sustainable solid waste systems in developing...

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


Manila, Philippines (child waste pickers only)


Olinda, Brazil


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


• 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.


55


• 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.


56


• 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.


57


• 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.


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

[email protected]

http://www.worldbank.org/solidwaste

sustainable solid waste systems in developing...

Documents