1
Sustainable Solid
Waste Systems in
Developing
Countries
By Sandra Cointreau
Solid Waste Management Advisor
The World Bank, Washington DC
February 2006
2
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.
3
First – What are the health
and environmental concerns
that Sustainable Solid Waste
Systems must address?
4
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.
5
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.
6
Bombay, India, 1995
Significant contact
during loading, no
shoes or gloves
Tema, Ghana, 1998
Children playing in an
area of uncollected waste
Direct Contact with Waste:
7
El Salvador, 1998, Cows and
pigs searching for food
Dominican Republic, 1998,
Pigs living on dumpsites
Animals Raised and Fed on
Raw Waste:
8
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.
9
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
10
Particulates High at Burning
Dumps:
Mauritius, 1998Dominican Republic, 1998
11
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)
12
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
13
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, IndiaBombay, India, 1995
14
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
15
Second – How do we
achieve cost-effective
technical designs for
Sustainable Solid Waste
Systems?
16
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.
17
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.
18
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 economies-
of-scale, must fit the local waste character
• Holistic modeling is available to
comparatively assess costs, consumables,
and emissions.
19
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
20
Collection
Vehicle Types:
Liftable Container, Izmir,
Turkey, 1994
Arm-Roll Container,
Sekondi, Ghana, 1997
21
Collection Vehicle Types:
Arm Roll Container,
Ahmedabad, India, 2001
Market Skip Lift Containers,
Tema, Ghana, 1994
22
Collection Vehicle Types:
Mini Private Truck,
Bangalore, India, 2001
Open Tipper Lifts Hand
Carts, Hue, Vietnam, 1996
23
Cost Comparison of Vehicle TypesSolid Waste Collection Vehicle Costs
in Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5 20 35
km from collection to discharge
co
st
pe
r to
nn
e in
$U
S
LG RL COMP MANUAL 20 LG RL COMP CONTAINERS 20
SM RL COMP MANUAL 10 SM RL COMP MANUAL 10
SM RL COMP MANUAL 10 FARM TRACTOR TRAILER 6
OPEN TIPPER 6
24
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
25
Crew Size:
Bangalore, India, 2001Izmir, Turkey, 1994
26
Crew Size
Comparison:Quito, Ecuador - Comparative Total Cost for Collection
Government - 4 versus 5 man crew - 1998
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
5 15 30 45
Distance from Route to Disposal (km)
Co
st p
er M
etric T
on
ne
REAR LOADER MANUAL 4-crew 14 OPEN TIPPER MANUAL 4-crew 8.076
REAR LOADER MANUAL 5-crew 14 OPEN TIPPER MANUAL 5-crew 8.076
• 5-person crew
had lower
cost/tonne than
4-person crew
• Larger crew
could load
vehicle faster
and optimize
vehicle
productivity
27
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
28
Private Sector Service:
Woman-Owned
Micro-Enterprise,
Quito, Ecuador, 1998
Women-Owned Cooperative,
Kukkattpally India, 2001
29
Public versus
Private Costs:Comparison of Private and Government Collection
Costs
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
5 15 30 45
Distance in Kilometers to Unload
Co
st
pe
r T
on
ne
in
$U
S
REAR
LOADER
Govt 14.0
OPEN
TIPPER
Govt 8.1
REAR
LOADER
Private 14.0
OPEN
TIPPER
Private 8.1
• 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.
30
Transfer
Systems enable
reducing
Collection Haul
Distance,
Vehicle
Emissions and
Costs by 20 To
50 percent.
Solid Waste Collection and Transfer Vehicle
Costs in Trinidad and Tobago, 1999
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
$45.00
5.0 15.0 30.0 50.0
km from collection to discharge
co
st
per t
on
ne i
n $
US
REAR LOADER MANUAL 10.0 TRANSFER TRUCK TRAILERS 60.0
31
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5 15 30 50DISTANCE ONE WAY TO DISPOSAL
CO
ST
/TO
NN
E (
$U
S)
REAR LOADER
MANUAL 10
TRANSFER
SYSTEM W/
COLL.TRUCKS
TRANSFER
TRUCK W/
FACILITY
TRANSFER
TRUCK 60
TRANSFER
STATION
32
Typical 2-Level Transfer
Stations:
Manila, Philippines,
1993
Quito, Ecuador, 1998
33
Direct Unloading
to Transfer Truck:
Hyderabad, India, Skip
Container Lift Collection Truck,
Unloads to Open Tipping Truck,
2001
34
Unloading to Storage Floor:
Wheeled loader pushes waste into hopper. Knuckleboom crane distributes load.
35
Types of Transfer Vehicles:
US, lightweight open topped,
filled by gravity from hopper
US, lightweight, filled by
extrusion from a
compaction chamber
36
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.
37
Landfill Economies-of-Scale:
Landfill Costs - Trinidad and Tobago, 1999
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Investment Cost/Tonne - Clay and Geomembrane Total Cost/Tonne - Clay and Geomembrane
Co
st
in $
US
/Me
tric
To
nn
e
40 TPD 550 TPD 1100 TPD
38
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
costsAhmedebad, India, 2001
39
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
40
Neighborhood Composting:
• Lessen the need to
transport waste to
disposal.
• Enable
neighborhood
revenues and
employment.
• Require motivated
public support.
Dakha, Bangladesh,
2001
41
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.
Hyderabad, India,
2001
42
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
43
Protective Gear for Workers:
Khulna, Bangladesh (syringes), 2001 Tema, Ghana, 1998
44
Segregate Special Wastes:
• Licensed private operators to safely
handle segregated biomedical
wastes
Hyderabad,
India, 2001
45
Third – How do we
arrange financially for
Sustainable Solid Waste
Systems?
46
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 1-
2% of GDP.
47
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.
48
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.
49
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.
50
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.
51
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.
52
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.
53
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
54
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
55
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
56
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
57
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
58
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
59
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.
60
~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.
61
Solid waste - one of 3 most fixable
sources of methane:Major Sources of Methane GHG
(~6 billion tCO2e) - % Distribution
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Natural gas-15% (f ixable)
Solid waste-13% (f ixable)
Coal-8% (f ixable)
Wastewater-10%
Biofuel product ion-4%
Biomass burning-5%
Enteric fermentat ion-28%
M anure-4%
Rice-11%
Source: US EPA year 2000 data
62
How do we cover costs for
service benefits occur within
municipal boundaries and
warrant being covered by
municipal revenues?
63
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-of-
scale (~300 tonnes/day for most
facilities…~400,000 residents).
64
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.
65
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.
66
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.
67
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.
68
Conclusions:
•Plan cost-effective technical systems.
•Address all health and environmental issues.
•Develop sustainable financial arrangements.
69
http://www.worldbank.org
/solidwaste
http://carbonfinance.org
Top Related