APPENDIX 3E QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYjpspn.kpkt.gov.my/resources/index/user_1/PSP/Vol_3...the specified...

National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management Volume 3

APPENDIX 3E

APPENDIX 3E

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY 1. INTRODUCTION

A set of questionnaires was developed and sent to all the Local Authorities and State Governments within the study area. Copies of the questionnaires are given in Annex 1. Although the date of submission was approved by MHLG, only 21 Local Authorities returned the questionnaire before the deadline of 10th May 2002. Recognising the fact that the response from the Local Authorities is relatively poor and some of the information received is incomplete and requires further clarification, visits were made to all the State Government offices to meet all the Local Authorities to get the feedback on the questionnaire. Follow up by phone and email was also carried out to obtain maximum feedback. As far as the questionnaire is concerned, as of 30th October 2002, a total of 76 or 75 % of the Local Authorities in Peninsular Malaysia have returned the survey forms. 64 Local Authorities have submitted both Part 1 and Part 2 of the questionnaire and 12 Local Authorities have submitted either Part 1 or Part 2. As for the States, only 4 States have returned the survey forms and these are from Melaka, Pahang, Perlis and Terengganu. The summary of the submissions is given in Table 1 and the details are also provided in Table 2.

Table 1 : Summary of Questionnaire Received from LAs as on 31 October 2002

States Not Returned

Part 1 Returned

only

Part 2 Returned

only

Completed (Part 1 & 2)

Total Sent

Perlis 1 - - - 1 Kedah - - - 12 12 P. Pinang 1 - - 1 2 Perak 5 - - 10 15 Selangor 1 - - 11 12 WP Kuala Lumpur 1 - - - 1 WP Putrajaya 1 - - - 1 Kelantan 6 1 4 1 12 Terengganu - 1 - 6 7 Pahang 2 - - 10 12 N. Sembilan 1 1 - 6 8 Melaka - - 1 2 3 Johor 7 3 1 5 16 Total 26 6 6 64 102

63% of all the LAs have duly completed the questionnaire 25% of all the LAs did not return the questionnaire

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Table 2 : Questionnaires Received as on 31 October 2002

States No. Local Authorities LA Part 1

LA Part 2 States Total

LAs

Perlis 1 MP Kangar 1 1

Kedah 1 MP Kota Setar 1 1

2 MP Sungai Petani 1 1

3 MP Langkawi 1 1

4 MP Kulim 1 1

5 MD Baling 1 1

6 MD Bandar Baharu 1 1

7 MD Kubang Pasu 1 1

8 MD Padang Terap 1 1

9 MD Pendang 1 1

10 MD Sik 1 1

11 MD Yan 1 1

12 PBT Tmn Perind. Kulim 1 1 12

P. Pinang 1 MP Pulau Pinang 1 1

2 MP Seberang Perai 2

Perak 1 MB Ipoh 1 1

2 MP Manjung 1 1

3 MP Taiping 1 1

4 MD Gerik 1 1

5 MD Hilir Perak 1 1

6 MD Kerian 1 1

7 MD Kinta Barat

8 MD Kinta Selatan 1 1

9 MD Kuala Kangsar 1 1

10 MD Lenggong 1 1

11 MD Pengkalan Hulu

12 MD Perak Tengah

13 MD Selama 1 1

14 MD Tanjung Malim

15 MD Tapah 15

Selangor 1 MB Shah Alam 1 1

2 MP Ampang Jaya 1 1 3 MP Kajang 1 1 4 MP Kelang 1 1 5 MP Petaling Jaya 1 1 6 MP Selayang 1 1

of 83


APPENDIX 3E



LAs

7 MP Subang Jaya 1 1 8 MD Hulu Selangor 9 MD Kuala Langat 1 1 10 MD Kuala Selangor 1 1 11 MD Sabak Bernam 1 1 12 MD Sepang 1 1 12

WP Kuala Lumpur 1 WP Kuala Lumpur 1

WP Putrajaya 1 WP Putrajaya 1

Kelantan 1 MP Kota Bharu 1 2 MD Bachok 3 MD Gua Musang 4 MD Kota Baru 1 5 MD Jeli 6 MD Kuala Kerai Selatan 1 7 MD Kuala Kerai Utara 8 MD Machang 9 MD Pasir Mas 10 MD Pasir Puteh 1 11 MD Tanah Merah 1 1 12 MD Tumpat 1 12

Terengganu 1 MP Kuala Terengganu 1 1 1 2 MP Kemaman 1 1 3 MD Besut 1 4 MD Dungun 1 1 5 MD Hulu Terengganu 1 1 6 MD Marang 1 1 7 MD Setiu 1 1 7

Pahang 1 MP Kuantan 1 1 1 2 MP Temerloh 1 1 3 MD Bentong 1 1 4 MD Bera 1 1 5 MD Cameron Highlands 1 1 6 MD Jerantut 1 1 7 MD Lipis 1 1 8 MD Maran 1 1 9 MD Pekan 1 1 10 MD Raub 1 1 11 MD Rompin

of 83


APPENDIX 3E



LAs

12 LP Tioman 12

N. Sembilan 1 MP Seremban 1 1

2 MP Nilai 1

3 MP Port Dickson 1 1

4 MD Jelebu 1 1

5 MD Jempol 1 1

6 MD Kuala Pilah 1 1

7 MD Rembau

8 MD Tampin 1 1 8

Melaka 1 MB Melaka Bersejarah 1

2 MD Alor Gajah 1 1

3 MD Jasin 1 1 1 3

Johor 1 MB Johor Bahru

2 MP Batu Pahat

3 MP Johor Bahru Tengah

4 MP Kluang 1

5 MP Muar 1

6 MD Kota Tinggi 1 1

7 MD Kulai

8 MD Labis 1 1

9 MD Mersing 1 1

10 MD Pontian 1 1

11 MD Segamat 1 1

12 MD Simpang Renggam

13 MD Tangkak 1

14 MD Yong Peng

15 LB Johor Tenggara 1

16 PBT Pasir Gudang 16

Total 70 70 4 102

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Although only 76 Local Authorities returned the questionnaires (either in part or complete), information from some other Local Authorities has also been successfully obtained during the discussions held in the State Government Offices. This information is included in the responses itemised in Table 3. Where Concessionaires have taken over solid waste collection services on the basis of interim management arrangement, Local Authorities hold very limited information, and the Concessionaires concerned have provided some statistical data.

As shown in Table 3, most information received related to the status of contracting out work, followed by the status of recycling at the local level. Conversely, least information was obtained related to socio-economic status, lists of vehicles and financial information. The lack of information related to vehicles inventory is due to the on-going privatisation programme for some Local Authorities where the vehicles have been surrendered to the Concessionaires. The lack of data on socio-economic and financial issues is due to the fact that the information is kept by different departments, and this has created some delays in obtaining them. In addition, the financial data submitted is mostly incomplete, especially in relation to expenses on SWM. This is attributed to the fact that there is no separate accounting system for this activity. Table 4 gives the summary of the results of the survey, which reflects the overall existing condition of SWM in Malaysia.

Table 3 : Number of Local Authorities Responded on Specific Information

No. Information Required Part 1 Part 2

1 General Information 79 79

2 Waste Storage and Collection 79 64

3 Personnel in SWM 64 53

4 Contracting 88 70

5 SWM Infrastructure 72 70

6 Financial Information 64 47

7 Legal Issues 64 33

8 Public Awareness/ Recycling 85 70

9 Socio-economic Information 46 Not Required 10 Assessment of Issues 62 Not Required 11 Vehicles Information 59 Not Required 12 Landfill Information 69 69

13 Waste Categories Not Required 55

14 Inter-Municipal Cooperation Not Required 70

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Table 4 : Summary of Survey Results

Item Results Remarks

1. Waste Generated 14,561 tonnes/day Total from 79 LAs

2. Waste Collected 13,141 tonnes/day Total from 75 LAs

3. Generation Rate 1.17 kg/cap/day Average from 77 LAs

4. Total Population 11,935,387 Total from 81 LAs

5. Served Population 8,347,390 Total from 75 LAs

6. Served population in % 69.9% Result from 75 LAs

7. No. of Landfill 118

a. Condition of Landfill

i. Level 0 37%

ii Level 1 37%

iii. Level 2 11%

iv. Level 3 14%

v. Level 4 1%

b. Lifespan of Landfill

i. < 5 years 55%

ii. > 5 years 45%

c. No of LAs with >1 landfill 20%

Result from 91 LAs (67 from questionnaire survey & visits, 24 from MHLG)

8. Contracting out jobs

a. Carried out by LA 34%

b. Contracting out 66%

9. Out-sourced Job by LA

a. Collection 56%

b. Disposal 30%

Result from 88 LAs

10. Vehicles Conditions

a. % of collection vehicles >10 yrs 39 %

b. % of ancillary vehicles >10 yrs 56 %

Result from 65 LAs

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

2. GENERAL INFORMATION DERIVED FROM THE SURVEY

a) Waste Generation The important information that will be derived from this data is the waste generation rate. From the survey carried out from 79 Local Authorities, it is estimated that the average generation rate is 1.17 kg/cap/day. The details of the waste generated for each Local Authorities is given in Table 5.

b) Types and Location of Storage All Local Authorities provide some forms of receptacles to the public. Figure 1 presents the areas where bins are provided. Most of the bins are provided for markets (93%), followed by shop houses (63%) and offices (60%). Although most Local Authorities are charging the consumer through some forms of payment for individual containers, 13 Local Authorities, mostly in Kedah provide those receptacles without any charge. Comparing the types of premises, 81% of the Local Authorities provide free communal containers to the residential premises, 67% to the commercial and only 23% to the industrial areas. There are also cases where receptacles are provided by the housing developers to the individual households as per LA requirement.

The types of containers that are supplied vary in types and sizes ranging from 5 kg plastic bags, wheeled bins to the bulk bins of capacity 22 cu.m. The plastic bins (wheeled or non-wheeled) are found to be quite popular in residential and shop houses while metal bins are usually supplied for large commercial centres and market places.

Only a few Local Authorities provide the storage containers to industrial areas. The types of containers usually supplied are 1.5 cu.m bins and 12 cu.m bulk containers. Most of the industries have to manage their own waste i.e. providing their own storage containers and engaging their own contractors to transport and dispose of their wastes.

c) Collection Frequency The frequencies of waste collection from residential, commercial and industrial areas are given in Figure 2. The chart indicates that most of the Local Authorities are practicing waste collection of 3 times per week for residential and industrial areas, and 6 times per week or daily for commercial areas. There are also a few Local Authorities that provide collection service once a week for industrial areas.

d) Shift Works As far as collection is concerned, 76% of the Local Authorities are implementing single-shift work where waste collection activities are completely carried out within the specified working hours (see Figure 3). However, 21% of the Local Authorities, particularly in big municipalities, are practicing double-shift work. Most Local Authorities in the Central regions are practicing single-shift work despite having higher population density. Melaka Tengah in Melaka State and Kemaman in Terengganu State are the only towns that practice three-shift collection work.

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Table 5 : Waste Generation for Various LAs in Malaysia

States Local Authorities Population Served

Waste collected (tonne/day)

Gen. Rate (kg/cap/day)

Perlis MP Kangar NA 100 NA Total NA 100 NA Kedah MP Kota Setar 350,000 200 0.6 MP Sungai Petani 192,849 350 1.8 MP Langkawi 55,000 80 1.5 MP Kulim 134,370 150 1.1 MD Baling 25,835 100 3.9 MD Bandar Baharu 11,954 18 1.5 MD Kubang Pasu 53,649 200 3.7 MD Padang Terap 5,905 24 4.1 MD Pendang 21,430 48 2.2 MD Sik 15,000 20 1.3 MD Yan 15,120 30 2.0 PBT Tmn Perind. Kulim NA 80 NA Total 881,112 1300 1.4 Pulau Pinang MP Pulau Pinang 515790 545 1.1 MP Seberang Perai NA NA NA Total 517,790 545 1.0 Perak MB Ipoh 450,000 500 1.1 MP Manjung 135,000 160 1.2 MP Taiping 178,300 200 1.1 MD Gerik 35,000 14 0.4 MD Hilir Perak 137,000 175 1.3 MD Kerian 96,450 130 1.3 MD Kinta Barat 49,000 30 0.6 MD Kinta Selatan 41,144 45 1.1 MD Kuala Kangsar NA 170 NA MD Lenggong 16,618 30 1.8 MD Tapah NA 50 NA MD Pengkalan Hulu 10,000 10 1.0 MD Selama 28,258 10 0.4 MD Tanjung Malim NA NA NA Total 1,176,770 1,524 1.1

of 83


APPENDIX 3E




Selangor MB Shah Alam 322,540 317 1.0 MP Ampang Jaya NA 292 NA MP Kajang NA 440 NA MP Kelang NA 347 NA MP Petaling Jaya 490,000 292 0.6 MP Selayang NA 317 NA MP Subang Jaya NA 350 NA MD Hulu Selangor NA 720 NA MD Kuala Langat NA 90 NA MD Kuala Selangor 72,750 60 0.8 MD Sabak Bernam 40,857 60 1.5 MD Sepang NA 35 NA Total 926,147 3,320 0.8 Kelantan MP Kota Bharu 280,000 160 0.6 MD Bachok 34,000 12 0.4 MD Gua Musang 17,553 10 0.6 MD Kota Baru 54,369 60 1.1 MD Jeli NA 10 NA MD Kuala Kerai Selatan 8,000 6 0.8 MD Kuala Kerai Utara NA 15 NA MD Machang NA 40 NA MD Pasir Mas 58,200 43 0.7 MD Pasir Puteh NA 30 NA MD Tanah Merah 30,000 18 0.6 MD Tumpat 66,000 42 0.6 Total 548,122 446 0.6 Terengganu MP Kuala Terengganu NA 180 Na MP Kemaman 121,631 413 3.4 MD Besut 85,500 60 0.7 MD Dungun 66,853 120 1.8 MD Hulu Terengganu 19,954 NA NA MD Marang NA 18 NA MD Setiu 20,000 16 0.8 Total 313,938 830 2.0 Pahang MP Kuantan 280,000 347 1.2 MP Temerloh 130,000 70 0.5 MD Bentong 75,000 65 0.9 MD Bera 12,036 27 2.2 MD Cameron Highlands 22,000 24 1.1 MD Jerantut 36,650 20 0.5 MD Lipis 16,165 29 1.8 MD Maran 50,000 35 0.7 MD Pekan 83,468 30 0.4 MD Raub NA 42 NA MD Rompin NA NA NA LP Tioman NA NA NA Total 705,319 704 0.9

of 83


APPENDIX 3E




Melaka MB Melaka Bersejarah 369,222 500 1.4 MD Alor Gajah 131,870 200 1.5 MD Jasin 101,775 50 0.5 Total 602,867 750 1.2 N. Sembilan MP Seremban 238,234 300 1.3 MP Nilai 74,187 85 1.1 MP Port Dickson 125,000 70 0.6 MD Jelebu 26,000 35 1.3 MD Jempol 48,359 27 0.6 MD Kuala Pilah 78,150 48 0.6 MD Rembau 18,000 40 2.2 MD Tampin NA 62 NA Total 607,930 667 1.0 Johor MB Johor Bahru 360,000 800 2.2 MP Batu Pahat 178,200 250 1.4 MP Johor Bahru Tengah 495,000 300 0.6 MP Kluang 142,599 120 0.8 MP Muar 179,851 300 1.7 MD Kota Tinggi 75,458 67 0.9 MD Kulai 89,600 250 2.8 MD Labis 31,465 36 1.1 MD Mersing 37,514 45 1.2 MD Pontian 143,729 60 0.4 MD Segamat 97,964 90 0.9 MD Simpang Renggam 35,877 38 1.1 MD Tangkak 59,238 174 2.9 MD Yong Peng 31,500 40 1.3 LB Johor Tenggara 34,200 85 2.5 PBT Pasir Gudang 75,200 300 4.0 Total 2,067,395 2955 1.4

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Figure 1 : Areas Receiving Receptacles from Local Authorities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

highrisewith chute

highrisewithoutchute

low rise detached terrace squatters markets shops hotels offices largeindustries

smallindustries

Perc

enta

ge

Source: Response from 64 Local Authorities in the Survey carried out by YEC (2002)

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Figure 2 : Waste Collection Frequencies in Various Sectors

50

73

23

68

20 14

7

27

14

5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Residential Commercial Industrial

Perc

enta

ge

weekly2X per week3X per week6X per weekdaily


of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Figure 3: Shift Work for Waste Collection by Region in Local Authorities

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Central Southern Northern Overall

Perc

enta

ge

1 shift

2 shift

3 shift


o

f 83

National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management Final Report

APPENDIX 3E

e) Waste Type and Quantity

The amount and types of waste that are generated from various sources are summarised in Figure 4. The graph shows that domestic waste contributes about 50% of the total waste collected. This data is merely an estimate, since very little information is gathered by the Local Authorities to determine the actual waste amount and its sources. This is due to the fact that weighbridges are not widely used to determine the actual quantity of wastes that are being collected. In addition, some vehicle and crew members to collect the waste from a designated area where residential, commercial and small industries exist. When this occurs, the determination of the quantity of waste by the type of activities is practically difficult. f) Collection Vehicles and Maintenance Most of the Local Authorities are using compactors and RORO for collection of waste. Only 7% of the collection vehicles in the Local Authorities surveyed use open tipper/lorries. More than 87% of such lorries are exceeding 10 years old. In all, 40% of the collection vehicles and 54% of the ancillary equipment are more than 10 years old. The detail of the vehicle conditions for waste collection purposes are given in Figure 5 and the conditions of the ancillary equipment and vehicles is shown in Figure 6. As far as maintenance of vehicles is concerned, only 21% of the Local Authorities have the maintenance workshops that are situated in the depot. The activities carried in the workshop are regular engine servicing, minor repair and washing. All other major repairs, tyres and engine overhaul are outsourced. g) Availability of Inter-Municipal Activities

Other than sharing of the disposal sites by a few Local Authorities in Johor, Melaka and Klang Valley, the survey revealed that no inter-municipal activities for SWM takes place.

h) Manpower and Training

The number of personnel ranges from ten to more than a thousand depending on the size and population density of the area. Generally speaking, Public Health Inspectors head the Solid Waste Department in a LA. In addition to performing the collection activities, the workers are also involved in public cleansing activities. However, the actual number of workers performing the public cleansing function is not known.

The recruitment of foreign workers for performing solid waste activities is not very common in the country. From the questionnaires received, only Kota Setar has indicated that about 20% of their collection workers are from Nepal. There could be a few foreign workers engaged by the Concessionaires or contractors, however, no information is available. As far as training is concerned, the survey indicates that only a few employees have undergone some form of training on solid waste management aspects organised by the MHLG, State Government Office and INTAN. Very few in-house training programme are provided or organised by the Local Authorities for their SWM staff. The direct reward for the staff that has undergone the training programme is also non-existence.

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Figure 4 : Waste Collected from Various Sectors

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Domestic Commercial Community Construction Institution Non-toxic Industry

Perc

enta

ge

Central Region

Northern Region

Southern Region

Peninsular Malaysia


of 83


APPENDIX 3E

of 83

Figure 5: Types and Age of Collection Vehicles Owned by LAs

15%

50%

28%38%

8% 4%

48%

50%

41% 21%

25% 29%

17%14%

3%

9%

20% 17%

38%

67%58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Compactor Road Sweeper RORO Tipper Open Tipper Open Lorry

Type of Vehicles

Perc

enta

ge >15 years11-15 years6-10 years0-5 years



APPENDIX 3E

Figure 6 : Ancillary Equipment Owned by Local Authorities

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Whe

eled

Sho

vel

Woo

den

Tipp

er

Bac

khoe

Min

i D

umpe

r

Bul

ldoz

er

Rec

ycle

V

ehic

le

Whe

el L

oade

r

Tailg

ate

H/P

Jet

ter

Cra

wle

r Tra

ctor

Cat

erpi

llar

Trac

tor

Perc

enta

ge

>15 Yrs

11-15 Yrs

6-10 Yrs

0-5 Yrs

12%

8%

23%

25%

75%

24%

12%

52%

57%

26%

17%

100%

100%

100% 92%

100%

8%

65%

4%

43%

43%

4%

33%

33% 10%

33%

67%

33%


of 83


APPENDIX 3E

i) Legal Issues The legislations relevant to solid waste activities are the Local Government Act, 1976, Street, Drainage and Building Act, 1974 and these are supported by the collection, transportation and disposal of solid waste By-laws. From the response to the questionnaires on the enforcement activities, it is quite obvious that no specific enforcement personnel or department is assigned to look after solid waste functions. From the result of the survey, it was found that only 9 Local Authorities provide information on the number of summons and fines related to solid waste. No specific details of the offence are given. Knowing the limited number of enforcement personnel, the number of respondents and the summonses that were issued, it can be concluded that enforcement activities related to solid waste are not fully carried out at the Local Authority. j) Public Awareness and Recycling Out of 85 Local Authorities’ responses, only 32 Local Authorities have been found to carry out public awareness campaigns, which include anti-litter, proper storage and recycling. There appears to be some involvement by NGOs, government agencies and the general public in helping the Local Authorities in carrying out such campaigns.

As far as recycling is concerned, 52 Local Authorities claimed that there are some recycling activities being carried out in their respective areas. However only 12 of them have developed a well-organised recycling programme and only 5 have set recycling targets. The waste collectors, schools and a few active NGOs carry out most of the recycling activities. Recycling is also found to be quite active at their landfills. Out of 57 Local Authorities’ responses, 44 Local Authorities allow scavenging to be carried out at their disposal sites. The numbers of scavengers at most landfills are less than 10, except for Sungai Petani where it is reported that there are more than 30 scavengers at the landfill. Although it appears that recycling activities are carried out, very little information is gathered regarding the quantity and types of recyclates that have been removed from the waste stream.

18 Local Authorities provided information of the recyclers and the recycling industries in their respective areas. 6 Local Authorities provided information of the NGOs that are actively involved in recycling activities. k) Landfill Conditions

69 Local Authorities provided information on landfills in their coverage areas. In order to have more information, data from MHLG for an additional 24 Local Authorities have been used. Taking this into consideration, the landfill conditions for 93 Local Authorities can be determined. Information from both sources revealed that, there are 121 landfills, with 21 Local Authorities having more than one landfill in use. Out of 121 landfills, 44 of them or 37 % are practicing open dumping. Although information from MHLG shows that there are 6 landfills at level 4, after verifying the landfill conditions from the questionnaires, only one landfill can be classified as level 4, i.e. Air Hitam landfill in Puchong. Kangar landfill which is also classified as level 4 landfill in MHLG’s list, has yet to be verified since no information was received from Kangar Municipality. Details on the landfill level are shown in Figure 7.

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

The lifespan of the waste disposal sites in the Local Authorities is shown in Figure 8. This diagram indicates that only 25 percent of the disposal sites have a life span of more than 10 years. In the large municipalities, 77 % of them possess landfills with a life span of less than 5 years. l) Contracting Out Jobs

Out of 88 Local Authorities’ responses, 77 Local Authorities carry out SWM activities using their own staff, 48 of them engage private contractors (CT) and 20 LAs have signed the interim agreement with the Concessionaires (CC). Figure 9 presents the involvement of Local Authorities, private contractors and Concessionaires in solid waste management in the 88 Local Authorities. As far as contracting out jobs is concerned, the most common activities involving external parties is grass cutting and drain and park cleansing, and collection of solid waste. The types of solid waste management activities conducted by various parties and the extent of their involvement are given in Figure 10. Some Local Authorities have also engaged private companies to manage their landfill sites.

m) Financial Information

The financial information obtained from the questionnaire survey is very limited. Since a separate accounting system for solid waste management does not exist at Local Authorities, the detailed financial status pertaining to SWM is therefore not available. In addition, the Local Authorities that have engaged the Concessionaires are also unable to provide financial information since the services and assets have been surrendered to the Concessionaires.

n) SWM Issues

The main issues pertaining to SWM faced by Local Authorities are inadequate financial provision and management both from State and Federal Government, lack of public cooperation and difficulties to secure land for the construction of SWM facilities. The issues that do not pose major problem at the Local Authorities are coordination between SWM related agencies and favourable conditions for recycling. Details of the issues identified are tabulated in Figure 11.

3. SUMMARY

In summary, the information received was enhanced significantly by discussions held at each State Government Office. Although only 70 questionnaire forms were returned by 30th October 2002, it has nevertheless enable the study team to determine the general existing conditions of waste management in Peninsular Malaysia.

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Figure 7 : Landfill Level in Each Region

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Northern Central Southern

Perc

enta

ge

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

2% 5%

15%

38%

43%

28%

13%

48%

9%

22%

25%

9%

41%

3%

Source: Response from 67 Local Authorities in the Survey and 24 Local Authorities from MHLG.

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Figure 8 : Lifespan of Waste Disposal Sites

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LAs MPs MDs

Perc

enta

ge

0-5 Yrs 6-10 Yrs >10 Yrs

29%

21%

47%

10%

13%

77%

21%

25%

54%

Source: Response from 67 Local Authorities in the Survey and 24 Local Authorities from MHLG.

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Figure 9 : Number of Parties involved in SWM

LA: Local Authority CT: Private Contractor CC: Concessionaire

30

1 4 6

46

37

T

Data Source: Response from 88 Local Authorities in the

of 83

LA

C

Survey c

CC

arried by YEC (2002)


APPENDIX 3E

of 83

Figure 10 : Types of SWM Services Operated by Various Parties

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Col

lect

ion

Dis

posa

l

Mai

nten

ance

Stre

et

Sw

eepi

ng

Gra

ss

Cut

ting

Dra

in

Cle

ansi

ng

Cle

anin

g of

P

arks

Bea

ch

Cle

anin

g

Oth

ers

No.

of

Part

ies

Invo

lved

Concessionaire ContractorLA



APPENDIX 3E

Figure 11 : Major Issues of SWM in Local Authorities

76

9

26

22

6 6

45

3 3

28

32

3 3

6

34

8

12

19

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

No.

of L

As

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Issues pertaining to SWM

Source: Response from 62 Local Authorities in the Survey carried out by YEC (2002) Note: See Table 6 overleaf

of 83


APPENDIX 3E

Table 6 : Major Issues of SWM in Local Authorities

No. Issues on SWM No. of LAs

No. of MDs

No. of MPs

1 Lack of national policies on SWM. 7 4 3

2 Insufficient technical assistance from the State government. 6 4 2

3 Insufficient technical assistance from the Federal government. 9 7 2

4 Insufficient financial assistance from the State government. 26 19 7

5 Insufficient financial assistance from the Federal government. 22 14 8

6 Insufficient laws and regulations to enforce adequate SWM. 6 5 1

7 Weak organizational structure within the LA to manage solid waste. 6 6 0

8 Lack of SWM plans at local authorities level. 4 2 2

9 Little consideration given to SWM in town planning. 5 3 2

10 Underserved areas within the local authority boundaries. 3 3 0

11 Problem areas outside local authority boundaries (rural areas, villages, beaches, etc). 3 1 2

12 Inadequate financial provisions and management. 28 21 7

13 Shortage in qualified human resources to fill up SWM positions. 3 2 1

14 Insufficient number of private companies to efficiently manage SWM. 2 2 0

15 Inadequacy of Human Resource Development programmes. 3 1 2

16 Insufficient research activities in the field of SWM. 3 1 2

17 Insufficient public health enforcement and education. 6 4 2

18 Inadequate final disposal. 3 2 1

19 Use of inappropriate technologies. 4 3 1

20 Inadequate equipment management. 8 6 2

21 Insufficient coordination between SWM related agencies. 1 1 0

22 Favourable condition for recycling. 2 0 2

23 Lack of public cooperation. 19 13 6

24 Difficulty to secure land for construction of SWM facilities. 12 11 1

of 83

APPENDIX 3E QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYjpspn.kpkt.gov.my/resources/index/user_1/PSP/Vol_3...the specified...

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX 3E QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYjpspn.kpkt.gov.my/resources/index/user_1/PSP/Vol_3...the specified...