residential, commercial, industrial and
institutional units in a local authority.

15
2.8.3 Analysis of current costs

For establishing current cost information it is necessary to analyze the current costs of a
SWM system, the department of SWM has to be cross checked with data on number of
equipment, number of personnel and fuel consumption, etc. It is important to use a tool or
template that incorporates all types of costs (or at least monetary costs) linked to the
delivery of SWM services, including direct investment and operating costs as well as
indirect costs. Operating costs often constitute 60-85% of total waste management costs
in low and middle-income countries (ELARD, 2005). Indirect costs can, for example,
include a percentage of personnel and office costs for administrative bodies involved in
waste management, but not directly in service provision. When the overall costs of SWM
have been identified, unit costs (per tonne of waste) can be calculated.

2.8.4 Analysis of future costs

The analysis of future costs can be identify by finding the costs in relation to percent
increase in waste quantities for 5 or 10 years period.

2.8.5 Determine the affordability of residents for cost recovery system

Evaluating sources for the recovery of the recurrent costs of waste management is
ineffective without analyzing the affordability of such services. The following methodology
should be adopted in order to estimate the affordability of SWM cost recovery.

 Assess the distribution of households based on average monthly income and

location of households.
 Assess yearly revenue of households based on average monthly income
 Discover the World Bank’s benchmark for middle income countries for the
Household expenditure to be allocated to waste management services.
 Assess potential yearly revenue of households spent on SWM services based on
average monthly income.

2.9 Sampling Size for Questionnaire Surveys

The concept of sample is intrinsic to survey research. Usually, it is impractical and

uneconomical to collect data from every single person in a given population; a sample of the
population has to be selected (Kelley et al., 2003). Sampling is required in research to select
an amount of work feasible under specific circumstances. Hence, it is needed to choose a
free bias method. According to the studies, there are two board categories of sampling,
representative and non-representative. For quantitative research, representative and
probability sampling are considered more appropriate. However, in qualitative research,
both representative and non-representative or probability and non-probability sampling is
used. For specifying sample size, the following formula is used:

n = N/1+Ne2

Where n = sample size, N = population, e = error limit

16
 Chapter 3

Methodology

3.1 Overall Research Methodology

This research study focused on the Primary and secondary data collection to achieve the
three objectives that were set for this study. Primary data collection included the waste
characteristics, composition and Per capita waste generation analysis, and also conducting
questionnaire survey to analyze the residents’ willingness to pay for the SWM services.
Interviews were also carried out with staff of the Directorate of Sanitation (DoS) and other
stakeholders like private sector companies, owners of recycling facilities etc for which a set
of questionnaire was prepared. The secondary data such as published documents, printed
copies was collected from relevant sources and agencies. The overall process methodology
for this research study is shown in Figure 3.1.

3.2 Study Area

Kabul city is the center of Kabul province. At present Kabul city has been divided into 22
districts for administrative purposes. Every district comes under the direction of main office
known as the Kabul Municipality. Kabul municipality is responsible for the collection,
transportation and disposal of solid waste in the city.

3.3 Questionnaire Surveys

Two sets of questionnaire surveys were designed for this study as part of the primary data
collection. The details of each survey is provided in sections below.

3.3.1 Residents’ survey

A questionnaire survey was designed and administered to collect information about

residents’ attitude towards waste, waste management behaviors (disposal and waste
separation), their willingness to pay for collection services, the problems faced with the
current management system and the assessment of 3R concepts at stakeholders’ level. A
detailed set of questions were prepared to conduct this questionnaire survey (see Appendix
C). Hundred questionnaire surveys were conducted at each stratum (High income
households, middle income households, lower income households and commercial units)
for a confidence level of 90 %. The surveys were conducted at District 3, 5 and 10 of Kabul
city. The surveys took place as; after a random start at each stratum, every third
household/commercial unit within the stratum was approached for inclusion in the
survey. If there was no answer at the selected household/commercial unit, it was
substituted with the next household/commercial unit. A door-to-door interview was
conducted to target questions to the head of the household or the spouse. In cases
where neither was present, either the oldest child or a relative (over 15 years) was
interviewed.

17
 Solid Waste Management in
Kabul City

Data Collection

Primary data Secondary

Collection data
Collection

Sources of information:
- Search information from the
Interviewing by Field visits to Laboratory tests Internet
Questionnaire landfills, transfer - Literature review
surveys stations, recycling - Previous studies
facilities - Project documents

C&C analysis Density, pH and

moisture content
Stakeholders’ SWM program analysis Existing approaches and
survey operators’ survey policies for SWM

Data Analysis (Excel, SPSS and SWOT analysis)

Develop an Integrated Solid Waste Management approach

Figure 3.1: Overall methodology framework for the study

18
3.3.2 Solid Waste Management (SWM) program operators’ survey

Different sets of questions were designed (see Appendix D) that targeted solid waste
program operators. The targeted personnel for these sets of questionnaires included
the staff of DoS, Sanitation officers of each district, dumping officers at landfill,
private sector and recycling facilities owners. These questionnaires aimed to obtain
information on the type of MSW collected, zones of collection, collection service
availability, collection equipment and vehicles, collection fees, methods of collecting the
fees, final disposal methods, location/type of dumping sites, assessment of the current
3R approaches and the planned 3R concepts by the program operators in the near future.
Face-to-face interviews were held with personnel in charge of MSW management in the
city.

3.4 Waste Characteristics and Composition (C&C) Analysis

The waste characteristics and composition analysis were carried out both for mixed waste
and food waste. For mixed waste: composition, moisture content and density analysis were
carried out while for food waste: composition, moisture content, density and pH analysis
were carried out. According to (Sahimaa et al., 2015) following are the most vital and
essential choices when conducting solid waste characteristics and composition study:

i. Stratification
ii. Sampling location
iii. Number of samples and sample size
iv. Types and number of waste components to be investigated

3.4.1 Stratification and sampling location

As a result of stratification, fewer samples are required because the contrast in the waste
composition differs less within each stratum than in the whole population. Hence
stratification increases the accuracy of the composition estimates obtained for the same
research resource (Sahimaa et al., 2015). This research study was divided into following
strata shown in (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Strata Sampling Locations and Strata Code

Strata Strata sampling locations

code
A1 High income residential – individual household (income more than 50,000
Afs/month)
A2 Medium income residential – individual household (income 20,000 to
50,000 Afs/month)
A3 Low income residential – individual household (income less than 20,000
Afs/month)
B1 Commercial – individual premises
C1 Health care facility (hospital) – individual premises (included only in
composition study)

In order to boost the accuracy of the results, it is necessary to randomly select the households
and commercial units within the selected strata for sample taking. It is likely to adversely

19
affect the final results if the selection is based on any predetermined criteria, rather than on
random basis (McCarthy, 2011).

3.4.2 Number of samples and sample size

According to (European Commission, 2004) the number of sampling unit of one stratum
shall exceed 6 for households while for the commercial units the number of sampling unit
of one stratum shall be 15. So for this study the number of sample for households and
commercial units was 10 and 15 respectively. But during weekends since some of the
commercial units were closed therefore the number of samples on those days were less than
15. Since the samples were taken on daily basis from each stratum so the sample size was
the size of daily waste production for both households and commercial units.

3.4.3 Duration of waste sampling and sample collection

The C&C analysis was done for two different period, one week in the month of Holy
Ramadan (5th June to 11th June, 2018) and one week after the month of Holy Ramadan (24th
June to 30th June, 2018) to assess the waste flows during these periods. In each one week
period of study the samples were collected for a duration of seven days of waste. The
laboratory analysis was for done for the mentioned period except during the weekends as
permission was not given to use laboratory facilities during weekends. This allowed the
sampling of waste to be spread over each working day covering the full collection cycle. The
sample collection bags were distributed to participants on 4th June (in Ramadan period) and 23rd
June (in none-Ramadan period). The collection bags were distributed and collected to
participants every day. Appendix E-1 shows the full count of all the samples collected and
Appendix E-2 shows the sum of total weight of all samples.

3.4.4 Collection of samples

Each household and commercial unit included in the study was given a special code based
on the pre investigation survey and the samples were labeled based on that code when
collected from each household/commercial unit.

Once all the samples were collected, they were delivered to a designated secure facility at
the Agriculture Faculty of Kabul University for waste sorting and analysis. Once the waste
analysis was done the samples were disposed properly and safely. The detailed schematic
diagram of all the steps of waste characterization and composition analysis is given in
(Appendix F).

3.4.5 Waste generation

One of the important aspect of ISWM plan is to know how much of waste is generated,
which will help in planning the proper waste management system. Firstly, the per capita
waste generation rate was calculated by weighing samples of waste of 600 households
(including of 200 high income households, 200 middle income households and 200 low income
households). Then the value was multiplied by the total population of the city in order to
calculate the total waste generation rate.

20
 Per Capita Waste Generation rate (kg/capita/day) = Quantity of solid waste
(kg/day)/Population (capita)

3.4.6 Waste composition analysis

For mixed waste composition analysis, the waste was manually sorted into following
different components:

i. Food, Fruit, Vegetables

i. Paper (Hard): cardboard
ii. Paper (Soft): magazines, newspapers, A4 papers, tissue papers, toilet paper
iii. Plastic (Hard): PVC, PETE and HDPE bottles, Polycarbonate.
iv. Plastic (Soft): low density polyethylene (LDPE),single used plastic bags
v. Glass (Packaging and non-Packaging)
vi. Steel can
vii. Aluminum can
viii. Leather
ix. Yard waste
x. Textile
xi. Hazardous
xii. Inert
xiii. Other

The component-wise analysis was conducted with hand sorting. Each material category was
sorted, weighed and registered in data sheet. The percentage weight fraction of each component
in the sorting sample was calculated using below equation.

C = Wi*100/W

Where, C: Percentage of each waste composition

Wi: Weight of the component/material in waste
W: Weight of the mixed waste

3.4.7 Bulk density

Bulk density of the waste was measured every time waste composition analysis was
conducted. Bulk density is an indicator of compaction. Once each sample was recorded for
composition analysis, samples from same stratum was grouped together. The bulk density of each
mixed waste sample was measured after the samples from each stratum are grouped together. It
was achieved by filling the bucket of known volume (60L) until it was overflowing and the
loaded bucket was lifted up to about 6 cm from the ground and dropped repeatedly three
times to top up the waste. Then the loaded bucket was weighed. Bulk density was calculated
by subtracting the bucket loaded with waste from the weight of the empty bucket, and
divided by the volume of the bucket, as shown in equation below.

Bulk Density = W1 –W2/V

Where, W1: Weight of Solid Waste and Container

W2: Weight of Container
V: Volume of the Container

21
3.4.8 Moisture content (drying at 105 0C)

The percent moisture of the MSW samples was determined by weighing of samples before
and after drying in an oven at 105°C to a constant weight. Firstly, 500 gram (g) of wet grinded
sample was taken. The sample was then put into the 105°C oven for 24 hours. Finally, after
24 hours, the sample was taken off from the oven and put into the desiccator to cool off.
After cooling off, weight of the oven-dried sample was weighted. The percent moisture content
(MC) was calculated as a percentage loss in weight before and after drying.

% Moisture Content = (Wet Weight – Dry Weight / Wet Weight) * 100

3.4.9 pH analysis

pH of a well grinded sample was analyzed using pH electrometer model no HM 25G.

3.5 Field Visits

During this study, field visits to landfills, transfer stations, incineration facilities, recycling
facilities, collection points and other sites in the city were carried out. The purpose of these
visits were to better analyze and understand the data that was collected during interviews
and to take pictures and video clips for better demonstration of the results.

3.6 Secondary Data Collection

In this part, theoretical information was collected from governmental departments and NGOs
about study area related to SWM in Kabul city. The literatures were reviewed from case studies
of other countries for best practices of SWM in the city. Therefore, the data was assist to
develop ISWM practices in Kabul city.

The relevant literatures were collected from various libraries, institutions

organizations like United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), World Health
Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and United Nations
Centre for Human Settlements (UN-Habitat) and National Environmental Protection
Agency of Afghanistan (NEPA). Most of the current information downloaded from the
Internet to supplement the above sources. Such materials included textbooks, journals,
periodical reports, conference proceedings, dissertations and thesis. The types of collected
secondary data are as follow:

3.6.1 Geo-Demographical and administrative

i. Population size and growth of all districts of Kabul city

ii. Total number of households, shops, Hospitals, industries and educational
institutes etc.
iii. Administrative boundaries and responsibilities

3.6.2 Data relevant to SWM department

i. Data from current problems of solid waste (e.g., technical, institutional, economic
and existing policy
ii. Data from ISWM for sustainable development of Kabul municipality

22
 iii. Implementation plan and schedule for SWM in Kabul city.
iv. Organizational chart of Directorate of Sanitation.
v. Budget and expenses of Directorate of Sanitation.

3.7 Data Analysis

The data analysis of this research study is as follows:

1. The questionnaire surveys was analyzed for the views of residents and MSWM
program operators about the current SWM issues and loopholes, the willingness of
residents to pay for their waste collection and to participate in 3R initiatives. These
surveys will also be analyzed for identifying the current approaches and
opportunities of 3R within the city.
2. MS Excel and SPSS was used to analyze the data obtained from waste
characterization and composition analysis.
3. A conceptual Integrated Solid Waste Management approach was designed after the
analysis of all the relevant data to cope with the current MSWM problems and issues.

23
 Chapter 4

Results and Discussions

This chapter incudes the research findings in order to obtain mentioned objectives in Chapter
1. Data collection of primary and secondary data has been performed through laboratory
tests, field surveys, interviews, observations and literature review. Following the data
collection and analysis on current municipal solid waste management scenarios and the
possibility of adopting 3R approaches an integrated solid waste management plan for Kabul
city is presented as findings of the research. List of all persons contacted for this study is
provided in Appendix G.

4.1 Background Information about Study Area

Kabul city is located between Latitude 34-31' North and Longitude 69-12' East at an altitude
of 1800 m (6000 feet) above sea level, which makes it one of the world's highest
capital cities. Kabul city is strategically situated in a valley surrounded by high mountains
at crossroads of north-south and east-west trade routes. Kabul city is the center of Kabul
province. Until 2006, Kabul city had 16 districts but then 6 more districts were added. The
1 to 16 districts are called as old districts while those 17 to 22 are called as new districts. A
detailed map is provided in Appendix H with district boundaries and the location of the
important sites that are involved in the solid waste management.

Kabul city is estimated to have a total population of 5 million people. Table 4.1 and 4.2
shows the Demographic data for old and new districts respectively. The data shown for old
districts is obtained from Central Statistical Organization (CSO, 2018) but CSO does not
have any data for new districts therefore the data in Table 4.2 is taken from district offices
and the accuracy level can be very low.

At present Kabul city has been divided into 22 districts for administrative purposes. Every
district comes under the direction of main office known as the Kabul Municipality except
district 14. According to the Directorate of Sanitation (DoS), District 14 comes under the
jurisdiction of Paghman city and not Kabul but there has been no signed agreement regarding
this between Ministry of Interior and Kabul Municipality, therefore DoS does not collect
waste from District 14.

4.2 Directorate of Sanitation (DoS)

The Directorate of Sanitation (DoS) in Kabul Municipality is responsible for all the
sanitation activities in cleaning of the city. The daily collection, transportation and disposal
of solid waste from residential areas, commercial areas, institutional areas and all
government organizations are the most vital activities of DoS. The Directorate of Sanitation
is also responsible for cleaning of road drains, main sub sewers, sewage lines and street
sweeping in Kabul city which is mostly done during night time. For solid waste
management, DoS has formed 3 units’ namely Central unit, Transportation unit and District
Offices unit. All these 3 units are bound to report about their progress to Director and Deputy
Director of DoS. The current organizational chart of DoS is given in Figure 4.1. The level
of technical staff for SWM is very low. The DoS currently has no staff that can design and
operate Landfills on International standards. There is no staff for adopting 3R strategies like
recycling, composting and digestion.

24
The total number of officials for administrative work in DoS is 119. Out of the total number,
36 are assigned in the Directorate office, 4 are assigned in Central Unit, 7 are assigned in
Transportation Unit and 72 are assigned into District Offices. On the other hand, the total
number of staff or workers is 3625, from which 768 are allocated in Central Unit, 446 are
allocated in Transportation unit and 2411 are allocated in the District offices. The full details
on the number of officials and number of staff in CU, TU, and DOs is given in Appendix I.

Table 4.1: Population, Number of Household, Commercial Units and Number of

Administrative Units for District 1 to 17

District Population Number of Number of Number of

No (CSO, Household commercial Administrative units
2018) (CSO, 2018) units (District (District Offices)
Offices)
1 105,195 17,886 10,765 42
2 128,111 21,016 8,088 55
3 155,164 25,599 6,607 79
4 330,115 51,983 6,221 68
5 304,738 50,082 10,820 12
6 337,380 57,908 1,778 62
7 403,561 67,185 21 45
8 335,481 51,311 11,918 116
9 290,205 45,834 123 22
10 355,939 59,361 30 60
11 278,580 44,715 6,421 25
12 51,310 7,937 4,023 66
13 235,542 39,462 1,033 18
15 381,091 60,925 1,275 26
16 165,336 27,053 218 40
17 103,739 15,986 466 1
Total 3,961,487 644,243 69,807 737

Table 4.2: Population, Number of Household, Commercial Units and Number of

Administrative Units for District 18 to 22

District Population Number of Number of Number of

No (District Household commercial units Administrative
Offices) (District (District Offices) units (District
Offices) Offices)
18 114,262 1,883 294
19 150,000 25,000 600 13
20 270,000 Not known Not known Not known
21 200,000 22,000 Not known 6
22 360,000 1,630 19 5
Total 1,094,262 50,513 913 24

25
 Directorate of
Sanitation

Executive
Management

Archive Officer Applications Executive

Officer Officer

Technical and Transportation Sanitation Financial and General Division of

Department Department Administrative Department Public Coordination

General Division of General Division of Public Coordination

General Division for Management of General Division of
Private Sector Sanitation of Districts Member
Dumping and Discharge of Solid Waste Central Unit Management
Management
Member
Weighing Officer Member of for Division Division for Member of
Officer at for Private Sanitation for Stray Extension and Central Unit
landfill Dumping Sector in District Dogs Maintenance of Management
Waste Management Offices Control Public Toilets

Stray Dogs Public

Control Toilets’
Officer Maintenance
Officer

Figure 4.1: Organizational chart of Department of Sanitation

26
4.3 Responsibilities of Central Unit, Transporting Unit and District Offices

4.3.1 Responsibilities of central unit

The main responsibilities of Central Unit are as follows:

1. To carry out Reinforcement services and activities based on the needs and demands
of the Government Organizations and people.
2. Monitors the daily activities of the officers appointed to 22 Districts.
3. To allocate the central units workers into different teams (small and large) that
carries out the cleaning services within the city based on a selected plan and
schedule.
4. Monitoring and supervision of the workers’ progress on the cleanliness of the
planned zones.
5. Monitoring the presence of the workers at the planned sites.
6. Active participation in all events related to cleaning of the city.
7. Arranging awareness program for the workers to raise their level of awareness on
the threats that solid waste pose to their health and how the workers can counteract
against these threats.
8. To develop teams of active and fast-paced workers that can perform cleaning
activities in any emergency situation.

4.3.2 Responsibilities of transportation unit

The main responsibilities of transportation unit in the solid waste management Hierarchy
are as following:

1. To arrange the transporting vehicles, transferring vehicles and machineries needed

for any of the 22 districts in Kabul city after taking instructions and commands from
the Director or Deputy Director of DoS.
2. Supply of fuels like diesel and petrol for vehicles on the basis of kilometers covered
by each vehicle.
3. Controlling the different activities of each vehicle at districts level.
4. Reporting to Director and Deputy Director of DoS about the daily activities of the
vehicles.
5. Arranging the measures for cleaning of the transporting vehicles used for solid waste
transferring.
6. To arrange the repairing and renovation of any transportation vehicle (if needed) to
eradicate any delay in the process of solid waste collection.

4.3.3 Responsibilities of district offices

As an effort to effectively collect all the generated waste from the 22 districts of Kabul city
there is a need of solid bonding between Directorate of Sanitation (DoS) and the local people
in each district. To grow this bonding the DoS has appointed one officer to each of the 22
district offices. These officers closely monitor the solid waste collection system, the fleet of
the vehicles and also inspects the problems of the local communities raised from the solid
waste generation. The main responsibilities of these district officers are:

27
 1. Arranging all the sanitation activities at district level.
2. Assigning the number of transporting vehicles and workers to different collection
points within a district based on the amount of generated waste.
3. Arrangement of collection schedule for the waste collection within a district.
4. To constantly interact with the wakeel e Guzar (Head of community in each district)
and listen to their problems.
5. To participate in weekly meetings with the Director of Sanitation Department.
6. Report to Director of Sanitation about the collection of waste and about the problems
that the local communities might be facing from the solid waste.
7. To stop and prevent the people who displaces the trash from the collection points.

4.4 Collection of MSW

According to DoS the generated solid waste is collected from all 22 district except district
14. Currently DoS only collects waste from community bins while there is no door to door
collection or curbside pickup by DoS. Even though the type of waste collected by DoS is
only the municipal waste (shown in Figure 4.2) while clinic waste and industrial waste is
not collected by DoS still some industries and biomedical facilities dump their waste into
community bins and DoS has to transfer that waste into landfill.

Figure 4.2: Municipal solid waste collection by DoS workers

As of September 2018, there are approximately 1973 collection bins in the city. These
collection points are divided into 7 m3 bins, 1 m3 bins and open collection points. From total
of 1973 collection bins, 733 are 7 m3 bins, 1116 are 1 m3 bins and 124 are open collection
points. The district wise number of collection bins is shown in Appendix J. The collection
frequency of each collection bin is once in two days. DoS has appointed one monitoring
officer for each district whose responsibility is to visit the collection bins in each district and
observe if the collection bins are collected according to the schedule or not. The monitoring
officers are given smart phones to take pictures and report the situation of collection bins if
they are empty, full or overflowing with waste. These pictures and reports are submitted to
the Director of Sanitation Department on daily basis to take the proper action.

4.4.1 Collection efficiency

To analyze the collection efficiency of waste in the city, one week data (from Saturday 15th
September till Friday 21st September 2018) was collected and analyzed for the weight of
solid waste transferred to Gazak 2 landfill and the results are provided in Figure 4.3. From
Figure 4.3, it can be seen that during weekdays (Saturday – Wednesday) the solid waste

28
transferring to Gazak 2 is 1738 tonnes/day on average while during weekends (Thursdays
and Fridays is weekend in Kabul) the solid waste transferring is only 448 tonnes/day. The
collection efficiency is much lower on weekends compared to weekdays because most of
the workers do not work on weekends and DoS does not have any shift of workers on
weekends and also during weekends most drivers do not work as they do not have any extra
hour payments. As the per day waste generation is about 3050 tonnes/day in the city, the
collection efficiency during weekdays is 57% while during weekends the collection
efficiency becomes only 14% leaving rest of the waste uncollected around the city. A related
point to consider is that about 200-300 tonnes/day of waste is also collected by the waste
scavengers from different points. Considering the amount of waste collected by scavengers,
the collection efficiency in the city can be estimated at 63% during weekdays.

2500 2278.83

2000
1744.4 1687.47
Tonnes/day

1521.23 1460.41
1500

1000
573.91
500 323.16

Figure 4.3: Amount of waste transferred to Gazak 2 landfill

4.5 Transportation of MSW

The Department of Sanitation, Kabul Municipality currently has a total of 477 vehicles, 384
active and 93 inactive. Out of the 384 active vehicles 374 are used for sanitation purposes
while 10 are served for administrative purposes. The 374 vehicles reserved for sanitation
purposes are mainly open and closed trucks while tankers, bulldozers, excavators and
loaders are also included in this list of vehicles. The vehicles that are assigned for solid waste
transferring are classified based on their carrying capacity. Those vehicles that have a
carrying capacity of 3 tonnes or less than 3 tonnes are ordered to transfer the waste into the
transfer station located in the Department of Sanitation and each of these vehicles on average
can take 5-6 trips per day. The reason of transferring the low loading capacity trucks to
transfer station is that these trucks can take more trips compare to high loading capacity
trucks and therefore collection efficiency can be increased. On the other hand the vehicles
that have a carrying capacity of more than 3 tonnes are ordered to transfer the waste into
Gazak 2 Landfill and the number of trips of each of these vehicles on average is 2 trips per
day. The waste that is transferred to transfer station is loaded into trucks that have loading
capacity of more than 3 tonnes and then taken into Gazak 2 Landfill. The full details of the
vehicles available in DoS are given in Appendix K.

29
4.6 Final Disposal of Solid Waste

There are three disposal sites in Kabul city namely Chamtala disposal site, Gazak 1 disposal
site and Gazak 2 disposal site. The Chamtala and Gazak 1 disposal sites have already ran
out of its capacities and are closed down. Currently only the Gazak 2 landfill is operating
which is located at East of the Kabul city. The municipal waste collected by DoS from all
parts of the city is transferred to Gazak 2 landfill for final disposal. In order to view and
observe the operations of final disposal of waste, on 30/4/2018, a field visit to Gazak 2
landfill took place and the findings of the field visit are given in details below.

The Gazak 2 landfill is located at Latitude 34.48354 and Longitude 69.39832. The disposal
of waste at Gazak 2 landfill started in 2012 when the other two landfills were closed. The
Gazak 2 landfill has an area of around 800 jeribs equivalent to 160 hectares (1 jerib = 0.2
hectares). Out of this 160 hectares around 80 hectares is currently used for waste disposal.
Since the Gazak 2 landfill is situated on Municipality land therefore there is a lot of room
for expansion with approximately 1700 jeribs (340 hectares) of municipal land is available
for expansion of landfill or for installation of MRF facilities etc in the future. 35 workers are
present at the site, 9 ares administrative staff while 26 are for laborious work. The Gazak 2
landfill is equipped with 5 vehicles, including 2 bulldozers, 1 excavator, 1 loader and 1
vehicles for administrative purposes.

According to the officer appointed at Gazak 2 landfill for waste disposal, the average number
of incoming trucks to Gazak 2 landfill on daily basis are around 200-210 trucks and have
capacities from 7 m3 up to 25 m3. A weighing machine was installed at Gazak 2 in 2017 to
weigh the incoming trucks (Shown in Figure 4.4). The incoming trucks are weigh and net
weight of solid waste is calculated after subtracting the total weight from weight of trucks.
The weights of incoming trucks are recorded and a receipt is given to the driver. Since there
is no proper method for disposal of hazardous waste, this waste is disposed in the same way
as the municipal solid waste.

Figure 4.4: Weighing machine weighing truck at Gazak 2 landfill

After the trucks are weighed, the trucks are directed to transfer the waste to the top of the
hill and unfilled the trucks there. The waste that is transferred to landfill is dumped all at
once without any prior separation of recyclables. No waste pickers are allowed to take out
the recyclables due to health and security issues. According to the officer responsible for
waste disposal, after the trucks are emptied, the waste is compacted by the bulldozers and
after each 26 to 16 meters of waste 60 cm of soil is put on the waste to dump it. This method
of dumping with soil can be seen only at some portion of the landfill while it was observe

30
that most of the waste at the landfill is dumped without any soil cover as shown in Figure
4.5.

Figure 4.5: Waste being dumped without any soil cover at Gazak 2 landfill

4.6.1 Leachate generation

Currently there is no treatment of the leachate that is generated at the site. The free flow of
the generated leachate is retained by making ponds. But the ponds are not sanitary either and
the leachate does penetrates to underground water aquifers. The Directorate of Sanitation
DoS is planning to design the Gazak 2 landfill based on Fokuoka Landfill Method but
unfortunately there is no technical staff currently at the DoS to design and operate this
system.

4.6.2 Health issues at Gazak 2 landfill

Since the Gazak 2 landfill is not a sanitary landfill and most of the waste is dumped without
any soil cover therefore it has been posing serious health threats. It was observed during the
visit that the site is a good breeding environment for mosquitoes and stray dogs as shown in
Figure 4.6. It was told during the field visit that the number of these stray dogs at some days
can even go up to more than a thousand. Even though there are no living communities near
the Gazak 2 up to 1 km radius but still those living far has shown many protests over the
years complaining about the odor, mosquitoes and stray dogs that comes from a far to feed
at the landfill. Other than these issues the dumped waste often gets fire during winter season
generating lots of smoke.

Figure 4.6: Stray dogs seen at the Gazak 2 landfill site

31
4.7 Role of Private Sectors in MSW Management

In Kabul city there are numerous small private companies that provide solid waste collection
services but only few of these companies are registered with DoS. For this study 4 of these
private companies were interviewed to assess their waste management system. These
companies mostly collects waste from households and in return charge some amount of
money. The 4 companies that were interviewed charge around 150-200 Afs/month on
average on each household. The collection method of these companies is door to door
collection method. The households are instructed to put their waste in the plastic bags
provided by companies. The workers collects the waste from individual households and load
it into trucks and transfer it to Gazak 2 landfill. The full details of the information collected
from the 5 companies is provided in the Appendix L. Out of the 4 companies interviewed
only one company “Kabul Qadeem Cleaning services” perform segregation of waste after it
is collected from households and then the recyclables are sold to another recycling facility.
While other 3 companies told that they dump all of the waste without any prior segregation
for recyclables.

4.7.1 Door to door collection

Even though there is no door to door collection provided by DoS in Kabul city still there a
major private sector that is providing the door to door collection and charge some amount
of money in return. Table 4.3 shows that out of the total 51,347 HH about 25,982 HH (51%)
are paying 200 Afs per month for their collection services while 8585 HH (17 %) are
willingly paying 150 Afs for their collection services. Table 4.4 shows that a total of 51,347
households (HH) are currently provided with door to door collection by the private sector
and about 426 workers are involved in these services working with 103 major and small
private companies. It is worth mentioning that these figures are collected from district offices
and only those private sector operators are mentioned in the result that are registered with
district offices whereas there might also be other workers that do provide door to door
collection services but are not registered with the district offices and the actual number of
households might be more than reported in Table 4.3.

Out of the 103 private companies reported, only 34 of them transfer waste to Gazak landfill
whereas 60 of them having no big vehicles and are operating only with tricycles therefore
they dump the waste at the municipal collection bins after collecting waste.

Table 4.3: Number of Households based on Monthly Charge

Monthly charge (Afs) Number of households %

100 10880 21
120 1900 4
130 1500 3
150 8585 17
200 25982 51
400 2500 5
Grand Total 51347 100

32
Table 4.4: Number of Households Provided with Door to Door Collection

District Total number of HH collected door to Number of worker

door involved

District 2 1131 14
District 3 1755 43
District 4 7183 93
District 5 13550 76
District 6 6900 36
District 7 2222 25
District 8 2426 16
District 10 8730 69
District 11 3300 30
District 13 1500 12
District 15 2350 8
District 17 300 4
Grand Total 51347 426

4.8 Biomedical Waste Management in Kabul City

The DoS does not collect or transfer any biomedical waste generated at the healthcare
facilities in Kabul city. Most of the Government Hospitals have their own incinerators where
they burn all the biomedical waste that is generated while the private hospitals have
contracted with a private company named as Kamyab Waste Management Services. This
company manages the health care waste generated from the private hospitals. A field visit
to this company on 26/4/2018 took place.

The Kamyab Waste management services was formed in 2014 and operates at all 22
districts. The company collects waste from all the private hospitals and the collection
frequency is 4 times a week. Each hospital facility is charged 150 Afs per kilo of waste
generated for waste collection and transferring. The company has 22 workers for collection
of waste and are divided into teams of 2 members, 1 drivers and 1 collector. About 15 kg of
red colored plastic bags are given to each healthcare facility. The waste is collected and put
into enclosed vehicles and is transferred into waste burning site. Once the waste is
transferred to burning site it is put into a room for storage until burning.

The company currently has 4 incinerators each having a capacity of 500 kgs. The incinerator
consists of 2 chambers. The first chamber is for waste burning while second is for
purification of the smoke generated during the burning. Once a week the waste is loaded
into the incinerator as shown in Figure 4.7. The waste is burnt in the first chamber at 1360
o
C and burning efficiency of the incinerator is about 99.9%.

33
 Figure 4.7: Loading of waste into incinerator

Two private hospitals were also visited and both the hospitals claimed that they give their
medical waste to the Kamyab Company for incineration. Separate bags for storing the
medical waste was present in the hospitals but it was also observed that in the backyard of
these hospitals huge amount of waste was stored mixed with all the MSW (see Figure 4.8).
It is also worth mentioning that the incineration facility of the Kamyab Company was not
operating during the field visit that indicates that these hospitals might be throwing their
medical waste into the municipal bins along with MSW. There is no clear monitoring of
medical waste disposal either by DoS or by the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH).

Figure 4.8: Medical and MSW dumped as mixed waste in hospitals

4.9 Construction and Demolition Waste

The rapid urbanization in Kabul city is rapidly increasing the C&D waste. The main sources
of C&D waste is excavated materials from foundation, and landscaping of the building
constructions and mainly includes pieces of steel bars, stone and brick blocks, wood, soil and
dirt. There is no proper management of the C&D waste. Some of the observed management
approaches are as under.

 The Pieces of steel bars are always sold to the factories where these pieces are melted
down and recycled.
 The wood waste that is not reusable is sold to people that use wood for cooking
purposes or use for heating purposes during winters.

34
  The stone blocks, brick blocks, soil and dirt waste is merely used for filling of
buildings. If not use for filling then the construction owner pays the private trucks
owner to transfer the waste away from the city. These truck drivers transfer this waste
to the rural areas and dump in the flood ways to stop flood water flowing into the
agricultural fields. But this approach is not followed by all the construction owners.
Most of the time this type of waste is dumped into the municipal bins or ends up in
the drainage ways (see Figure 4.9). The soil and dirt that ends up in the drainage
ways blocks the water flow during heavy rains and results into urban floods.

Figure 4.9: Soil and dirt extracted from a drainage

4.10 Good Initiatives and Unsuitable Practices of Waste Management

Every system is comprised of its suitable and unsuitable practices that either makes the
system successful or failure. In this part of the report some of the good initiatives and
unsuitable practices in line of waste management is discussed.

4.10.1 Good initiatives of waste management

i. Awareness Programs Initiated by DoS

Currently the Kabul citizens’ awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) is at very low
level. Even though the residents are well aware of the problems that ineffective SWM can
cause but still the residents are not willing to participate in any effective waste management
systems. Not only there is no segregation of waste at source but also the residents dispose
their waste at locations that are not authorized collection points from the Department of
Sanitation (DoS). The DoS is constantly trying to alert the citizens to eradicate all the
problems that the citizens cause in line of SWM. The DoS repetitively and continually
interacts with the Wakeel e Guzar (head of communities) in each district so that these head
of communities can convey the waste management approaches from DoS to residents. The
DoS also convey these awareness programs through Sermon in Mosques, television ads,
social media plateform, and posters.

35
To implement the culture of waste segregation at source, DoS started an awareness program
in 1st Makroyan area in May 2018. The DoS workers visited around 1801 households and
briefed about 10,000 residents on how to segregate their waste into 2 categories of wet waste
and dry waste. After the campaigns, 8 collection points were prepared in the 1st Makroyan
area to receive the segregated waste from these households. At each of the collection point
10 bins were placed (8 for wet waste and 2 for dry waste, as according to the DoS staff wet
waste is more than the dry waste) and at each of the collection point 1 worker of DoS was
appointed to make sure people dump their waste into the right bins (see Figure 4.10-A).
During a visit to 1st Makroyan area on 7 October, 2018, it was observed that at most of the
collection bins the waste is still not segregated and the waste is dumped as mixed waste into
the bins (see Figure 4.10-B). While talking to some of the residents in the area, it was told
that most these residents do not have separate bins at household level to segregate waste at
source therefore they have to throw their waste as mix waste and they also added that for
making this segregation campaign a successful one, DoS must provide separate bins or
plastic bags for the households as this will be a good motivation and incentive for the people.

Figure 4.10-A: Green color (for Figure 4.10-B: Dry waste

wet waste) and blue color (for dry dumped in green color bin
waste) bins for waste segregation

ii. Installation of GPS Tracks in DoS Vehicles

In 2015, the Department of Sanitation of Kabul Municipality installed GPS tracks in all of
its active vehicles to monitor the travelling routes of vehicles. This GPS installation has
helped to reduce the stealing of fuel by the vehicle drivers which was very high before the
GPS trackers. A screen shot of the vehicles travel route is provided below. Figure 4.11 The
map shows the travel routes of the vehicle starting from DoS (Department of Sanitation)
reaching to CP (Collection point). In the Map R1 indicates Route 1 taken by vehicle to reach
Gazak 1 landfill while R2 indicates Route 2 taken by vehicle to reach back DoS back from
Gazak. After installation of GPS trackers in 2015, fuel consumption at DoS dropped to an
astounding 30% (equivalent to a drop from 720,000 liters to 23,000 liters of diesel per month)
due to complete transparency and no scope for fuel theft through false manual reporting. This
updated system was estimated to have saved DoS 352 million Afs or $5.2 million in one year.
A partial amount of these savings was allocated by Kabul municipality to DOS in 2017 for
capital costs such as purchase of additional vehicles as well as operations and maintenance
costs related to solid waste management.

36
 Figure 4.11: GPS map of the vehicles’ route

iii. Ban on the use of Plastic Bags

Kabul city has numerous numbers of bread shop since people buy bread for their 3 time
meals. These bread are given to people in single used plastic bags (single used light-weight
polyethylene plastic bag, less than 35 microns in thickness). Recently the Directorate of
Sanitation put ban on the use of plastic bags in these bread shops and instead the vendors
are instructed to either use paper bags or cloth bags.

iv. Replacing the Open Collection Points with Bins

Before July, 2018, Kabul city had about 779 open collection points where citizens would
dump their waste and had caused serious health and aesthetics threats in the city. In July,
2018, DoS changed 655 of these open collection points with 7m3 and 1m3 collection bins
and now there are only 124 open collection points. DoS is planning to change the remaining
open collection points with proper collection bins in the near future.

4.10.2 Unsuitable practices of waste management

Even though the solid waste management in Kabul city has improved significantly in the
last couple of years but still there are many problems and unsuitable practices that are
causing barriers in line of an effective waste management. Some of these unsuitable
practices are discussed in details below:

i. The residents of the city often through their waste on the roads and walkways and
this waste ends up in the sewage line shown in Figure 4.12 that blocks the easy flow
water and often results in heavy urban floods during rainy season.

ii. At most of the collection points, people throw their waste next to the collection bins
as shown in Figure 4.13 instead of throwing it into the collection bins, so the DoS
have to appoint extra workers to put this waste into collection bins.

37
 Figure 4.12: Solid waste dump in the drainage line

Figure 4.13: Waste being dumped outside the bin by residents

iii. If we consider the total population of the city about 5 million and the total number
of workers in the Sanitation department is 3625. It shows that 1 worker provides
services for about 1380 people, which is much higher than other cities in the world.
It is also worth mentioning that most of the workers are old, weak and are not
enthusiastic towards their work.

iv. At many collection points the construction and demolition waste is mixed with other
municipal waste and during rain this turns into mud and the recyclable materials like
plastic, paper and glass losses its quality and the recyclable facilities loss their
interest in these materials.

v. At some points in the city people burns their waste as shown in Figure 4.14 that has
posed a huge threat on the air quality of the city.

38
 Figure 4.14: Solid waste burned at different areas in Kabul city

4.11 Gaps in the Current Status of Waste Management

Currently there are several positive steps taken by the Directorate of Sanitation (DoS) for
effective management of Solid waste. The installation of GPS trackers in the transferring
vehicles, segregation campaigns and policies for banning of single used plastic bags are
some of these efforts. But these campaigns and policies have not proven to be much
successful. Since in the modern era, adequate solid waste management is entirely based on
the adaptation of source segregation, reduction, and recycling but unfortunately Kabul city
have not been able to adapt any of these. Even though the recycling of waste up to some
extent does exist but due to absence of segregation of waste, most of the recyclables lose
their values. Furthermore in the last decade no study have been carried out to identify the
composition of the generated waste that can help in understanding what recycling
opportunities exist in the city. No attention has been given to bring reforms in the policy for
construction and demolition waste and medical waste. And there is no proper bonding
between the stakeholders that are involved in the waste management like the ministries,
recycling facilities owners, informal waste pickers etc. Although the solid waste
management in the city has improved in the last few years but still the city lacks an Integrated
Solid Waste Management (ISWM) plan that aims at the promotion and adaptation of 3R,
law and policy for waste generators and waste managers and to develop a cost recovery
system so that all costs of the ISWM plan can be recovered effectively.

4.12 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in Kabul City

4.12.1 per capita waste generation

The per capita waste generation for Kabul city was analyzed by collecting a total of 600
waste samples from households in 3 different districts including of District 3, 5 and 10. The
600 households were divided into 200 high income households, 200 middle income
households and 200 low income households. Figure 4.15 shows the average per capita waste
generation for all 3 strata. While the full data analysis for 600 households is provided in
Appendix M.

From Figure 4.15, it is clear that high income households generate the highest amount of
waste with 0.81 kg/capita/day, followed by middle income households with 0.61
kg/capita/day and with low income households generating the least amount of waste with
0.41 kg/capita/day. The average per capita generation is calculated to be 0.61 kg/capita/day.
According to Azad (2015), the estimated per capita waste generation was 0.4 kg/day but the

39
analysis of this study shows that the average per capita waste generation is 0.61 kg/day in
2018, this shows the per capita waste generation has increased by 0.21 kg/day in just 3 years’
time. The reason in this increase is a result of economic growth in the city and the increased
use of packaging materials.

0.9
0.8

kg/capita/day
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
High Income Middle Income Low Income
Households Households Households
Solid waste kg/capita/day 0.81 0.61 0.41

Figure 4.15: Average per capita waste generation of Kabul city

According to Kumar et al., (2017) the per capita waste generation in Delhi and Hyderabad
is 0.41 kg/capita/day and 0.54 kg/capita/day respectively. This indicates that per capita waste
generation (0.61 kg/capita/day) of Kabul city is higher than these mentioned cities (see
Figure 4.16). According to (PCD, 2015), the per capita waste generation in Bangkok is 0.82
kg/capita/day higher than Kabul city’s 0.61 kg/capita/day. Since Bangkok has more high
income level households therefore the per capita generation is higher than Kabul which
mostly has middle income and low income households. If only the high income households
of Kabul city is compared with Bangkok it can be seen in Figure 4.15 that the waste
generation is almost the same with 0.81 kg/capita/day (Kabul city) and 0.82 kg/capita/day
(Bangkok city).

0.9
0.8
0.7
kg/capita/day

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Kabul Delhi Hyderabad Bangkok
kg/capita/day 0.61 0.41 0.54 0.82

Figure 4.16: Per capita waste generation among different cities

40
4.12.2 Total waste generation

Since Kabul city is estimated to have a population of 5 million people. With an average per
capita generation of 0.61 kg/day, the total municipal solid waste generation is about 3050
tonnes/day. According to Haidaree and Lukumwena, (2017), in 2020 the per day waste
generation in Kabul city was estimated to 2563 tonnes per day with per capita of 0.5 kg/day.
From the analysis done for this study it can be seen that the waste generation in 2018 is
already more than the estimated values for 2020.

4.12.3 Composition and characteristics of MSW

A successful solid waste management system is majorly dependent on adaptation of 3R

approaches and adaptation of 3R approaches cannot be successful without knowing the
Composition and Characteristics (C&C) of the generated waste. Almost no efforts have been
done in past to understand the (C&C) of the generated waste that will help to identify the
best 3R approaches for waste management of Kabul city. Due to this, the (C&C) of the
Kabul city’s waste was analyzed by collecting a total of 606 samples from 5 different strata
including high income households, middle income households, low income households,
commercial units and a clinic facility and the samples were collected from Karte Sakhi area
of District 3.

i. Composition of Mix Solid Waste

From the waste composition analysis (Figure 4.17-C) it was analyzed that the Food waste
(food, fruit and vegetables) has the highest composition (49.4%), but the composition for
the two different periods is slightly different, with the Ramadan period is 45% and the none-
Ramadan period at 52.4% (see Figure 4.17-A and 4.17-B). The food waste in the Middle
East countries increases during the month of Ramadan. Food waste in Bahrain exceeds 400
tonnes per day during the Holy month (Zafar, 2018). The reason for the increase of food
waste in these countries is because of the extravagant iftar parties, humongous food charities
for the thousands of foreign workers and also most of the people in these countries tends to
eat fresh food rather than eating the leftover food from the previous day. But in case of Kabul
city, the scenario is slightly different compared to other countries. Since most of the people
in Kabul are middle and low income people therefore the extent of these iftar parties and
food charities are small and most of the people do use the leftover food rather than throwing
it away. One other major reason is that in Ramadan period people only consume food 2 times
a day (before sunrise and after sunset) and do not consume during daytime and since for this
study samples were collected from premises like universities, offices, workshops etc that
operate only during day time hence there were no food waste from these premises during
Ramadan that might have affected the overall percentage of food waste generation in the
month of Ramadan. Therefore the none-Ramadan period composition (52.4%) is much more
workable compare to Ramadan period (45%) as Ramadan period is only for one month
during whole year.

After food waste, the next highest composition is that of Paper (Hard) and Plastic (Hard)
with 12.3% and 9.6% composition respectively. The soft paper and soft plastic have 8% and
7.4% composition respectively. The soft paper mostly comes from offices, schools and
university. The soft plastic mainly comes from the plastic bags used for groceries and
shopping etc.

41
According to Koottatep (2016), the solid waste of Bangkok city comprises of 11.4 % paper and
18.1 % plastic, compared to this the composition of paper in Kabul city at 20.3% (both hard and
soft paper) is much higher than Bangkok city. Even though the composition of plastic waste in
Kabul city is 17.4% (both hard and soft) which is less than Bangkok city but considering the
economic conditions of both cities, Kabul is generating Plastic waste at high proportion. The
Main reason for this high generation of waste is that most of the businesses in Kabul city use
paper and plastic as packaging materials and there is almost no reuse or recycling done by
these businesses. Therefore these businesses produce more and more paper and plastic and
have resulted in high percentage of waste.

The waste composition provided by the (World Bank, 2016) is very different from the
composition obtained for this study. The World Bank, (2016) states that the waste comprises
of 30% sludge, 25% organic, and 12% building materials, 11% plastic, 3% bottles, 1% glass
and 18% others. But the report does not mention the point whether the samples were
collected from households before any prior scavenger activities or from collection points
where some scavenging of waste might have taken place.

Yard Waste , Textile , 0.9%

2.1% Hazardous
Aluminium Can , Waste , 1.8%
4.1%
Inert , 1.6% Other , 0.5%
Glass - Non-
Packaging , 0.1%

Glass -
Packaging , 3.3%

Plastic - Soft ,
8.0%

Food, Fruit,
Plastic - Hard , Vegetables ,
10.6% 45.0%
Paper - Soft ,
8.8%
Paper - Hard ,
13.2%

Figure 4.17-A: Composition of mix waste in Ramadan period (5th – 11th June 2018)

42
 Aluminium Can , Yard Waste , Hazardous Waste
3.3% 1.5% , 1.7%
Textile , Inert , 1.2%
0.7%

Glass - Non-
Glass - Packaging , 0.1% Other , 0.4%
Packaging , 3.0%

Plastic - Soft ,
6.9%

Plastic - Hard , Food, Fruit,

9.6% Vegetables ,
52.4%
Paper - Soft ,
7.5%
Paper - Hard ,
11.7%

Figure 4.17-B: Composition of mix waste in None-Ramadan period (24th – 30thth June
2018

Yard Waste , Textile , 0.8%

Aluminium Can , 1.7% Hazardous Waste
3.6% , 1.7%
Inert , 1.4%
Glass - Non-
Packaging , 0.1%
Other , 0.4%

Glass -
Packaging , 3.1%
Plastic - Soft ,
7.4%

Food, Fruit,
Plastic - Hard , Vegetables ,
10.0% 49.4%
Paper - Soft ,
8.0%

Paper - Hard ,
12.3%

Figure 4.17-C: Composition of mix waste in 14 days total

The results shown in Figure 4.18 shows that food waste has highest percentage of
composition in all strata. High income households and middle income households have high
percentage of food waste (57%) compared to low income households (47%), commercial
units (44%), Clinic (38%). Commercial units usually have more food waste generation. If
the food waste composition for the commercial units is analyzed for the Ramadan and the
none-Ramadan period it can be seen that in the Ramadan period food waste composition is
very low (28%) compared with the none-Ramadan period (51%). This low percentage of
food waste during Ramadan is basically because restaurants are the major food waste

43
generators in Kabul city and in Ramadan period almost all the restaurants are closed and
offices and businesses that only operates during the day time are not consuming food.

Among the 5 strata commercial units have highest percentage of paper and plastic generation
compare to households and clinic facility. This is because commercial units like schools,
administrative offices, and restaurants consumes a lot of paper and plastic products. Since
high and middle income households are mostly concrete buildings and have less greenery,
soils and inert while low income households are mostly non-concrete buildings with
greenery, soils and inert. Therefore the composition of Yard waste (9%) and inert (5%) in
lower income households is much higher compare to composition of yard waste and inert at
high and middle income households which is almost 0%. From the composition analysis it
is analyzed that hazardous waste is only generated at clinic facility at (27%) while in
households the percentage of hazardous waste is (0%).

The full details of composition of each strata is provided separately in Appendix N.

44
 Aluminum Yard Waste Textile Aluminum Yard Waste Hazardous
Can 0% 1% Hazardous 0% Textile Waste
Can 2%
Glass - 4% Waste 3% 0%
Packaging 0% Glass - Inert
1% Packaging 2%
3%
Plastic - Soft
9% Plastic - Soft
Plastic - Hard 6%
10% Food, Fruit, Food, Fruit,
Vegetables Plastic - Hard
Paper - Soft Vegetables
58% 11%
5% Paper - Hard 57%
Paper - Soft
12%
5% Paper - Hard
11%
Figure 4.18-A: Hincome households (%) (mix Figure 4.18-B: Middle income households (%)
waste) (mix waste)

Yard Waste
Textile Hazardous
Aluminum 9%
0% Waste
Can 0%
3% Inert
5%
Glass -
Packaging
3%
Food, Fruit,
Plastic - Soft Vegetables
6% 48%
Plastic - Hard
12%
Paper - Soft
5% Paper - Hard
9%
Figure 4.18-C: Low income households (%)
(mix waste)

45
 Textile Hazardous
Aluminum Yard Waste Waste
0%
Can 1% 1% Inert
4% 1%
Glass -
Packaging
3%
Plastic - Soft
8% Food, Fruit,
Plastic - Hard Vegetables
10% 44%

Paper - Soft
12%
Paper - Hard
16%
Figure 4.18-D: Commercial units (%) (mix
waste)
Inert
Hazardous Waste 1%
27%
Textile
0% Food, Fruit,
Vegetables
Yard Waste 38%
0%

Aluminum Can
1%
Plastic - Soft Paper - Hard
Glass - Packaging 5% 5%
12% Paper - Soft
Plastic - Hard
8%
3%

Figure 4.18-E: Clinic facility (%) (mix waste)

46
 ii. Density of Mix Waste

Table 4.5 shows that the average bulk density of mix waste is 221 kg/m3. Since there is huge
percentage of paper and plastic present in the waste it has decreased the density of the waste.
There is need for compaction during collection and disposal of waste to reduce the volume
of waste.

Among all strata high income households have highest density while commercial units have
the lowest density. The lowest density of commercial waste is due to the fact that in Ramadan
period paper and plastic made up a higher composition since there was little or no food
waste. The full data analysis of density is shown in Appendix O-1.

According to Tchobanoglous et al., 1997, the density of solid waste resides between 150-
300 kg/m3 if measured loosely (none-compact waste) and 300-500 kg/m3 if compacted
waste is measured. Since the density analysis for this study was done on the none-
compacted waste, therefore the density of waste is found to be very low.

Furthermore, low bulk density of waste can once again be related to packaging wastes like
plastic, and paper which are loosely packed - hence the mass per volume unit is low. If the
density of MSW is low, it is shown that open non-compacting trucks are not suitable for the
collection of municipal solid waste. It also indicates that if the waste is simply dumped in the
landfills without compaction, the life of the landfill would be significantly reduced.

Table 4.5: Average Bulk Density of Mix Waste

Density (kg/m3) Density (kg/m3) Average

Strata (Ramadan (None-Ramadan Density
Period) Period) kg/m3)
High income
280 280 280
households
Middle income
240 230 235
Households
Low income households 210 200 205
Commercial units 130 200 165
Average Bulk Density (kg/m3) 221

iii. Moisture Content of Mix Waste

Moisture contents of solid waste varies between 15 to 40% depending on the composition
of the waste and season of the year (Chandrappa and Das, 2012). Moisture content analysis
is important for leachate estimation and composting. The Mix waste of Kabul city is
comprised of 40% moisture content shown in Figure 4.19. Since the mix solid waste is
composed of high amount of dry waste therefore the moisture content is low. Since High
income households have the high percentage of waste therefore moisture content is highest
in high income households. The full data of Moisture content analysis is provided in
Appendix O-2.

47
 46
44
42
40
38

MC %
36
34
32
High Middle Low
Commercial
income income income
units
households Households households
Moisture Content (%) 44 40 37 37

Figure 4.19: Moisture content analysis of mix waste

4.12.4 Food waste generation

Food Waste is currently a major problem in Kabul city. As it was analyzed in Figure 4.17-
B that 52.4 % of total waste generated (None-Ramadan period) in Kabul city is food waste
therefore with a total municipal solid waste generation of 3050 tonnes/day, the per day food
waste generation is 1598 tonnes/day or 0.58 million tonnes/year. Since the average per capita
waste generation in Kabul city is 0.61 kg/capita/day, with 52.4 % of that is comprised of
food waste. The average per capita food waste generation in Kabul city is calculated to be
0.31 kg/capita/day or 113.15 kg/capita/year. According to Dung et al., 2014, the per capita
food waste production in the developed countries is about 107kg FW/capita/year, while in
the developing countries it is about 56 kg FW/capita/year. Kabul city’s residents are
generating way more food waste compare to Europe and South/South-East Asian countries,
even though there are residents that are unable to find meal for three times a day. According
to Hettiarachchi et al., 2018, the per capita food waste generation in Middle East countries
is about 238 kg/capita/year (see Figure 4.20). This indicates that the overall food waste
generation in Kabul city is much lower than the Middle East countries and also provides a
reason for food waste decrease of Kabul city in Ramadan as compared to the Middle East
countries where the food waste generation increases in Ramadan

250

200
kg/capita/year

150

100

50

0
Developed Developing
Kabul city Middle East
Countries Countries
Food Waste generation
113.15 107 56 238
(kg/capita/year)

Figure 4.20: per capita food waste generation

48
4.12.5 Composition of food waste

Figure 21 shows that food waste is composed of vegetables and vegetable products at
highest percentage (25%) followed by fruits and fruits products at (22%). This highest
percentage of vegetables and fruits are the main reason many of the informal scavengers
collects the food waste and feed it to the livestock. Rice waste at (18%) is mainly generated
at high income households and restaurants from commercial units. 7% meat and poultry and
6% bones in the food waste often attracts stray dogs into different collection points of the
city. The overall composition of food waste indicates that the food waste is highly organic
and suitable for composting facilities. This food waste composition can be a good feed stock
for anaerobic digestion as well. The detailed composition of food waste is given in
Appendix P.

Sugars and Sweet Nuts and Seeds

Milk Products
products 4%
3%
1% Miscellaneous
Eggs and Egg 1%
shelves
3%
Fruits and Fruits
Bones Products
6% 22%

Meat and poultry

7%
Vegetables and
Rice Vegetables
18% Products
25%
Cereal and Cereal
products
10%

Figure 4.21: Composition of food waste in 14 days total

4.12.6 Characteristics of food waste

Since food waste comprise the highest percentage of waste in Kabul city with 52% therefore
there is a need to adopt the best technology for food waste management. For adopting the
best technology, it was needed to analyze the following important parameters of food waste
based on which the best technology will be proposed for food waste management. These
parameters can also be helpful in design considerations of the proposed technology.

i. Density of food waste

The average density of food waste shown in Appendix Q-1 is 320 kg/m3, higher than that
of mix waste which is 221 kg/m3. This indicates that the density is highly affected by the
dry waste (which is mostly the packaging materials).

49
 ii. Moisture content of food waste

Foods are composed of nothing in greater amount than water. The moisture content of food
waste is usually high that makes food waste easily biodegradable. Characteristics of food
waste mainly depends on eating habits. Figure 2.22 shows that moisture content of food
waste for a 10 days average is about 77.1% and this moisture can result into leachate once
it is disposed at a landfill site. According to (Zhang et al., 2007), the moisture content of
food waste ranges form 74-90% making the food waste suitable for degradation by anaerobic
microorganisms. Since moisture content of Kabul city’s food waste is high, the
bioconversion technologies such as anaerobic digestion but according to (Chandrappa and
Das, 2012), the suitable moisture content for composting is 50-60% therefore some materials
such as garden waste should be added with the food before composting it. The detailed
calculations are provided in Appendix Q-2.

84
82
80
78
MC %

76
74
72
70
68
66
10- 11- 24- 25- 26- 27- 30-
5-Jun- 6-Jun- 9-Jun-
Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun-
18 18 18
18 18 18 18 18 18 18
MC % 75.9 77.8 81.2 72.7 82.7 72.2 74.9 77.9 77 78.7

Figure 4.22: Moisture content analysis of food waste

iii. pH of food waste

For adapting any conversion technology for food waste it is very important to analyze the
pH of food waste. The average pH of food waste was observed to 5.76. Appendix Q-3 shows
the detailed calculations for pH analysis. Methanogenic bacteria are more sensitive to pH
change than acidogenic bacteria therefore pH play a vital role in anaerobic digestion.
Feeding of food waste should not be done if the pH is lower than 6.5 which is optimum
range for methanogenic bacteria. According to (Mata-Alverza, 2003), for high biogas yield
and stable AD process the optimum pH lies in the range of (6.5-7.5). If the pH of food waste
is lower than 6.5 (like pH of Kabul city’s food waste) therefore lime and Sodium bicarbonate
(NaHCO3) can be used for raising the pH (Igoni et al., 2008). Sodium Bicarbonate can be a
better option compare to lime since lime can result into clogging of pipes.

4.13 Recycling of Waste in Kabul City

4.13.1 Scavenging of waste

The first step of recycling is scavenging of waste through local scavengers in the city. The
scavenging in the city is carried out for so many years through local scavengers mainly by
children, old aged men or drug addicts that are forced to scavenge because they are unable

50
to find any other suitable source for a better living. There are some professional scavengers
in the city as well that scavenge waste because of the good financial opportunities in waste
scavenging. These scavengers have their own four wheels, three wheels, or two wheel carts
to collect waste. The scavengers mainly collects waste from door-to-door of households,
Municipality collection bins, transfer station and possibly landfill. The exact number of
scavengers in the city is unknown but the Department of Sanitation (DoS) estimates that
there might be around 2000 to 2500 scavengers in the city collecting about 200-305 tonnes
of waste per day from the city. Since per day municipal solid waste generation in the city is
3050 tonnes and about 200-300 tonnes per day is scavenged. The percentage of scavenged
waste is 7-10 % of total generated waste. Figure 4.23 shows the flow of scavenged waste.

Waste pickers scavenging waste

Selling Recyclables Selling Food waste

to Junk shops to livestock

Selling
Recyclables to
recyclers

Recycled into
new product

Figure 4.23: Waste flow through scavenging

51
4.13.2 Selling of food waste

Once the food waste is scavenged from around the city, it is then sold out to livestock
facilities to be fed to livestock. Figure 4.24 shows that sheep are fed the food waste and it
can also be seen that a large amount of plastic waste is present with this food waste that are
eaten by the sheep. There are hundreds of other such facilities in the city that feeds food
waste to their livestock. Even though this technique helps to eradicate the chances of food
waste being dumped in the landfill but not segregating the food waste from plastic waste
and feeding food waste with plastic waste often results in to health issues of the livestock.

Figure 4.24: Food waste served to livestock

4.13.3 Selling of other recyclable waste to informal recycling facilities

Recyclable waste like plastic, paper, glass bottles, aluminum can etc are sold by scavengers
to the informal recycling facilities locally called as kabar khana (shops that buy waste for
scavengers and pay them some amount of money). For this study some of these shops were
surveyed to identify the type and price of recyclable materials that they buy from scavengers
and sell to other recycling facilities. The different types of waste and its average prices are
given in below Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 indicates that there is a market value for all the recyclable materials except LDPE
especially the single used plastic bags that do not have any buyers right now in the market,
therefore this type of plastic waste is usually not collected by the scavengers. Other than that
all the waste that comprises the main composition of waste has a market value. Also it was
observed that all the recyclable waste is sold to recycling facilities inside the city except
glass bottles that are sold to facilities outside the city.

52
Table 4.6: Types and Average Price of Recyclable Materials in Kabul City

Type of waste Middle End Estimated Sell to

Buyer/junk User/recyclers profit (per
shops (price/tonne) tonne)
(price/tonne)
Food, Fruit 5000 Afs 9000 Afs 4000 Afs Livestock facilities
and ($66.2) ($119.2) ($53)
Vegetables
Paper 3000 Afs 6000 Afs 3000 Afs Recycling facilities
($39.7) ($79.47) ($39.77) inside the city
PET and 10,000 Afs 22000 Afs 12,000 Afs Recycling facilities
HDPE bottles ($132.4) ($291.39) ($98.99) inside the city
Aluminum 65,000 Afs 82000 Afs 17,000 Afs Recycling facilities
cans ($860.9) ($1086) ($225.1) inside the city
Glass bottles 25,000 Afs 40000 Afs 15,000 Afs facilities outside the
($331.1) ($529.8) ($198.7) city

The calculation for cost in USD was done based on the Afghanis (Afs) to Dollar ($)
conversion rate on 21/9/2018 which was 75.5 Afs to 1 dollar. Table 4.7 shows that if food
waste, paper waste, PET and HDPE bottles, aluminum cans and glass bottles are sold on
daily basis to the recycling facilities instead of ending up in landfill, it can create an
estimated profit of about USD 181,954/day. It is worth mentioning that the profit shown in
the Table 4.7 is not the real profit as the cost of transportation, salaries of waste pickers etc
will be subtracted from this total profit.

Table 4.7: Estimated Profit for the Total Waste Generated

Type of waste Estimated profit (per Weight Total Estimated

tonne) $ (tonnes) profit/day ($)
Food Waste 53 1598 84,694
Paper 39.77 619 24,617
PET and HDPE 98.99 305 30,191
bottles
Aluminum Cans 225.1 94.5 21,271
Glass bottles 198.7 109.8 21,817
Total 182,590

4.13.4 Recycling facilities in Kabul City

In the recent years, huge numbers of industries have been built in Kabul city. Most of these
industries import the raw materials from outside of Afghanistan but there are some industries
that use recyclable materials as their raw material for production. Industries like toilet and
tissue paper making industry uses paper waste as their raw material, Pipe industry uses
plastic waste as their raw material. These industries buy waste from the waste shops (kabar
Khana) and uses simple technology for recycling of waste. Some of these industries were
visited as part of this study to analyze the type of waste and the processes used to recycle
these waste into new products and the details are given in Appendix R.

53
These are small scale industries with basic technologies and the workers in these industries
do not use any protective equipment and are exposed to health issues. These industries often
does not expose to their customers that these products are made of recycled materials
because according to the owners the customers does not show too much interest in products
made of recycled materials.

4.13.5 Barriers and constraints for 3R

Even though 3R is still a relatively new idea in Kabul city but people are slowly and
gradually adopting 3R concepts. There are a number of barriers and constraints that create
obstacles in the adaptation of 3R concepts.

i. Though most of the residents of Kabul city are well aware of the consequences of
increasing waste and the 3R concepts that can help reduce these consequences, still
the resident’s willingness to actively participate in 3R programs is relatively low and
needs to be enhanced.
ii. The different initiatives started by different organizations to reduce waste generation
like ban on plastic use, source segregation programs etc might not be sufficient.
Without the implementation of waste charging which is a crucial policy tool in waste
reduction, most of the people ignores such bans.
iii. Low price and high transportation cost for the recycled materials has restricted the
recycling rate of waste in Kabul city.
iv. Lack of knowledge of people of not knowing which materials can be recycled and
which material can be sold to scavengers.
v. Almost no attention has been given to the scavengers from the Government and non-
government organizations. As almost all the scavengers are facing serious health and
financial issues therefore no resident willingly starts the scavenging of waste until
they are financially forced to do so. This results in the decreasing interest of people
towards scavenging of waste.
vi. Lack of market demand is also a major constraint to 3R. As mentioned above there
are numerous numbers of industries that do recycle waste to produce new product
but the customers are not told that these are made of recycled waste as it will lose its
value
vii. Technological barriers can also be a main barriers in 3R adaptation. Lack of technical
staff to operate and maintain recycling technologies is a major reason that the
investors are not willing to invest in big recycling technologies. The owners of the
industries that were visited for this study mentioned that they are willing to invest
more in advanced technologies for recycling but there are no technical staff that can
operate and maintain those technologies.
viii. The predominance of small and medium recovery and recycling enterprises
discourages investments in waste recovery technologies.

4.14 Questionnaire Survey Analysis

The questionnaire survey conducted from 300 households (100 surveys from high income
households, 100 surveys form middle income households and 100 surveys from low income
households) and 100 commercial units. The analysis of the questionnaire surveys is provided
in the following sections.

54
4.14.1 Respondents’ awareness about 3R

Figure 4.25 shows that out of the 400 respondents surveyed for this study, 63 % (252
respondents) admitted that they are aware of the 3R approaches and the potential paybacks
that these approaches possess while 31 % (124 respondents) admitted that they have no
knowledge of 3R approaches.

not sure
6%

No
31%
Yes
63%

Figure 4.25: Respondents’ response to know about 3R approaches

Although 63 % of the respondents admitted that they know about 3R activities and its
benefits but small percentage of respondents admitted that they take part in any 3R activities.
Figure 4.26 shows that only 2 % (8 respondents) compost their food waste, 15 % (60
respondents) feed the food waste to animals while remaining 83 % (332 respondents)
admitted that they throw their food waste mixed with other municipal waste into municipal
collection bins. Similarly Figure 4.27 shows that 8 % (32 respondents) collect the recyclable
waste for reuse, 20 % (80 respondents) admitted to sell the recyclable waste to buyers
whereas remaining 72 % (288 respondents) admitted that they throw these type of waste into
the municipal collection bins. It is worth mentioning that out of the 400 households
surveyed, source segregation of waste takes place in those households only that do
composting, feed food waste to animals, sell to buyers or collect for reuse. These figures
prove the main obstacle for adaptation of 3R in the city that even though most of the residents
are well aware of 3R and the benefits within it. Yet only limited numbers of residents are
actually willing to adopt to 3R approaches.

Feed to Collect
animals for
15% reuse
8%
Compost
2% Throw Sell to
Throw away as
away as buyers
mix 20%
mix waste
waste 72%
83%

Figure 4.26: Respondents’ Figure 4.27: Respondents’

response to their food waste response to their recyclable waste
management (paper, plastic, cans etc)
management

55
Figure 4.28 shows that 58 % (232 respondents) admitted that there are buyers for recycling
products while 25 % (100 respondents) responded that there are no buyers for recycling
products and the waste scavengers scavenged the waste for free from the municipal bins.
During discussions with the respondents, many of the respondents admitted that they do not
sell their waste to buyers and throw their waste as mixed waste because they do not want the
buyers to visit their households due to the security reasons and cultural reasons. Since the
waste buyers often roam around the localities during day time when most of the men are at
jobs and it is not allowed to the females to go out and sell the waste to the buyers.

Figure 4.29 shows that 81 % (324 respondents) agreed to participate in waste segregation
programs but they also suggested that there should be awareness programs for them to better
understand on how to segregate waste into different categories.

Not sure Not sure

17% 11%
Disagree
8%

Yes Agree
No 58% 81%
25%

Figure 4.28: Respondents’ Figure 4.29: Respondents’

response to whether there are response to participation in waste
buyers for recycling products segregation at households/offices

4.14.2 Respondents’ opinions on solid waste management

Figure 4.30 illustrates the satisfaction level of the respondents on the services provided by
the Directorate of Sanitation (DoS) in the city. Out the 400 respondents, only 41 % (164
respondents) are highly satisfied with the current services, 45 % (180 respondents) are less
satisfied and admits that the services have improved in the recent times but there are still
some issues that needs to be addressed. 14 % (56 respondents) are dissatisfied with the
services and admitted that the services have not improved in the recent times.

Figure 4.31 illustrates that 80 % (320 respondents) agreed that municipality should
introduce tax for the solid waste collection as this will make both the people and the
municipality responsible and will help improve the solid waste management better. 15 %
(60 respondents) disagreed on the implementation of tax.

Figure 4.32 shows that commercial units were the most agreed stratum for introduction of
tax for solid waste with 28 % (90 respondents out of 320 respondents agreed to introduce
tax) while low income households showed significant disagreement with 34 % (20
respondents out of 60 respondents that showed disagreement).

56
 Dissatisfied Not sure
14% 5%
Disagree
15%
Highly
Satisfied
41%
Agree
Less
80%
Satisfied
45%

Figure 4.30: Respondents’ response Figure 4.31: Respondents’

to satisfaction on services provided response to introduction of taxes
by Department of Sanitation for solid waste collection

70
1
60
50
40
3
4 2
30
1 2 3
20 1 3
4 2
10
4
0
Agree (%) Disagree (%) Not Sure (%)

High income households (1) Middle income households (2)

Low income households (3) Commercial units (4)

Figure 4.32: Strata wise response to introduction of taxes for solid waste collection

Figure 4.33 shows the results for the question “should households generating more waste
be charged more tax?” The low income households showed highest agreement with 31 %
(94 respondents out 301 respondents agreed to charge tax) said that households generating
more waste should be charged more tax and only 7 % (5 respondents out of 60 respondents
disagreed to charge tax) said that households generating more waste should not be charged
more tax. Whereas high income households with 40% (24 respondents out of 60 respondents
disagreed to charge tax) said that households generating more waste should not be charged
more tax.

57
 60
2
50
1
40
3 4
30 4
1 2 4 2
20
1
10 3 3
0
Agree (%) Disagree (%) Not sure (%)
High income households (1) Middle income households (2)
Low income households (3) Commercial units (4)

Figure 4.33: Strata wise response to introduction of taxes based on polluter pays
principle

Figure 4.34 shows some of the main suggestions given by the respondents during the survey.
These suggestions included that municipality and other responsible organizations should
install 3r facilities and increase awareness program for people. It was also suggested that
small bins should be installed in the public spaces as there are currently no small bins in
most of the public places and peoples are bounded to throw their waste on roads and drainage
ways. Some more suggestions were that bans should be put on use of single used plastic
bags and tax must be introduce for solid waste collection and other sanitary services.

25
21
20 18

15

9.5
10
7

5 4
3

0
Install 3R Install small Increase Introduce Put bans on Start
facilities bins in number of tax for single used awareness
Public workers collection plastic bags programs
spaces for people

Figure 4.34: Suggestions given by respondents

58
4.15 Cost Recovery System

4.15.1 Total system cost via component analysis

At the present all the Operations and Management costs of the Department of Sanitation
(DoS) are financed from the National treasure by the central government. The DoS also
receive international loans and grants for the SWM. The main expenses of DoS consists of
diesel and petrol costs, buying and repairing of the spare parts for transporting vehicles of
DoS, uniform and tools (like spades, masks, gloves, boots etc) for the workers and salaries.
Currently the only revenue of DoS is from the public toilets in the city, the waste water
collecting tankers (that collect waste water from households are commercial units and in
returns these premises are charged with some amount of fees) and penalties. The penalties
or fines are charged in cases like

i. Open burning of solid waste in the city.

ii. Discharging of waste water into the city’s drainage ditches.
iii. Disposing of solid waste into drainage ditches.
iv. If any healthcare facility is caught disposing clinic waste into city’s municipal solid
waste collection points.

Table 4.8: Revenues of DoS for the Year 2017

Revenues Amount in Afghanis (Afs) Amount in USD ($,000)

Public toilets 6.58 million 87.15
Waste water collecting tankers 3.75 million 49.66
Penalties 1.25 million 16.55

For a well-developed solid waste management system, one of the most important criteria is
the cost recovery. A cost recovery system is included of many step but the first and foremost
step is the identifying of actual cost of the total system. The total cost analysis for the current
solid waste management system is given in Table 4.9 and the full detailed calculation of the
cost analysis is given in Appendix S.

Table 4.9 shows that the cost of transferring one tonne of waste is 1219 Afs. Since currently
only 1740 tonnes of waste is collected and transferred per month, the total transferring cost
is 63.63 million Afs. With 5 million population of Kabul city, the per capita cost of waste
transferring is 13 Afs per month. For transferring the total generated waste which is 3050
tonnes per day, the per capita cost per month increases to 23 Afs per month.

59
Table 4.9: Cost of Each Component in SWM of Kabul City

Amount of waste Component Cost in Cost in

Afghanis (Afs) USD ($)

Per tonne collection and 687 9

transferring cost
Per tonne disposal cost 10 0.13
Per tonne additional cost 522 6.91
For 1740 tonnes of waste Total per tonne cost 1219 16.14
that is currently collected
Total cost per month 63.63 million 0.84
million
Total cost per year 774.18 million 10.25
million
Per capita cost per 13 0.14
month
Total cost per month 111.53 million 1.47
million
For 100 % collection Per capita cost per 23 0.3
efficiency (3050 tonnes of month
waste)
Per capita cost per year 271 3.58

4.15.2 Future cost analysis

For developing a cost recovery system it is essential to assess the increase in cost for the 5
or 10 period time. For this study a future cost analysis for the next ten years is calculated.
According to (Patel, and Meka, 2013) for an urban growth rate of 3-3.5% per annum, the
annual increase in waste quantities has been estimated at 5 % per annum. Therefore in Kabul
city the waste increase for next 10 years is estimated at 5% per year. Table 4.10 presents the
estimated waste generation and costs for next 10 years in Kabul city. Table 4.10 shows that
the waste generation in Kabul city will increase to 1.57 million tonnes in 2025 and 1.81
million tonnes in 2028. Furthermore the per capita cost will increase from 271 Afs in 2018
to 570 Afs in 2028 with the inflation and population growth rate of 5 % and 2.36 %
respectively.

60
Table 4.10: Estimated Waste Generation and Costs for Next 10 Years

Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
% increase in waste 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
waste generation (million tons/year)1 1.11 1.17 1.23 1.29 1.35 1.42 1.49 1.57 1.64 1.73 1.81
Inflation rate (%)2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
per tonne cost (Afs)3 1219 1280 1344 1411 1482 1556 1634 1715 1801 1891 1986
Total cost per year (million Afs)4 1353.00 1496 1650 1819 2005 2210 2437 2687 2962 3266 3601
population growth rate (%)5 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36
Total population (million)6 5.00 5.12 5.24 5.36 5.49 5.62 5.75 5.89 6.03 6.17 6.31
Per capita cost per year7 271 292 315 339 365 393 424 456 492 529 570

1- Waste generation in 2019 = (waste generation in 2018 * % increase in waste) + (waste generation in 2018)
2- World Bank’s report on Afghanistan’s Development Update (http://www.artf.af/images/uploads/AFG_Development_Update-Spring_2017-
final.pdf)
3- Per tonne cost in 2019 = (per tonne cost in 2018*inflation rate) + per tonne cost in 2018
4- Total cost per year in 2019 = per tonne cost in 2019*total waste generation per year
5- World Population review (http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/afghanistan-population/)
6- Total population in 2019 = (total population in 2018 * population growth rate) + (total population in 2018)
7- Per capita cost per year in 2019 = (total cost in 2019/total population in 2019)

61
4.15.3 Willingness to pay

The second step in cost recovery analysis is to analyze the people’s willingness to pay for
the services. From Figure 4.35 it can be seen that about 28 % (113 respondents) agreed to
pay 150-200 Afs, 24 % (95 respondents) responded that they are willing to pay more than
200 Afs for SWM services. Figure 4.36 shows the range of 50-100 Afs and 100-150 Afs
was mostly selected by low income households while the higher range which is 150-200 Afs
and more than 200 Afs was mostly selected by high income, middle income and commercial
units. It was also noticed during the visits to the private companies that most of the
households are already paying for their solid waste collection ranging from 150-200 Afs per
month. Therefore the suitable amount charged for solid waste collection services can be
selected in range between 150-200 Afs per month.

more than 200 Zero

Afs 20%
24%

50-100 Afs
5%

150-200 Afs 100-150 Afs

28% 23%

Figure 4.35: Respondents willingness to pay

70
3
60
50 3
40 4
1
2 4
30 1
4 2 2
2
20 4 3
1
10 1 3
-
50-100 (%) 100-150 (%) 150-200 (%) more than 200 (%)
High income households (1) Middle income households (2)
Low income households (3) Commercial units (4)

Figure 4.36: Respondents willingness to pay strata wise

62
Table 4.11 illustrates that the total cost of the system which was calculated to be 111.53
million Afs per month (mentioned in Table 4.9) can be recovered even if only a 150
Afs/month fee is charged. This amount of fee can be easily paid by all different strata and
the collected revenue can not only satisfy the total cost of the system but also the remaining
revenue can be spent on other capacity building activities.

Table 4.11: Total Revenue Collected based on the Amount Charged to Households

Amount charged on Total number of households, Total Revenue

per household per commercial and administrative collected per month
month (Afs) units in Kabul city (million Afs)
100 76.62
150 766,237 114.93
200 153.24

4.16 Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Plan for Kabul City

It is a well-known fact that cities with increased economic and commercial activities, have
enormous waste generation levels. Same is the scenario in Kabul city. The improved
economy and changing lifestyle have resulted in increasing waste generation as well as with
changing composition of waste. It was observed and analyzed during the study that the Solid
Waste Management (SWM) of Kabul city has many gaps and problems that possess several
threats to human health, environment, land use, climate, and aesthetics of the city. A growing
awareness of the negative impacts that the waste possess, calls for an Integrated Solid Waste
Management (ISWM) Plan for the adequate solid waste management in Kabul city.

4.16.1 Vision

The vision of this ISWM plan is to develop a step by step guide for the formulation and
implementation of a strong, safe and secure solid waste management system that meet the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to convert Kabul city into a sustainable and
smart city, in times of increasing resource scarcity. A schematic diagram of this vision is
given in Figure 4.37.

4.16.2 Goals

1. To substantially reduce waste generation by adapting 3R (Reduce, Reuse and

Recycle) practices.
2. To achieve environmentally sound management of all wastes.
3. To maximize synergistic benefits in collection, recycling, treatment and disposal by
developing a holistic approach.
4. Educate the public to better understand and participate in integrated waste
management strategies.
5. To build up a cost recovery system based on the results of the Willingness to Pay
(WtP) of the citizens.

63
Table 4.12 shows which different aspects of ISWM plan will help in achieving the
sustainable development goals. From Table 4.12 it can be seen that each aspect of this
ISWM plan can play a vital role in achieving 9 main Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
and 16 of the sub goals of SDGs.

4.16.3 Laws and policy reforms

Even though the first waste management law and policy of Afghanistan, prepared by the
National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) in 2010 provides the most basic rules
and regulations of waste management still it lacks many of the important rules and
regulations for proper waste management. There is a need of important reforms in laws and
policy since the nature of waste, waste generators and waste managers have changed to a
vast extent. Therefore the first step of this integrated solid waste management plan is to
propose the following law and policy reforms.

64
 Features of
Current Proposed
Solid Waste
System ISWM Plan
Management

No Laws and policy for management of C&D waste, door Laws and Proposing Laws and policy for management of C&D
to door collection or cost recovery system Policy waste, burning and littering of waste

No note able 3R practices 3R practices Enhancing of 3R practices through awareness campaigns

Promoting waste reduction through citywide awareness

Reduction of
No measures for waste reduction campaigns for waste segregation and reusing of certain
waste
Non-sustainable and Non smart City

materials, banning on the use of single used plastic bags

Sustainable and Smart City

No segregation, all types of waste such as MSW, C&D, Initializing the segregation of waste and selecting
Segregation of
biomedical and Industrial waste dumped and collected separate stream of dumping and collection for MSW,
waste
together C&D, biomedical and Industrial waste

Community based collection with less role of private Collection of Door to door collection of waste with more involvement
sector and informal waste pickers waste of private sector and formal waste pickers

Recycling of waste very low and most of the waste Boosting the recycling rate by segregation of waste, and
Recycling
ending up at the landfill building up MRF facility

No cost recovery system even though the willingness to Cost recovery Building up cost recovery system based on the
pay of people is high system willingness to pay of people

No treatment facilities like composting, anaerobic Setting up of composting, anaerobic digestion,

Final treatment
digestion, incineration facilities incineration facilities

Sanitary landfill with only disposal of residual waste,

Unsanitary landfill with high disposal of recyclables and
Landfill separate sections for disposal of hazardous and non
collective disposal hazardous and non hazardous waste
hazardous waste

Figure 4.37: Schematic diagram of ISWM plan’s vision

65
Table 4.12: Aspects of Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan in Relation to SDGs

17.1 x
13.2 x x x x
12.9 x
12.5 x x x x
12.4 x x x x x x x x
12.3 x x x
11.6 x x x
11.1 x x x x x x
9.4 x x x
8.7 x
8.3 x x x
7.2 x x x
7.1 x x x
6.3 x x x x x
3.9 x x x x x x x
3.3 x x x x x x
SDGs sub Segregation Bans Reduction Maximized Formalizing waste Final treatment and Sanitary Cost
goals collection pickers recycling Landfill Recovery

Aspects of ISWM plan

66
1. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management

The current law and policy of waste management does not provide any information on the
management system of construction and demolition waste even though this type of waste is
generated on a huge scale. Therefore it is important to include management rules for C&D
waste in the policy. Following are the most important points to be considered for the
construction and demolition waste management.

i. The construction and demolition waste should not be disposed with municipal waste
and should be disposed as per the Construction and Demolition Waste Management
rules.
ii. The C&D waste should be disposed separately from the municipal solid waste and
should be handover only to authorized processing facilities.
iii. It must be ensured that C&D waste should not be littered into roads, or drains in
order to prevent obstructions.
iv. Those premises that generates C&D waste of more than 20 tonnes or more in one
day or 300 tonnes per project in a month shall submit waste management plan and
get appropriate approvals from the district authorities before the construction or
demolition work is started.
v. Large generators shall pay relevant charges for collection, transportation and
disposal of the C&D waste.
vi. Those private companies that will collect and process the construction and
demolition waste must collect authorization letter from National Environmental
Protection Agency (NEPA), Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) and Kabul
Municipality (KM).
vii. The processing site shall be away from habitation clusters, forest areas, water bodies,
wetlands and places of cultural, historical and religious interests.

2. Bans and Sanctions

Although the current law and policy address the management system for municipal solid
waste, and biomedical waste but it lacks any policy on how to deal with some of the issues
that are creating problems in line of waste management of the city. Therefore the following
bans and sanctions should be put in place in order to overcome these issues.

i. Throwing, burning or burying of any type of waste in streets, open public spaces,
drainage lines or water bodies should be made illegal and strict legal actions should
be made against those who will oppose this rule. The legal actions can include heavy
fines, doing community services or jail terms.
ii. The Ban on the use of single used plastic bags should be extended to pharmacies and
general stores as these premises are the highest generators of this type of waste. The
ban on single used plastic bags can greatly help in achieving a great amount of waste
reduction in the city.
iii. Since most of the single used plastic bags are imported from foreign countries
therefore the custom offices should be instructed to ban the import of this type of
plastic bags or the custom offices should increase taxes on the import of single used
plastics bags. The import of paper bags should be promoted.
iv. Since most of the packaging materials are imported from foreign countries therefore
the taxes on the import of packaging materials should be increased so that the
manufacturers are forced to reuse the reusable packaging materials.

67
 v. Taxes on the import of chemical fertilizers should be increased so to provide a good
market for the composted fertilizer.
vi. The dumping of healthcare waste with municipal waste should be banned and those
opposing should be charged with legal offences and their licenses should be
cancelled.

3. Responsibilities of Different Stakeholders

 Responsibilities of NEPA

i. The National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) shall be responsible for the
overall monitoring of these rules and regulations. NEPA should monitor and evaluate
the responsibilities of all involved stakeholders like Directorate of Sanitation (DoS),
Ministry of Public Health (MoPH), Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD),
Customs offices etc.
ii. NEPA should propose the policy that waste segregation at source should be made
compulsory for each waste generator.
iii. NEPA should propose the policy that every waste generator should be made to pay
a specific amount of money for their solid waste management services.
iv. Promote research and development in solid waste management sector.
v. Formulate national policy and strategy on solid waste management including
policy on waste to energy in consultation with stakeholders.

 Responsibilities of Directorate of Sanitation – Kabul Municipality

i. Arrange citywide door to door collection of segregated municipal solid waste from
households, commercial units, and institutional and administrative units. For housing
complex, malls, commercial complexes the waste can be collected from entry gates
or any other designated location.
ii. Legalize the informal waste pickers and bring them together into one union. The
Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled (MoLSAMD) can be
involved in this as well.
iii. Promote NGO,s and Volunteer groups and provide identity cards and encourage
them to participate in the awareness campaigns or any other aspects of waste
management.
iv. Prepare a user fee billing system either on its own or with the help of other
organizations.
v. Promote 3R approaches and setup material recovery facilities.
vi. Motivate the recycling facilities by providing incentives to them.

 Responsibilities of Ministry of Public Health (MoPH)

The major responsibility of Ministry of Public Health should be monitoring the management
of biomedical hazardous waste of Hospitals. The MoPH should formulate a monitoring team
to monitor the waste management system of hospitals and should also emphasize that the
hospitals generating more than 100 kgs of biomedical hazardous waste per day should install
incinerator inside their own facilities.

68
  Responsibilities of Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD)

The MoUD should be responsible for monitoring the construction and demolition waste
management. They should make sure the construction or demolition waste owners should
provide their plan for the C&D waste management and should acquire licenses.

 Responsibilities of Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW)

The Directorate of Renewable Energy in MEW shall facilitate infrastructure creation for
waste to energy plants and provides subsidy or incentives for such waste to energy plants.

4.16.4 Waste reduction

For an adequate and proper waste management system, the easiest and cost effective
technique is waste reduction. Waste reduction not only decrease pressure of collection,
transportation and disposal but also gives financial benefits to the waste generators. The
future cost analysis shown in Table 4.10 indicated that the waste generation in 2023 will
increase to 1.42 million tonnes per year as compared to the waste generation in 2018 which
is about 1.11 million tonnes per year. This increase in total generation advocates that in
2023, the total cost will increase to 2210 million Afs/year (from 1353 million Afs in 2018)
and per capita cost to 393 Afs (from 271 Afs in 2018). Therefore, a 25% waste reduction in
per capita waste generation should be set as a goal to achieve gradually in next 5 years. The
25% waste reduction will not only help in environmental aspects but can also help in
economic benefits. Table 4.13 shows that if a 5% reduction is set gradually for 5 years it
can help in waste reduction. The waste generation in 2023, with this target will be 0.97
million tonnes/year and not 1.42 million tonnes/year and similarly the total cost will only
increase up to 1556 million Afs/year.

Table 4.13: Comparison of Cost before and after 25% Reduction of Waste

Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

% Targeted reduction 5 5 5 5 5
in waste
per capita waste 0.61 0.58 0.55 0.52 0.50 0.47
generation
Population growth 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36
rate (%)
Total population 5 5.12 5.24 5.36 5.49 5.62
(million)
Total waste 1.11 1.08 1.05 1.02 1.00 0.97
generation million
tonnes/year
Inflation rate (%) 5 5 5 5 5
Per tonnes cost (Afs) 1219 1280 1344 1411 1482 1556
total cost per year 1353 1385.6 1414.7 1444.5 1474.9 1505.9
(million Afs)
Total per capita cost 271 271 270 269 269 268
per year

69
The waste reduction in Kabul city will be possible by conducting the following three main
actions.

1. Awareness Campaigns

Currently the awareness of Kabul’s residents on the issues related to solid waste
management is very low. Even though Directorate of Sanitation (DoS) has started awareness
campaigns to brief the residents on segregation of waste but these campaigns are limited to
a specific area and have not proven to be successful. Citywide campaigns should be
organized through street plays, road rallies, flags, wall paintings and hoardings, talk shows,
radio jingles etc. DoS should also try to involve celebrities like sportsman, singers or actors
in these campaigns as these celebrities can attract more people as these celebrities have lots
of followers. These awareness campaigns should focus on educating people on reuse of
waste, segregation of waste, not burning or littering of waste in public places, roads and
drains, adopting 3R concepts, paying for the solid waste management services etc. These
awareness campaigns should also focus on the behavioral change of people towards waste
management. For food waste reduction, the campaigns should focus on innovation of
community based fridges to keep food for needful rather than throwing it away. The main
focus areas for street plays, rallies and videos can be parks, schools, universities, workshops,
and talk shows, social media and electronic media.

2. Segregation of Waste

Implementing successful waste to energy techniques without proper waste segregation is

impossible. As discussed in previous sections of the report there is no segregation of waste
in Kabul city at present that has posed certain obstacles for waste recycling. Segregation of
waste should be made compulsory for every premises in the city. Since the waste
segregation is a new concept in Kabul city, it is better to implement segregation of waste
only into two categories dry waste, and wet waste. Each premises should have 2 bins to
separate their dry and wet waste (see Figure 4.38). The poster shown in Figure 4.38 should
be translated to local language and distributed during the campaigns so that all residents
better understand the different categories of waste and its respective color of bin. Same color
bins should be put at the collection points and with writing name of each category it is better
to put picture of waste as well since it will be easy to identify the category of waste by those
people that are not able to read. The healthcare facilities should segregate their waste into
three categories including dry waste, wet waste and hazardous waste (biomedical waste,
domestic hazardous waste etc). Demonstration campaigns should be held on how the waste
can be segregated into their respective categories. The most suitable places for these
campaigns can be parks, schools, universities, ministries etc.

70
 Kabul Municipality
Directorate of Sanitation

Poster for segregation of

municipal solid waste

Instructions for waste

generators

i. The wet and dry waste should be

kept separately in two different
Food Waste, Egg shelves, fruits and vegetables PET and HDPE bottles, singles used plastic colors bins as shown in this poster.
peels waste bags, Paper glass and aluminum cans
ii. Send wet waste out of home
every day while the dry waste can
be sent out twice a week.

iii. The dry waste can be sold out

the buyers in order to create a good
Non-Biodegradable (Dry revenue source.
Biodegradable (Wet Waste)
Waste)

Figure 4.38: Poster for residents of Kabul city for segregation of waste

71
4.16.5 Door to Door (D2D) collection

The next step of the ISWM plan should be the implementation of door to door collection
system. The implementation of door to door (D2D) collection system of solid waste will
help in increase of collection efficiency, recycling efficiency, and revenue. Since the waste
generators will be charged some amount of fee in door to door collection, it will make the
generators more responsible towards their waste generation. The following step should be
carried out for implementation of door to door collection. The three main players that should
be involved in door to door collection are private sector, legalized waste pickers and the
municipality staff.

1. Supervision of the Current Door to Door Collection

As mentioned in section 4.7.1 that currently there are about 51,347 households that are
provided with the D2D collection through private sector. To effectively monitor the
operations of these private sector following steps should be taken.

i. The private sector should sign contracts with the Directorate of Sanitation (DoS) for
providing door to door collection and the private sectors should be assigned to
specific number of households keeping in mind the number of workers, and number
of vehicles that they have.
ii. One specific private company should operate in one specific area or district this way
it can be easy for DoS to monitor if the waste management services are provided
affectively or not.
iii. The private sector should promote the waste segregation of waste and if they will
provide plastic bags for waste collection they should provide two different color bags
(green and blue) for collection of segregated waste.

2. Legalizing the Informal Waste Pickers

Kabul city has large numbers of waste pickers that collects waste and sell to recycling
facilities. These waste pickers should be formalize and involved in door to door collection
system. Waste pickers who spent their life at foul-smelling and most unhygienic places
hunting through debris with bare hands and getting an uncertain and irregular low payment
for this dirty work should be brought into organized sector.

These waste pickers should be tracked down and registered through registration forms.
These waste pickers should be identify whether they collect waste from households,
municipal bins, transfer stations or landfill so that after legalizing they can be assigned in
the same part of waste management. DoS should also include one administrative unit in their
organizational chart for managing of these waste pickers. Trainings sessions should be
arranged for them to equip them with abilities on how to handle waste in hygienic manner,
how to be polite and helpful towards locals, and how to be discipline and committed towards
their work. These waste pickers should be given specific uniforms and ID cards so that they
can be easily identified by the locals. The waste that are only above 18 years of age should
be legalized and appointed for work.

After the trainings, these waste pickers should be assigned for door to door collection and
should be instructed to segregate the waste if it is not already segregated by the individual
premises.

72
 3. Workers of Directorate of Sanitation

The numbers of remaining premises that are not covered by the private sector or the legalized
waste pickers should be covered by the workers of Directorate of Sanitation.

4. Collection Schedule for Door to Door Collection

For commercial premises and those households that resides in apartments, the collection
schedule should be on daily basis as they will not have any open spaces for storing their
waste for more than one day while for households that are living in houses the collection
can be once in two days as they can store waste for couple of days. The high rise residential
complexes and shopping malls etc where door to door collection to each household or
commercial unit is not possible as it can increase the total cost of the system therefore these
premises should bring their waste to the main gates of the buildings and from there the waste
should be collected by collectors. The timing of collection should be morning time
preferably between 7:00 AM till 12:00 PM.

4.16.6 Waste management system from collection to disposal

All the waste generators should be divided into three categories of waste generation, namely
domestic bulk generator (generating less than 25 kg waste per day), mini bulk generators
(generating 25 kg to 100 kg waste per day) and bulk waste generator (generating more than
100 kg waste per day). Small term plan (first five years of ISWM plan) and long term plan
(starting from sixth year of this ISWM plan) should be prepared in order to better manage
the proposed integrated solid waste management plan.

4.16.6.1 Short term plan

1. Collection of Waste

In the first 5 years of the ISWM plan, the waste should be collected from all premises
including households, commercial units, administrative and institutional units. The
collection should take place as follows.

i. Since the waste will be segregated into two categories at source therefore the
collecting vehicles should be divided into two partitions. Since wet waste generation
is higher than dry waste therefore the ration of wet waste area in the partition should
be more compared to dry waste category.
ii. Tippers can be used for waste collection of door to door but since most of the roads
and streets in Kabul city are small and access of tippers will be difficult therefore
tricycles or carts can be used for collection. These carts or tricycle should be divided
in two sections as well to collect segregated waste.
iii. Since the waste segregation at source will take time to be fully implemented by waste
generators therefore the waste collectors should be asked to segregate the waste
while collecting it door to door, this way segregated waste will be collected and also
will put a positive impact on the waste generator to be responsible for their own
waste segregation.
iv. The waste generators should only handover their segregated waste to authorized
waste pickers as per the direction of the Kabul Municipality.

73
 v. The hospital’s biomedical hazardous waste should be collected by private companies
that have incineration facilities so that the hazardous waste is not mixed with the
municipal waste.

2. Transfer Stations

In the short term plan, there should be 3 transfer stations. These transfer stations will mainly
be involved in unloading of collecting vehicles, prescreening and segregation of waste, and
then reloading into high tonnage vehicles to transfer to final destination.

The transfer stations should be fully enclosed, sound barriers should be used to reduce noise
problems from heavy machineries, transfer stations should be emptied on daily basis so that
organic waste will not create odor problem or attract rodents and birds.

The basic equipment required at transfer stations includes front end loaders, cranes,
conveyors, walking floors and compactors. While the staffing include traffic controllers,
equipment operators, mechanics for maintenance as well as other technical and management
staff.

The district distribution to each transfer station is as follows.

i. Transfer station 1 located in District 4 should receive waste from District

1,2,4,5,10,11,15, and 17 as these districts are nearer to district 4 and the location of
this transfer station can be the Directorate of Sanitation DoS.
ii. Transfer station 2 should be located in District 6 and should receive waste from
District 3, 6, 7,8,13 and 20.
iii. Transfer station 3 should be located in District 12 and should receive waste from
District 9, 16,18,19,21 and 22.

Dry waste and wet waste should be stored at the transfer stations separately. The wet and
dry waste should be send to a Material Recovery facility (MRF).

3. Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

The segregated/non segregated waste can be transferred to MRF and the recyclable can be
taken out and sold to buyers. Since about 90% of Kabul city’s waste is composed of
recycling waste therefore a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) should be built up to
effectively manage the recyclables and sell to buyers. The most suitable location for an MRF
in Kabul city can be at the Gazak 2 landfill. As about 2 km2 land at Gazak 2 belongs to
Government therefore land availability will not be an issue and also the residual waste can
be easily managed as well. The material recovery facility should be enclosed and only the
legalize waste pickers should be assigned to separate the different recyclables.

4. Composting

Kabul city’s waste is composed of about 50 % organic (biodegradable waste), suitable for
composting. Therefore composting becomes an important part of the ISWM plan.
Composting not only help in biodegradable waste management and soil conditioning but
also leaves less waste to be disposed at landfill.

74
Since aerobic composting is cost effective and easy to operate the best choice of composting
in Kabul can be aerobic composting. The main parameters to control in this type of
composting is particles size, Carbon to Nitrogen ratio, blinding and seeding, moisture
content, mixing and turning, temperature, control of pathogenic, air requirement and pH
control.

The map showing the proposed sites for transfer stations and MRF is given in Appendix T

5. Development of Sanitary Landfill

As the current landfill, Gazak 2 landfill is unsanitary and has no system for management of
leachate and gases. Therefore the development of sanitary landfill is important. The landfill
area should be divided into two sections, one section should be allotted for dumping the
municipal and non-hazardous waste while one section should be for domestic hazardous
waste and the residual waste that comes from the incineration of biomedical waste. The area
allotted for municipal and non-hazardous waste should be much more than the area allotted
for hazardous waste as the municipal and non-hazardous waste is generated in more
volumes.

Since the current landfill, Gazak 2 landfill has only used about 50% of its land while 50%
land is still unused. Therefore the landfill can take up waste until next 15 years. Since the
increase in the recycling rate will leave less waste to be dump in the landfill therefore the
current landfill area is enough to take up waste for next 15 years. It can also be seen from
Figure 4.39-B that if the ISWM plan is successfully implemented and all the recyclable
waste is prevented from dumping at the landfill then only about 4-10% (118 tonnes/day –
295 tonnes/day) of waste (only including of the non-recyclable waste) will go to landfill
compared to the current situation where about 90% of waste is dumped at the landfill shown
in Figure 4.39-A. So if the ISWM plan is implemented then there will be no need for new
landfill and the current landfill’s life will be extended.

The most suitable type of sanitary landfill for Kabul city can be the Fukuoka landfill method.
Since the Fukuoka method’s structure is very simple for construction, operation and
maintenance, and with the limited technical capacity that DoS have to operate a landfill,
Fukuoka landfill method can be the most suitable choice.

6. Cost Recovery

As it was analyzed from the results of the questionnaire survey for Willingness to Pay (WtP)
that about 80% of total respondents agreed that they are willing to pay for solid waste
management services. Therefore it is very important that a cost recovery system should be
build up for the recovering all the cost of the system. An amount of 150 Afs per month for
households and 200 Afs for commercial units should be kept as this amount was mostly
chosen by the households and commercial units during the WtP questionnaire survey. As
the total system cost and the per capita cost will increase each year with increase waste
generation and the fees on the households and commercial units will not cover all the costs
then the amount of money that come as profit from selling the recyclables (shown in Table
4.7) should be used to cover the extra cost of system and this profit can also be used to cover
the expenses (like building transfer stations, composting and anaerobic digestion plants,
development of sanitary landfill, purchasing censors, and applications as part of IoTs etc,

75
salaries of the formalized waste pickers) as these extra costs were not considered in the cost
analysis done for this study.

The most suitable practice of billing in Kabul city can be the indirect billing system rather
than direct billing as the DoS might have serious difficulties in effectively collecting these
charges with direct billing. The fee that is selected based on the willingness to pay of
residents should be linked with utility bill or tax instrument. Since in Kabul city the most
effective billing system is the electricity billing system of Brishna Shirkat (National
Electricity Company) therefore the SWM bills should be linked with electricity bills.

It is important that the private sector and the legalized waste pickers do not charge the
households directly but instead they should be paid by the Directorate of Sanitation (DoS)
as it will be easy for DoS to monitor the billing system and also the private sector and waste
pickers will be more punctual in their services.

10% Sell to recyclers

MSW (3050 scavenged or livestock
tonnes/day) (estimated) facilities

Construction and
Current scenario
demolition waste

Hazardous/biom 90% dumped

edical waste at the landfill

No segregation Less recycling No profits Less Landfill life

Figure 4.39-A: Current waste flow of Kabul city

76
 Domestic generators (generating Send to combine composting or
less than 25 kg/day of waste) anaerobic digestion

Wet
Waste Mini-bulk generators (generating Send to community composting
Food Waste 52.4%
25 to 100 kg/day of waste) or anaerobic digestion
MSW (1549.2 tonnes/day)
2958 Waste
segregation Bulk generators (generating more Send to individual composting or
tonnes/
than 100 kg/day of waste) anaerobic digestion
day
(after Recyclables 43.6%,
Send to MRF Sort into different Sell to
5% (1289.6 tonnes/day) categories of waste buyers/recyclers
reduce)
in 2019
Dry
Non-Recyclables 4%, Dumped at the
Waste
(118.32 tonnes/day) landfill
ISWM
plan
Hazardous/Biomedical Incineration with 99% Residues
waste efficiency

Steel bars Send to steel melting and recycling facility

Construction and
Demolition waste Soil, brick, blocks Send to brick or block making or use for filling

Wood waste Recycle to chairs or tables

Source segregation More recycling More Profit Extended landfill life

Figure 4.39-B: Expected waste flow after ISWM plan implementation

77
 7. Internet of Things (IoT)

As one of the important feature of smart and sustainable city in the present era is the
adaptation of Internet of Things (IoTs), it is very important for Kabul city to involve IoTs
in their ISWM plan. Even though the Directorate of Sanitation (DoS) is using GPS tracking
system to monitor the fuel theft and the location of the vehicles, this current system does
not show the amount of waste that this loaded into the vehicles. Therefore it is very
important that the weight measuring censors should be added to all the vehicles, these
censors will help in easy monitoring of the vehicles, to see if they are collecting waste per
their capacity or not.

i. Fullness censors

For easy monitoring of the collection bins, fullness censors can be used. These censors will
send a notification to the concerning authorities when a particular bin is full to its capacity.
With these censors the waste collector, will only go to a particular bin whenever it is full
that will result in fuel saving.

ii. Mobile Applications

A solid waste monitoring application should be developed for real time monitoring of solid
waste collection from around the city. The access of this application should be given to the
regulatory bodies, waste pickers, and recyclers and waste generators. The waste regulatory
bodies can monitor overall operations and collections. The waste pickers can maximize
earnings and citizens can get capacity building programs.

4.16.6.2 Long term plan

The overall operations in the long term should be same as the short term plan but some of
the modifications in the system should be as follows.

i. The waste collectors should not collect non segregated waste from the premises. The
waste generators should be made to segregate the waste while collecting it and the
constant violators should be charged with fines.
ii. The mini bulk waste generators (generating 25 to 100 kgs of waste per day) should
have community based compost pits or anaerobic digestion system. These mini bulk
waste generators can be housing complexes, commercial complexes, malls etc.
iii. The bulk waste generators (generating more than 100 kgs of waste per day) should
have their individual transfer stations, and material recovery facility with composting
or anaerobic digestion system. These bulk waste generators can be universities like
Kabul University, Poly Technique University and Kardan University, fruits and
vegetable markets, Ministries etc.
iv. Since Kabul city has about 17 hospitals with more than 50 beds therefore these
hospitals are bulk waste generators of biomedical waste, generating more than 100
kgs of biomedical waste per day. Therefore, the Healthcare facilities that generates
more than 100 kgs of biomedical waste per day should have their individual
incineration facility.
v. The 1 m3 and 7 m3 collection bins should be taken away from around the city and
each district should have their own collection zone where the initial transfer of waste
should take place.

78
4.16.7 Key elements for implementation of ISWM plan

For successfully implementing the above propose integrated solid waste management
(ISWM) plan following main points should be considered.

1. The proposed ISWM plan should be kicked off as a pilot project and then expand
gradually throughout the city because starting the ISWM plan throughout the city at
once might not be possible for DoS to implement as they might lack the experience
and resources.
2. DoS being the main player of implementing the ISWM plan needs to hire experts in
field of solid waste management. They also need to hire more workers as currently
there manpower is low and also most of the workers are old or not motivated.
3. At the beginning of the ISWM plan, a citywide initiative to clean all the roads and
drains from the littered waste should be started. Top government officials and
celebrities should be made a part of this initiative. The initiative will help in the
awareness campaigns and also will send a motivational message for the residents’ to
participate in this ISWM plan.
4. Incentives should be provided to waste generators to attract their interest in
participating in this ISWM plan. These incentives can include providing them with
two bins, waiving the solid waste collection fee for a month etc.
5. Community competitions should be held and the cleanest communities should be
given prizes.
6. Small bins preferably 100 liters should be put in public places like parks and market
places so that people do not litter their waste on roads.

The Findings of this study is included in the comparison matrix provided in Appendix
B.

Appreciations received for this study

The following two appreciations were received while conducting the field data collection in
Kabul city for this study.

i. A letter of appreciation was received from Mr Ahmad Shoaib Rahim, the Acting
Mayor of Kabul city, for conducting this research study that will help finalize a
better management plan for the city and for the 7 month internship at the DoS to
conduct this study.
ii. Another letter was received from DAI-SHAHAR, a USAID funded project. As
they needed data for the characteristics and composition of solid waste of Kabul
city and the data conducted for this study was shared with them as the data was
accepted for them.
Both the letters are attached in Appendix U.

79
 Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

In Kabul city, the solid waste generation and composition has changed tremendously over
the years as a result of the rapid urbanization and economic growth whereas the city lacks
an integrated system to effectively manage the generated waste. This study has focused on
developing an integrated solid waste management plan based on the baseline information
collected about the existing situation of waste management, the generation and composition
of waste through audits and the 3R practices in the city.

The important conclusion obtained through field visits, interviews, questionnaire surveys
for the current scenario of waste management are

i. The main waste streams in the city are the municipal waste, biomedical waste,
industrial, and construction and demolition waste. Currently all waste is dumped
together in the municipal bins. Although the biomedical, industrial and construction
and demolition waste generators are instructed not to throw their waste with the
mixed waste but as there is no strong monitoring on these waste generators they still
dispose their waste into the municipal bins along with mixed waste.

ii. The use of GPS trackers in all the transferring vehicles is one of the positive aspect
in the current waste management that have helped in reduction of fuel theft and has
save DoS about 5.2 million USD in one year. Whereas among many negative aspects,
the burning and littering of waste on roads and drains is the aspect that can be easily
controlled but since no attention is given to this issue from responsible authorities,
the capital city of the country is facing serious health and aesthetic consequences.

iii. There is no segregation of waste at source by the residents as their level of awareness
is very low on the segregation of waste and hence most of the recycling materials
lose its value as it is dumped mixed with all other types of waste.

iv. The city’s only landfill, Gazak 2 landfill is unsanitary having no management system
for generated leachate or the gases. The municipal waste, biomedical waste and
construction and demolition waste is dumped together.

The conclusion of the waste audit done for the composition and characteristics analysis in
the week of Ramadan and none-Ramadan period is:

i. The per capita waste generation in the city is 0.81 kg/capita/day, 0.61 kg/capita/day,
and 0.41 kg/capita/day for high income households, middle income households and
low income households respectively. The average per capita waste generation in the
city is 0.61 kg/capita/day and with a population of 5 million people, the total per day
municipal solid waste generation is about 3050 tonnes per day.

ii. The food waste generation in Ramadan is lower compared to the food waste
generation in non-Ramadan period, mostly because in Ramadan period food is
consumed only two times a day and most of the commercial units that operates and

80
 generates food waste during daytime, does not generate food waste in Ramadan
period.

iii. The high income and middle income households generates high amount of food
waste at 58% and 57% respectively while the lower middle income households
generates much less percentage of food waste at 48%.

iv. About 1598 tonnes/day of food waste is generated with density of 320 kg/m3,
moisture content of 77.1% and pH of 5.76, making it suitable for anaerobic digestion
and composting but currently there are no aerobic digestion or composting system
operating for food waste management. Some of the food waste is feed to the livestock
whereas most of it is dumped at the landfill.

The conclusion obtained from field visits to recycling facilities and junk shops is given
below:

i. The city has a major force of informal waste pickers of about 2000-2500 individuals
scavenging about 200-300 tonnes of waste per day. These informal waste pickers are
involved in waste scavenging but since they are not bond into a formal union their
efforts are not utilized properly.

ii. All the recycling materials has a good market value except the single used plastic
bags. The figures obtained from the informal waste scavengers and the middle buyers
(junk shop owners) indicate that selling each tonne of food waste, paper waste, PET
and HDPE, Aluminum cans and glass bottles can generate an estimated profit of $53,
$39.77, $98.99, $225.1 and $198.7 respectively.

iii. The analysis of the questionnaire survey shows that 252 respondents (out of 400)
admitted that they know about the 3R practices but only 20% admitted that they
actually participate in any of these practices. This is because of the low level of
knowledge on how to participate in these practices.

iv. Currently there is no cost recovery system even though the Willingness to Pay (WtP)
of the residents is high as it was observed from the questionnaire survey analysis
where about 80% (320 respondents out of 400) of the respondents agreed that
municipality should introduce tax on solid waste collection services to recover the
cost of the system.

The proposed Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) plan addresses all the above
gaps and issues in the current system by proposing

i. Law and policy for different type of waste streams, bans and sanctions on burning,
and littering of waste.

ii. Enhancing of 3R practices through awareness programs, reduction of waste through

waste segregation, bans on single used plastic bags.

iii. Implementation of the door to door collection of waste with the involvement of
formalized waste pickers and private sectors. The door to door collection of waste

81
 will result in higher collection efficiency and the waste collection points will be
reduced making the city cleaner and aesthetically beautiful.

iv. The different waste streams such as municipal waste, C&D waste, biomedical waste
and hazardous waste should be collected and managed separately. The waste
segregation strategies if implemented effectively will help in boosting the recycling
rate as about 90-95% of waste is composed of recycling materials.

v. Boosting the recycling rate by setting up MRF, composting, anaerobic and

incineration facilities for final treatment of waste. Domestic generator (generating
less than 25 kg waste per day) should send their food waste to combine composting
or anaerobic digestion plant, mini bulk generators (generating 25 kg to 100 kg waste
per day) should have community composting or anaerobic digestion for food waste
and bulk waste generators (generating more than 100 kg waste per day) should have
their own individual composting or anaerobic digestion plant for food waste. The
recyclable materials should be sent to recycling facilities while the hazardous waste
should be sent to incineration facilities rather than dumping into landfill.

vi. Due to lower recycling rate about 90% of waste mostly consisting of recyclable ends
up at the landfill but if the proposed recycling facilities are setup and all the
recyclable are sent for recycling then only about 4-10% of non-recyclable waste will
end up at the landfill. Thus the landfill lifetime will be increased and there will be
no need for new landfill. In such case the current landfill should only be develop into
a sanitary landfill with proper management system for leachate and gas management.

vii. Development of a cost recovery system based on the willingness to pay of the
residents. A monthly fee of 150 Afs on households and 200 Afs on commercial units
can cover the costs of the current solid waste management system which is 111.53
million Afs/month. Whereas with passing time the increase in the cost can be covered
from the profit that comes from selling the recyclable materials which is about
$182,000/day. This profit should be used to cover the costs of building up new
transfer station, development of sanitary landfill, setting up recycling facilities,
salaries of formalized recyclers, covering the costs of IoTs that will be used in the
ISWM plan.

viii. Finally, the Internet of things IoTs such as censors for fullness of bins, mobile apps
for online monitoring of the total waste management system has to be incorporated
for real time monitoring of the entire management system.

5.2 Recommendations

1. Since Kabul city has four seasons and the results of waste generation and
composition obtained for this study was only for the summer season. Therefore, a
detailed study is required among various seasons of the city as the waste generation
and composition can vary among different seasons.

2. A detailed study should be conducted in order to identify the exact number of waste
pickers in the city and the exact amount of waste that these scavengers scavenge.

82
3. A research study for food waste management through anaerobic digestion should be
carried out to identify the biogas yield, methane yield, and other chemical
characteristics of food waste management. This research study will help in
identifying the performance and feasibility of anaerobic digestion for food waste
management.

4. As this study was limited up to identifying the generation volumes of municipal solid
waste, therefore detailed analysis should be carried out to analyze the generation
volumes and composition of hazardous waste and construction and demolition waste.

5. As the cost recovery analysis did not include the costs for building up new transfer
sites, development of landfill or other new infrastructures that will be built up in the
ISWM plan therefore these costs should be considered while executing the final
ISWM plan.

83
 References

Alam, P., & Ahmade, K. (2013). Impact of solid waste on health and the
environment. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Green
Economics (IJSDGE), 2(1), 165-168.

Azad. (2015). Solid Waste Management in Kabul City of Afghanistan. New Delhi, India:
TERI University. Retrieved November 10, 2018 from
https://www.academia.edu/12919045/Solid_waste_management_in_Kabul_city_of_
Afghanistan

Central Statistic Organization (CSO). (2018). Analysis of population projections 2017-18.

Retrieved October 23, 2018, from http://cso.gov.af/en/page/demography-and-socile-
statistics/demograph-statistics/3897111

Chandrappa, R., & Das, D. B. (2012). Solid waste management principal and practice.
Environmental Science and Engineering. ISBN: 978-3-642-28680-3.

Dung, T. N. B., Sen, B., Chen, C. C., Kumar, G., & Lin, C. Y. (2014). Food waste to
bioenergy via anaerobic processes. Energy Procedia, 61, 307-312.

Earth Links and Advanced Resources Development (ELARD). (2005). Cost recovery for
solid waste management in Lebanon. Retrieved October 23, 2018, from
http://www.databank.com.lb/docs/R2-1-RG_FCR_Report.pdf

Environmental Protection Department (EPD). (2010). Recovery and recycling of municipal

solid waste in Hong Kong. (Waste Reduction and Recovery Factsheet No.1).
Retrieved October 23, 2018 from https://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/sites/default/
default/files/wr_msw.pdf

European Commission, (EC) (2004). Methodology for the analysis of solid waste (SWA
tool), (5th Framework Program.), Vienna, Austria. Retrieved October 26, 2018,
from https://www.wien.gv.at/meu/fdb/pdf/swa-tool-759-ma48.pdf

Filemon, A., & Uriarte, J. (2008). Solid waste management principles and practices.
Philippine: Nicole Victoria. ISBN: 978-971-542-557-5.

Giusti, L. (2009). A review of waste management practices and their impact on human
health. Waste Management, 29(8), 2227-2239.

Guerrero, L. A., Maas, G., & Hogland, W. (2013). Solid waste management challenges for
cities in developing countries. Waste Management, 33(1), 220-232.

Haidaree, G., & Lukumwena, N. (2017). Solid waste management challenges and possible
Solution in Kabul City. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Science Index 123, International Journal of Environmental, Chemical,
Ecological, Geological and Geophysical Engineering, 11(3), 262 - 266.

84
Hettiarachchi, H., Ryu, S., Caucci, S., & Silva, R. (2018). Municipal solid waste
management in Latin America and the Caribbean: Issues and potential solutions
from the governance perspective. Recycling, 3(2), 19.

Ju, D. Y. (2005). 3R Portfolio: Good practices to promote the 3Rs (Republic of Korea). (pp.
28-30). In ministerial conference on the 3R initiative, Tokyo, Japan.

Kaosol, T. (2009). Sustainable solutions for municipal solid waste management in

Thailand. World Academic Science Engineering and Technology, 60, 665-670.

Kawai, K., & Tasaki, T. (2016). Revisiting estimates of municipal solid waste generation
per capita and their reliability. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 18(1), 1-13.

Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V., & Sitzia, J. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and
reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health
Care, 15(3), 261-266.

Koottatep, T. (2016). Solid Waste Management. (Lecture note, Course No ED 78.07, School
of Environmental, Resource and Development). Bangkok: Asian Institute of
Technology.

Kumar, S., Smith, S. R., Fowler, G., Velis, C., Kumar, S. J., Arya, S., & Cheeseman, C.
(2017). Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India.
Royal Society open science, 4(3), 160-764.

Marshall, R. E., & Farahbakhsh, K. (2013). Systems approaches to integrated solid waste
management in developing countries. Waste Management, 33(4), 988-1003.

McCarthy, E.C. (2011). Kandahar City Municipal Solid Waste Composition and
Characterization Analysis. United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). Retrieved October 23, 2018, from
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00HWX2.pdf

National Environment Agency, Singapore (NEA). (2006). Integrated solid waste

management in Singapore. Presented at the Asia 3R conference, Tokyo, Japan, 30
October–1 November 2006.

Pariatamby, A., & Fauziah, S. H. (2014). Sustainable 3R practice in the Asia and Pacific
Regions: The challenges and issues. In Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia
and the Pacific Islands (pp. 15-40). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

Patel, & Meka, (2013). Forecasting of municipal solid waste generation for medium scale
towns located in the state of Gujarat, India. International Journal of Innovative
Research in Science, 2(9), 4707-4716.

PCD. (2015). Thailand State of Pollution Report 2015. Retrieved October 23, 2018, from
http://infofile.pcd.go.th/mgt/PollutionReport2015_en.pdf

85
Sahimaa, O., Hupponen, M., Horttanainen, M., & Sorvari, J. (2015). Method for residual
household waste composition studies. Waste Management, 46, 3-14.

Shekdar, A. V. (2009). Sustainable solid waste management: An integrated approach for

Asian countries. Waste Management, 29(4), 1438-1448.

Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Eliassen R., & Prof. Emeritus (1997). Solid Wastes:
Engineering Principles and Management Issues. In International Student Edition
(Ed), USA: McGraw-Hill.

United Nation Environmental Program. (UNEP). (2005). Solid Waste Management 2005.
Retrieved October 23, 2018 from http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/spc/solid_
waste_management/Vol_I/Binder1.pdf

UNFPA, & CSO. (2007). Afghanistan, A Socio-Economic and Demographic Profile

Household listing 2003-2005. Kabul, Afghanistan. Retrieved October 23, 2018,
from http://afghanag.ucdavis.edu/country-info/files/all-Afghanistan.pdf

Van de Klundert, A., & Anschütz, J. (2001). Integrated sustainable waste management-the
concept. Tools for decision makers. Waste Gouda.

Visvanathan, C., Adhikari, R., & Ananth, A. P. (2007), 3R practices for municipal solid
waste management in Asia. In Kalmar ECOTECH 07 and Symposium on
Environmental Chemistry, (pp. 26-28).

World Bank (WB). (2012). WHAT A WASTE-A Global Review of Solid Waste Management.
The World Bank Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers, New York.
Retrieved October 23, 2018 from https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBAN
DEVELOPMENT/Resources/3363871334852610766/What_a_Waste2012_Final.
pdf

World Bank Group. (2016). Rapid assessment of Kabul municipality’s solid waste
management systems. (Report no: ACS19236), (Unpublished).

Zafar, S. (2018, April 5). Food Waste, Ramadan and the Middle East. Retrieved
November 11, 2018 from https://www.ecomena.org/food-waste-ramadan/

Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H. M., Hartman, K., Wang, F., Liu, G., Choate, C., & Gamble, P.
(2007). Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion.
Bioresource Technology, 98(4), 929-935.

86
 Appendix A

National Waste Management Policy for Afghanistan (translated)

87
1. Policies, Principles and Objectives

The waste management policy is a measure taken to better protect and control the waste to
provide a clean and healthy environment for all citizens.
This policy is implemented in the following ways

i. Establish a healthy control system for waste management

ii. Reducing waste through the development of a control system
iii. Encourage citizens to reduce, recycle and recycle waste

2. Guiding Principles

i. Proper Disposal of Waste

All waste should be disposed of with appropriate techniques and equipment, taking into
account the environmental conditions of the locals.

ii. Reducing Waste

Generation of waste from sources should be minimized to a reasonable extent. Raw

materials, packaging materials, energy, etc. should be used effectively. An effective way of
reducing waste is to encourage producers and consumers to avoid unnecessary costs.

iii. Planning the Facility for Increased Benefits

The provision and distribution of facilities and sanitation facilities among rich and poor
people in the community should be given equal priority to those areas that are more
environmentally and socially beneficial.

iv. Promote 3R Principles (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle)

All people in the community and producers should be encouraged in Reduction, Reuse and
Recycle of waste.

v. Incorporate Waste Management

Incorporation of waste management procedures in urban planning, housing development,

environment, health, education programs and projects, etc. should be encouraged.

vi. Use of Sustainable Technology

Technology that is right, cost-effective, easy-to-use, economically viable, and easily

operated and monitored by locals should be created and used.

vii. Economic Balance and Legal Procedure

The benefits of the legal procedure for waste management are that it provides a reasonable
level of waste pollution control and what environmental goals can be achieved. But pursuing
a legal method requires a series of economic incentives. The benefits of economic incentives
are to provide people with benefits in order to improve the waste management.

88
3. The Purpose of the Policy Implementation

The purpose of this policy is to regulate municipal waste, hazardous waste and municipal
solid waste. This policy provides a framework for the formulation of regulatory and waste
management standards as described in the environmental law. The explanations given
corresponds to the following provisions of the environmental law:

• Article 30: General prohibition and duty of care in relation to the setting of waste
• Article 31: Waste management licenses
• Article 32: Hazardous waste management licenses
• Article 33. Import, export and trade of waste

4. Solid Municipal Waste

4.1 Policy Strategy

In the policy strategy, the following elements of the environmental law should be used as
guidelines:

Clauses 1 and 2 of Article 30 of the Environmental Act require owners and owners of waste
management facilities to obtain an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) permit and
appropriate environmental controls in waste storage facilities, categorization, reuse and
evacuation facilities, to provide.

Article 31 of the Environmental Law emphasizes the regulations for waste disposal, the
landfill of waste, the operation of waste incineration plants, and other activities used to store
and dispose of waste.

4.2 Policy Method

The Municipal Solid Waste Management Method is based on the establishment and efficient
management of municipal accountability reporting systems and, if necessary, the National
Environmental Protection Agency is also a partner.

i. Production, Composition and Disposing of waste

Municipalities responsible for waste management should submit annual reports on the
amount of per capita waste generated and composition of waste.

Some municipalities will not be able to accurately estimate the relevant figures due to the
lack of high-tonnage balances. It is recommended that such scales be used in urban centers
with a population of more than 500,000 people. Estimated volumes and weights of less than
this figure can be determined based on population sampling analyzes.

Therefore, this policy recommends that municipalities provide annual reports on the status
of municipal solid waste management in urban centers. Due to the size of the city centers,
reports should include the above information and be recorded in the National Environmental
Protection Agency.

89
 ii. Minimum Criteria for Landfill Facilities

The status of landfill facilities in the major urban centers is unknown, but it is likely to be
relatively incomplete. This policy recommends a set of minimum criteria for landfill
facilities. These criteria help to fix landfill sites, build and adjust the required areas. (See
Table 2)

Levels for upgrading landfill health systems can be classified into four levels

Level 1: Controlled drain

Level 2: Restrict sanitary landfill with an obstacle and daily soil cover.
Level 3: Hygienic landfill with recirculation of waste water
Level 4: Hygienic landfill with purification of drainage water

This policy recommends the following minimum criteria, which should be achieved within
3 to 5 years throughout Afghanistan:

 All municipalities must have a Level 1 goal

 All municipalities with a population of more than 500,000 must have a Level 2 goal
 All municipalities with a population of more than 2,000,000 must have a Level 3
target

iii. Environmental Guidelines for the Selection of the Site

Determining the proper area for waste disposal will require the following criteria

 Sufficient area and volume to provide landfill capacity that can meet the expected
project requirements for a minimum of 25 years to justify investments in connecting,
drainage, fencing and long-haul centers.
 The ground area should not be located in areas where there is not enough space to
hold there or connected to a residential area that is exposed to the wind usually
flowing from the outside.
 The land should not be sloping, as the stability of these areas is difficult.
 The high monsoon level of underwater water (for example, the average surface water
level in the last 10 years) should be lower than the desired level of digging, or the
area that can be prepared for the construction of a landfill. High soil water under high
water levels in monsoon water relatively impenetrable (preferably in the absence of
disruption, less than 10-6cm / s permeability).
 Within the likely area of landfill development, no significant wetlands of significant
biological diversity or production value, sensitive ecological areas and / or historical
areas should not be available.
 None of the areas within the landfill boundaries should be part of a water abstraction
area for the current or future water supply development.
 There are no personal or public wells available for irrigation or water supply for
livestock at the bottom of the landfill, because these wells are at risk. Alternative
sources of water supply can be done in a fair and easy manner.
 The landfill site should not be near major sources of surface water such as water or
sewage.

90
  Major lines of power transmission and other sub constructions (such as sewage
systems, pipelines) from the landfill development area shall not pass unless the
landfill activity clearly does not create any kind of concern in this regard or change
the design of the building It is economically feasible.
 There should not be any development projects near or near the landfill site. The waste
disposal site should, at least, be within 1 km of the commercial or non-residential
area and water resources.
 In designing buildings, economic ministers should include environmental criteria to
protect the potential hazards of waste.
 Avoid fixing and defining interim areas for landfill - for example, in the landfill area,
there should be no significant earthquake hazard, as there will be many economic,
social and technological problems in the event of an earthquake.
 In the consolidation area for landfill, attention should be paid to the absence of
significant breakthrough seams or structures, as there will be unpredictable gas
emissions if seams exist.
 In the established area, first of all, the quality of water under the water during the
development phase of the site should be monitored and monitored. And it also takes
a certain amount of time to install a gas monitoring device at the landfill site. The
inhabitants of the same place may face the risk of carbon emissions by initiating
landfill.
 Areas under the jurisdiction of the respective municipality are responsible for the
landfill and identification of its neighborhoods by the municipality.
 Prior to determining the place for waste disposal, the site should be issued by
Environmental Experts and the Naval Board from the National Environmental
Protection Agency, and local / provincial departments of the relevant environmental
departments should act in coordination with the municipality and provincial
authorities.
 Landfill sites should be able to see the relevant documents and documents in
accordance with the plan, according to the timelines
 Landfill sites should be selected alongside the waste process for more facilities and
require that waste processing facilities be an integral part of the landfill plan.
 The current landfill sites that are used for more than 5 years should be in accordance
with the specifications of this policy.
 Biomedicine waste should be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this
policy.
 Along the landfill site, a protected area (forbidden development) should be created
and included in the municipality plan.

iv. Water Quality Monitoring

Before the establishment of a landfill site, information should be collected, recorded and
maintained to be used as a reference in the future, in order to stabilize water quality. In a
landfill site of 50 meters, the surface water quality must be continuously monitored and
monitored to ensure that ground water is not contaminated beyond the permissible level. The
groundwater around the landfill for any type of purpose (drinking and irrigation) should be
used after ensuring the quality of drinking water that complies with the WHO guidelines.

91
 v. Monitoring of the Air Quality of Landfill

The gas control system, including the gas collection system, should be installed alongside
the landfill site. Control should begin at level 2 to help reduce the production of bad breath,
prevent the transfer of gases to the outside area, and help protect the plant carpet that has
been restored above the landfill site. The concentration of gas produced at the landfill site
should not exceed 25% of the lower limit of explosion

The gas collected in the landfill is to be used directly for heating or energy purposes. Other
than that, the landfill gas should be burned and should not be emitted directly to an atomic
receptacle or used legally. If it is not possible to burn or use it, then the produced gas should
be removed from the landfill site in a form (inactive, in order to avoid potential hazards).
The air quality of the landfill site and the surrounding area should be monitored and
monitored regularly and the quality of airborne conforms to the standards set out in Table
A-1.

Table A-1: Landfill Gases Standards

Parameters At least allowed

3
(i) Sulfur dioxide 120 mg / m
(ii) Particulate Matter (PM) 500 mg / m3
(iii) Methane Do not exceed at least 25% because of the risk
of explosion
(25% equivalent to 650 mg / m3
(iv) Daily ammonia (typical duration of 0.4 mg/m3 (400 µg/m3)
24 hours)
(v) Average 1 hour of carbon monoxide: 2 mg / m3
Average 8 hours: 1 mg / m3

vi. Composting

In addition to the implementation of minimum standards for landfill, advanced methods such
as fertilizer preparation can be used as an appropriate landfill technology. This method
(fertilization) has already been used in many countries and is located in a location in the
landfill site (recyclable material). It can be difficult to fertilize very dry and pitchy waste.
The fertilization process is carried out only if there is sufficient material and moisture in the
composition of the waste. Therefore, it is important to consider the calorie (energy) and
moisture content of the member's waste to confirm whether the fertilizer can be created with
the facility for landfill or not?

vii. Education and Raising Public Awareness

Increasing public participation requires the establishment and strengthening of an effective

system of communication between local communities. This includes clear decision making
by local authorities and an agreement on which responsibilities of local and national
authorities are. It is a two-way process - people have to do the work they are required to do
(the most commonly used for people), and local authorities should do what they plan to do
(better performance of local organizations), especially the collection of waste at a given time
according to the schedule. The government should listen to the people's opinions and
demands, follow up and resolve public complaints, and provide advice, advancements and

92
issues. By doing so, the local government will win the trust of the people, which is vital to
increase and maintain people's cooperation. The local government must understand that its
ultimate goal is the purity of the city, which is what people want.

5. Medical Waste

5.1 Policy Strategy

As a foundation for a policy strategy, the principles of the policy guideline established by
the World Health Organization should be implemented. The principles of the policy guide
are as follows:

 Implementation of precautious measures from the dangerous threat to the contact of

health workers and the general public with medical waste through the promotion of
environmentally sound policies
 Supporting global efforts to reduce the amount of fatal exhaust emissions released
into the atmosphere
 Supporting the Convention on Persistent Organic pollutants (POPs)
 Supporting the Basel Convention on hazardous waste and other wastes
 Reduced exposure to toxic pollutants from the incineration process through
appropriate procedures for waste incineration plants
 Promote and enhance long-term non-target developed technologies for the disposal
of medical waste to prevent life-threatening diseases

To manage biomedical waste, the above principles can only be achieved through the
application of the following healthy practices

 Segregation of Waste Inside Hospitals

 Banning of Expired Medicines
 Precise Control of Medicines
 Transferring of Non-Hazardous Waste from Hospitals to Municipality bins
 Handling Infectious Waste Through Incineration or Disinfection
 Proper Disposal of Hospital Waste

5.2 Policy Practices

As noted, the regulation of medical waste requires the coordination and capacity building of
relevant organizations. This section outlines the procedures for better control of the medical
waste and the coordination of the concerned organizations.

i. Formation of a Committee of Experts for the Regulation of Medical Waste

It is suggested that a committee of experts be set up to improve the current situation. The
committee will be composed of representatives of the following organizations. This Expert
Committee should be appointed for a period not less than 5 years, with the following
competencies

 Committee for assessing the status of medical waste across the country,

93
  Committee for defining the technology and preferred systems for regulating waste
for active participation and attracting assistance for optimal methods.
 Committee for capacity building and raising awareness about controlling and
regulating contamination.
 Committee for the development of a manual on waste management, the secretariat
of this committee, is being developed by the Ministry of Public Health in close
cooperation with the National Environmental Protection Agency.

ii. Revision of the Status of Medical Waste Throughout the Country

The committees should carry out an urgent assessment of the situation of medical waste
across the country, in cooperation with the Ministry of Public Health, local authorities and
municipalities. This assessment should include a review of all hospitals and clinics on the
type and amount of waste generated. To further strengthen this assessment, all government
and non-governmental organizations operating in the health sector should produce a report
on the quantities and types of waste generated and their evacuation methods.

As part of a global assessment, a revision of the options for disposing of waste should be
determined. This includes an assessment of the landfill options and the existing incineration
procedures and their suitability through the evaluation of the technology used. This provides
useful information on the establishment of interim and long-term strategies for trash
dispensing. This action can be taken as a joint action alongside the assessment of the solid
waste discharge in urban centers.

iii. Standards for Trash Dispensing

These standards should be implemented in waste production and separation areas using
containers /containers marked with the code and the color indicated in Table 2.2 clearly.

Table A-2: Color Marking System for the Transfer of Waste

Color Type of bag Category of waste

Yellow Plastic bags Categories 1,2,3 and 6
Red Plastic bags Categories 3,6 and 7
Blue and half white Plastic bags Categories 4 and 7
Black Plastic bags Categories 5 and 9

All hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, doctors' homes, medical laboratories, medical research
facilities, and veterinary clinics should be provided with enough space to store waste. In the
absence of suitable facilities for the discharge of waste, the following intermediate standards
can be accepted

 Final disposal should preferably be carried out in a specific place and must be
covered by a layer of soil of at least 50 cm.
 If there is no other alternative to the final disposal, hospital waste must be evacuated
along with general waste. But in this case, the hospital waste should be covered
immediately with one meter thick municipality waste and should always be moved
more than two meters away from the landfill site.

94
6. Highly Hazardous Waste

6.1 Policy Strategy

Considering the importance of hazardous waste management, the environmental law has
also emphasized on this issue.

 Article 2.30 - Any person who incinerates, manufactures, collects, recycles,

transports, stores, refiners or disposes of waste (including hazardous waste) is
required to take all reasonable measures to prevent significant adverse effects on the
environment.

 Article 30.30 - The owner or occupier of any area where hazardous waste is produced
shall be obliged to separate all hazardous waste from other waste and store it in
separate containers in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental
Protection Agency (NEPA) as in the regulations, published guidelines or conditions
of the license.

 Article 32. Risk Licensing Permits - In short, this provision requires that any landlord
or occupant of the land, where the waste is stored, treated or disposed of, is required
to have a licensed waste hazard licensing license from NEPA. This licensing process
will require the provision of specific information to NEPA, and will then be subject
to any licensing requirements.

 Article 33. The importation, transport and distribution of waste are not permitted
without the written permission of the National Environmental Protection Agency
(NEPA)

While this policy specifies hazardous materials, it does not specify the details of how to deal
with these materials, including the management of immunity from potential hazards. This
policy outlines some guidelines or guidelines for regulating hazardous substances.

6.2 Policy Methodology

There are a number of factors in determining the policy method for dealing with hazardous
waste. These factors include the capacity constraints in Afghanistan and the multilateral
environmental agreements on chemicals, especially the Basel Convention, which was
created to handle trans-boundary shipment of high-risk waste. As outlined in the Pollution
Control Policy, this Convention can be used to strengthen the proper management of
hazardous waste in Afghanistan.

i. Threat Control and Hazardous Waste Disposal

The ratification and implementation of the Basel Convention will provide a good basis for
regulating hazardous waste, attracting international experts, and expanding opportunities for
financial and technical assistance. However, meeting the requirements of the Basel
Convention is above the capacity in Afghanistan. , But in the early stages of the use of the
hazardous waste list, Basel's control is proposed for controlling the supply and distribution.
For practical control measures, a significant contribution from the Department of Customs
of the Ministry of Finance is necessary. If necessary, the transfer of hazardous waste to or

95
out of Afghanistan, essential information must be submitted in writing to (NEPA) in order
to comply with the environmental law (33).

ii. Licensing Hazardous Waste

Where hazardous waste is present, licensing by NEPA is indispensable under the

environmental law. If the list contained in the Basel Convention is accepted, it is difficult to
grant licensing by NEPA for small activities (such as clinics) that produce limited risk
wastes.

iii. Storage and Transfer of Hazardous Waste

Transfer and storage of high-risk material (waste) requires the packaging to be properly
sealed and labeled and fitted on it. Of course, this is the responsibility of the owners of the
factories. Labels and packaging are made so that the name is readily visible, resistant to
physical conditions and climatic factors, and appropriate measures are taken from the side
of snowfall. The storage and packaging of hazardous waste requires guidelines.

iv. Disposal of Hazardous Waste

The status of hazardous waste disposal in Afghanistan is currently non-standard and there
are only a handful of waste disposal facilities available in the country. There are a number
of waste incineration machines that are most commonly used for disposal of clinic waste.
Therefore, in the absence of facilities for regulating waste, it will be difficult to control
hazardous waste.

v. Radioactive Waste

Solid and liquid waste is a generator of radiation (radioactive isotopes) and should not be
disposed together with general waste. The most famous radioactive waste is those produced
by the nuclear energy industry. Other sources of radioactive waste include radioactive
materials that are produced for medical, research, industrial and industrial purposes, in areas
of intolerance to abandoned nuclear facilities. The availability of radioactive waste in
Afghanistan is unlikely, or if it is available, its amount is very low. The safest methods for
radioactive waste disposal include containment, radiation inactivation and isolation in the
storage. The choice of methods depends on the level and type of waste activity. Low and
short-lived radioactive waste can be moved into drum containers, covered or cemented.

96
 Appendix B

Comparison Matrix – Various studies on SWM of Kabul City

97
Table-B: Comparison Matrix of Different Studies on SWM of Kabul City

Publication Ahmad Khoshbeen’s master

(solid waste Thesis Study
Technical / Noori
management
Management JICA Study Abdul Wahab Thesis WB Study Hameedulah
and possible
Aspect Thesis
solutions in
Kabul city)
Year of Study December 2018
Sep-09 May-15 June, 2016 2017 September 2017
Completion
Only primary data The surveys are All surveys and sample collection is
collection was the done and 2016 but done from March 2018, till
The Data collection was from
residents survey for the secondary data November 2018. Most of the data is
Year for April to June 2016, But most of
which the date is not mentioned is collected through primary data
Baseline data None reported the data is cited from 2015
mentioned and the mostly from JICA collection while secondary data is
considered publications, thesis and reports of
secondary data is report 2009 and a only used for literature.
2014 and 2015.
mostly taken from paper of Prof Visu
previous publications of 2006
short term plans Short term plan for 5 years and long
for 2015, medium Short term plans for 12 months term plan for 10 years
Planning term plans for after report completion and
Not mentioned none reported Not reported
Horizon (Year) 2020 and long medium to long term plans till
term plans for 2021
2025
Review of existing 1. To review the To assess the existing waste
condition, planning historical perspective management system, field visits to
Review of SWM situation To assess overall landfill transfer station, junk shops,
framework for of SWM in Kabul city Waste generation
Meetings with Director DoS, situation of SWM recycling facilities, and interviews
SWM, Master plan 2. To review the rate in district 12,
Scope of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of in Kabul city and and surveys with the stakeholders
for SWM in Kabul current waste energy generation
Study Kabul city how can the involved
city, and management of SWM rate from wet and
Collect and review already system be
implementing 3. To do the SWOT dry wet
published reports improved
arrangements for analysis of the current
SWM system

98
 Kabul city. Most of the sample
taking for the primary data
collections were done from district
22 districts since primary data 3,5,10 and 11. while some of the
The residents
Coverage Area was not collected therefore private sectors and field visits were
17 districts 13th district District 12 survey was carried
of Study secondary data was collected for also in other districts as well
out in 5th district
all districts

Executive Branch Office of the Department of Sanitation

President responsible for waste management,
The President and his NEPA responsible for policy and
administration have the power to regulatory framework, Ministry of
1. Ministry of propose legislation in the National Public Health responsible for
Public Health role Assembly. healthcare waste management,
Institutional
is to manage 2. Ministry of Urban Ministry of Urban Development
Stakeholders -
hospital waste Development Sanitation in Kabul: responsible for infrastructure
Roles and
2. Department of None-reported Responsible to build None-reported None-reported building related to sanitation, WB,
Responsibilities
Sanitation for infrastructures related to UN-Habitat, and USAID responsible
in SWM
municipal waste sanitation. for advisory and consultancy
management 3. National Environmental
Protection Agency (NEPA) serves
as Afghanistan's environmental
policy-making and regulatory
institution.

0.4-0.7 kg/capita/day and 5454 Average per capita generation is at

tonnes per day with households, 0.4 kg/capita/day 0.61 kg/day, with high income
1840 tonnes/day is
commercial units, Hospitals and and 2000 tons per households is 0.81 kg/capita/day,
4390 tonnes per estimated from 0.4
industries are major generators of day in Kabul city middle income is 0.61 kg/capita/day
Waste day, per capita 0.4 kg/capita/day or kg/capita/day
waste. It is mentioned in the (source given is and lower income is 0.41
Generation waste generation 3000 tonnes per day generation of
report that the waste generation the JICA's report kg/capita/day. With total population
not reported waste for 4.6
rate estimated is not accurate of 2009) and 62.4 of 5 million, 3050 tonnes of MSW
million population
therefore it can create risks while kg in district 12 per day is generated.
planning engineering designs.

99
 65% organic The C&C analysis is done for this
waste, 5% plastic, study through waste audit instead of
70% organic
Organic 57%, paper 2.5 glasses, 6% taking it from another source, to
waste, 3.8%
and plastic 15%, and paper and receive accurate data. The data
plastic, 2.2%
other materials cardboard, 2 % analysis shows that High income and
glasses, 5.5%
including metal and textile, 2% wood, middle income households at 58%
paper and
glass 28%. The source 15.5% demolition and 57% respectively, generates
cardboard, 2 %
Organic 57%, of this composition waste and 2% more food compared to lower
textile, 2% wood,
paper and plastic and waste generation 30% sludge, 25 % organic waste, metal waste. The income households while
Waste 15% demolition
15%, and other in the thesis is given 12% building materials, 11% source for this commercial units generates more
Composition waste and 1.2%
materials including NEPA’s national plastic, 3 % bottles, 1 % glass and data is given packaging materials. The hazardous
Analysis metal waste. The
metal and glass waste management 18 % others based on a paper waste at 27% is highest amongst all
source of this is
28%. policy of 2010 and the publication of strata. The overall composition
same as mentioned
source of this NEPA's 2012 and in that analysis shows that food waste is at
in publication
policy report for this paper the organic highest percentage with 52.4 %
column on the left
data is WB's report of % is 70% and the while the recyclable waste is at
hand but the data
2005 on solid waste of estimation is 43.6%.
in both the report
Kabul. done from
is different.
another paper of
2006.
Collection 1740 tonnes of the 3050 tonnes is
effciency is collected taking collection efficiency
reported to be 25% to 57%
whereas the 400 tonnes is collected
It is mentioned that
amount of waste form 300 tonnes 75 % of 5454 tonnes waste is
Collection C.E is 48% and
collected is 400 (collection efficiency collected None-reported
Efficiency source is Habitat
tonnes per day is only 13 %)
which is equivalent
to 9% of total
waste generated

No waste segregation exist in the

whole city. All types of waste
streams collected and disposed
Waste collectively. DoS has only started
Non reported None reported No waste segregation none reported None reported
Segregation the segregation campaign in 3rd
Makroyan area but the resident have
still not adapted to the segregation
practices.

100
 It is only Community awareness programs are
It is reported that
mentioned that still not at high level but still DoS
awareness
about 69% of the has initiated awareness programs in
programs should
residents do not some of the schools and also the
be initiated for the Awareness is very low and there
Community have bins at leader of the mosques are advised to
hospital personnel None reported are no community awareness None reported
Awareness households and lecture the people about the issues
on how to programs initiated at the moment.
their understating related to waste in sermon
segregate their
of waste
waste form mixed
management is
waste
very low
The number of the 733 are 7 m3 bins, 1116 are 1m3 bins
collection points is and 124 are open collection points
not reported but it made of concrete. The number of
is reported that Number of community bins are small bins at the public places like
only 500 collection not mentioned but 6,000 markets, parks etc is very low
bins present with collection points are present. therefore DoS is planning to buy
rest of the Most of these collection points new bins to cover these areas
700 are 7 m3 bins,
collection points are made of concrete and are open
4500 are 1m3 bins
all made of collection points and also most of
3000 units and 2300 are open
Community bins concrete. For 2015 the points are made by the locals None-reported
collection points
it is proposed to where people have dump their
made of concrete.
procure 5400 waste and the DoS is bound to
collection bins to collect the waste from those
get rid of all the points eventhough they are not
open points, 1000 proper collection points.
more should be
procure by 2020
and 2025

DoS currently has 384 active

177 mostly dump 350 vehicles exist with only 122
vehicles, mostly dumptrucks and
trucks. New are functioning well and no
compacting vehicles. DoS has also
Collection vehicles are 360 vehicles vehicle has GPS tracking None reported None reported
contracted 150 tricycles that can
vehicles proposed for waste system.Most of the vehicles are
easily access areas with narrow
collection open trucks
roads and can take more trip than the
high loading capacity trucks take.
Private sector provides door to door
collection to about 51, 347
Door-to-Door No door to door Only by private sector Only is taking place in some areas households and commercial units
None reported None reported
Collection collection in few districts by private sector only and charge about 150 to 200 Afs per
month. The private sector that
transport the waste to Gazak landfill

101
 has a collection schedule of once in
two days for each household
whereas those private waste
collectors who are not a company
and operates individually dumps the
waste in the municipal bins and
collects waste from each household
on daily basis
There are about 2000-3000 informal
The Rag pickers are in waste pickers in the city collecting
1000's mostly chilren, about 200-300 tonnes/day of waste.
Informal Sector old age people and Same as in Abdul These waste pickers mostly collect
none reported Same as in Abdul Wahab's thesis None reported
(Rag Pickers) drug addicts. Amount Wahab thesis all types of recyclable waste except
and type of waste the single used plastic bags as there
picked is not known is very low price for this type of
waste in the market.
There are 3 main highways taken by
the vehicles to reach either to Gazak
landfill or transfer station. These
highways are Kabul Jalalabad
highway, Karte Naw highway and
No mention of the travel routes. It
Qasaba highway. The waste
is proposed that all the collection
collected form district 8 and 7 are
none reported none reported points should be map out and the None reported None reported
Route Planning near to Karte now highways so the
best travel routes should be
vehicles take that route, the waste
identify.
collected form the center of the city
like district 1,2,9 and 10 mostly
takes Kabul Jalalabad highway,
while the vehicles leaving the DoS
or district 11, 15,18 takes the Qasaba
highway.
It is mentioned that There is only active transfer station
No transfer no transfer station in the city, District 6 has very
stations but 4 No transfer station. The only exist and waste is recently started a small transfer
transfer stations transfer station in Bagrami is directly transferred station which is more of a collection
Only one transfer
are proposed, from closed. It is recommended that to Landfill and zone, where they have put 15 to 20,
station at Bagrami is None reported
Transfer Station which 2 will be there should be a transfer station only at one point 7 m3 bins and waste from other
presently working
built by 2015, 1 but the number and location of the of the report it is areas are transfer there and then
more in 2020 and transfer station is not proposed. mentioned that transfer to Gazak landfill. This study
the last in 2025 transfer stations proposes 3 transfer stations each at
should be district 4, 6, and 12
considered.

102
 Approximately 500 hectares and The Gazak 2 landfill is unsanitary
has plenty of room to dump waste Only one with no management system for
Landfill Only one unsanitary
for next 30 years. The landfill unsanitary landfill leachate or gases. All waste streams
(Refurbishment / only one landfill at landfill at Gazak 2
does not have any weighing None reported at Gazak 2 which are disposed together. The landfill
Capping of Chamtala with an area of 11.5
machine and is not sanitary with have an area of 10 has about 160 hectares of land from
Existing) hectares
no treatment system for the hectares which only about 80 hectares is
leachate or the gases currently in use.
If the ISWM plan proposed in this
study is implemented then there will
be no need for another landfill for
5 landfills are It is only mentioned that Kabul
Five landfill proposed atleast 15 to 20 years since only
proposed, 2 by city should have a sanitary
Landfills but the types of about 4-10 % of the non-recyclable
2015, 1 more in landfill but the type and number None reported None proposed
(Proposed) landfills are not waste will end up in the landfill,
2020 and 2 more in of sanitary landfill are not
proposed with about 90-96% of the
2025 proposed
recyclables with be sent for
recycling which will result in
extended landfill life.
Since 52% of the waste is composed
It is only suggested that compost Composting of
of food waste, composting of waste
can be at one point in the whole waste is proposed
can be suitable option for food waste
report that compost can be a good because of the
managemnet and since Afghanistan
None reported or option for organic waste higher organic
Composting none reported none reported is agricultural country the end
proposed management. The number of proportion but the
product of compost can have a good
composting plants are the possible area for
market value The land availabiltiy
locations are not mentioned in the composting is not
for compost facilities has to be
report. proposed
assessed first.
The city has good numbers of
recycling facilities but since these
are not formal and do not receive
It is only segregated waste therefore they have
Combustion of
mentioned that been facing lots of problems. MRF
RDF, anaerobic digestion, waste is proposed
recycling facilities facility is proposed for boosting the
Recycling Only incineration incineration, biofuel are all to generate enrgy
None reported or can imprrove the recycling of dry waste, incineration
Technologies of organic waste is among the potential possibilities from waste and
proposed SWM but the type facilities are proposed for the
(proposed) proposed that can be further explored in the use that energy
of technologies hazardous and biomedical waste.
context of the ISWM. for lighting of
and its possibilities
roads
are not mentioned

103
 The total cost of the current system
is calculated at 63.63 million
Afs/month. For a 100% collection
efficiency the total cost is estimated
35 Afs/ tonne is at 111.53 million Afs/month, with
Operating Cost
none reported None reported collection+Disposal+Miscellaneo None reported Not reported the per capita cost/month is at 23
Budget
us Afs. The willingness to pay shows
that this cost can be recovered by
charging 150 Afs/month to
households and 200 Afs/month to
commercial units.
Citizens or communities that
participate well in the proposed plan
Awards schemes
None-reported None-reported None-reported None-reported None-reported should be provided with awards or
for citizens
waiving the monthly waste services
fees etc.
Demonstration/Pilot projects for
Demonstration/ composting and waste segregation is
None-reported None-reported None-reported None-reported None-reported
pilot projects proposed at school, universities,
ministries, markets etc.

104
 Appendix C

Questionnaire Survey for Residents of Kabul City

105
 Questionnaire Survey for Residents of Kabul City

The focus of this questionnaire survey is on solid waste management (SWM) in Kabul city
with an aim to gather your concerns and opinions on the mentioned issues. Please answer
to the following questions as precisely as possible. Thank you very much for your time.

General Information

1. Name of respondent………………………………………………………………………
District: …………………………………. Income Level: ……………………………….
Age: ……………………………………... Education Level: ……………………………

Section 1: Assessment of current Solid Waste Management (SWM): (Please mark the
appropriate Box)
2. What is the solid waste collection frequency by Municipality in your area?
Daily Thrice a week Twice a week once a week
3. How satisfied are you about the services provided by the SWM department trucks in this
area?
Highly satisfied Less satisfied Dissatisfied
4. What are the existing SWM problems in this city? (For this question you can select more
than one option)
Number of collection bins Size of collection bins Collection frequency
5. Do you agree that Municipality should introduce tax for SW collection?
Agree Disagree Not sure
6. Will you agree to pay tax for a private company if they will collect your waste on regular
basis?
Yes No Not sure
7. Will you agree to pay tax to Kabul Municipality if they will collect your waste on regular
basis?
Yes No Not sure
8. If your answer to question 6 and 7 is yes then how much tax (in Afs) you would be willing to
pay for your waste collection?
50-100 100 - 150 150 - 200 More than 200
9. Do you agree that households generating more waste should be charged more tax?
Agree Disagree Not opinion

Section 2. Assessment of the 3R approaches and opportunities:

10. Do you know about 3R (Reduce, Reuse and Recycling)?
Yes No Not sure

106
11. Is there any large scale recycling been carried out in this locality?
Yes No Not sure
12. How do you manage your food waste?
Feed to animals Compost Throw away as mix waste
13. What do you do with the recycling plastic packaging e.g. plastic bottles and glass bottles?
Collect for reuse Sell to buyers Throw away as mix waste
14. Are there any buyers of used recyclable products (like plastic, bottles, cans and boxes) in
your locality?
Yes No Not sure
15. Do you agree to segregate organic and recycling waste at house/office level?
Agree Disagree Not sure
16. Will you allow any recycling facilities to be built in your locality?
Yes No Not sure
17. With what system do you think that SWM will perform better? (For this question you can
select more than one option)
Privatization Public awareness Legal tools
18. Do you have any suggestions for improving SWM in Kabul city? Please briefly write in the
lines below:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Date: / /2018

107
 Appendix D

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Program Operators’ Survey

108
 D-1 Questionnaire sample survey for Directorate of Sanitation

This questionnaire is designed to assess the current Municipal Solid Waste Management
(MSWM) approaches and possibilities to incorporate 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycling)
strategies in Kabul city. The respondent of this questionnaire is expected to be a head
of solid waste management department or should be carrying responsibility of waste
management in Kabul city. This information will help to develop a conceptual sustainable
waste management system for bridging the gap between present and future need in Kabul city.

Section 1. Assessment of current MSWM

1. Area of jurisdiction: …………………………………………………………………………
2. Number of collection points in the city: …………………………………………………….
3. Collection frequency: Daily Weekly Monthly
4. Quantity of collected waste in ton/day: ……………………………………………………......
5. Total number of people working in MSWM department: …………………………………
6. Out of total number of people how many people work in
Administrative, managerial and executive positions: …………………………………………..
Work as specialized technicians: ……………………………………………………………….
Categorized as unskilled workers: ………………………………………………………………
7. What is the amount of budget (in Afs) that comes to MSWM department out of total annual
budget:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. Out of total budget how much budget (in Afs) is allocated for
Staff working in MSWM department: ……………………………………………………………..
Collection, treatment and disposal of waste: ……………………………………………………….
Community awareness: …………………………………………………………………………...
9. Vehicles available in MSWM department:

Vehicle type No Av. Capacity (m3) Years in service Conditions of vehicle

G F B

Bulldozers

Compactors

Open trucks

Water tankers

Vehicle for administration

Note: G = Good, F = Fair, B = Bad condition

109
10. Do you plan to design new dump sites for MSWM by 2020 or 2025?
Yes No Not sure
11. If answer to question 23 is yes, then what is location of new dump site?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
12. Level of technical capacity of people working in your MSWM department to design and
operate the new dumpsite
Excellent Good Fairly good
13. Do people from your department participate in training and awareness programs on waste
management?
Yes No Not sure
14. Does your department have sufficient budget and financial resources to deal with waste
management in Kabul city?
Yes No Not sure
15. Do you agree that municipality should introduce tax for collection of SWM?
Agree Disagree Not sure
16. With what system do you think existing MSWM will perform better?
Privatization Public awareness Legal tools

Section 2: Assessment of 3R approaches and opportunities:

17. Is there any large scale recycling carried out in Kabul city?
Yes No Not sure
18. Are there any private companies that carry out recycling?
Yes No Not sure
19. Are there any community awareness programs conducted for waste reduction at source by
Municipal Government?
Yes No Not sure
20. Does your department currently have any Budget for recycling facilities?
Yes No Not sure
21. If answer to question 32 is yes, what is the amount of budget (in Afs)?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
22. Does your department plan to include any budget for recycling facilities in future?
Yes No Not sure

110
 D-2 Questions for field visit to landfill sites

Date: ……………..........

Name of person interviewed: ……………………………………………………………...

Contact: …………………………………………………………………………………….

Questions

1. Number of Incoming trucks to landfill?

………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2. Size of incoming trucks?

………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………..

3. Type waste coming to Landfill?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. Number of hazardous waste trucks coming to landfill?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Method of waste disposal?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

6. Total area of landfill?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

7. Years of service?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

111
 8. Number of workers at landfill site?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

9. Vehicles at landfill site?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

10. Are waste pickers allowed at landfill site?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

11. Are there any health or safety issues?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

12. Are there any communities living nearby?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

13. Any burning of waste taking place?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

Coordinates of landfill

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

Any other points noted

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………

112
 D-3 Questionnaire for recycling facilities/Informal Waste Pickers

This questionnaire is designed to assess the current 3R opportunities and approaches in

Kabul city. The Data obtained through this questionnaire will only be used for research
purposes. Kindly please answer all the questions.

General Information:

Name of the owner: ………………………………………………………………………...

Level of education: …………………………………………………………………………

Address of the facility: ……………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Coordinates of the location: ……………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Expenses in 1 month: ………………………………………………………………………

Income in 1 month: ………………………………………………………………………..

1. Reasons for starting this facility:

Unable to find formal employment High income from this business

Others: ……………………………………………………………………………….

2. When did you start this facility? ………………………………………………………..

3. How many people work in this facility? ………………………………………………..

4. How the waste does comes to this facility?

Collect from individual Households Collect from community bins

Collect from landfills Buy from waste pickers

5. What methods do you use to segregate waste?

Manual Machinery Others ……………………………………………..

6. To whom do you sell the segregated waste?

Recycling facility inside city Recycling facility outside city

Export outside country (Please mention which country ………………………………….)

7. In case if you sell to recycling facility inside city then what is the address of that
facility:
……………………………………………………………………………………………….

113
8. In case if you sell to recycling facility outside city then what is the address of that
facility:
………………………………………………………………………………………………..

9. What type of waste do you buy and segregate in this facility?

Type of waste Volume of waste buy/collected Buy Sell

(kg/day) (Afs/kg) (Afs/kg)
Food, Fruit and
Vegetables
Paper (hard)
Plastic (soft)
Plastic (hard)
Plastic (soft)
Glass bottles
Metal Steel can
Metal can
Leather
Yard waste
textiles
Electronic waste
tires
others

10. Does workers in your facility use any of the following protective accessories while
sorting the waste?

Gloves Mask Boots Others …………………… None

11. Has any of your worker complained about having any of the following diseases in
last six months?

Diarrhea Typhoid malaria Influenza Tuberculosis None

114
 Appendix E

Details of the Sum and Count of Samples Collected for Composition analysis

115
Table E-1: Count of all the Samples Collected for C&C Analysis

Strata Type
Date Clinic Commercial High- Low- Middle- Grand
income income income Total
6/5/2018 1 12 10 10 10 43
6/6/2018 1 12 10 10 10 43
6/7/2018 1 12 10 10 10 43
6/8/2018 1 9 10 10 10 40
6/9/2018 1 7 10 10 10 38
6/10/2018 1 12 10 10 10 43
6/11/2018 1 12 10 10 10 43
6/24/2018 1 15 10 10 10 46
6/25/2018 1 15 10 10 10 46
6/26/2018 1 15 10 10 10 46
6/27/2018 1 15 10 10 10 46
6/28/2018 1 15 10 10 10 46
6/29/2018 1 12 10 10 10 43
6/30/2018 1 9 10 10 10 40
Grand Total 14 172 140 140 140 606

Table E-2: Sum of all the Samples Collected for C&C Analysis

Strata Type
High- Low- Middle- Grand
Commercial income income income Total
Date Clinic (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)
6/5/2018 23.00 118.86 101.18 55.97 73.38 372.39
6/6/2018 21.80 111.71 88.57 54.39 77.25 353.72
6/7/2018 24.55 113.64 91.77 55.76 79.88 365.60
6/8/2018 19.29 80.53 91.11 56.09 84.16 331.18
6/9/2018 19.79 67.67 88.97 53.39 81.19 311.01
6/10/2018 25.98 106.29 94.76 55.25 83.99 366.27
6/11/2018 19.89 113.38 98.26 55.63 76.55 363.71
6/24/2018 35.58 259.67 115.35 70.96 98.68 580.23
6/25/2018 30.32 263.88 110.70 68.09 84.87 557.86
6/26/2018 23.74 233.27 117.96 68.39 79.76 523.11
6/27/2018 24.60 248.30 119.27 64.88 89.99 547.03
6/28/2018 25.32 245.68 121.23 65.81 84.99 543.04
6/29/2018 17.91 232.62 116.39 64.92 79.01 510.84
6/30/2018 25.17 189.75 117.11 65.19 93.40 490.62
Grand Total 336.94 2,385.24 1,472.63 854.71 1,167.09 6,216.62

116
 Appendix F

Steps taken for waste characteristics and composition analysis

117
Step 1: study area divided into
desired strata and randomly
selected the households and
commercial units. Distributed
the waste bags to each unit.
Step 2: Collected samples from
each selected household and
commercial units, and labeled
them.
Step 7: wet grinded sample
o
was taken and put into 105 C
oven to identify moisture
content.
Figure F-1: Steps taken for waste C&C analysis
118
Step 3: Transported all the Step 4: Sorted each sample into
sample to waste sorting different categories
location.
Step 6: sorting of food waste
into different categories and Step 5: Recorded
recording weight weight of each
category of waste
Step 8: Samples from
same stratum were
grouped together and
weighted to find Bulk
density.
Step 9: pH measurement of FW
 Appendix G

List of all the Persons Contacted during this Study

119
Table G-1: List of all the Persons Contacted
Mobile
Name Email Position Organization Meeting date
No
Mr Ahmad +93 78 Ghyasi8118@gmail.com Director of Sanitation Directorate of
Met several times
Behzad Ghyasi 1222002 behzad@km.gov.af Services Sanitation (DoS)
Transportation and SW
Mr Noorullah +93 77 Directorate of
collection vehicles Met several times
Rastagar 3457817 Sanitation (DoS)
officer
Mr Sayed +93 79 Directorate of
Finance officer Met several times
Rizwan Sadaat 1811812 Sanitation (DoS)
+93 70 Directorate of
Mr Islamuddin Environmental Officer Met several times
0288285 Sanitation (DoS)
Strategic Expert on 28th September-4th
Mr Rahul +91 Waste Management UN-HABITAT October (meeting in
rahul.datar@unhabitat-afg.org
Datar 98212 UN Habitat, CGC Afghanistan Kabul), Skype chats
24417 Afghanistan and email exchange

Mr Srinivasa Senior Human

srinivasa.popuri@un.org, Settlements Officer, UN-HABITAT Skype chats and
Popuri spopuri@gmail.com Regional Office of Asia Afghanistan email exchange
and Pacific, UN-Habitat
Project manager Clean
+93 72 rajakumar.gollamandala@unhabitat- UN-HABITAT
Mr Rajakumar and Green Cities Met several times
8148302 afg.org Afghanistan
Program
Mr Kabul Qadeem
+93 77
Najeebullah Kabul.qaadeem13@gmail.com CEO Cleaning Services 10/4/2018
3696965
Aalemi Company
Mr Seyawash +93 78 Muheet Sabz
CEO 9/4/2018
Naeemi 2612661 Cleaning Services

120
 Mobile
Name Email Position Organization Meeting Date
No
Abdul Ali Haideri
Mr Abdul Ali +93 79
CEO Cleaning Services 17/4/2018
Haideri 9329406
Company
Mr
+93 73 Barge Sabz
Muhammad CEO 16/4/2018
0060007 Cleaning Services
Khalid Rabi
Kamyab Waste
Mr Ajmal +93 78
kamyab.trade@gmail.com Executive Director Management 26/4/2018
Dodgar 7717717
Services
Mr Akhund +93 77 Officer for dumping Directorate of
30/4/2018
Zada 3344166 waste at Gazak Sanitation (DoS)
Mr Abdul
Wakeel +93 70 Head of Agriculture
Qasan2004@yahoo.com Kabul University Met several times
Ahmad 5550405 Faculty
Sarhadi
Lab assistant at the
Mr Mirwais +93 78
Department of Kabul University Met several times
Mirzayee 6575787
Agriculture

121
 Appendix H

Kabul City Map

122
Figure H-1: Kabul City map with man sites involved in solid waste
management
123
 Appendix I

Number of Officials and Staff in Central Unit (CU), Transportation Unit (TU) and
District offices (DOs)

124
Table I-1: Number of Officials and Staff in CU, TU and DOs

Unit Number of officials Number of staff/workers

Central Unit 4 768
Transportation Unit 7 446
District 1 4 215
District 2 4 163
District 3 4 137
District 4 4 173
District 5 4 148
District 6 4 133
District 7 4 164
District 8 4 173
District 9 4 153
District 10 4 164
District Offices District 11 4 93
District 12 4 72
District 13 4 82
District 15 4 154
District 16 3 113
District 17 3 96
District 18 2 31
District 19 2 31
District 20 2 21
District 21 2 21
District 22 2 21
Directorate Office 36 53
Total 119 3625

125
 Appendix J

Number of Collection Points per District

126
Table J-1: Number of Collection Points per District

District 7 m3 1 m3 Open Total

collection
points
District 1 58 60 0 118
District 2 33 107 0 140
District 3 54 71 0 125
District 4 62 99 0 161
District 5 81 24 0 105
District 6 11 73 0 84
District 7 67 42 0 109
District 8 51 17 0 68
District 9 34 85 0 119
District 10 44 112 0 156
District 11 85 78 0 163
District 12 - 224 0 224
District 13 36 27 0 63
District 15 41 33 0 74
District 16 37 31 0 68
District 17 39 33 0 72
District 18 - - 20 20
District 19 - - 20 20
District 20 - - 4 4
District 21 - - 44 44
District 22 - - 36 36
Total 733 1116 124 1973

127
 Appendix K

Vehicles Fleet of Department of Sanitation

128
Table K-1: Vehicles Fleet of DoS

Types of vehicles Number of Average Designated location

Vehicles trips
Active Non per day
Active
High loading capacity (more 69 4 2 Gazak 2 Landfill
than 7 tonnes
Medium loading capacity (3 to 7 82 68 2 Gazak 2 Landfill
tonnes)
Lower loading capcaity ( 1-3 150 0 5 to 6 Transfer Station
tonnes
Water Tankers 43 10
Vehicles for administrative 10 5
purposes
Loaders 20 1
Cranes 4 2
Excavator 2 1
Bulldozars 2 2
Tractor 2 0
Total 384 93

129
 Appendix L

Information on Private Companies

130
 Table L-1: List of Private Companies Visited for this Study

Number
Years Method Amount of Number
Name of Name of Services Amount Collection of Staff
Contact in Operates in of Waste of
Company Owner Provided Charged frequency and
service Collection collected Vehicles
workers

1200
Solid Households
Households
waste 1500 and 20
Kabul are charged Each area
collection, Households offices in 2 dump
Qadeem Door to 200 Afs is
Najeebullah +93 773 street in Sare Qalae Approximately trucks of
Cleaning 2 years Door and offices collected 23
Aalemu 696965 sweeping, Karez area Fatullah, 13 tonnes/day 7 m3
Services collection are charged once in 2
sewage of District Qala e each
Company 300 days
drainage 5 Musa and
households
cleaning Airports
apartments
Collects
waste from
230
Solid households
Collects
Abdul waste in Tape
waste
Ali collection, Salam area,
from1000 Door to 2 Dump
Haider Abdul Ali +93 799 street and 200 Daily
3 years households Door 200 Afs Not known trucks of 15
Cleaning Haidari 100320 sweeping, households collection
in Afshar collection 8 m3
Services sewage in Karte 3
area
drains of District
District 5
cleaning 3

Barg e Solid Collects Collects 150 on

Sabz waste waste from waste from households Daily 10
Muhammad Door to
Cleaning +93 730 collection, 600 400 to whom collection Zarange
Khalid 4 years Door Not known 22
Service 060007 street households households plastic bags except (3 tired
Rabi collection
Company sweeping, in Saraye in 315 and are not Fridays vehicles)
sewage Shamali, Golaayee given and

131
 drains Hise awal Masjid 200 on
cleaning and Qala e area, households
Najara District 15 to whom
area, plastic bags
District 11 are given
Collects
Solid waste from Collects
150-250 on
waste 1600 waste from
Muheet e households
collection, households 2400 6 Dump
Sabz Door to in district
Seyawash +93 782 street in Wazir households Daily trucks of
Cleaning 6 years Door 10 and 150 Not known 32
Naeemi 612661 sweeping, Akbar in Shahark collection 8 m3
Services collection on
sewage Khan and Arya each.
households
drains Makroyan apartments,
district 15
cleaning area, District 15
District 10

132
 Appendix M

Data Analysis of 600 Households for Per Capita Waste Generation

133
Table M-1: Per capita waste analysis data

Solid waste Weight Weight

Weight of
No of + Weight of Solid of Solid
Empty Solid waste
Strata Type People in of waste Waste
Container kg/capita/day
Household Container (kg) (2 (kg) (1
(kg)
(kg) days) day)

High Income Households 6 8.5 1 7.5 3.75 0.63

High Income Households 5 12.3 3.8 8.5 4.25 0.85
High Income Households 8 10 0 10 5 0.63
High Income Households 7 12 0 12 6 0.86
High Income Households 12 21 0 21 10.5 0.88
High Income Households 5 8 0 8 4 0.80
High Income Households 10 15.7 0 15.7 7.85 0.79
High Income Households 10 20.1 2.5 17.6 8.8 0.88
High Income Households 7 11.5 0 11.5 5.75 0.82
High Income Households 6 9 0 9 4.5 0.75
High Income Households 15 21 0 21 10.5 0.70
High Income Households 9 16.3 0.5 15.8 7.9 0.88
High Income Households 9 16 1.4 14.6 7.3 0.81
High Income Households 6 12 2 10 5 0.83
High Income Households 7 12 1 11 5.5 0.79
High Income Households 6 11.3 1 10.3 5.15 0.86
High Income Households 6 10 0 10 5 0.83
High Income Households 4 6 1 5 2.5 0.63
High Income Households 5 10 2.9 7.1 3.55 0.71
High Income Households 12 15.3 0 15.3 7.65 0.64
High Income Households 16 26 0 26 13 0.81
High Income Households 8 15 2 13 6.5 0.81
High Income Households 6 17.4 7.9 9.5 4.75 0.79
High Income Households 20 35 3 32 16 0.80
High Income Households 14 24 1 23 11.5 0.82
High Income Households 6 11 2 9 4.5 0.75
High Income Households 10 21.5 3.9 17.6 8.8 0.88
High Income Households 10 13.2 0 13.2 6.6 0.66
High Income Households 9 15.6 2 13.6 6.8 0.76
High Income Households 10 21.9 5.2 16.7 8.35 0.84
High Income Households 8 18 4.2 13.8 6.9 0.86
High Income Households 9 15 3.2 11.8 5.9 0.66
High Income Households 15 27.3 2 25.3 12.65 0.84
High Income Households 8 21 7.6 13.4 6.7 0.84
High Income Households 14 27.7 1.5 26.2 13.1 0.94
High Income Households 4 8 1 7 3.5 0.88
High Income Households 15 26 0 26 13 0.87
High Income Households 10 16 0 16 8 0.80
High Income Households 13 26.4 0 26.4 13.2 1.02

134
High Income Households 12 19 1 18 9 0.75
High Income Households 11 22.6 4.2 18.4 9.2 0.84
High Income Households 15 22 0 22 11 0.73
High Income Households 8 21.3 6.8 14.5 7.25 0.91
High Income Households 6 11 1 10 5 0.83
High Income Households 4 7 0 7 3.5 0.88
High Income Households 11 22 3.7 18.3 9.15 0.83
High Income Households 8 19.4 3.9 15.5 7.75 0.97
High Income Households 8 15.1 2 13.1 6.55 0.82
High Income Households 6 10.1 0 10.1 5.05 0.84
High Income Households 6 11.2 2 9.2 4.6 0.77
High Income Households 13 14.2 0 14.2 7.1 0.55
High Income Households 9 17.3 0 17.3 8.65 0.96
High Income Households 5 7 0 7 3.5 0.70
High Income Households 10 16 2 14 7 0.70
High Income Households 10 23.1 7 16.1 8.05 0.81
High Income Households 4 7.5 1 6.5 3.25 0.81
High Income Households 2 2 0 2 1 0.50
High Income Households 13 17.3 2 15.3 7.65 0.59
High Income Households 8 8 0 8 4 0.50
High Income Households 8 15 0 15 7.5 0.94
High Income Households 9 14 1 13 6.5 0.72
High Income Households 5 12 3.1 8.9 4.45 0.89
High Income Households 9 15 0 15 7.5 0.83
High Income Households 5 7 0 7 3.5 0.70
High Income Households 8 14.1 0 14.1 7.05 0.88
High Income Households 8 10.7 0 10.7 5.35 0.67
High Income Households 5 10.5 2 8.5 4.25 0.85
High Income Households 8 16.2 2.5 13.7 6.85 0.86
High Income Households 11 20 0 20 10 0.91
High Income Households 10 21 4 17 8.5 0.85
High Income Households 6 11 1 10 5 0.83
High Income Households 16 21.5 0 21.5 10.75 0.67
High Income Households 8 6.5 0 6.5 3.25 0.41
High Income Households 10 18.5 1 17.5 8.75 0.88
High Income Households 10 21 2.5 18.5 9.25 0.93
High Income Households 8 15 0.5 14.5 7.25 0.91
High Income Households 8 19.2 4 15.2 7.6 0.95
High Income Households 11 17 1.6 15.4 7.7 0.70
High Income Households 8 17.1 2.3 14.8 7.4 0.93
High Income Households 10 16 0 16 8 0.80
High Income Households 8 14 0 14 7 0.88
High Income Households 8 18.8 4 14.8 7.4 0.93
High Income Households 10 18 0 18 9 0.90
High Income Households 10 16.8 0 16.8 8.4 0.84

135
High Income Households 12 19 0 19 9.5 0.79
High Income Households 4 9 1.5 7.5 3.75 0.94
High Income Households 11 15.8 0 15.8 7.9 0.72
High Income Households 8 12.3 0 12.3 6.15 0.77
High Income Households 9 16 2 14 7 0.78
High Income Households 12 23.7 5 18.7 9.35 0.78
High Income Households 10 18 3 15 7.5 0.75
High Income Households 4 8 1 7 3.5 0.88
High Income Households 8 13.5 1.8 11.7 5.85 0.73
High Income Households 7 16.8 5 11.8 5.9 0.84
High Income Households 8 13.8 1 12.8 6.4 0.80
High Income Households 12 19 0 19 9.5 0.79
High Income Households 10 17.8 2 15.8 7.9 0.79
High Income Households 8 14.5 1 13.5 6.75 0.84
High Income Households 8 20.1 6 14.1 7.05 0.88
High Income Households 7 11 1 10 5 0.71
High Income Households 7 9.8 1 8.8 4.4 0.63
High Income Households 12 16 0 16 8 0.67
High Income Households 8 15 3 12 6 0.75
High Income Households 9 18 2.5 15.5 7.75 0.86
High Income Households 8 13.3 0 13.3 6.65 0.83
High Income Households 10 17 0 17 8.5 0.85
High Income Households 11 18.1 1.3 16.8 8.4 0.76
High Income Households 8 10 0 10 5 0.63
High Income Households 8 13.3 2 11.3 5.65 0.71
High Income Households 15 25.1 2.4 22.7 11.35 0.76
High Income Households 7 11.3 0 11.3 5.65 0.81
High Income Households 8 13.7 0 13.7 6.85 0.86
High Income Households 9 15.3 0 15.3 7.65 0.85
High Income Households 7 16 7 9 4.5 0.64
High Income Households 6 14.1 5.2 8.9 4.45 0.74
High Income Households 8 16.3 3 13.3 6.65 0.83
High Income Households 6 9.2 0 9.2 4.6 0.77
High Income Households 7 12.1 0 12.1 6.05 0.86
High Income Households 10 15.4 0 15.4 7.7 0.77
High Income Households 6 13.8 3.6 10.2 5.1 0.85
High Income Households 9 20.2 4 16.2 8.1 0.90
High Income Households 6 12.4 2.5 9.9 4.95 0.83
High Income Households 6 10.9 0 10.9 5.45 0.91
High Income Households 8 17 4 13 6.5 0.81
High Income Households 11 16.5 0 16.5 8.25 0.75
High Income Households 8 17 4 13 6.5 0.81
High Income Households 6 12.5 1 11.5 5.75 0.96
High Income Households 6 10.8 0 10.8 5.4 0.90
High Income Households 8 11 0 11 5.5 0.69

136
High Income Households 8 18.8 3 15.8 7.9 0.99
High Income Households 8 13.8 0 13.8 6.9 0.86
High Income Households 8 13.4 1.5 11.9 5.95 0.74
High Income Households 10 16.4 0 16.4 8.2 0.82
High Income Households 5 11.3 3.5 7.8 3.9 0.78
High Income Households 4 7 0 7 3.5 0.88
High Income Households 9 17 1.2 15.8 7.9 0.88
High Income Households 8 16.5 3.1 13.4 6.7 0.84
High Income Households 5 9 1 8 4 0.80
High Income Households 4 9 2 7 3.5 0.88
High Income Households 6 15 4.8 10.2 5.1 0.85
High Income Households 6 11 1.2 9.8 4.9 0.82
High Income Households 5 7.8 0 7.8 3.9 0.78
High Income Households 11 19 3.5 15.5 7.75 0.70
High Income Households 7 10 1.5 8.5 4.25 0.61
High Income Households 12 18.5 1.2 17.3 8.65 0.72
High Income Households 8 13.2 1.9 11.3 5.65 0.71
High Income Households 8 15.2 3.6 11.6 5.8 0.73
High Income Households 6 9.8 0 9.8 4.9 0.82
High Income Households 7 9.8 0 9.8 4.9 0.70
High Income Households 8 13.5 0 13.5 6.75 0.84
High Income Households 6 8.8 0 8.8 4.4 0.73
High Income Households 7 11 0 11 5.5 0.79
High Income Households 9 13.4 0 13.4 6.7 0.74
High Income Households 8 12.2 0 12.2 6.1 0.76
High Income Households 8 14 0 14 7 0.88
High Income Households 9 15 1.1 13.9 6.95 0.77
High Income Households 6 10 1.3 8.7 4.35 0.73
High Income Households 9 10.7 0 10.7 5.35 0.59
High Income Households 9 16.5 2.9 13.6 6.8 0.76
High Income Households 8 15.7 3 12.7 6.35 0.79
High Income Households 8 13.9 2 11.9 5.95 0.74
High Income Households 6 15.4 5 10.4 5.2 0.87
High Income Households 8 15.3 0 15.3 7.65 0.96
High Income Households 5 9 0 9 4.5 0.90
High Income Households 5 9 3 6 3 0.60
High Income Households 8 13.4 2 11.4 5.7 0.71
High Income Households 10 14.9 0 14.9 7.45 0.75
High Income Households 5 9.5 2.5 7 3.5 0.70
High Income Households 11 20.1 0 20.1 10.05 0.91
High Income Households 5 7 0 7 3.5 0.70
High Income Households 9 18.3 3 15.3 7.65 0.85
High Income Households 15 19.4 0 19.4 9.7 0.65
High Income Households 12 18 0 18 9 0.75
High Income Households 7 14.2 0 14.2 7.1 1.01

137
High Income Households 8 16.2 0 16.2 8.1 1.01
High Income Households 4 7 0 7 3.5 0.88
High Income Households 7 16 3 13 6.5 0.93
High Income Households 8 12.4 0 12.4 6.2 0.78
High Income Households 3 7.5 2 5.5 2.75 0.92
High Income Households 6 10.9 0 10.9 5.45 0.91
High Income Households 9 14.6 0 14.6 7.3 0.81
High Income Households 8 18 1 17 8.5 1.06
High Income Households 4 8 0 8 4 1.00
High Income Households 6 7.8 0 7.8 3.9 0.65
High Income Households 6 9 0 9 4.5 0.75
High Income Households 4 11.6 4 7.6 3.8 0.95
High Income Households 5 11.4 2 9.4 4.7 0.94
High Income Households 5 8 0 8 4 0.80
High Income Households 6 17 6 11 5.5 0.92
High Income Households 6 10 0 10 5 0.83
High Income Households 6 10.5 0 10.5 5.25 0.88
High Income Households 7 16.5 2 14.5 7.25 1.04
High Income Households 9 12 0 12 6 0.67
High Income Households 8 16.4 1 15.4 7.7 0.96
High Income Households 8 21.3 5 16.3 8.15 1.02
High Income Households 6 11 0 11 5.5 0.92
High Income Households 10 19.2 0 19.2 9.6 0.96
High Income Households 4 7.8 0 7.8 3.9 0.98
High Income Households 9 15 0 15 7.5 0.83
High Income Households 4 9.7 3 6.7 3.35 0.84
Middle Income Households 5 4 0 4 2 0.40
Middle Income Households 8 8 0.5 7.5 3.75 0.47
Middle Income Households 22 29.5 3.5 26 13 0.59
Middle Income Households 20 21.8 0 21.8 10.9 0.55
Middle Income Households 15 26.8 0 26.8 13.4 0.89
Middle Income Households 16 25.1 7 18.1 9.05 0.57
Middle Income Households 8 11.2 2 9.2 4.6 0.58
Middle Income Households 7 9 1.1 7.9 3.95 0.56
Middle Income Households 20 29 3 26 13 0.65
Middle Income Households 8 9.5 0 9.5 4.75 0.59
Middle Income Households 6 8 0 8 4 0.67
Middle Income Households 4 4 0 4 2 0.50
Middle Income Households 7 7.5 1 6.5 3.25 0.46
Middle Income Households 9 16 0 16 8 0.89
Middle Income Households 6 6 1 5 2.5 0.42
Middle Income Households 6 6 1 5 2.5 0.42
Middle Income Households 5 12.1 4 8.1 4.05 0.81
Middle Income Households 7 10 1 9 4.5 0.64
Middle Income Households 11 8 1 7 3.5 0.32

138
Middle Income Households 15 20.5 1 19.5 9.75 0.65
Middle Income Households 10 13.5 2 11.5 5.75 0.58
Middle Income Households 6 5 0 5 2.5 0.42
Middle Income Households 10 19.7 4.2 15.5 7.75 0.78
Middle Income Households 14 20 2.5 17.5 8.75 0.63
Middle Income Households 6 6 1 5 2.5 0.42
Middle Income Households 12 17.8 2 15.8 7.9 0.66
Middle Income Households 7 9 0 9 4.5 0.64
Middle Income Households 12 18 2.5 15.5 7.75 0.65
Middle Income Households 6 10.2 0 10.2 5.1 0.85
Middle Income Households 16 15.4 2 13.4 6.7 0.42
Middle Income Households 12 12.4 0 12.4 6.2 0.52
Middle Income Households 3 7 3 4 2 0.67
Middle Income Households 9 8 0 8 4 0.44
Middle Income Households 8 10.9 0 10.9 5.45 0.68
Middle Income Households 8 10.1 0 10.1 5.05 0.63
Middle Income Households 10 14.6 3.5 11.1 5.55 0.56
Middle Income Households 4 12.7 6 6.7 3.35 0.84
Middle Income Households 11 13.3 0 13.3 6.65 0.60
Middle Income Households 8 9 1 8 4 0.50
Middle Income Households 14 14 0 14 7 0.50
Middle Income Households 8 7 0 7 3.5 0.44
Middle Income Households 11 10 1 9 4.5 0.41
Middle Income Households 11 9 0 9 4.5 0.41
Middle Income Households 6 7 1 6 3 0.50
Middle Income Households 16 19 0.5 18.5 9.25 0.58
Middle Income Households 12 16.5 1.5 15 7.5 0.63
Middle Income Households 7 7 0 7 3.5 0.50
Middle Income Households 8 18 7 11 5.5 0.69
Middle Income Households 9 10 0 10 5 0.56
Middle Income Households 13 14 1.5 12.5 6.25 0.48
Middle Income Households 17 21.5 1.8 19.7 9.85 0.58
Middle Income Households 12 13 0 13 6.5 0.54
Middle Income Households 14 16 0 16 8 0.57
Middle Income Households 8 10.8 0 10.8 5.4 0.68
Middle Income Households 8 8 0 8 4 0.50
Middle Income Households 10 9.8 0 9.8 4.9 0.49
Middle Income Households 9 13 1 12 6 0.67
Middle Income Households 12 8.3 0 8.3 4.15 0.35
Middle Income Households 8 7.1 0 7.1 3.55 0.44
Middle Income Households 12 16 1 15 7.5 0.63
Middle Income Households 6 11 3 8 4 0.67
Middle Income Households 13 12 0 12 6 0.46
Middle Income Households 9 12.5 0 12.5 6.25 0.69

139
Middle Income Households 20 25 0 25 12.5 0.63
Middle Income Households 13 16.4 0 16.4 8.2 0.63
Middle Income Households 9 11 0 11 5.5 0.61
Middle Income Households 9 11.9 0 11.9 5.95 0.66
Middle Income Households 10 12.7 1 11.7 5.85 0.59
Middle Income Households 15 14 0 14 7 0.47
Middle Income Households 9 11.3 1.4 9.9 4.95 0.55
Middle Income Households 10 13 0 13 6.5 0.65
Middle Income Households 13 14 0 14 7 0.54
Middle Income Households 9 14.8 3 11.8 5.9 0.66
Middle Income Households 6 9 2 7 3.5 0.58
Middle Income Households 8 8.5 0 8.5 4.25 0.53
Middle Income Households 10 9.2 0 9.2 4.6 0.46
Middle Income Households 11 11.5 0 11.5 5.75 0.52
Middle Income Households 9 12 1.5 10.5 5.25 0.58
Middle Income Households 8 9 0 9 4.5 0.56
Middle Income Households 6 9 2 7 3.5 0.58
Middle Income Households 5 11 4 7 3.5 0.70
Middle Income Households 10 16 2 14 7 0.70
Middle Income Households 4 6.5 3 3.5 1.75 0.44
Middle Income Households 11 17.5 5 12.5 6.25 0.57
Middle Income Households 10 16 1 15 7.5 0.75
Middle Income Households 8 13 4 9 4.5 0.56
Middle Income Households 5 13 6 7 3.5 0.70
Middle Income Households 3 4 1 3 1.5 0.50
Middle Income Households 8 11.5 2 9.5 4.75 0.59
Middle Income Households 10 15 2 13 6.5 0.65
Middle Income Households 12 16.4 0 16.4 8.2 0.68
Middle Income Households 7 7 0 7 3.5 0.50
Middle Income Households 10 10.3 0 10.3 5.15 0.52
Middle Income Households 13 15 0 15 7.5 0.58
Middle Income Households 11 18 3 15 7.5 0.68
Middle Income Households 7 14.9 6 8.9 4.45 0.64
Middle Income Households 9 12.2 0 12.2 6.1 0.68
Middle Income Households 4 4.4 0 4.4 2.2 0.55
Middle Income Households 8 14 3 11 5.5 0.69
Middle Income Households 8 9 0 9 4.5 0.56
Middle Income Households 5 9.5 3 6.5 3.25 0.65
Middle Income Households 11 13.5 0 13.5 6.75 0.61
Middle Income Households 10 11.9 0 11.9 5.95 0.60
Middle Income Households 12 14 0 14 7 0.58
Middle Income Households 9 11.9 3 8.9 4.45 0.49
Middle Income Households 10 13.2 3 10.2 5.1 0.51
Middle Income Households 7 7.2 0 7.2 3.6 0.51

140
Middle Income Households 13 11.7 0 11.7 5.85 0.45
Middle Income Households 15 14 0 14 7 0.47
Middle Income Households 5 11.8 6 5.8 2.9 0.58
Middle Income Households 12 11.2 0 11.2 5.6 0.47
Middle Income Households 12 15.4 2 13.4 6.7 0.56
Middle Income Households 6 6 0 6 3 0.50
Middle Income Households 8 6.7 0 6.7 3.35 0.42
Middle Income Households 4 10.7 6 4.7 2.35 0.59
Middle Income Households 12 16 0 16 8 0.67
Middle Income Households 9 11.3 0 11.3 5.65 0.63
Middle Income Households 12 14.8 0 14.8 7.4 0.62
Middle Income Households 10 13.8 0 13.8 6.9 0.69
Middle Income Households 7 9.2 0 9.2 4.6 0.66
Middle Income Households 9 10 0 10 5 0.56
Middle Income Households 7 14.3 4.9 9.4 4.7 0.67
Middle Income Households 7 10.5 1.3 9.2 4.6 0.66
Middle Income Households 7 8 0 8 4 0.57
Middle Income Households 9 10.1 0 10.1 5.05 0.56
Middle Income Households 8 13.7 3.2 10.5 5.25 0.66
Middle Income Households 9 11 0 11 5.5 0.61
Middle Income Households 9 14.7 2.8 11.9 5.95 0.66
Middle Income Households 10 14 1 13 6.5 0.65
Middle Income Households 8 11.7 1.1 10.6 5.3 0.66
Middle Income Households 8 10.2 1.5 8.7 4.35 0.54
Middle Income Households 10 13.4 0 13.4 6.7 0.67
Middle Income Households 9 9.4 0 9.4 4.7 0.52
Middle Income Households 8 11.2 2.6 8.6 4.3 0.54
Middle Income Households 6 10 2 8 4 0.67
Middle Income Households 7 12 1.5 10.5 5.25 0.75
Middle Income Households 5 9.4 2.8 6.6 3.3 0.66
Middle Income Households 6 10.9 3.1 7.8 3.9 0.65
Middle Income Households 8 11.2 0 11.2 5.6 0.70
Middle Income Households 7 10.5 0 10.5 5.25 0.75
Middle Income Households 8 14.1 2.6 11.5 5.75 0.72
Middle Income Households 8 9.5 0 9.5 4.75 0.59
Middle Income Households 8 11.8 1 10.8 5.4 0.68
Middle Income Households 9 13.5 0 12.5 6.25 0.69
Middle Income Households 9 11.7 0 11.7 5.85 0.65
Middle Income Households 8 10.3 0 10.3 5.15 0.64
Middle Income Households 4 7.5 3.5 4 2 0.50
Middle Income Households 9 12 0 12 6 0.67
Middle Income Households 6 10.3 2.4 7.9 3.95 0.66
Middle Income Households 8 11 2 9 4.5 0.56
Middle Income Households 9 12.2 0 12.2 6.1 0.68

141
Middle Income Households 8 10 0 10 5 0.63
Middle Income Households 9 11.9 0 11.9 5.95 0.66
Middle Income Households 10 13.3 0 13.3 6.65 0.67
Middle Income Households 9 10.7 0 10.7 5.35 0.59
Middle Income Households 6 11.4 3.5 7.9 3.95 0.66
Middle Income Households 10 14 2 12 6 0.60
Middle Income Households 6 11 3 8 4 0.67
Middle Income Households 8 11 0 11 5.5 0.69
Middle Income Households 5 6.5 0 6.5 3.25 0.65
Middle Income Households 5 10.2 3.5 6.7 3.35 0.67
Middle Income Households 9 10.5 0 10.5 5.25 0.58
Middle Income Households 13 17.8 0 17.8 8.9 0.68
Middle Income Households 5 9 2.6 6.4 3.2 0.64
Middle Income Households 9 11.9 0 11.9 5.95 0.66
Middle Income Households 5 9 2.4 6.6 3.3 0.66
Middle Income Households 7 13.3 5 8.3 4.15 0.59
Middle Income Households 6 8.3 0 8.3 4.15 0.69
Middle Income Households 11 14 0 14 7 0.64
Middle Income Households 7 11 0 11 5.5 0.79
Middle Income Households 4 9.8 4 5.8 2.9 0.73
Middle Income Households 13 17.8 0 17.8 8.9 0.68
Middle Income Households 10 11.5 0 11.5 5.75 0.58
Middle Income Households 3 4.4 0 4.4 2.2 0.73
Middle Income Households 4 8 2 6 3 0.75
Middle Income Households 4 8 2.3 5.7 2.85 0.71
Middle Income Households 9 11.7 0 11.7 5.85 0.65
Middle Income Households 8 10.3 0 10.3 5.15 0.64
Middle Income Households 5 6.1 0 6.1 3.05 0.61
Middle Income Households 6 11.4 1 10.4 5.2 0.87
Middle Income Households 6 10.5 2 8.5 4.25 0.71
Middle Income Households 10 12.1 0 12.1 6.05 0.61
Middle Income Households 8 13.4 3 10.4 5.2 0.65
Middle Income Households 7 9.3 0 9.3 4.65 0.66
Middle Income Households 7 12.3 2 10.3 5.15 0.74
Middle Income Households 9 11 0 11 5.5 0.61
Middle Income Households 6 7.8 1 6.8 3.4 0.57
Middle Income Households 8 10.9 0 10.9 5.45 0.68
Middle Income Households 10 14.5 0 14.5 7.25 0.73
Middle Income Households 8 10 0 10 5 0.63
Middle Income Households 6 10.3 1 9.3 4.65 0.78
Middle Income Households 9 11 0 11 5.5 0.61
Middle Income Households 6 5 0 5 2.5 0.42
Middle Income Households 7 11.2 2 9.2 4.6 0.66
Middle Income Households 5 8.4 2 6.4 3.2 0.64

142
Middle Income Households 9 10.9 0 10.9 5.45 0.61
Middle Income Households 8 11.2 0 11.2 5.6 0.70
Middle Income Households 6 13.8 3 10.8 5.4 0.90
Middle Income Households 7 10.1 1 9.1 4.55 0.65
Middle Income Households 4 9.3 4 5.3 2.65 0.66
Low Income Households 7 3 1 2 1 0.14
Low Income Households 5 3.4 0 3.4 1.7 0.34
Low Income Households 5 5 1 4 2 0.40
Low Income Households 8 6.5 0 6.5 3.25 0.41
Low Income Households 10 5 0 5 2.5 0.25
Low Income Households 8 5 1.75 3.25 1.625 0.20
Low Income Households 8 5.8 0 5.8 2.9 0.36
Low Income Households 4 2.5 0 2.5 1.25 0.31
Low Income Households 17 11 1.5 9.5 4.75 0.28
Low Income Households 12 7.5 0 7.5 3.75 0.31
Low Income Households 3 2 0 2 1 0.33
Low Income Households 15 18 1 17 8.5 0.57
Low Income Households 12 10 0.8 9.2 4.6 0.38
Low Income Households 8 7 0 7 3.5 0.44
Low Income Households 28 21.1 1 20.1 10.05 0.36
Low Income Households 6 6 1.7 4.3 2.15 0.36
Low Income Households 8 8 0 8 4 0.50
Low Income Households 15 12 0.5 11.5 5.75 0.38
Low Income Households 5 4 0 4 2 0.40
Low Income Households 6 3 0 3 1.5 0.25
Low Income Households 10 7 0 7 3.5 0.35
Low Income Households 16 25 0 25 12.5 0.78
Low Income Households 6 9 0 9 4.5 0.75
Low Income Households 14 10 0 10 5 0.36
Low Income Households 8 3 0 3 1.5 0.19
Low Income Households 11 15.4 2.5 12.9 6.45 0.59
Low Income Households 15 9 0 9 4.5 0.30
Low Income Households 6 5 0 5 2.5 0.42
Low Income Households 8 9 0 9 4.5 0.56
Low Income Households 11 6.3 0 6.3 3.15 0.29
Low Income Households 8 6.7 1 5.7 2.85 0.36
Low Income Households 9 6.2 0 6.2 3.1 0.34
Low Income Households 7 5 1 4 2 0.29
Low Income Households 14 6 0 6 3 0.21
Low Income Households 11 8 0 8 4 0.36
Low Income Households 5 4 0 4 2 0.40
Low Income Households 7 9.2 2.5 6.7 3.35 0.48
Low Income Households 22 18 2.3 15.7 7.85 0.36
Low Income Households 10 5 0 5 2.5 0.25

143
Low Income Households 8 13 0 13 6.5 0.81
Low Income Households 7 8 1.5 6.5 3.25 0.46
Low Income Households 21 13.8 0 13.8 6.9 0.33
Low Income Households 6 7 0 7 3.5 0.58
Low Income Households 20 20.2 1.8 18.4 9.2 0.46
Low Income Households 10 7 1 6 3 0.30
Low Income Households 10 7 0 7 3.5 0.35
Low Income Households 13 11.5 1 10.5 5.25 0.40
Low Income Households 15 11 1 10 5 0.33
Low Income Households 9 8 0 8 4 0.44
Low Income Households 9 8 1 7 3.5 0.39
Low Income Households 8 7 1 6 3 0.38
Low Income Households 9 6.6 0 6.6 3.3 0.37
Low Income Households 8 7.8 0 7.8 3.9 0.49
Low Income Households 10 8.9 2 6.9 3.45 0.35
Low Income Households 11 5 0 5 2.5 0.23
Low Income Households 10 4 0 4 2 0.20
Low Income Households 11 12.2 0 12.2 6.1 0.55
Low Income Households 15 9 0 9 4.5 0.30
Low Income Households 12 3 0 3 1.5 0.13
Low Income Households 10 5 0 5 2.5 0.25
Low Income Households 19 17 3 14 7 0.37
Low Income Households 11 8 2 6 3 0.27
Low Income Households 6 3 0 3 1.5 0.25
Low Income Households 11 9 3 6 3 0.27
Low Income Households 10 11.2 2 9.2 4.6 0.46
Low Income Households 13 10 0 10 5 0.38
Low Income Households 7 4 0 4 2 0.29
Low Income Households 7 6 1.5 4.5 2.25 0.32
Low Income Households 15 12 2 10 5 0.33
Low Income Households 9 5 0 5 2.5 0.28
Low Income Households 7 4 0 4 2 0.29
Low Income Households 7 9 1.1 7.9 3.95 0.56
Low Income Households 15 10 0 10 5 0.33
Low Income Households 15 13.2 1.3 11.9 5.95 0.40
Low Income Households 9 8 0 8 4 0.44
Low Income Households 6 3 0 3 1.5 0.25
Low Income Households 9 9.5 2.5 7 3.5 0.39
Low Income Households 11 10 0 10 5 0.45
Low Income Households 10 9 2 7 3.5 0.35
Low Income Households 13 10 0 10 5 0.38
Low Income Households 6 4.8 0 4.8 2.4 0.40
Low Income Households 8 10 0 10 5 0.63
Low Income Households 6 9 4 5 2.5 0.42

144
Low Income Households 8 9.2 3 6.2 3.1 0.39
Low Income Households 18 16 2 14 7 0.39
Low Income Households 10 13.4 4 9.4 4.7 0.47
Low Income Households 9 6 0 6 3 0.33
Low Income Households 8 10.5 3 7.5 3.75 0.47
Low Income Households 8 7 1 6 3 0.38
Low Income Households 5 9 1 8 4 0.80
Low Income Households 9 8 1 7 3.5 0.39
Low Income Households 11 10 0 10 5 0.45
Low Income Households 11 15.7 2 13.7 6.85 0.62
Low Income Households 15 7 0 7 3.5 0.23
Low Income Households 12 9 0 9 4.5 0.38
Low Income Households 9 11 1 10 5 0.56
Low Income Households 11 10 0 10 5 0.45
Low Income Households 9 8.3 0 8.3 4.15 0.46
Low Income Households 13 8 0 8 4 0.31
Low Income Households 10 10.2 0 10.2 5.1 0.51
Low Income Households 13 16 2 14 7 0.54
Low Income Households 10 9 0 9 4.5 0.45
Low Income Households 10 8 0 8 4 0.40
Low Income Households 4 8.5 4 4.5 2.25 0.56
Low Income Households 13 8 0 8 4 0.31
Low Income Households 11 7 0 7 3.5 0.32
Low Income Households 7 7 1 6 3 0.43
Low Income Households 11 8 0 8 4 0.36
Low Income Households 10 9.5 0 9.5 4.75 0.48
Low Income Households 8 9 0 9 4.5 0.56
Low Income Households 7 10 0 10 5 0.71
Low Income Households 7 6.2 0 6.2 3.1 0.44
Low Income Households 5 8.6 4.5 4.1 2.05 0.41
Low Income Households 8 6 0 6 3 0.38
Low Income Households 10 8 0 8 4 0.40
Low Income Households 10 11.6 2.3 9.3 4.65 0.47
Low Income Households 8 10.1 0 10.1 5.05 0.63
Low Income Households 17 4 0 4 2 0.12
Low Income Households 12 11 0 11 5.5 0.46
Low Income Households 6 8 2 6 3 0.50
Low Income Households 7 7 2.6 4.4 2.2 0.31
Low Income Households 12 8 0 8 4 0.33
Low Income Households 6 3.2 0 3.2 1.6 0.27
Low Income Households 10 11.2 0 11.2 5.6 0.56
Low Income Households 10 5 0 5 2.5 0.25
Low Income Households 9 8.3 0 8.3 4.15 0.46
Low Income Households 8 9 1.3 7.7 3.85 0.48

145
Low Income Households 7 10.2 3.4 6.8 3.4 0.49
Low Income Households 3 4 1.2 2.8 1.4 0.47
Low Income Households 5 9 4.3 4.7 2.35 0.47
Low Income Households 11 7.5 0 7.5 3.75 0.34
Low Income Households 13 14.6 0 14.6 7.3 0.56
Low Income Households 10 10 0 10 5 0.50
Low Income Households 11 12.1 3.1 9 4.5 0.41
Low Income Households 8 7.2 2.4 4.8 2.4 0.30
Low Income Households 6 7.3 2 5.3 2.65 0.44
Low Income Households 13 8.5 0 8.5 4.25 0.33
Low Income Households 4 2.5 0 2.5 1.25 0.31
Low Income Households 10 14.5 1 13.5 6.75 0.68
Low Income Households 8 7.9 1 6.9 3.45 0.43
Low Income Households 7 6.7 0 6.7 3.35 0.48
Low Income Households 9 7.4 0 7.4 3.7 0.41
Low Income Households 8 8.5 0 8.5 4.25 0.53
Low Income Households 9 13.5 3.5 10 5 0.56
Low Income Households 8 9.5 3 6.5 3.25 0.41
Low Income Households 10 9.1 0 9.1 4.55 0.46
Low Income Households 7 3 0 3 1.5 0.21
Low Income Households 8 6 0 6 3 0.38
Low Income Households 12 9 0 9 4.5 0.38
Low Income Households 15 11.2 0 11.2 5.6 0.37
Low Income Households 9 8.5 0 8.5 4.25 0.47
Low Income Households 10 4.8 0 4.8 2.4 0.24
Low Income Households 7 12 6 6 3 0.43
Low Income Households 7 8 0 8 4 0.57
Low Income Households 9 10.3 0 10.3 5.15 0.57
Low Income Households 10 4.4 0 4.4 2.2 0.22
Low Income Households 8 5.7 0 5.7 2.85 0.36
Low Income Households 8 6.5 0 6.5 3.25 0.41
Low Income Households 8 6.2 0 6.2 3.1 0.39
Low Income Households 16 10.1 0 10.1 5.05 0.32
Low Income Households 10 5 0 5 2.5 0.25
Low Income Households 7 5 0 5 2.5 0.36
Low Income Households 9 9 0 9 4.5 0.50
Low Income Households 6 7 0 7 3.5 0.58
Low Income Households 8 9 0 9 4.5 0.56
Low Income Households 10 7 0 7 3.5 0.35
Low Income Households 6 5 0 5 2.5 0.42
Low Income Households 9 10 0 10 5 0.56
Low Income Households 11 10 0 10 5 0.45
Low Income Households 10 10 0 10 5 0.50
Low Income Households 6 6.4 1 5.4 2.7 0.45

146
Low Income Households 10 9.3 1 8.3 4.15 0.42
Low Income Households 8 10.2 2 8.2 4.1 0.51
Low Income Households 8 6.2 2 4.2 2.1 0.26
Low Income Households 6 7.1 2 5.1 2.55 0.43
Low Income Households 11 10 0 10 5 0.45
Low Income Households 8 11.4 5 6.4 3.2 0.40
Low Income Households 7 6.9 0 6.9 3.45 0.49
Low Income Households 6 3.2 0 3.2 1.6 0.27
Low Income Households 10 9 0 9 4.5 0.45
Low Income Households 9 10.2 0 10.2 5.1 0.57
Low Income Households 6 6 0 6 3 0.50
Low Income Households 5 11 2 9 4.5 0.90
Low Income Households 10 11.5 0 11.5 5.75 0.58
Low Income Households 15 15.7 0 15.7 7.85 0.52
Low Income Households 10 9.8 0 9.8 4.9 0.49
Low Income Households 8 4.6 1 3.6 1.8 0.23
Low Income Households 10 9 0 9 4.5 0.45
Low Income Households 11 8.5 0 8.5 4.25 0.39
Low Income Households 5 3.8 0 3.8 1.9 0.38
Low Income Households 8 8 0 8 4 0.50
Low Income Households 10 10 0 10 5 0.50
Low Income Households 8 9 0 9 4.5 0.56
Low Income Households 6 6.2 0 6.2 3.1 0.52
Low Income Households 8 7 0 7 3.5 0.44
Low Income Households 8 10 2 8 4 0.50
Low Income Households 12 8.3 0 8.3 4.15 0.35
Low Income Households 10 10.2 0 10.2 5.1 0.51
Low Income Households 8 9 0 9 4.5 0.56
Low Income Households 9 6 0 6 3 0.33
Total 5305 6,289.95 3,144.98 0.61

147
 Appendix N

Full Composition Details of 5 Strata for Mix waste

148
Table N-1: Composition of Mix Waste

Ramadan Period None-Ramadan Total (14 days)

(5th-11th June 2018) Period (24th-30th
June 2018)

Composition Weight (kg) % Weight % Weight %

(kg) (kg)

Food, Fruit, Vegetables 1107.81 45.0 1966.26 52.4 3074.06 49.4

Paper - Hard 324.86 13.2 440.54 11.7 765.40 12.3

Paper - Soft 216.57 8.8 280.48 7.5 497.05 8.0

Plastic - Hard 261.04 10.6 360.62 9.6 621.67 10.0

Plastic - Soft 198.04 8.0 260.45 6.9 458.49 7.4

Glass - Packaging 80.22 3.3 114.10 3.0 194.32 3.1

Glass - Non-Packaging 2.79 0.1 2.94 0.1 5.73 0.1

Aluminum Can 100.65 4.1 122.15 3.3 222.80 3.6

Yard Waste 52.00 2.1 55.03 1.5 107.03 1.7

Textile 23.03 0.9 27.23 0.7 50.26 0.8

Hazardous Waste 45.17 1.8 62.06 1.7 107.23 1.7

Inert 39.90 1.6 46.41 1.2 86.31 1.4

Other 11.30 0.5 14.47 0.4 25.77 0.4

Total 2463.38 100 3752.74 100.0 6216.62 100.0

149
Table N-2: Full Composition of High Income Households

Ramadan Period (5th- None-Ramadan Period

Total
11th June 2018) (24th-30th June 2018)
Composition
Weight
Weight (kg) % Weight (kg) % %
(kg)

Food, Fruit, Vegetables 357.98 55 477.59 58 835.57 57

Paper - Hard 76.8 12 93.07 11 169.87 12

Paper - Soft 36.56 6 42.57 5 79.13 5
Plastic - Hard 66 10 75.39 9 141.39 10
Plastic - Soft 58.2 9 74.90 9 133.10 9
Glass - Packaging 9.84 2 12.22 1 22.06 1
Glass - Non-Packaging 1.99 0 2.94 0 4.93 0
Steel Can 0 0 - 0 - 0
Aluminum Can 35.12 5 28.28 3 63.40 4
Leather 0 0 - 0 - 0
Yard Waste 0 0 - 0 - 0
Textile 7.73 1 8.61 1 16.34 1
Hazardous Waste 0 0 - 0 - 0
Inert 0 0 - 0 - 0
Other 4.4 1 2.44 0 6.84 0
Total 654.62 100 818.01 100 1,472.63 100

Table N-3: Full Composition of Middle Income Households

Ramadan Period None-Ramadan Period

Total
(5th-11th June 2018) (24th-30th June 2018)
Composition
Weight
Weight (kg) % Weight (kg) % %
(kg)
Food, Fruit, Vegetables 311.47 56 348.36 57 659.83 57
Paper - Hard 61.92 11 65.77 11 127.69 11
Paper - Soft 25.22 5 28.17 5 53.39 5
Plastic - Hard 60.39 11 66.34 11 126.73 11
Plastic - Soft 36.26 7 39.29 6 75.55 6
Glass - Packaging 13.52 2 18.55 3 32.07 3
Glass - Non-Packaging 0.20 0 - 0 0.20 0
Steel Can - 0 - 0 - 0
Aluminum Can 16.73 3 14.25 2 30.98 3
Leather - 0 - 0 - 0
Yard Waste - 0 - 0 - 0
Textile 12.90 2 13.58 2 26.48 2
Hazardous Waste - 0 - 0 - 0
Inert 10.89 2 8.96 1 19.85 2
Other 6.90 1 7.42 1 14.32 1
Total 556.4 100 610.69 100 1,167.09 100

150
Table N-4: Full Composition of Low Income Households

Ramadan Period (5th- None-Ramadan Period

Total
11th June 2018) (24th-30th June 2018)
Composition
Weight
Weight (kg) % Weight (kg) % %
(kg)
Food, Fruit, Vegetables 180.37 47 222.64 48 403.00 47
Paper - Hard 35.87 9 44.81 10 80.68 9
Paper - Soft 19.99 5 25.82 6 45.81 5
Plastic - Hard 44.99 12 59.98 13 104.97 12
Plastic - Soft 21.87 6 26.62 6 48.49 6
Glass - Packaging 10.90 3 14.87 3 25.77 3
Glass - Non-Packaging 0.00 0 - 0 - 0
Steel Can 0.00 0 - 0 - 0
Aluminum Can 11.36 3 12.72 3 24.08 3
Leather 0.00 0 - 0 - 0
Yard Waste 40.78 11 39.15 8 79.93 9
Textile 0.00 0 - 0 - 0
Hazardous Waste 0.00 0 - 0 - 0
Inert 20.35 5 20.90 4 41.25 5
Other 0.00 0 0.74 0 0.74 0
Total 386.48 100 468.24 100 854.71 100

Table N-5: Full Composition of Commercial Units

Ramadan Period None-Ramadan Period

Total
(5th-11th June 2018) (24th-30th June 2018)
Composition
Weight
Weight (kg) % Weight (kg) % %
(kg)
Food, Fruit, Vegetables 202.774 28 846.52 51 1,049.30 44
Paper - Hard 141.42 20 230.32 14 371.74 16
Paper - Soft 124.05 17 166.76 10 290.81 12
Plastic - Hard 84.58 12 154.12 9 238.70 10
Plastic - Soft 73.64 10 111.72 7 185.36 8
Glass - Packaging 22.6 3 50.61 3 73.21 3
Glass - Non-Packaging 0.6 0 - 0 0.60 0
Steel Can 0 0 - - 0
Aluminum Can 34.07 5 66.32 4 100.39 4
Leather 0.5 0 - 0 0.50 0
Yard Waste 11.22 2 15.88 1 27.10 1
Textile 2.4 0 5.04 0 7.44 0
Hazardous Waste 6.77 1 8.52 1 15.29 1
Inert 7.46 1 13.77 1 21.23 1
Other 0 0 3.56 0 3.56 0
Total 712.9 100 1,673.16 100 2,385.24 100

151
Table N-6: Full Composition of Clinic Waste

Ramadan Period (5th- None-Ramadan Period

Total
11th June 2018) (24th-30th June 2018)
Composition
Weight
Weight (kg) % Weight (kg) % %
(kg)
Food, Fruit, Vegetables 55.22 36 71.14 39 126.36 38
Paper - Hard 8.85 6 6.57 4 15.42 5
Paper - Soft 10.75 7 17.16 9 27.91 8
Plastic - Hard 5.08 3 4.79 3 9.87 3
Plastic - Soft 8.07 5 7.92 4 15.99 5
Glass - Packaging 23.36 15 17.85 10 41.21 12
Glass - Non-Packaging 0 0 - 0 - 0
Steel Can 0 0 - 0 - 0
Aluminum Can 3.37 2 0.57 0 3.94 1
Leather 0 0 - 0 - 0
Yard Waste 0 0 - 0 - 0
Textile 0 0 - 0 - 0
Hazardous Waste 38.4 25 53.54 29 91.94 27
Inert 1.2 1 2.78 2 3.98 1
Other 0 0 0.31 0 0.31 0
Total 154.3 100 182.64 100 336.94 100

152
 Appendix O

Characteristics of Mix Waste

153
Table O-1: Full Calculations of Density for Mix Waste

Weight of full Weight of Empty Volume of Bulk

Date Strata type Container (W1) container (W2) container (V) Density
(kg) (kg) (L) (kg/L)

5-Jun-18 High Income Households 22.14 3.95 60 0.30

5-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 21.89 3.95 60 0.30
5-Jun-18 Low Income Households 19.18 3.95 60 0.25
5-Jun-18 Commercial Units 13.92 3.94 60 0.17
6-Jun-18 High Income Households 18.79 3.95 60 0.25
6-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 19.63 3.94 60 0.26
6-Jun-18 Low Income Households 18.93 3.96 60 0.25
6-Jun-18 Commercial Units 12.19 3.94 60 0.14
7-Jun-18 High Income Households 18.83 3.95 60 0.25
7-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 18.97 3.95 60 0.25
7-Jun-18 Low Income Households 16.47 3.94 60 0.21
7-Jun-18 Commercial Units 14.28 3.93 60 0.17
8-Jun-18 High Income Households 20.18 3.85 60 0.27
8-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 18.27 3.95 60 0.24
8-Jun-18 Low Income Households 15.23 3.94 60 0.19
8-Jun-18 Commercial Units 13.92 3.93 60 0.17
9-Jun-18 High Income Households 24.79 3.93 60 0.35
9-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 18.49 3.95 60 0.24
9-Jun-18 Low Income Households 15.77 3.85 60 0.20
9-Jun-18 Commercial Units 11.29 3.95 60 0.12
10-Jun-18 High Income Households 23.84 3.96 60 0.33
10-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 17.29 3.96 60 0.22
10-Jun-18 Low Income Households 16.47 3.96 60 0.21
10-Jun-18 Commercial Units 9.32 3.96 60 0.09
11-Jun-18 High Income Households 19.83 3.95 60 0.26
11-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 17.49 3.97 60 0.23
11-Jun-18 Low Income Households 16.58 3.97 60 0.21
11-Jun-18 Commercial Units 10.32 3.84 60 0.11
24-Jun-18 High Income Households 19.89 3.96 60 0.27
24-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 18.16 3.85 60 0.24
24-Jun-18 Low Income Households 17.37 3.95 60 0.22
24-Jun-18 Commercial Units 15.28 3.96 60 0.19
25-Jun-18 High Income Households 19.48 3.94 60 0.26
25-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 16.83 3.95 60 0.21
25-Jun-18 Low Income Households 14.29 3.97 60 0.17
25-Jun-18 Commercial Units 16.83 3.81 60 0.22
26-Jun-18 High Income Households 20.94 3.95 60 0.28
26-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 17.81 3.95 60 0.23
26-Jun-18 Low Income Households 14.37 3.84 60 0.18

154
26-Jun-18 Commercial Units 15.29 3.94 60 0.19
27-Jun-18 High Income Households 21.18 3.96 60 0.29
27-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 17.49 3.94 60 0.23
27-Jun-18 Low Income Households 16.46 3.95 60 0.21
27-Jun-18 Commercial Units 15.72 3.95 60 0.20
28-Jun-18 High Income Households 20.84 3.93 60 0.28
28-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 18.34 3.95 60 0.24
28-Jun-18 Low Income Households 17.38 3.95 60 0.22
28-Jun-18 Commercial Units 16.29 3.95 60 0.21
29-Jun-18 High Income Households 21.83 3.95 60 0.30
29-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 20.38 3.96 60 0.27
29-Jun-18 Low Income Households 15.57 3.94 60 0.19
29-Jun-18 Commercial Units 14.26 3.94 60 0.17
30-Jun-18 High Income Households 19.94 3.79 60 0.27
30-Jun-18 Middle Income Households 17.59 3.95 60 0.23
30-Jun-18 Low Income Households 16.93 3.95 60 0.22
30-Jun-18 Commercial Units 15.29 3.94 60 0.19
Average Bulk 0.22

155
Table O-2: Full Calculations of Mix Waste for Moisture Content (MC)

Date of Date of Wet weight Dry Weight

Strata Type MC %
Sampling testing (A) (kg) (B) (kg)
High Income Households 5-Jun-18 6-Jun-18 1.036 0.536 48.3
Middle Income Households 5-Jun-18 6-Jun-18 0.992 0.514 48.2
Low Income Households 5-Jun-18 6-Jun-18 0.927 0.581 37.3
Commercial Units 5-Jun-18 6-Jun-18 0.928 0.697 24.9
High Income Households 6-Jun-18 7-Jun-18 0.970 0.490 49.5
Middle Income Households 6-Jun-18 7-Jun-18 0.912 0.584 36.0
Low Income Households 6-Jun-18 7-Jun-18 0.957 0.611 36.2
Commercial Units 6-Jun-18 7-Jun-18 0.938 0.617 34.2
High Income Households 9-Jun-18 10-Jun-18 1.190 0.623 47.6
Middle Income Households 9-Jun-18 10-Jun-18 0.940 0.569 39.5
Low Income Households 9-Jun-18 10-Jun-18 0.912 0.547 40.0
Commercial Units 9-Jun-18 10-Jun-18 0.935 0.633 32.3
High Income Households 10-Jun-18 11-Jun-18 0.892 0.491 45.0
Middle Income Households 10-Jun-18 11-Jun-18 0.921 0.577 37.4
Low Income Households 10-Jun-18 11-Jun-18 0.932 0.579 37.9
Commercial Units 10-Jun-18 11-Jun-18 0.919 0.592 35.6
High Income Households 11-Jun-18 12-Jun-18 0.993 0.582 41.4
Middle Income Households 11-Jun-18 12-Jun-18 0.943 0.593 37.1
Low Income Households 11-Jun-18 12-Jun-18 0.917 0.635 30.8
Commercial Units 11-Jun-18 12-Jun-18 0.948 0.673 29.0
High Income Households 24-Jun-18 25-Jun-18 0.982 0.591 39.8
Middle Income Households 24-Jun-18 25-Jun-18 0.923 0.587 36.4
Low Income Households 24-Jun-18 25-Jun-18 0.956 0.591 38.2
Commercial Units 24-Jun-18 25-Jun-18 0.945 0.576 39.0
High Income Households 25-Jun-18 26-Jun-18 0.939 0.539 42.6
Middle Income Households 25-Jun-18 26-Jun-18 0.982 0.576 41.3
Low Income Households 25-Jun-18 26-Jun-18 1.032 0.599 42.0
Commercial Units 25-Jun-18 26-Jun-18 0.989 0.562 43.2
High Income Households 26-Jun-18 27-Jun-18 0.931 0.514 44.8
Middle Income Households 26-Jun-18 27-Jun-18 0.958 0.539 43.7
Low Income Households 26-Jun-18 27-Jun-18 0.947 0.597 37.0
Commercial Units 26-Jun-18 27-Jun-18 0.969 0.542 44.1
High Income Households 27-Jun-18 28-Jun-18 0.910 0.532 41.5
Middle Income Households 27-Jun-18 28-Jun-18 0.937 0.581 38.0
Low Income Households 27-Jun-18 28-Jun-18 0.987 0.692 29.9
Commercial Units 27-Jun-18 28-Jun-18 1.021 0.573 43.9
High Income Households 30-Jun-18 1-Jul-18 0.973 0.559 42.5
Middle Income Households 30-Jun-18 1-Jul-18 0.951 0.540 43.2
Low Income Households 30-Jun-18 1-Jul-18 1.011 0.621 38.6
Commercial Units 30-Jun-18 1-Jul-18 0.993 0.572 42.4
Average MC (%) 40

156
 Appendix P

Composition of Food Waste

157
Table P-1: Composition of Food Waste
Ramadan Period None-Ramadan Total (14
(5th-11th June Period (24th-30th days)
2018) June 2018)
Composition Weight (%) Weight (%) Weight (%)
(kg) (kg) (kg)

Fruits and Fruits Products 235.79 23 300.27 22 536.06 22

Vegetables and Vegetables Products 276.16 27 333.95 24 610.11 25
Cereal and Cereal products 112.01 11 125.47 9 237.48 10
Rice 164.3 16 273.94 20 438.24 18
Meat and poultry 74.36 7 95.26 7 169.62 7
Bones 52.5 5 86.2 6 138.7 6
Eggs and Egg shelves 25.14 2 31.05 2 56.19 2
Sugars and Sweet products 10.94 1 14.17 1 25.11 1
Nuts and Seeds 41.89 4 53.27 4 95.16 4
Milk Products 33.06 3 46.11 3 79.17 3
Miscellaneous 12.53 1 14.19 1 26.72 1
Total 1,038 100 1,373 100 2,412 100

Table P-2: Full Composition of High Income Household’s Food Waste

Ramadan Period None-Ramadan

(5th-11th June Period (24th-30th Total
2018) June 2018)
Composition
Weight Weight Weight
% % %
(kg) (kg) (kg)

Fruits and Fruits Products 89.95 25 96.46 25 186.41 25

Vegetables and Vegetables Products 85.08 24 104.52 27 189.60 25

Cereal and Cereal products 35.91 10 33.90 9 69.80 9
Rice 57.41 16 66.23 17 123.64 17
Meat and poultry 25.93 7 23.16 6 49.10 7
Bones 23.19 7 23.90 6 47.09 6
Eggs and Egg shelves 5.94 2 6.33 2 12.28 2
Sugars and Sweet products 2.84 1 1.28 0 4.12 1
Nuts and Seeds 11.88 3 12.78 3 24.66 3
Milk Products 12.40 4 21.58 5 33.97 5
Miscellaneous 3.13 1 2.80 1 5.93 1
Total 353.66 100 392.94 100 746.60 100

158
Table P-3: Full Composition of Middle Income Household’s Food Waste

Ramadan Period None-Ramadan

(5th-11th June Period (24th-30th Total
2018) June 2018)
Composition
Weight Weight Weight
% % %
(kg) (kg) (kg)

Fruits and Fruits Products 76.07 25 96.00 28 172.07 26

Vegetables and Vegetables Products 90.07 29 90.72 26 180.79 28

Cereal and Cereal products 27.42 9 24.22 7 51.64 8
Rice 53.38 17 69.54 20 122.92 19
Meat and poultry 18.40 6 19.59 6 37.99 6
Bones 13.08 4 14.08 4 27.16 4
Eggs and Egg shelves 5.93 2 5.79 2 11.73 2
Sugars and Sweet products 2.30 1 3.64 1 5.94 1
Nuts and Seeds 12.17 4 14.00 4 26.17 4
Milk Products 5.98 2 7.16 2 13.15 2
Miscellaneous 2.48 1 3.85 1 6.33 1
Total 307.29 100 348.59 100 655.88 100

Table P-4: Full Composition of Low Income Household’s Food Waste

Ramadan Period None-Ramadan

(5th-11th June Period (24th-30th Total
2018) June 2018)
Composition
Weight Weight Weight
% % %
(kg) (kg) (kg)

Fruits and Fruits Products 39.27 22 48.92 22 88.19 22

Vegetables and Vegetables Products 59.84 34 61.68 28 121.52 31

Cereal and Cereal products 13.71 8 18.45 8 32.16 8
Rice 22.36 13 36.81 17 59.17 15
Meat and poultry 11.43 6 12.80 6 24.22 6
Bones 5.94 3 8.40 4 14.34 4
Eggs and Egg shelves 3.79 2 5.75 3 9.54 2
Sugars and Sweet products 1.87 1 2.72 1 4.59 1
Nuts and Seeds 14.09 8 14.24 7 28.33 7
Milk Products 2.61 1 4.80 2 7.41 2
Miscellaneous 2.95 2 2.92 1 5.87 1
Total 177.85 100 217.49 100 395.34 100

159
Table P-5: Full Composition of Commercial Unit Food Waste

None-
Ramadan
Ramadan
Period (5th-11th Total
Period (24th-
June 2018)
30th June 2018)
Composition
Weight Weight Weight
% % %
(kg) (kg) (kg)

Fruits and Fruits Products 30.50 15 58.89 14 89.39 15

Vegetables and Vegetables Products 41.16 21 77.03 19 118.19 19

Cereal and Cereal products 34.97 17 48.90 12 83.87 14
Rice 31.14 16 101.35 24 132.49 22
Meat and poultry 18.60 9 39.72 10 58.32 9
Bones 10.29 5 39.82 10 50.12 8
Eggs and Egg shelves 9.47 5 13.18 3 22.64 4
Sugars and Sweet products 3.93 2 6.53 2 10.46 2
Nuts and Seeds 3.76 2 12.25 3 16.00 3
Milk Products 12.07 6 12.57 3 24.64 4
Miscellaneous 3.98 2 4.62 1 8.60 1
Total 199.87 100 414.86 100 614.73 100

160
 Appendix Q

Characteristics of Food Waste

161
Table Q-1: Average Bulk Density of Food Waste

Weight of full Weight of Empty Volume of Bulk

Date Container (W1) container (W2) container (V) Density
(kg) (kg) (L) (kg/m3)

5-Jun-18 32.3 3.91 60 470

6-Jun-18 25.84 3.86 60 370
7-Jun-18 23.41 3.91 60 330
8-Jun-18 22.13 3.85 60 300
9-Jun-18 24.77 3.89 60 350
10-Jun-18 23.94 3.79 60 340
11-Jun-18 19.23 3.82 60 260
24-Jun-18 17.8 3.93 60 230
25-Jun-18 27.3 3.83 60 390
26-Jun-18 17.79 3.84 60 230
27-Jun-18 26.28 3.82 60 370
28-Jun-18 18.14 3.85 60 240
29-Jun-18 23.51 3.95 60 330
30-Jun-18 22.79 3.98 60 310
Average 320

Table Q-2: Moisture Content Analysis of Food Waste

Date of Date of Wet weight (A) Dry Weight (B)

MC %
Sampling testing (kg) (kg)
5-Jun-18 6-Jun-18 0.959 0.231 75.9
6-Jun-18 7-Jun-18 0.982 0.218 77.8
9-Jun-18 10-Jun-18 0.963 0.181 81.2
10-Jun-18 11-Jun-18 0.974 0.266 72.7
11-Jun-18 12-Jun-18 0.976 0.169 82.7
24-Jun-18 25-Jun-18 1.01 0.281 72.2
25-Jun-18 26-Jun-18 1.08 0.271 74.9
26-Jun-18 27-Jun-18 0.981 0.217 77.9
27-Jun-18 28-Jun-18 0.979 0.225 77.0
30-Jun-18 1-Jul-18 0.988 0.21 78.7
Average % 77.1

162
Table Q-3: pH of Food Waste

High Income Middle Income Low Income Commercial

Date
Households Households Households Unit

5-Jun-18 5.76 5.98 5.78 5.12

6-Jun-18 5.58 5.67 5.89 5.92
7-Jun-18 6.01 5.82 5.83 5.27
9-Jun-18 5.92 5.63 6.13 5.83
10-Jun-18 5.96 5.78 5.61 5.79
11-Jun-18 5.81 5.91 5.6 5.45
24-Jun-18 5.42 6.19 5.92 5.09
25-Jun-18 6.12 5.92 5.82 5.93
26-Jun-18 6.04 5.23 5.91 5.95
27-Jun-18 5.86 5.89 5.23 5.86
28-Jun-18 5.82 5.94 5.81 5.99
30-Jun-18 5.83 5.71 5.13 5.82
Average 5.84 5.81 5.72 5.67

163
 Appendix R

Visit to Recycling Facilities

164
Appendix R-1: Plastic Recycling Industry

Company Name: Myah Abdul Karim Plastic Company

Address: Industrial Estate, Sarake Naw, 9th District Kabul City.
Mobile Number: +93 779 992430
Duration: 2013 – Present
Objective of the Plant: To recycle plastic waste and produce new product such as
plastic pitchers

1. Background Information:

The industry owned by Mr Abdul Karim built in 2013 is located at the industrial estate of
Sarake Naw. The Industry has a total of 25 workers. This industry shreds the plastic waste
into small granular pieces and then manufactures plastic pitchers from it. The industry shreds
around 1 tonne of plastic waste per day. 1 tonne of plastic waste is bought about 15,000 Afs.
Out of the 1 tonne/day shredded plastic waste into grains, 350 kilos are used within the same
industry to manufacture plastic pitchers while the remaining 650 kilos are sent to other
industry for manufacturing recycled products. The grains are sold to other industries by
20,000 Afs per tonne.

Figure R-1: Location of Myah Abdul Karim Industry

1.1 Process

The process flow diagram is provided in Figure R-2 while the detailed process is
explained below:

165
 Plastic waste Stockpile sun Shredding of Drying with
preparation dried plastic waste fire

Use of Shredding
electrical into grains of
energy 0.5 cm with
molding
machine

Making Melting the

Distribution plastic
in to market grains of 0.5
pitchers cm

Figure R-2: Process flow diagram

Step 1: Raw Material preparation

The plastic waste is first bought from the waste shops and then transferred to the plant. The
stockpile is prepared and left in sun for drying as shown in Figure R-3.

Figure R-3: Stockpile of plastic waste

Step 2: Shredding

In the second step the sun dried waste is fed into a shredder shown in Figure R-4 to shred
the waste into coarse grains.

Figure R-4: Shredding machine

166
Step 3: Drying

After shredding into coarse grains the waste is again dried by heating with fire as shown in
Figure R-5. The heating of the raw waste plastic after cutting was used to dry the waste and
also for disinfection. And the heat was kept low so that the waste plastic will not melt down.

Figure R-5: Drying of waste by heating

Step 4: Shredding into grains of 0.5 cm

In the next step the dried waste is fed into molding machine. Figure R-6 shows the shape of
machine where around 250 oC of heat is provided to turn the coarse grains of plastic waste
into thread like shape and then passed through cold water as shown in Figure R-7 to cool
down the threaded shaped plastic and eventually it passes through a thresher that cuts the
plastic into 0.5 cm grains shown in Figure R-8.

Figure R-6: Plastic molding machine

167
Figure R-7: Cooling of threaded shaped plastic in water

Figure R-8: Grains of 0.5 cm

Figure R-9: Heat and electricity controlling station

168
Step 5: Manufacturing of plastic pitchers

After the grains are prepared another machine shown in Figure R-10 to melt these grains
through heat and then is shaped into plastic pitchers shown in Figure R-11.

Figure R-10: Machine used for melting and shaping the plastic grains into pitchers
Figru

Figure R-11: Manufacturing of plastic pitchers

169
Appendix R-2: Pipe Manufacturing Industry

Company Name: Burjgi Brothers Pipe Company

Address: Industrial Estate, Sarake Naw, 9th District Kabul City.
Mobile Number: +93 794 205454
Duration: 2014 – Present
Objective of the Plant: To recycle plastic waste into polyethylene pipes

1. Background Information

The industry located at the Sarake Naw Industrial Estate, recycles plastic waste into
polyethylene pipes. The industry has 20 workers and recycles around 4 tonnes of waste per
day. The industry buys the plastic waste at 35 Afs per kilo. Out of 4 tonnes of waste 3 tonnes
of pipe is manufactured and is sold to market by 65 Afs per kilo.

Figure R-12: Location of Industry

1.1 Process

The process and the technology of this industry is same as of the above mentioned industry
only the end product is polyethylene pipes.

170
Appendix R-3: Toilet Paper Industry

Company Name: Nastaran Industry

Address: Industrial Estate, Sarake Naw, 9th District Kabul City.
Mobile Number: +93 777 324780
Duration: 2009 – Present
Objective of the Plant: To recycle paper waste into toilet paper

1. Background Information

The Industry owned by Sahar Gul manufactures toilet paper from paper waste. 110 workers
work in the industry and recycles about 5 ton of waste per day. The paper waste is bought at
5000 Afs per ton and 1 ton of toilet paper is sold at 40,000 Afs.

Figure R-13: Location of Nastaran Industry

1.1 Process

The process flow diagram of the company is given in Figure R-14 while the detailed steps
are given below:

171
 Paper waste Discharge of
preparation Wastewater

Paper waste Shredding of Formation of Heating of

preparation paper waste paste paste

Use of electrical Creation of

energy toilet paper
rolls

Distribution Packing of
in to market toilet paper

rolls
Figure R-14: Process flow diagram

Step 1: Raw Material preparation

The paper waste is bought from the waste shops and then transferred to the industry. The
stockpile is prepared as shown in Figure R-15.

Figure R-15: Stockpile of paper waste

Step 2: Shredding

The paper waste is then loaded into the shredding machine. The shredding machine consists
blades that shreds the paper into small pieces and also at the same time water is added to
convert into liquid state and create a paste shown in Figure R-16.

172
 Figure R-16: Shredding machine

Step 3: Heating of paste

Once all the paper waste is thoroughly converted into paste it comes out of the shredding
machine as shown in Figure R-17 and is sent to a heating chamber shown in Figure R-18
that heats the paste to kill microbes.

Figure R-17: Paste generated after shredding

Figure R-18: Heating chamber for killing microbes

173
Step 4: Separation of wastewater

After the paste is heating, the paste is passed through a sieve. The paste with no coarse
particles passes through the sieve and enters a pipe while the paste with coarse particles
comes out from another pipe (shown in Figure R-19) as wastewater and is disposed in the
nearby canal without any prior treatment.

Figure R-19: Wastewater after sieve separation

Step 5: Creating paper sheets and rolls of toilet paper

After the paste is passed through the sieve it is converted into a solid state as paper sheets
shown in Figure R-20. The paper sheets are changed into bigger rolls and eventually into
single toilet paper rolls shown in Figure R-21 and are packed to be delivered to the
customers.

Figure R-20: Paper sheets of Toilet paper

174
Figure R-21: Packaging of toilet paper

175
Appendix S

Cost Analysis

176
Total Cost of Existing SWM system via component analysis

To develop a cost recovery system, the first step is to find out the total cost of the existing
system. The cost analysis of DoS is divided into 3 components.
i. Collection Component Cost
ii. Disposal Component Cost
iii. Additional Cost
Cost of each component is given in the below sections.

Collection and transferring Component Cost

For calculating the collection component cost, the main components considered are amount
of waste collected, total fuel cost to collect and transfer this waste to Gazak 2 landfill and
total Salaries of the workers involved to collect and transfer this waste to Gazak 2.

1. Amount of Waste Collected

Since DoS is only colleting around 1740 tonnes of waste per day on average, therefore for
collection component cost the amount of waste is considered only 1740 tonnes and not the
amount of total generated waste.

Amount of waste collected= 1740 tonnes/day, 52,200 tonnes/month OR 635,100 tonnes/year

i. Total fuel cost

The total number of vehicles for collection and transferring of solid waste is 374 (including
the contracted vehicles, the fuel cost of which is paid by DoS). Out of these 374 vehicles,
338 vehicles use diesel as fuel while rest of 36 vehicles use petrol. The cost analysis for each
type of vehicle is given in Table S-1 and Table S-2. This cost analysis is done based on the
amount of fuel used in one month (from 21st March up to 21st April 2018).

Table S-1: Total diesel cost of 338 vehicles

Diesel operational vehicles

# of Liters of diesel Price per Total diesel cost
vehicles used/month/all liter (million
vehicles (Afs) Afs/month)

338 388,036 liters 42 16.29

Table S-2: Total petrol cost of 36 vehicles

Petrol operational vehicles

# of Liters of petrol Price per Total petrol
vehicles used/month/all liter cost (million
vehicles (Afs) Afs/month)

36 35993 41 1.47

177
From above tables the total fuel cost can be calculated:

Total fuel cost = Total diesel cost + total petrol cost

Total fuel cost =16.29 +1.47

Total fuel cost = 17.76 million Afs/month

ii. Total salaries

A total of 1650 workers are allocated to collect and transfer 1740 tonnes of waste per day.
The average salaries of these workers on average is 11,000 Afs per month.

Total salaries = 11,000*1650

Total salaries = 18.15 million Afs

iii. Per tonne collection and transferring cost

Per tonne collection cost = (Total fuel cost + total salaries) / (amount of waste collected)

Per tonne collection cost = (17.76 million Afs) + 18.15 million Afs) / (52,200
(tonnes/month)

Per tonne collection and transferring cost = 687 Afs

2. Disposal Component Cost

The components that were used to calculate the disposal cost for disposing 1 tonne of waste
at Gazak 2 landfill are amount of waste disposed, fuel cost of disposal vehicle, and number
of workers at Gazak 2 landfill for disposal.

i. Amount of waste disposed

The amount of waste disposed is same as the amount of waste collected.

Amount of waste collected = 1740 tonnes/day, 52,200 tonnes/month OR 635,100

tonnes/year

ii. Fuel cost of disposal vehicle

There are four operating vehicles (2 bulldozers, 1 excavator and 1 loader) at Gazak 2 landfill
for waste disposal. All these vehicles use diesel as fuel and the total fuel usage of these 4
vehicles for one month (21st March up to 21st April 2018) was 3498 liters.

Fuel cost = 3498*42

Fuel cost=0.14 million Afs/month

178
iii. Total salaries of Gazak site workers

For waste disposal at Gazak 2 site, there are 35 workers allocated. The average salaries of
these workers is about 11,000 Afs.

Total salaries=11,000*35

Total salaries=0.38 million Afs/month

iv. Per tonne disposal cost

Per tonne disposal cost = (Total fuel cost + total salaries) / (amount of waste collected)

Per tonne disposal cost = (0.14 million Afs) + 0.38 million Afs) / (52,200 (tonnes/month)

Per tonne disposal cost= 10 Afs

3. Additional Cost

The miscellaneous cost includes the cost of additional vehicles and workers that are
indirectly involve in solid waste management mostly in administrative works. The
components included in this section is same as the components of collection and disposal
cost.

i. Fuel cost additional vehicles

The number of additional vehicles are 10 and use diesel as fuel. The one month (from 21st
March up to 21st April) diesel consumption of these vehicles was 50,423 liters.

Fuel cost = 50423 *42

Fuel cost = 2.11 million Afs/month

ii. Total additional salaries

There are 1975 additional workers that are indirectly involve in solid waste management
and the average monthly salary of these workers is considered as 11,000 Afs per month.

Total salaries = 11,000*1975

Total salaries = 21.72 million Afs/month

iii. Extra costs

Cost of hydraulic + Seyasel + Wiacom + Grease + Spare parts + maintenance + work

equipment + Uniform + electricity bill + GPS bill in one month

(0.25 + 0.1 + 0.01 + 0.06 + 1.2 + 0.35 + 0.68 + 0.36 + 0.21 + 0.22) million Afs

3.44 million Afs

179
iv. Per tonne additional cost

Per tonne additonal cost = (Total fuel cost + total salaries + extra costs) / (amount of waste
collected)

Per tonne additional cost = (2.11 million Afs + 21.72 million Afs + 3.44 million Afs) /
(52,200 tonnes/month)

Per ton additional cost = 522 Afs

v. Total cost via component analysis

Total per tonne cost = per tonne collection cost + per tonne disposal cost + per tonne
additonal cost

Total per tonne cost = 687+ 10+522

Total per tonne cost = 1219 Afs

The cost for 52,200 tonnes and 635,100 tonnes of waste collected per month and per year
respectively are given below.

Total cost per month=1219 Afs/tonne*52,200 tonne/month

Total cost per month=63.63 million Afs

Total cost per year=1219 Afs/tonne*635,100 tonne/year

Total cost per year = 774.18 million Afs

vi. Per capita cost per month

The total population of Kabul city from previously collected data is about 5 millions. Below
the per capita cost per month for the amount of waste that is currently collected, transferred and
disposed by DoS.

per capita cost per month= (63.63 million Afs)/(5 million)

per capita cost per month= 13 Afs

vii. Total cost analysis for 100% collection efficiency

Below equations gives the total cost per month and per year respectively in case if the collection
efficiency will be 100 % in the city. As the total municipal solid waste generation in the city is
3050 tonnes per day, 91,500 tonnes per month and 1.11 million tonnes per month. The per
capita cost in case of 100 % collection efficiency is:

Total cost per month = 1219 Afs/tonne*91,500 tonne/month

Total cost per month = 111.53 million Afs

180
Total cost per year = 1219 Afs/tonne*1.11 (million tonnes)/year
Total cost per year = 1353 million Afs

per capita cost per month = (96.05 million Afs)/(5 million)

per capita cost per month = 23 Afs

per capita cost per year = (1353 million Afs)/(5 million)

per capita cost per year = 271 Afs

181
 Appendix T

Proposed sites of Transfer stations and MRF

182
Figure T-1: Proposed sites for transfer stations and MRF

183
 Appendix U

Appreciation Letters

184
Certificate of Appreciation from the Acting Mayor of Kabul City

Figure U-1: Appreciation letter from Acting Mayor of Kabul City

185
Letter from DAI-SHAHAR, USAID

186
 Appendix V

Pictures Taken during this Study

187
Meeting with Director of Sanitation –
Kabul Municipality

Lab work in Agriculture Faculty – Kabul

University

Site Visits

Figure V-1: Pictures taken during this study

188