Sustainable Solid Waste Systems in Developing Countries

By Sandra Cointreau Solid Waste Management Advisor The World Bank, Washington DC February 2006

1

Sustainability Needs:
‡ Well planned and tested solid waste systems -to develop cost effectiveness. ‡ Attention to social values and needs -- to minimize health concerns and design affordable systems. ‡ Cooperation and involvement of the people being served. ‡ Competition, accountability and transparency - to optimize trust by consumers and encourage private investment. ‡ Ethical, legal and regulatory frameworks -- to minimize risks to investors.
2

First ± What are the health and environmental concerns that Sustainable Solid Waste Systems must address?
3

Environmental Concerns:
‡ Greenhouse gases from solid waste activities ± Landfills are top source of methane GHG; refuse fleets are significant sources of CO2 and N2O. ‡ Wasted recyclable materials have lost inherent energy production activities (i.e., CO2 and N2O). ‡ Volatilized heavy metals (e.g., mercury and lead), dioxins and furans from open burning dumpsites and low-standard incinerators. ‡ Leachate from unlined and uncovered dumpsites contaminates ground and surface waters. ‡ Bioaerosols and dust from handling. ‡ Smoke particulates from open dumping.
4

Health Concerns:
‡ Infection ± contact with human fecal matter, blood, and diseased tissue; contact with diseased dead animal matter and manure. ‡ Animal diseases ± foraging of animals/birds at open dumps; recycling of slaughter waste into animal feed. ‡ Respiratory disease -- particulates and bioaerosols reduce pulmonary function. ‡ Cancer -- volatilized refractory organics from landfill gases; heavy metals, dioxins and furans from poorly controlled burning. ‡ Headaches ± lack of oxygen and excessive CO from dumpsite decomposition and burning. ‡ Injury ± wounds from sharps, traffic accidents.
5

Direct Contact with Waste:

Bombay, India, 1995 Significant contact during loading, no shoes or gloves

Tema, Ghana, 1998 Children playing in an area of uncollected waste
6

Animals Raised and Fed on Raw Waste:

Dominican Republic, 1998, Pigs living on dumpsites

El Salvador, 1998, Cows and pigs searching for food
7

Dumpsite Linkage to Animal and Poultry Diseases:
‡ Avian Influenza H5N1±virus in bird secretions and excreta are long-lived. Present in bedding and slaughter wastes, able to last week. Wild birds are carriers. Humans susceptible through contact and ingestion. ‡ Encephalopathies (Mad Cow, Sheep Scrapie) -- prion proteins in brain and spinal materials are long lasting, even after thermal processing into animal feed. Humans susceptible through ingestion. ‡ Cattle, Sheep and Goat Foot-and-Mouth -- virus in secretions and excreta. Present in bedding and slaughter wastes. Dogs, rats, and birds are carriers. ‡ Bovine TB ± bacterium in secretions and excreta. Present in bedding and slaughter wastes. Infective to all mammals. ‡ Rabbit Viral Hemorrhagic Fever ±virus in rabbit blood and excreta. Present in bedding wastes and slaughter wastes, able to last weeks. Surviving rabbits are carriers.
8

Bio-aerosol Levels:
‡ 10-1000 times Higher near the truck loading hopper (Switzerland, Denmark
local studies)

‡ 2-10 times Higher inside materials recovery plants (USA,
Finland local studies)

‡ 2-4 times Higher at sanitary landfills (Italy
local studies)

Izmir, Turkey, 1994
9

Particulates High at Burning Dumps:

Dominican Republic, 1998

Mauritius, 1998
10

Pulmonary Function:
‡ 23% Dumpsite Workers with Abnormal Pulmonary Function (India
local study)

‡ 40% Dumpsite Waste Pickers with Abnormal Pulmonary Function (Thailand
local study)

‡ 53% Dumpsite Child Waste Pickers with Abnormal Pulmonary Function
(Philippines local study)

11

Blood Lead Levels:
‡ 70% Dumpsite Children Pickers above WHO lead guideline -children pickers mean lead was 2.5 times higher than in control slum children
(Philippines local study)

Quezon City, the Philippines, 1995
12

Intestinal Parasite Infection Among Waste Pickers:
‡ 65% incidence in Bangkok, Thailand ‡ 98% incidence in Manila, Philippines
(child waste pickers only)

‡ 97% incidence in Olinda, Brazil ‡ 92% incidence in Calcutta, India
Bombay, India, 1995
13

Slides at Open Dumps:
‡ Istanbul, Turkey
± 39 killed, 1993

‡ O Portino, Spain
± 1 killed, 250 evacuated, 1994

‡ Calcutta, India
± 2 killed, 1992

‡ Manila, the Philippines
± over 200 killed, 2000

‡ Bandung, Indonesia
± over 100 killed, 2005

Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 2001

14

Second ± How do we achieve cost-effective technical designs for Sustainable Solid Waste Systems?
15

Waste Character:
‡ Vegetable/putrescible material 2-3 times higher -40% to 80% by weight ‡ Recyclable paper, plastic, metal, glass 2-5 times lower -- 5% to 15% ‡ Inert fines 2-5 times higher -- 20% to 40% ‡ Moisture content 2-4 times higher -- 40% to 70% ‡ Density 2-3 times higher -- 350 to 400 kg/cu.mtr., uncompacted in collection truck ‡ Calorific values 2-3 times lower -- 800 to 1,300 kcal/kg.

16

Waste Differences affect Technical Choices:
‡ Compaction is not always justified. ‡ Composting is technically viable, but farmers may not afford to pay the difference in cost above sanitary landfill. ‡ Sanitary landfill gas generation is technically viable, but gas escapes quickly in warm tropical climates and requires extra investment to contain. ‡ Incineration is rarely self-sustainable, since supplemental fuel is needed for low-calorie waste.
17

Strategic Planning is Essential:
‡ Collection options vary widely in cost and quality of service, must fit the local setting ‡ Transfer facilities can dramatically cut costs ‡ Disposal systems have large economiesof-scale, must fit the local waste character ‡ Holistic modeling is available to comparatively assess costs, consumables, and emissions.
18

Collection Vehicle Types:
‡ Small ± power tiller, hand cart, mini-truck ‡ Slow moving ± tractor and trailer, animal cart ‡ Fast moving ± open tipper truck, rear loader truck ‡ Container lifting ± roll on, skip, mechanical arm for carts

Accra, Ghana, 1997

Kukkattpally, India, 2001
19

Collection Vehicle Types:

Liftable Container, Izmir, Turkey, 1994

Arm-Roll Container, Sekondi, Ghana, 1997
20

Collection Vehicle Types:

Market Skip Lift Containers, Tema, Ghana, 1994 Arm Roll Container, Ahmedabad, India, 2001
21

Collection Vehicle Types:

Mini Private Truck, Bangalore, India, 2001

Open Tipper Lifts Hand Carts, Hue, Vietnam, 1996
22

Cost Comparison of Vehicle Types
Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Costs in Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2000
40

35

30

cost per tonne in $US

25

20

15

LG RL COMP MANUAL 20 SM RL COMP MANUAL 10

LG RL COMP CONTAINERS 20 SM RL COMP MANUAL 10 FARM TRACTOR TRAILER 6

10

SM RL COMP MANUAL 10 OPEN TIPPER 6

5

0 5 20 35

km from collection to discharge

23

Crew Size and System of Loading:
‡ Vehicle productivity more important in LDC¶s than worker productivity ‡ Arrange crew size to optimize vehicle productivity ‡ Facilitate method of loading

Bombay, India, 1995

Ica, Peru, 1984
24

Crew Size:

Izmir, Turkey, 1994 Bangalore, India, 2001

25

Crew Size Comparison:
‡ 5-person crew had lower cost/tonne than 4-person crew ‡ Larger crew could load vehicle faster and optimize vehicle productivity

Quito, Ecuador - Comparative Total Cost for Collection Government - 4 versus 5 man crew - 1998
$40.00 $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 Cost per Metric Tonne $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 5 15 30 45

Distance from Route to Disposal (km) REAR LOADER MANUAL 4-crew 14 REAR LOADER MANUAL 5-crew 14 OPEN TIPPER MANUAL 4-crew 8.076 OPEN TIPPER MANUAL 5-crew 8.076
26

Public versus Private Operator:
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Different financing costs Different overhead costs Different salaries and benefit costs Different insurance, tax, registration, and marketing costs (also corruption costs) ‡ Different length of hours of work and productivity per worker ‡ Different vehicle availability ‡ Different accountability ± per contractual specifications
27

Private Sector Service:

Woman-Owned Micro-Enterprise, Quito, Ecuador, 1998

Women-Owned Cooperative, Kukkattpally India, 2001
28

Public versus Private Costs:
‡ Total costs for private versus public were so close in Quito, it was decided to maintain a balance of each, and gradually decrease government to about 30% through natural attrition.

$40.00

Comparison of Private and Government Collection Costs

$35.00 $30.00
REAR LOADER Govt 14.0 OPEN TIPPER Govt 8.1 REAR LOADER Private 14.0 OPEN TIPPER Private 8.1

Cost per Tonne in $US

$25.00 $20.00

$15.00 $10.00

$5.00 $0.00 5 15 30 45 Distance in Kilometers to Unload

29

Solid Waste Collection and Transfer Vehicle Costs in Trinidad and Tobago, 1999

Transfer Systems enable reducing Collection Haul Distance, Vehicle Emissions and Costs by 20 To 50 percent.

$45.00 $40.00 $35.00 $30.00

cost per tonne in $US

$25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 5.0 15.0 30.0 50.0

km from collection to discharge
REAR LOADER MANUAL 10.0 TRANSFER TRUCK TRAILERS 60.0

30

Determine Transfer Breakpoints:
‡ Each type and size of collection vehicle has a different transfer breakpoint ‡ Traffic speed affects the transfer breakpoint ‡ Consider transfer for hauls over 30 minutes
COST ($US/Tonne) FOR COLLECTION AND TRANSFER SYSTEMS - GOVERNMENT SERVICE Georgetown, Guyana- 1999
40 REAR LOADER MANUAL 10

35

30 25

TRANSFER SYSTEM W/ COLL.TRUCKS TRANSFER TRUCK W/ FACILITY TRANSFER TRUCK 60

COST/TONNE ($US)

20

15

10 5 TRANSFER STATION

0 5

DISTANCE ONE WAY TO DISPOSAL

15

30

50

31

Typical 2-Level Transfer Stations:

Quito, Ecuador, 1998 Manila, Philippines, 1993

32

Direct Unloading to Transfer Truck:

Hyderabad, India, Skip Container Lift Collection Truck, Unloads to Open Tipping Truck, 2001

33

Unloading to Storage Floor:

Wheeled loader pushes waste into hopper. Knuckleboom crane distributes load.
34

Types of Transfer Vehicles:

US, lightweight, filled by extrusion from a compaction chamber

US, lightweight open topped, filled by gravity from hopper
35

Transfer Systems:
‡ Enable implementation of regional Treatment/Disposal facilities that achieve Economies-of-Scale. ‡ Treatment/Disposal facilities should be at least 300 tonnes/daily shift to have bulldozers, wheeled loaders, windrow turners fully utilized. ‡ Roads, fences, weighbridges, gatehouses, utilities and maintenance components are fixed costs that should be applied to large waste quantities to lower cost/tonne.
36

Landfill Economies-of-Scale:
Landfill Costs - Trinidad and Tobago, 1999
45.0 40.0 35.0 Cost in $US/Metric Tonne 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Investment Cost/Tonne - Clay and Geomembrane 40 TPD 550 TPD Total Cost/Tonne - Clay and Geomembrane 1100 TPD

37

Composting:
‡ Compost plants are safe and clean and technically appropriate for clean organic waste ‡ Product quality is key to success ‡ Market demand may not be adequate to cover costs Ahmedebad, India, 2001
38

Vermi-Composting:
‡ Requires more land than composting, because piles short. ‡ It is more sensitive to toxics in waste, and is best done on partially composted waste. Bangalore, India, 2001
39

Neighborhood Composting:
‡ Lessen the need to transport waste to disposal. ‡ Enable neighborhood revenues and employment. ‡ Require motivated public support. Dakha, Bangladesh, 2001
40

Refuse-Derived-Fuel Pellets:
‡ Limited to dry climates with dry waste. ‡ Only clean sorted waste can be consolidated into pellets for use as low-calorie fuel. ‡ Market demand may not be adequate for cost recovery.
41

Hyderabad, India, 2001

Materials Recycling at Source:
‡ Source segregation obtains cleanest reusable materials. ‡ Source segregation requires extra collection systems. ‡ Registration and route assignment upgrades the status and security of waste pickers. ‡ Source segregation minimizes occupational and environmental health risks.

Bangalore, India, 2001

42

Protective Gear for Workers:

Khulna, Bangladesh (syringes), 2001

Tema, Ghana, 1998
43

Segregate Special Wastes:
‡ Licensed private operators to safely handle segregated biomedical wastes

Hyderabad, India, 2001
44

Third ± How do we arrange financially for Sustainable Solid Waste Systems?
45

Solid Waste Service is Costly:
‡ Total cost for solid waste collection, transfer, and disposal is typically $40-80/tonne. ‡ Per capita waste generation is 0.2-0.3 tonnes/year. ‡ 60-70% of total cost is for collection. ‡ Full solid waste service requires 12% of GDP.

46

Adequate Cash Flow is Essential:
‡ 50-70% of total cost is for recurrent expenditure ± labor, fuel, tires, oil, spare parts. ‡ Labor and fuel are priority expenditures. ‡ If there aren¶t enough recurrent funds, spare vehicles are cannibalized for parts.
47

Sources of Capital Funds:
‡ Municipal bond issues for facilities, including intergovernmental tax credits that recognize externalities. ‡ Municipal borrowings for vehicles, such as from national development banks. ‡ Renewal funds replenished by special taxes, user charges, tipping fees. ‡ Intergovernmental transfers. ‡ Private sector investment.
48

Private Involvement raises Recurrent Budget Requirements:
‡ Recurrent budget must be higher to involve the private sector. ‡ Contractors have to pay monthly for their debt service for investment, and they borrow from short term notes at high commercial interest rates. ‡ Few municipalities could afford to support private sector investment. ‡ Mostly old non-specialized private vehicles are hired.
49

Some reasons for Limited Progress:
‡ Public systems improved in 80¶s not sustained. ‡ Development organizations in 90¶s reduced funding, assuming there would be private investment. ‡ Investment climate didn¶t improve, due to political intervention in contracting and contract continuity. ‡ Municipalities were restricted in the size and length of contracts. ‡ Labor laws and unions restricted staffing reductions to enable private sector service.
50

Solid Waste is a Public Good:
‡ Uncollected and poorly disposed solid waste adversely affects public health and environment. ‡ All municipal residents and visitors benefit from any solid waste services, regardless of whether they directly participated. ‡ Excluding some residents from services, adversely affects others.
51

Economic Instruments for Regional or Global Externalities:
‡ Intergovernmental transfers to upgrade disposal to desired national standards. ‡ Intergovernmental transfers to encourage compost as a carbon sink and means of upgrading land for agriculture. ‡ International transfers to encourage emission reductions to reduce climate change.
52

Examples of financial transfers:
‡ USA Superfund to remediate hazardous releases, including qualifying municipal dumps.
± 1980-2005+ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and subsequent amendments. ± Funded with taxes on crude oil and certain chemicals, eventually 8.5 $US BB. ± 45,000 sites assessed, about 1,600 placed on National Priority List. ± Private responsible parties sued by Govt. to reimburse the trust.
Source: Francisco Grajales
53

Examples of financial transfers:
‡ Israel Solid Waste Subsidy Program
± 1994-2003 financial support to municipalities. ± Covered 5 years of cost increases for increased disposal and haulage from implementing improved new landfills. ± Covered recycling communal bins and a fee for each tonne of waste recycled. ± Covered half the cost of backyard composting devices.
Source: Francisco Grajales

54

Examples of financial transfers:
‡ EU funds to upgrade disposal for EU accession countries.
± 2000-5+ Instrument for Structural Polices for Pre-Assession. ± Grants to upgrade infrastructure to meet EU standards, averaging over 1 BB Euros annually. ± Funds up to 75% of landfill civil works investment.

‡ EU cohesion funds
± 2000-5+ Assists less prosperous member countries to meet EU standards ± about 28 BB Euros.
Source: Francisco Grajales 55

Examples of financial transfers:
‡ UK Landfill Tax Credit
± Taxes every tonne landfilled ± 50 BB Pounds/year ± mostly funds remediation of solid waste activities. ± Landfills given exemption for donations to environmental improvements. ± Similar landfill taxes in France, Italy, and Netherlands.

‡ Ireland Recycling Partnership
± 1997 payment for every tonne of packaging waste recycled ± over 60 MM Euros thus far.
Source: Francisco Grajales 56

Examples of financial transfers:
‡ USA Tax Exemptions
± For bond issues for resource recovery plants ± For investment in landfill gas recovery

‡ Various US States Recycling Subsidies
± 5-15% price preferences for recycled content

‡ Global Environmental Facility
± funds to promote climate change improvements ± 1991-2005+ ± ~5 $BB.

‡ Carbon Finance
± funds to purchase green house gas emission reductions ± 2000-2005+ - ~1$BB.
Source: Francisco Grajales
57

Examples of possible carbon finance in solid waste sector*:
‡ Landfill methane gas capture to flare or recover. ‡ Composting or anaerobic digestion to avoid landfill gas. ‡ Transfer stations reduce vehicle emissions from direct haul by collection vehicles. ‡ Recycling captures inherent energy in recyclable materials.

*Note: Bank transaction costs necessitate bundling solid waste components to meet required 50,000 tonnes/year of CO2 equivalent
58

Carbon finance to reduce Green House Gases:
‡ In past century, GHG¶s grew 35%. ‡ Industrialized countries, with only 20% of world population, contributed over 60% of the GHG¶s. ‡ By 2025, global GHG¶s are projected to grow by 57%. ‡ By 2025, developing country GHG¶s are projected to grow by 84%. ‡ Carbon finance is an international incentive from the original polluters to LDC¶s to motivate them to reduce global GHG externalities.
59

~41 billion tonnes/yr CO2 equivalent discharge to atmosphere in 2000:
‡ ~16% is from methane. ‡ Methane is 21-25 times stronger as a GHG than CO2. ‡ World Bank carbon finance pays according to climate change impact. ‡ Each tonne of methane is paid at 21 times the price of CO2. ‡ Emission purchase agreements commit to pay for 10+ years from World Bank funds. ‡ Prices range upwards from 5$/tonne CO2 equivalent, depending on risk.
60

Solid waste - one of 3 most fixable sources of methane:
Major Sources of Methane GHG (~6 billion tCO2e) - % Distribution
Rice-1 % 1 M anure-4% Enteric fermentation-28% Biomass burning-5% Biofuel production-4% Wastewater-1 0% Coal-8%(fixable) Solid waste-1 (fixable) 3% Natural gas-1 (fixable) 5%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Source: US EPA year 2000 data

61

How do we cover costs for service benefits occur within municipal boundaries and warrant being covered by municipal revenues?
62

Ideally««
‡ Delegate more authority to municipalities to
± Raise capital for investments, and ± Establish fees and taxes to cover recurrent costs and debt service.

‡ Encourage municipalities to enter inter-municipal agreements for specific facilities with economies-ofscale (~300 tonnes/day for most facilities«~400,000 residents).
63

Cost Recovery is Recommended:
‡ People are willing to pay for good service. ‡ Free riders and illegal dumpers are commonly identifiable from papers in their waste. ‡ Earmarked user charges enable reliable revenues for service delivery. ‡ Large generators may be influenced by quantity-based charges«polluter pays principle.
64

Cost Recovery Mechanisms:
‡ Property-tax additions for solid waste. ‡ User charges attached to water or electric bills. ‡ User charges billed separately to all waste generators. ‡ Tipping fees at transfer and disposal facilities.
65

Charges are based on City-wide Costs.
‡ Service to the poor is often more costly ± small loads, poor access. ‡ Value of waste from the poor is less ± fewer recyclables, more ash and sand. ‡ Charges should be proportional to income:
± Property area, ± Water consumption, or ± Electricity consumption.

‡ Only large generators pay by volume.
66

Additional Revenue Sources:
‡ License fees from private subscription operators. ‡ Franchise fees for service zones. ‡ Sales from recyclables, compost and landfill gas. ‡ Carbon finance from sale of CO2equivalent emission reductions. ‡ Landfill, environmental, or tourist taxes earmarked for solid waste.
67

Conclusions:
‡Plan cost-effective technical systems. ‡Address all health and environmental issues. ‡Develop sustainable financial arrangements.
68

http://www.worldbank.org /solidwaste http://carbonfinance.org
scointreau@worldbank.org
69

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful