courtesyofkitakyushucity economic analysis of composting ... bangkok.pdf · economic analysis of...

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies （IGES)

Economic Analysis of Composting, Through Surabaya’s case:Application in Bangkok

Bangkok Palace Hotel6 November 2008Toshizo MaedaResearcher, IGES Kitakyushu Office

Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environment

IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environment http://kitakyushu.iges.or.jp/

Economic analyses of composting, through Surabaya’s case: Application in Bangkok

2

Contents:

1. Introduction of IGES

2. Introduction of Kitakyushu City

3. Introduction of Kitakyushu Initiative (KI) Programme

4. Surabaya’s community-based waste management

5. Application in Bangkok



3

1. Introduction of IGES

• Institute for Global Environmental Strategies

• Since 1998～ (10 year anniversary)

• Offices: HQ (Kanagawa), Kansai, Kitakyushu, Tokyo,

Bangkok, Beijing

• Staff: Total 140 （researchers and supporting staff: 80）

• Objective: International environmental policy development

• Geographical area: Asia and the Pacific



4

2. Introduction of Kitakyushu City

• Population: 1 million

• Industrial city： Heavy pollution in the 60s

• Recovery in 70s‐90s: Cleaner production, recycling park

• Cost for recovery: USD8 billion (Bht280 billion) (1972‐1991)

• International environmental cooperation:

KITA (Kitakyushu Internat’l Techno‐cooperative Association)

More than 5,000 trainees since 1980

• Environmental Model City in Japan

150% of city’s GHG emission reduction in Asian cities

No. 1 in Environmental Capital Contest in Japan (2007, 2008)

Photo courtesy of Kitakyushu City



5

3. Introduction of Kitakyushu Initiative (KI) Programme

• Adopted at the Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific (MCED) in 2000

• Under UNESCAP

• Inter‐city environmental cooperation network

• Objective: urban environmental improvement, through capacity building of local governments

Collection and replication of good practices

• Scope: Urban environment

• Area: Asia‐Pacific

• Member cities: Over 60 cities from 18 countries



6

3. Introduction of Kitakyushu Initiative Programme‐2

Targeted themes:

• Community‐based waste management (composting)

• Improvement of final disposal site– Banning open dumping (Philippines, Indonesia)

– Demand for low‐cost methods

• Decentralised wastewater treatment– Sewerage system requires huge capital cost

– Many good practices (BORDA‐Indonesia, USAID‐Philippines, Eco‐San, Jokaso, bio‐fertiliser plant in Nonthaburi)

• Linking CSR activities with environmental management– Easy to replicate

– Public parks, river bank protection, waste reduction campaign, biodieselfrom used cooking oil, etc.

Criteria:

• Low‐cost, low‐tech

• Community‐based

• Easy to replicate

• High demand



7

4. Surabaya’s community‐based waste management

(1) Introduction of Surabaya City(2) Achievements(3) Main stakeholders(4) Background(5) Waste management system in Surabaya(6) Composting methods(7) Economic analysis(8) Social and environmental impacts(9) Remaining challenges(10) Replication in other cities(11) National policy

Basic info. of Surabaya

Analysis

How to expand more?



8

(1) Introduction

Surabaya CitySurabaya City

Main cities where Surabaya’s composting practices were copied

Main cities where Surabaya’s composting practices were copied

TarakanTarakan

JombangJombang

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/indonesia_pol_2002.pdfFigure‐1 Location of Surabaya City and replication of Surabaya’s practices in other cities

Population: 3 million

2nd largest in Indonesia

Centre of East Indonesia

Replication in 39 cities

Leading environmental city



9

(2) Achievements

2

68

13

1

17,000

6,800

3,6001,40010

14,000

10,000

90

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Jun-04

Oct-04

Feb-05

Jun-05

Oct-05

Feb-06

Jun-06

Oct-06

Feb-07

Jun-07

Oct-07

Feb-08

Jun-08

‐20,000

‐15,000

‐10,000

‐5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Number of distributedhousehold compost baskets

Number ofcompostingcentres

Cooperation between Surabayaand KITA started

Training inKitakyushu Cityfor 2 trainees

Development of anew compost method

PUSDAKOTA'scompost centre

Market wastecompost centre

Figure‐5 Number of household compost baskets and composting centres in SurabayaSource: Interviews with PUSDAKOTA on the number of household compost basket and Cleansing Department, Surabaya on the number of compost centres.

Number of household

compost baskets

Number of

composting centres



10

(2) Achievements‐2 *Map copied from El Sena, Surabaya, Indonesia

Figure‐7 Location of composting centres in Surabaya

Location of

composting centres



11

(2) Achievements‐3

1,300t/d

1,500-1,600t/d

2007

Figure‐6 Average daily amount of waste transported to Benowo Landfill, 2003‐2007Sourece: Data in 2007 from weigh bridge data at Benowo Landfill; 2003‐2005 from interviews with Cleansing Department staff

10% waste reduction in 3 years

(1,500t/day 1,300t/day)

1,500t/day (2005)1,500t/day (2005)

1,300t/day (2007)1,300t/day (2007)200t/day200t/day

IDR22.8 billion (USD2.3 million)IDR22.8 billion (USD2.3 million)

Cost saved: IDR3.5 billion (USD350,000)

Cost saved: IDR3.5 billion (USD350,000)

Solid waste management cost (2007):Collection/transport: IDR16.2 billion (USD1.6 million)Landfill management: IDR6.6 billion (USD0.7 million)

Solid waste management cost (2007):Collection/transport: IDR16.2 billion (USD1.6 million)Landfill management: IDR6.6 billion (USD0.7 million)

Figure‐12 Economic impact of 200t a day of waste reductionFigure‐12 Economic impact of 200t a day of waste reduction

200t/day waste reduction

= USD350,000/year cost saving

(Bht12 million/year)



12

(2) Achievements‐4

120t/day120t/day

40t/day40t/day

40t/day40t/day

Total 200t/dayTotal 200t/day

Composting at each household:17,000 units sold by PUSDAKOTA20,000 units copied by communities (assumption)600 units of a communal type distributed by Cleansing Department,

which caters for about 5 households each (= 3,000 households)40,000 households x 1kg/day/household 40t/day

Composting at each household:17,000 units sold by PUSDAKOTA20,000 units copied by communities (assumption)600 units of a communal type distributed by Cleansing Department,

which caters for about 5 households each (= 3,000 households)40,000 households x 1kg/day/household 40t/day

Recycling of other dry wasteRecycling of other dry waste

Composting at 13 composting centres:Cleansing Department: 12 composting centres, 39t/d (=78m3/d)PUSDAKOTA: 1 composting centre, 1.4t/d

Composting at 13 composting centres:Cleansing Department: 12 composting centres, 39t/d (=78m3/d)PUSDAKOTA: 1 composting centre, 1.4t/d

Figure‐11 Amount of waste reduced by each measure

40t/d reduction by household composting,

40t/d reduction at composting centres,

80t/d waste reduction

Remaining 120t/d comes from

Reuse and Recycling.

1 ton of composting reduces

waste by 2.5 tons.



13

(3) Main stakeholders

Surabaya CityCleansing Dept.

Unilever (Uli Peduli) & Java Post

Other NGOsCadres Pusdakota

Kitakyushu City KITA

Local GovernmentExternal agency

City‐to‐city cooperation

Environmental Cadre system (28,000 Cadres)

Supports forcampaigns

Operating 12 composting centresCatalytic role

PKK

NGO/CBO

Distribution of compost baskets

Purchase of compost baskets

“Green & Clean Campaign”Community‐based SWM

Running a community compost centreProvide composting trainings (over 80 times)

Surabaya City

Technical cooperationDev. of compost method

Private sector

Figure‐13 Roles and relationships of key stakeholders in Surabaya who promoted composting practices

1. Development of

composting methods

2. Operation of a composting centre

Provision of compost baskets

Provision of composting trainings

3. Operation of composting centres


4. Distribution of compost baskets

Environmental education (Socialisation)

5. “Green & Clean” Campaign

Competition among communities


Economic Analyses of composting, through Surabaya’s case:Application in Bangkok

14

(3) Main stakeholders (KITA, Kitakyushu City)

Waste composition survey Shredding of waste Mixing with seed compost

Temperature measurement Fermentation and pH tests Explaining how to use baskets

to residents

(photo courtesy of KITA)



15

(3) Main stakeholders (PUSDAKOTA)

Segregated waste collection

from the community

Shredding at compost centre Fermentation

Household compost basketSelling compost

Green streets using compost



16

(3) Main stakeholders (KITA & PUSDAKOTA)

PUSDAKOTA’s compost centre: before and after KITA’s intervention

(photo courtesy of KITA)



17

(3) Main stakeholders (Cleansing Dept, Surabaya)

Parks became greener using compostStreets became greener using compost

Bratang Compost Centre Sonokwijenan Compost Centre Keputran Compost Centre

(Photos cited from “Sparking Parks in Surabaya”, Cleansing Department, Surabaya City, 2008)



18

(3) Main stakeholders (PKK & Environmental Cadres)

Program pokok ke-9KELESTARIAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP

Organic-unorganic waste sorting VICE CHAIRMAN OF PKK DIRECTLY GIVING TRAINING

9th main programENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION

Recycling trainings

Turn waste into blessing

9th main programENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION

(Photo courtesy of PKK Surabaya (top row) and Environmental Cadre of Tegalsari, Surabaya (bottom row)

Waste segregation training

Explaining how to use

compost baskets Manufacturing bags from waste

Meeting of Environmental Cadres Activities of Environmental Cadres Environmental Event



19

(3) Main stakeholders (Green & Clean Campaign)

Award winning community

Award winning housewives group

Green street

Entrance to a community

Campaign sponsors

Products made from waste



20

(3) Main stakeholders (Uli Peduli)

325 283 355

1,797

3171,500

19,871

5,684

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

2005 2006 2007 2008

‐20,000

‐15,000

‐10,000

‐5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Number of RTs participated in Green & Clean CampaignNumber of RTs participated in Green & Clean Campaign

Number of Environmental Cadres under Uli PeduliNumber of Environmental Cadres under Uli Peduli

(As of August 2008)(As of August 2008) Figure‐30 Number of RTs which participated in Green & Clean Campaign and the number of Environmental Cadres under Uli Peduli (source: Uli Peduli (2008))

Number of Environmental Cadres under Uli Peduli (Unilever) and participating

communities in Green & Clean Campaign

Total number of communities:

8,800

20% are participating



21

(3) Main stakeholders

Surabaya CityCleansing Dept.

Unilever (Uli Peduli) & Java Post

Other NGOsCadres Pusdakota

Kitakyushu City KITA

Local GovernmentExternal agency

City‐to‐city cooperation

Environmental Cadre system (28,000 Cadres)

Supports forcampaigns

Operating 12 composting centresCatalytic role

PKK

NGO/CBO

Distribution of compost baskets


“Green & Clean Campaign”Community‐based SWM

Running a community compost centreProvide composting trainings (over 80 times)

Surabaya City

Technical cooperationDev. of compost method

Private sector

Figure‐13 Roles and relationships of key stakeholders in Surabaya who promoted composting practices

1. Development of

composting methods

2. Operation of a composting centre

Provision of compost baskets

Provision of composting trainings

3. Operation of composting centres


4. Distribution of compost baskets

Environmental education (Socialisation)

5. “Green & Clean” Campaign

Competition among communities

BMADistrict Offices



22

(4) Background

• Final disposal site was closed in 2001 due to opposition by residents. Waste filled the streets and drains.

• (uncompleted) Benowo Landfill started operation.

• Cooperation between Kitakyushu and Surabaya in 2001.

• Baseline survey on SWM by Kitakyushu in 2002.

• Cooperation between KITA and PUSDAKOTA in 2004.

Development of composting methods.

Photo‐1 Status in Surabaya in 2001 when Keputih Final Disposal Site was closed (Photo courtesy of PKK Surabaya)

What happened in 2001

Benowo Landfill: 800 scavengers; 35km from city centre; Surrounded by

fish ponds; no appropriate land for landfill; demand for waste reduction is high



23

(5) Waste management system in Surabaya‐1

HouseholdsHouseholds

Street sweepingStreet sweeping

MarketsMarkets

Commercial sectorCommercial sector

HospitalsHospitals

IndustryIndustry

Temporal storage facilitiesTemporal storage facilities

12 Composting centres12 Composting centres

Benowo Landfill(1,500‐1,600t/d

before 2006,

1,300t/d in 2007)

Benowo Landfill(1,500‐1,600t/d

before 2006,

1,300t/d in 2007)

Figure‐2 Waste flow in SurabayaFigure‐2 Waste flow in Surabaya

IncinerationIncineration

Responsibility of Cleansing Department:Responsibility of Cleansing Department:

Compost for parks

Compost for parks

IncinerationIncineration

Recycling by waste pickersRecycling by waste pickersComposting centreComposting centre

120t/d120t/d

(7‐10t/d)*(7‐10t/d)*

30‐40t/d30‐40t/d

1.4t/d1.4t/d

* (0.3t/d): compost production* (0.3t/d): compost production

(0.3t/d)*(0.3t/d)*

• Cleansing & Landscaping Department is in charge of waste management.

• More than 1,000 staff. Waste management and park management.

• Total amount of waste: 2,200t/day??

• Only 1 landfill in a 3‐million pop city

• Area: 27ha (already 17ha is filled)

• Started operation in 2001 (7‐year old)

• Life span: 5 years more??

• Construction cost: USD6.5 million

(Bht230 million)



24

(5) Waste management system in Surabaya‐2

Zero waste programme*IDR0.6 billion (2%)

Zero waste programme*IDR0.6 billion (2%)

Street sweepingIDR11.0 billion

(32%)

Street sweepingIDR11.0 billion

(32%)

Landfill managementIDR6.6 billion

(19%)

Landfill managementIDR6.6 billion

(19%)

Waste collection/ transportationIDR16.2 billion

(47%)

Waste collection/ transportationIDR16.2 billion

(47%)

Figure‐3 Breakdown of solid waste management cost in Surabaya, 2007Source: Cleansing and Landscaping Department, Surabaya, 2008

Figure‐3 Breakdown of solid waste management cost in Surabaya, 2007Source: Cleansing and Landscaping Department, Surabaya, 2008

* Zero waste programme includes O&M of compost centres and community empowerment activities (“socialization”) for waste reduction at source.

* Zero waste programme includes O&M of compost centres and community empowerment activities (“socialization”) for waste reduction at source.

Total cost: IDR34.4 billion (USD3.4 million)

Total cost: IDR34.4 billion (USD3.4 million)

• 47% for waste collection/transportation

• 29% for landfill management.

Only 2% for waste reduction campaign

Cost reduction by waste reduction.

42.1

77.5

55.8

54.6 9.5 12.6

63.0% 12.1% 12.3% 12.7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Organic

Woods/bamboo

Street sweeping

Paper

Plasti c

Others

Cleansing Department (2007)Cleansing Department (2007)

Dinoyo (2002)*Dinoyo (2002)*

Wonokromo (2002)*Wonokromo (2002)*

Kembangkuning (2002)*Kembangkuning (2002)*

AverageAverage

* Source: KITA (2002)

Figure‐4 Waste composition in Surabaya* Source: KITA (2002)

Figure‐4 Waste composition in Surabaya

Organic waste is more than 50%.

Waste management

cost in 2007

Waste composition in Surabaya



25

(6) Composting methods‐1

1

Organic waste

Compost

Rotting Fermenting

(3) Mixing seed compost withorganic waste and shredding

Mixing NM with rice bran and rice husks,and fermenting for 1‐2 weeks.

(2) Production of seed compost

A. Soaking local fermented foodsin sugared water for 3 days.

B. Soaking vegetables and fruits peels in salted water for 3 days.

(1) Collection of Native Microorganism (NM)

Features:1. Fast production cycle (1‐2 weeks) and less space requirement2. No foul smell (not rotting)3. Active microorganism in compost makes soil rich4. Low‐cost, low‐tech and labour intensive5. Using only local materials

3‐6 months

(4) Fermenting for 1‐2 weeks

Seed compost(5b)

(5a) Compost is ready for use(mixing compost with soil for 2 weeks before planting)

6. Income generation7. Improve household sanitation8. Improve solidarity of a community

Figure‐30 Flow and features of organic waste composting method in Surabaya (Takakura Method)



26

(6) Composting methods‐2

Household compost baskets


Organic waste from fresh

produce markets

Organic waste from fresh

produce markets

Organic waste from householdsOrganic waste

from households

Community composting centre

Community composting centre

Market waste composting centreMarket waste

composting centre

Figure‐31 Types of composting methods in SurabayaFigure‐31 Types of composting methods in Surabaya

Takakura Home Method (THM)Takakura Home Method (THM)

Takakura SusunMethod (TSM)*Takakura SusunMethod (TSM)*

New Windrow Method

New Windrow Method

New Windrow Method

New Windrow Method

Means of compostingMeans of composting

Composting methods

Composting methods

(17,000 baskets distributed)(17,000 baskets distributed)

(PUSDAKOTA’s case)(PUSDAKOTA’s case)

(12 centres under Cleansing Dept)(12 centres under Cleansing Dept)



27

(6) Composting methods‐3Nonthaburi (Thailand)‐1

Source: Sustainable Environmental Management in Nonthaburi, Thailand

Construction cost: €120,000(Bht6 million)

6m3/day of waste

90 days for processing

Compost production: 5t/month

Income: Bht10,000/month

(USD290/month)

Selling price: Bht2,000/t (USD57/t)



28

(6) Composting methods‐4Nonthaburi (Thailand)‐2

Source: Sustainable Environmental Management in Nonthaburi, Thailand



29

(6) Composting methods‐5Bago （Philippines)

Vermi composting

Changing to Takakura Method (2 weeks for fermenting)

3 months for processing




30

(7) Economic analysis‐1

Landfill construction cost:

IDR65 billion* (USD6.5 million)

Collection/transportation cost (2007):IDR16.2 billion (USD1.6 million)

Landfill management cost (2007):IDR6.6 billion (USD0.7 million)

Solid waste management cost (2007):IDR22.8 billion (USD2.3 million)

X 1/(1,300t/d x 365days) = IDR48,000 (USD4.8) /t‐waste

X 1/(1,300t/d x 365days x 10years) = IDR14,000 (USD1.4) /t‐waste

Therefore, solid waste management cost including landfill construction cost per one tonne of waste is: IDR48,000/t + IDR14,000/t = IDR62,000/t‐waste (USD6.2/t‐waste)

Figure‐16 Solid waste management cost in Surabaya* Source: Interview with Cleansing Department (cited from KITA (2007))

Waste management cost in Surabaya

(collection and landfill mgmt)

USD2.3 million (Bht80 million, 2007)

Divided by 1,300t/d @ 365days:

USD4.8/t (Bht170/t)

Landfill construction cost:

USD6.5 million (Bht230 million)

Waste management cost:

USD6.2/t (Bht220/t)

Divided by 1,300t/d @365days @10years

USD1.4/t (Bht49/t)




In Bangkok,

• Waste collection cost: Bht1.6 billion (USD46 million)

• Total waste: 9,000t/day

• Unit waste collection cost:

Bht1.6 billion / (9,000t/d x 365days) = Bht500/t (USD14)

31



32


40t/m

9.5t/m X USD100/t = USD950/m

Organic waste input

Compost production

Income

Expenditure (65%)

USD950/m

USD250/m

USD330/mUSD620/m

Profit (35%)

Cost saved from waste reduction

Figure‐17 A business model of PUSDAKOTA’s compost centre (1.4t/day input)*Source: Interview with Mr. Broto Suwarso, Operation Manager of PUSDAKOTA on 14 July 2008.

Monthly expenditure*: Workers’ salary: IDR3.7 million (USD370)Packaging: IDR1.5 million (USD150)Fuel: IDR0.5 million (USD50)Others: IDR0.5 million (USD50)

(40t/m x USD6.2/t= USD248/m)

Daily organic waste collection: 1.4t/day

PUSDAKOTA’s compost centre:

1.4t/day collection

40t/month collection

9.5t/month of compost production

Selling at USD100/t (Bht3,500/t)

Income USD950/m (Bht33,000)

Expenditure: USD620/m (Bht22,000)

Profit: USD330/m (Bht12,000)

Plus cost saved from waste reduction:




33


30t/m

6.8t/m X USD100/t = USD680/m

Organic waste input

Compost production

Income

Expenditure (65%)

USD680/m

USD180/m

USD240/mUSD440/m

Profit (35%)


Figure‐18 A business model of a compost centre (1.0t/day input)

(30t/m x USD6.2/t= USD186/m)

Daily organic waste collection: 1.0t/day





Selling at USD100/t (Bht3,500/t)

Income: USD680/m (Bht24,000)

Converting to 1t/day operation:

30t/month

6.8t/month of compost production

A composting centre with 1t/day waste input can make

Profit: USD240/month (Bht8,400/month)



34


Land: 190m2 x IDR1 million (USD100) = IDR190 million (USD19,000)

Building: 160m2 x IDR1.5 million (USD150) = IDR240 million (USD24,000)

Shredder: IDR20 million (USD2,000) x 1= IDR20 million (USD2,000)

Other tools: IDR20 million (USD2,000)

Total‐1: IDR280 million (USD28,000), without landTotal‐2: IDR470 million (USD47,000), with land

Figure‐19 Initial investment of PUSDAKOTA’s compost centre (1.4t/day input)Source: Interview with PUSDAKOTA and KITA (2007)

Table‐5 Returning period of initial investment of a composting centre

(PUSDAKOTA’s case)

Profit per month Initial investment (building and equipment: 1.4t/day)

Without land costIDR280 million (USD28,000)

With land costIDR470 million (USD47,000)

Sales of compost: IDR33 million (USD330)

7.1 years 11.9 years

(Sales of compost) + (cost saved from waste reduction): IDR58 million (USD580)

4.0 years 6.8 years

PUSDAKOTA’s composting centre:

Construction cost (1.4t/day):

Without land: USD28,000 (160m2)

With land： USD47,000 (190m2)

Returning period of initial investment:

Without land: 7 years (4 years)*

With land： 12 years (7 years)**Accounting the cost saved from waste reduction.

Capital cost:

Without land: Bht1.0 million

With land： Bht1.6 million



35


150t/m

75t/mX USD20/t = USD1,500/m

Organic waste input

Compost production

Income

Expenditure (33%)

USD1,500/m USD930/m

USD1,000/mUSD500/m

Profit (67%)


Figure‐20 A business model of a Cleansing Department’s compost centre (5t/day input)Source: Interview with Cleansing Department, Surabaya (Figure‐3)

Monthly expenditure: Workers’ salary: IDR4.0 million (IDR660,000 x 6 workers: USD400)Fuel: IDR0.3 million (IDR150,000 x 2 shredders: USD30)Others: IDR0.7 million (utilities, administrative costs: USD70)

(150t/m x USD6.2/t

= USD930/m)

Daily organic waste collection: 5t/day

Cleansing Dept’s composting centre:

5t/day of waste input

150t/month of waste

75t/month of compost production

Selling at USD20/t (Bht700)

Income: USD1,500/m (Bht53,000)


Profit: USD1,000/m (Bht35,000)


USD1,930/m (Bht68,000)



36


Land: 350m2 (free)

Building: 300m2 x IDR1.5 million (USD150) = IDR450 million (USD45,000)

Shredders: IDR20 million (USD2,000) x 2= IDR40 million (USD4,000)

Other tools: IDR40 million (USD4,000)

Total: IDR530 million (USD53,000)

Figure‐21 Initial investment of a Cleansing Department’s compost centre (5t/day input)Source: Interview with Cleansing Department, Surabaya and KITA (2007)

Returning period: 2.3 years (with accounting the cost saved from waste reduction)4.4 years (without accounting the cost saved from waste reduction)

Construction cost of Cleansing Dept’s composting centre

(5t/day of waste input):

Without land: USD53,000 (Bht1.9 million)

* Land is free (350m2)

Returning period of capital cost:

4.4 years (2.3 years)** Accounting cost saved from waste reduction



37


Figure‐22 Economic analysis of Cleansing Department’s overall investment

Returning period: 1.1 years (= IDR6.8 billion / IDR5.9 billion)

IDR4.3 billion

IDR4.5 billionIDR1.4 billion

IDR1.5 billion

Socialisation campaignIDR0.3 billion

ShreddersIDR0.42 billion

Other toolsIDR0.24 billion

Composting centres: IDR5.0 billionHousehold composting

IDR1.8 billion

BuildingCompost baskets

Annual income: IDR5.9 billion (USD590,000)

Compost production Cost saved from waste reduction

Initial investment: IDR6.8 billion (USD680,000)

Cost of waste reduction campaign (3 years):

USD680,000 (Bht24 million)

Compost baskets: USD180,000 (Bht6 million)

Composting centres: USD500,000 (Bht18 million)

Annual income: USD590,000 (Bht21 million)

Compost selling: USD140,000 (Bht5 million)

Cost saved: USD450,000 (Bht16 million)

Returning period of capital cost: 1.1 years



38


30kg/m

6kg/m

Household organic waste 1kg/day of

organic waste generation

Compost production

Figure‐23 Income from household composting

X IDR700 (USD0.07)/kg = IDR4,200 (USD0.42) /month

Not enough economic incentive

But used for other benefits

Household economic analysis:

1kg of organic waste/day/household

30kg/month

6kg/month of compost (20% of input)

Purchasing price: USD0.07/kg (Bht2.5)

Income: USD0.42/m (Bht15)

Not by economic incentive.

Because of household

sanitary improvement




Distribution of household compost baskets: • 15,000 units distributed by Cleansing Dept in 3 years

• Distribution cost: USD10 (Bht300)/unit x 15,000 = USD150,000 (Bht5.2 million)

• Campaign cost: USD30,000 x 3 years = USD90,000 (Bht3.2 million)

• Total cost: USD240,000 (Bht8.4 million)

Benefit: • Waste reduction: 40t/day

• Cost saved from waste reduction: 40t/d x 365days x USD6.2/t

= USD90,000/year (Bht3.2 million)

= USD180,000/2years (Bht6.3 million)

= USD270,000/3years (Bht9.5 million)

• Suppose waste reduction impact was 100t/day (2.5 times),

USD230,000/year (Bht8 million)

39



40

(8) Social and environmental impacts‐1

Photo‐4 PUSDAKOTA’s community: before and after (photo courtesy of KITA)Photo‐4 PUSDAKOTA’s community: before and after (photo courtesy of KITA)

Before:Before: After:After:

Better household environment.

Greener and cleaner streets.

Environmental education through composting.

Composting and handicraft production from waste by students



41

(8) Social and environmental impacts‐2

Employment Production of herbs and vegetables by compost

Waste segregation and promotion of recyclingSelling compost



42

(9) Remaining challenges

• Cleansing Department has setup 12 composting centres.

• But, there is only one community composting centre yet. NGOs and CBOs require financial supports to setup a composting centre. Local government can support financially utilisingthe cost saved from waste reduction.

• Guarantee of minimum price of compost.

• Promotion of usage of organic compost by farmers.

(Compost purchasing scheme and market expansion)

• 17,000 units of compost baskets were disseminated. 40,000 units including copied ones. 7% of total number of households (600,000). Further expansion?

• Further waste reduction is possible. 20% reduction?



43

(10) Replication in other cities

• 39 cities in Indonesia.

• 24,000 units of household compost baskets.

• Dissemination through NGO networks.

• Limited involvement of local governments.

How to promote more?

Economic analysis. Impact assessment. More seminars?

Involvement of the central government.



44

(11) National policy in Indonesia

• Municipal Solid Waste Management Act (May 2008)

• National 3R Strategy (being developed by MOE)

• 3R Projects (implemented by Min. of Public Works)

• Solid Waste Management Task Force (SWM‐TF, under National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS))

• Apr‐Aug 2008: Research in Surabaya and other cities

• Aug 2008: National Workshop in Surabaya

• Nov 2008: Development of a National Programme with Min. of Public Works, BAPPENAS, MOE and JICA)

Development of a National Programme

to replicate Surabaya’s model in other cities



45

5. Application in Bangkok

• Model Districts: Din Daeng, Nongjok, Don Muang??

• Model communities: Amornpun & Ruamjaipatana (Don Muang), Utairat (Phayatai), Suan Prik (Bang Phlat)??

• Other NGOs??

• “Green & Clean Campaign” by a private company??

• Composting centres?? At On Nuch? (13 centres in Surabaya)

• Household compost baskets?? (17,000 units in Surabaya)

• Waste collection: 9,000t/day ….. (10% reduction in Surabaya)

• Waste collection cost: Bht1.8 billion (USD51 million) …….

• Distance to landfill: 100km (disposal cost Bht500/t)

Seminar in Bangkok in March 2009? Further replication in Thailand,

Viet Nam, Cambodia, Nepal…

What can be done in Bangkok?



Involvement of residents… is the cheapest way

46

Thank you!

[email protected]

15% waste reduction by 2012

– BMA Action Plan

Shredder: Bht50,000 only

courtesyofkitakyushucity economic analysis of composting ... bangkok.pdf · economic analysis of...

Documents