C H A P T E R

8

Municipal Waste ManagementAgamuthu Periathamby

Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaW

O U T L I N E1. Introduction 1092. Definition of MSW 1093. MSW Management 110aste D3.1. Challenges in MSW Management 110

4. MSW Generation 1105. MSW Composition 1106. Treatment and Disposal 112109oi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-381475-3.10008-77. Waste Management and Climate Change 1138. MSW Management in Islands and MarinePollution 1159. Introduction to MSWPolicy and Legislation 119

9.1. MSW Policies and Legislation

in an International Context 120

9.2. Key Trends in MSW Policies

and Legislation 1211. INTRODUCTION

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is an inevitableby-product of human activity. In nature, there isno such thing as waste, because nature is able torecycle the elements in the ecosystem.However, urbanization and rapid populationincrease has generated waste. The generationof waste, which has exceeded the earthscarrying capacity bymore than 30%, has resultedin an accumulation of waste in specific sites.MSW has unique features compared with otherwaste types, because it involves the public,where the generator frequently meets the wastemanagement representative. As such, MSWmanagement is highly influenced by the socio-economic and political driver in society [1].2. DEFINITION OF MSW

Broadly speaking, MSW includes all wastesgenerated within a municipality. However, thedefinitions differ from country to country and 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381475-3.10008-7

8. MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT110individuals, authors or researchers. In somedeveloping nations, industrial waste and fecalmaterial, though normally not considered aspart of MSW, are often found in MSW and,thus, disposed together in normal landfills.MSW generally refers to all wastes generated,collected, transported, and disposed of withinthe jurisdiction of a municipal authority. Inmost cases, it comprises mainly food waste,and rubbish from residential areas, street sweep-ings, commercial and institutional nonhazardouswastes as well as (in some countries) construc-tion and demolition waste.3. MSW MANAGEMENT

MSWmanagement incorporates several inter-related aspects, which needs complete coopera-tion and collaboration for efficient delivery. Itcomprises aspects of waste generation, wastecomposition, collection, recycling (if any),pretreatment and treatment, and finally disposal.These management aspects thus require inputfrom legal, economic, governmental, political,administrative, and environmental players.Thus, it requires the involvement of multiprofes-sional drivers, and at times, the failure of onecomponent is sufficient to cause the wholemanagement to collapse. Themanagement struc-ture and function is site-specific and depends onsocioeconomic, behavioral, cultural, institutional,and political frameworks. These stakeholdersneed to interact and cooperate for the manage-ment system to achieve its target.

3.1. Challenges in MSW Management

Management of MSW is most challengingcompared with other waste types. The challengeis even more glaring in the developing world.Issues that are often associated with poormanagement of MSW are as follows:

Inadequate waste collection system, Low recycling rate,II. WASTE S Poor treatment or no treatment, Uncontrolled disposal, Inadequate technology, and Low awareness of health risks

These situations are serious in low-incomeand middle-income countries where there isuncontrolled ruraleurban migration, urbaniza-tion without proper planning, and rapid indus-trialization with poor infrastructure. Rapidpopulation increases are also the cause ofsome of the ill effects.4. MSW GENERATION

Daily global MSW generation is estimated tobemore than 2 109 t [2], where t refers tometrictonne. The generation volume is influenced byseveral factors such as family income level,education, season, type of residence, wastecollection system and frequency, consumptionpattern, and socioeconomic practices. Economicfactors directly influence the waste generationper capita, and higher economic status resultsin an increase in MSW volume (Fig. 8.1) [3].

With few exceptions, there is a strong correla-tion between gross national income (GNI) andwaste generation per capita. For example, theUnited States, Germany, and Switzerland,which each record a high GNI, generate MSWat a rate of 700 kg per capita per annum (700kg ca1 a1). Japan, too, has high GNI, but itgenerates only 400 kg ca1 a1. On the otherhand, low-income countries generate 100 kgca1 a1, and this is seen in India.

MSW generation among world cities tooshows a strong correlation between the grossdomestic product and MSW generation, irre-spective of the size of the cities (Fig. 8.2).5. MSW COMPOSITION

Composition of MSW is dynamic andchanges with factors such as income level,TREAMS

FIGURE 8.1 Municipal solid waste generation (kg capita1 a1) in 25 countries grouped according to their gross nationalincome (GNI). Source: eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology.

FIGURE 8.2 Generation of MSW (kg capita1 a1) in 11 cities and their gross domestic product in 2005 (in US$, usingpurchasing power parity exchange rates) per capita according to the World Banks income classification of 2006. Source: eawag:Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology.

MSW COMPOSITION 111

II. WASTE STREAMS

Fran

ce

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Japa

n

Mex

ico

Indi

a

Indo

nesi

a

Bang

lade

sh

Cam

bodi

a

Mal

aysi

a

Nep

al

Viet

nam

Coo

k Is

land

s (R

arot

onga

)

Fiji

(Lan

toka

)

Solo

mon

Isla

nds

Sam

oa (A

pia)

OrganicsPaperGlassMetalsPlastics

FIGURE 8.3 Top: Composition of the MSW (kg capita1 a1) in 12 countries grouped according to their gross nationalincome (GNI). Bottom: Composition of the MSW (kg capita1 a1) in 23 cities. Source: eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of AquaticScience and Technology.

8. MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT112changing lifestyle, season, residence type, afflu-ence, and location. Generally, the organiccomponent is predominant, especially in devel-oping nations (Fig. 8.3).

It is also observed that the poorer households,with lower income, generate more organic foodwaste. A similar trend was observed in the ruralareas where more organic waste is recorded.Higher amount of metals, plastics, and glassare typically the output of high-income house-holds because it reflects the consumption of pro-cessed food. Opportunities to recycle depend onthe MSW composition. For example, organicwaste could be composted to produce cheapfertilizer for low-income nations.

The efficiency of waste management isdetermined by waste collection coveragewhich in turn is dependent on the wealth ofthe community. In most developing nations,II. WASTE Swaste collection and transport takes up themajor portion of waste collection costs.However, this does not guarantee completecollection of waste. For example, in Sri Lankaand Philippines, only 40% of the waste gener-ated is collected; in Vietnam and Paraguay,waste collection is about 50%, whereas inIndia, it is 70%. For Malaysia, waste collectioncovers almost 100%. This is also seen in mostdeveloped nations, such as in Germany,Switzerland, Japan, United States, and Argen-tina (Fig. 8.4).6. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

MSW treatment and disposal depends verymuch on the waste quantity, the composition,and the available funds to pay for it. RichTREAMS

FIGURE 8.4 Total MSW generated (kg capita1 a1) and collection coverage in percentage in 17 countries. Source: eawag:Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 113nations can afford high-end technology such asincineration or pyrolysis, whereas most devel-oping nations still depend on landfill disposal.Waste dumps are still prevalent in most Asianand African nations (Fig. 8.5). These are uncon-trolled dumping sites, which do not use anygeomembrane to prevent the flow of leachate.This results in frequent soil and water contami-nation problems.

Sanitary landfills are found in transitorynations, such as Malaysia, Bolivia, Brazil, Peru,and Mexico. These are engineered landfillswhere waste is frequently packed in layerswith a geomembrane liner and a proper landfillcover [4]. Levels 3 and 4 landfills are modernones where landfill leachate and gas arecollected and treated before disposal or reuse.II. WASTE S7. WASTE MANAGEMENT ANDCLIMATE CHANGE

MSW management requires major attentionfrom the authorities, because it has been identi-fied as one of the three main sources of environ-mental degradation in Asian countries by theWorld Bank. Emissions from landfills includingleachate and landfill gas (LFG) require appro-priate treatment technologies to curb environ-mental contaminations. It can easily be tackledin a sanitary landfill where apposite methodshave been planned to accommodate the treat-ment of the emissions. However, it is an issueof concern when the emissions are released bynonsanitary landfills that lack lining systemsand treatment facilities. In many nonsanitaryTREAMS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Switz

erla

nd

Leba

non

Egyp

t

Ecua

dor

Boliv

ia

Braz

il

Peru

Mex

ico

Col

umbi

a

Keny

a

Sout

h Af

rica

Sri L

anka

Philip

hine

s

Paki

stan

Chi

na

Indi

a

Indo

nesi

a

Not definedRecycledComposedIncineratedSanitaryDumped

FIGURE 8.5 Percentage of the commonly used MSW treatment and disposal technologies in 21 countries. Source: eawag:Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology.

Waste andwastewater 3%

Energysupply 26%

Transport 13%Buildings

8%Industry 19%

Agriculture 14%

Forestry/landusechange 17%

FIGURE 8.6 Distribution of anthropogenic GHG emis-sions by sectors in 2004 (Adapted from Ref. [7]).

8. MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT114landfills in Asia, the emissions are releaseddirectly into the environment. Althoughmethane (CH4) can be used to generate energy,the improper designs in nonsanitary landfillsmake it economically impossible for collection.Thus, passive release of LFG to the atmosphereis most widely practiced. LFG that containsgreenhouse gases (GHG), including carbondioxide (CO2), CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), per-flourocarbons, sulphurhexaflouride (SF6), andhydrofluorocarbon, contributes negatively toglobal warming [5]. It has been reported thatsolid waste and wastewater contribute 3% ofthe total GHG emission [6].

Approximately 18% of global anthropogenicCH4 is sourced from landfill and wastewater,contributing 90% of the total emissions fromthe waste segment (Fig. 8.6). The daily disposalof MSW into landfill ensures continuous emis-sion of LFG, which makes it necessary to takemeasures to reduce the volume of LFG genera-tion. Table 8.1 details the quantitativeII. WASTE Sassessment of GHG by common waste treat-ment technologies.

For comparison, each unit of volume ofCH4 has 25 times more global warmingpotential than that of a unit of CO2, whereasN2O has global warming potential of 310[1, 5]. It was reported that approximately40e60 Mt CH4 are contributed by LFG peryear representing 11%e12% of global CH4TREAMS

TABLE 8.1 Qualitative Assessment of GHGEmissions by Common Waste TreatmentTechniques [5]

GHG generation

Pyrogenic Biogenic

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

Landfilling Landfillwith gasutilization

Incineration Mechanicalbiological

Treatment (with combustion of the light fraction). , present; L,absent.

MSW MANAGEMENT IN ISLANDS AND MARINE POLLUTION 115emission [7]. As a result, it is important thatsuch gases are to be treated appropriatelyso as to reduce the global warming potentialfrom landfill sites.

Developing countries produced more than4.57106 t of CO2 Equivalent [where Equivalent(Eq) refers to all GHG including CH4, perfluoro-carbons, nitrous oxides, etc.] in 2000, and thisis expected to increase by 84% in 2025 [8]. Ina developing country such as Malaysia, dailyMSW generation in 2000 of approximately 16 103 t resulted in a total amount of 26 106 tCO2 Eq from CH4 emission alone [9]. This isgenerally because of the lack of appropriatetechnology to mitigate LFG emissions [10]. Onthe other hand, a developed country such asAustria has managed to reduce the total GHGemission to 23 106 t by 2005 with the imple-mentation of appropriate mitigation measures[5]. Thus, the recent Copenhagen meeting,COP15, had been a strengthening point to enabledeveloped nations to assist the developing andunderdeveloped countries in mitigating therelease of GHG. The implementations of theCleaner Development Mechanisms have beenidentified as a practical strategy toward theII. WASTE Sreduction of GHG emissions. The technologiesshould integrate various factors, including flex-ible strategies and financial incentives in thewaste management options, to make it appli-cable to local conditions and more practical tobe implemented.8. MSW MANAGEMENT INISLANDS AND MARINE

POLLUTION

As urbanization continues to take place, themanagement of solid waste is becoming a majorenvironmental problem around the world. Oneof the most vulnerable ecosystems that needsattention in this respect are the islands. Verysmall settlements have historically requiredlittle or no waste management. When islandsbecome the hub for tourist activities, the entirescenario changes. The human activities startproducing more waste as the economy genera-tors try to constantly meet the demands of thetourists so as to attract them in larger numbers[2]. This change often comes about so graduallythat it is hardly noticed until the problem isserious. The rapid increase in the density ofhuman population, in previously Virgin Islands,because of leisure or tourism activities is makingthe collection, treatment, and disposal of MSWan insurmountable problem [11]. The corner-stone of successful planning for a MSWmanagement program is the availability of reli-able information about the quantity and thetype of material being generated and an under-standing of how much of that material thecollection program manager can expect toprevent or capture [12].

MSWmanagement on islands includes wastegeneration, composition, collection, treatment,and disposal. MSW generation rates andcomposition on islands vary from country tocountry depending on the economic situation,industrial structure, waste management regula-tions, and lifestyle. Generally, the daily MSWTREAMS

2.480

1.300

1.300

1.000

0.970

0.750

0.697

0.500

0.480

0.456

0.382

0.337

0.330

0.300

0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000

Maldives

Malaysia

Mauritus

Jamaica

Turkey

Lao

Indonesia

Lebanon

Nepal

India

Philippines

Sri Lanka

Botswana

Bhutan

MSW Generation Rate (kpd)

FIGURE 8.7 MSW generationrate in various countries/islands.Garden waste (14%e44%), foodwaste (2%e45%), and plastic (4%e16%) are the main components thatform the MSW generated onislands. The generation rates aregiven in units of kg d1 [44].

8. MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT116generation rate for islands is within the range of0.3e1.4 kg ca1 d1 (Fig. 8.7), except forMaldives that records the highest waste genera-tion rate of 2.5 kg ca1 d1 [13]. MSW composi-tion in different countries, islands, and areas issummarized in Table 8.2 [14, 15].

Increasing trends in waste generation werecommonly observed on islands. Most of thesmall islands have poor infrastructure such asroads and are only accessible by boats. There-fore, collection of waste is very limited. Insome islands, almost 40e80% of wastes arenot collected [11]. In the case of Sri Lanka,Gunawardana et al. [16] reported that onlyabout 24% of households have access to wastecollection. The low collection rate is primarilydue to resource constraints such as lack ofcollection vehicles, labor, or appropriateII. WASTE Sdisposal sites. For the disposal of waste, themost common methods were dumping intoa backyard pit (57%) and open backyarddumping (37%). Few incidences of disposingwaste into waterways were observed (1%).Waste disposal activities can cause a problemwhen trash is lost during collection or transpor-tation or when trash blows off or is washedaway from disposal facilities. In some islandssuch as Hawaii [17] and Hong Kong [18] dueto limited disposal options in the island, theMSW has to be transported to the mainlandvia large boats/barges. Waste disposal hasbeen a major concern for Hawaii. A total of4.56 105 t of MSW has to be transported tolandfills annually, using baling facilities inWashington, Idaho, and Oregon [17]. If a bargecan carry 4535 t of MSW, this would result inTREAMS

TABLE 8.2 MSW Composition (% on Wet Weight) in Different Countries, Islands, and Areas [14], [15]

Component Corfu Islanda Manilab Green Islandc Singapored Phukete Penang Islandf

Organics 45.0 53.7 39 38.8 49.3 63

Paper 22 12.9 27 20.6 14.7 5

Glass 4.0 3.5 6 1.1 9.7 NA

Plastics 11.0 1.6 5 5.8 15.1 17

Metals 4.5 5.8 2 2.7 3.4 4

Leather 5.0 1.8 20 9.8 2.3 3

Inerts 3.0 20.7 1 4.5 1.4 NA

Others 5.5 NA NA 16.7 4.1 8

NA, not available. Source: a Skordilis, 2004; b USEPA, 1998; c EPATaiwan, 2002; d Renbi and Mardina, 2002; e Liamsanguan and Gheewala, 2008; f UNDP

Malaysia, 2008.

MSW MANAGEMENT IN ISLANDS AND MARINE POLLUTION 117approximately 100 barge trips per year, slightlymore than 1 per week. The trip across the PacificOcean will take at least 12e18 days. It is verycommon for few bags of garbage to drop intothe ocean due to full barge/boat loads or roughsea conditions.

Landfill is the most common MSW disposalmethod on islands. Green Island is a 15-km2

island, 33 km east of Taiwan, all wastes are land-filled on the island, and the site will be full by2010 if current trends of waste generation andhandling continue [19]. Alternative landfill sitesare not available [20]. As an alternative, inciner-ation has been used as a disposal method [21].Taiwan has built 22 incinerators over a shortspan of time, combusting large amounts ofMSW as much as 2.33 104 t d1. Approxi-mately 53% of MSW was treated by incineration[22]. The same scenario has been observed inHong Kong [18] and Singapore Islands [23]. InSingapore, about 90% of wastes are incineratedand 10% is landfilled [24]. Because there is noother site on the mainland suitable to developa landfill, the Singapore government hasresorted to the more costly option of developingan offshore landfille Pulau Semakau [23]. Othertreatment options such as recovery, recycling,and reuse (three Rs) have been successfullyII. WASTE Spracticed in some urban islands. However, theeffort for three Rs is driven by governmentincentives or regulations [25]. The Guam Inte-grated Solid Waste Management Plan providesincentives to recycling companies [25]. Thebenefits include a 100% corporate income taxrebate. Materials reported to be recycled haveincreased dramatically over the past 5 years,from just 250 t of nonferrous metals in 2002 tomore than 11.1 103 t of the same in 2005 [25].While in Singapore, upon implementation ofPublic Cleansing and General Waste CollectionRegulations, in 2007, about 3.03 106 t of wastewas recycled, and an overall recycling rate of54% was achieved [23]. The major issues andchallenges on waste management on islandsare summarized in Table 8.3.

Ocean dumping has been a common methodof waste disposal around islands in the world.About 6.4 106 t of litter normally ends up inthe ocean annually [1]. Almost 80% of oceandebris can be traced to land-based sources suchas inadequately treated municipal waste, stormwater runoff, beach use, and littering [26]. Bargesfrom US coastal cities routinely carried trash outinto the open ocean and dumped it. It was notuntil 1988 that the US banned the dumping ofindustrial and sewage wastes into the oceanTREAMS

TABLE 8.3 Issues and Challenges of WasteManagement on Islands [2]

No. Issues and Challenges

1 Pollution of groundwater, surface, and marinepollution from land-based sources such as domesticsewage, industrial effluents, and agricultural runoff:they carry risks for human health and can degradehabitats such as coral reefs and tourist attractions suchas beaches; many islands receive bad publicity relatedto disease outbreaks and the destruction of fisheries,which can have major adverse economic impacts

2 The management of toxic substances such aspesticides, waste oil, heavymetals: most islands do nothave the systems or physical capacity to isolate anddispose off such substances

3 Sewage treatment facilities: on many islands suchfacilities are inadequate either because they areoverloaded or because of a shortage of trainedmanpower; as a result, poorly treated effluent is oftendischarged into the environment

4 Ineffective regulations: some islands have spenta considerable amount of time and financial resourceson developing regulations; however, regulations havenot been very effective in many cases because ofinadequate institutional and human resourcecapacities to enforce them

5 Lack of waste disposal sites: gullies and the marineenvironment are still used as disposal sites by someislands because of the shortage of land and inadequatecapacity to collect garbage; the inability to managesolid waste disposal facilities is a common problem forislands, and disposal sites can easily become foci ofdisease transmission

6 Lack of facilities for storage and disposal of hazardouswastes

TABLE 8.4 Top Ten Debris Items Collected World-wide From 1989 to 2008 [29]

Debris items Counts Percent

1 Cigarettes/cigarette filters 28.4 106 25.22 Caps, lids 10.3 106 9.23 Food wrappers/containers 10.1 106 9.04 Bags (paper and plastic) 8.0 106 7.15 Cups, plates, forks, knives,

spoons7.8 106 7.0

6 Beverage bottles (plastic) 6.3 106 5.77 Beverage bottles (glass) 5.4 106 4.88 Beverage cans 5.2 106 4.69 Straws, stirrers 5.0 106 4.510 Rope 2.4 106 2.1

Top ten totals 89.1 106 79.1Global debris totals 112.6 106 100.0

8. MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT118[27]. Alarming quantities of rubbish thrown outto sea continue to endanger peoples safety andhealth, entrap wildlife, damage nautical equip-ment, and deface coastal areas around the world[28]. Plastic e especially plastic bags and PETbottles e is the most pervasive type of marinelitter around the world, accounting for morethan 80% of all rubbish collected in several ofthe regional seas assessed [1]. In the OceanII. WASTE SConservancys 2007, International CoastalCleanup (ICC), 378,000 volunteers cleaned53,000 km of shoreline worldwide and removed2.7 106 kg of debris in 1 day [29]. Table 8.4summarizes the top 10 debris items collectedworldwide from 1989 to 2008 during the ICC.About 57% of the debris was related totourism/shoreline recreational activities.

The tourism and recreation sector has a signif-icant impact on the state of seas and coastlinesaround the world. In some tourist areas in theMediterranean, more than 75% of the annualwaste production is generated during thesummer season [29]. In Thailand, it is recognizedthat marine litter affects tourism, a high-valueindustry, for the entire region [30]. Shorelineactivities account for 58% of the marine litter inthe Baltic Sea region and almost half in Japanand the Republic of Korea [30]. In Jordan, themajor source of marine litter is recreational andleisure usage contributing up to 67% of the totaldischarge, whereas shipping and port activitiesTREAMS

INTRODUCTION TO MSW POLICY AND LEGISLATION 119contribute around 30% and the fishing industry3% only [30].

The problem of marine litter is likely to beparticularly severe in the East Asian Seasregiondhome to 1.8 109 people, 60% ofwhom live in coastal areas. The lack of adequatesolid waste management facilities results inMSW entering the waters of the Western IndianOcean, South Asian Seas, and southern BlackSea, among others [31]. This trash is washed,blown, or dumped on land, eventually endingup on beaches or floating out to sea, whereocean currents may take it hundreds of milesfrom its launching point. The Great PacificGarbage Patch, a massive garbage pile floatingin the ocean about 1600 km north of Hawaii,consists of an estimated 3.5 106 t of trashand is scattered over an area roughly twice thesize of Texas, United States [32]. The garbagecomes from countries all over the world and istrapped there by the Pacific gyre (a rotatingsystem of the ocean currents) and wreakedhavoc on fish and seabirds. Seagulls dragginga piece of fishing line, pelicans with six-packrings around their necks, or sea lions strugglingto remove a piece of discarded fishnet are somecommon examples of the problems marinedebris causes to wildlife [32]. In addition, seabirds, sea turtles, and whales have been knownto mistake floating plastic pellets and plasticbags for natural prey, such as fish eggs, jellyfish,and squid. Ingesting plastic can cause internalinjury, blockage of the digestive tract, andstarvation in these animals [26]. The UnitedNations Environment Programme estimatesthat more than 1 million seabirds and 100,000marine animals die every year from ingestingplastics [1].

Unsightly and unsafe marine litter can alsocause serious economic losses through damagedboats, fishing gear, contamination of tourism,and agriculture facilities. For example, the costof cleaning the beaches in Bohuslan on thewest coast of Sweden in just 1 year was at least10 million SEK (US$ 1.55 106) [30]. In theII. WASTE SUnited Kingdom, Shetland fishermen hadreported that 92% of them had recurring prob-lems with debris in nets, and it has been esti-mated that each boat could lose between US$10,500 and US$ 53,300 per year because of thepresence of marine litter. The cost to the localindustry could then be as high as US$ 4.3106[30]. According to the US National Oceano-graphic and Atmospheric AdministrationsOffice of Response and Restoration, in 2005,the US Coast Guard found that floating andsubmerged objects caused 269 boating accidentsresulting in 15 deaths, 116 injuries, and US$ 3 106 in property damage [27]. Although policieson ocean dumping in the recent past took anout of sight- out of mind approach, it is nowknown that accumulation of waste in the oceanis detrimental to marine and human health [30].Another unwanted effect is eutrophication [33].A biological process where dissolved nutrientscause oxygen-depleting bacteria and plants toproliferate creating a hypoxic, or oxygen poor,environment that kills marine life. In additionto eutrophication, ocean dumping can destroyentire habitats and ecosystems when excesssediment builds up and toxins are released.Although ocean dumping is now managed tosome degree, and dumping in critical habitatsand at critical times is regulated, toxins are stillspread by ocean currents [33]. Alternatives toocean dumping include recycling, producingless wasteful products, saving energy, andchanging the dangerous material into morebeneficial waste [34]. Marine pollution is closelylinked to the wider problem of waste manage-ment and cannot be resolved independently.9. INTRODUCTION TO MSWPOLICY AND LEGISLATION

This section provides an overview of policiesand legislation in MSWmanagement in terms ofits trends in an international context, its keyfeatures, and potential impacts on MSWTREAMS

8. MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT120management. This is expected to provide a briefand selected temporal and spatial framework ofthe evolution of MSW policies and legislation.

9.1. MSW Policies and Legislationin an International Context

Generally, MSW policies and legislationaround the world have evolved from simpleand informal policies on waste management tospecialized and complex waste managementpolicies and legislation. Initially, MSW policiesand legislation were focused on waste collec-tion, transport, and disposal but graduallyhave advanced to incorporate elements ofsource reduction, waste minimization, andsustainable patterns of production andconsumption. Today, polices and legislation onMSW management are no longer just aboutcleansing and sanitation but encompass a largerglobal perspective of environmental protectionand sustainable development.

Specifically, one of themost significant policieson MSW management is found in Agenda 21,which is a comprehensive global program onsustainable development adopted at the UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Devel-opment in 1992, and is a reflection of a globalconsensus and commitment at the highest levelby governments on development and environ-mental cooperation. Chapter 21 of Agenda 21addresses the environmentally sound manage-ment of solid waste and emphasizes that MSWmanagement must go beyond the mere safedisposal or recoveryofwastes andseek toaddressthe root cause of the problem by attempting tochange unsustainable patterns of productionand consumption. Agenda 21 also requiresa national program on MSW reuse and recyclingfor industrialized countries by the year 2000 andfor developing countries by 2010 [35]. Thecommitments ofAgenda 21 on addressingunsus-tainable patterns of consumption and productionand waste management were reaffirmed in theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development atII. WASTE SJohannesburg in 2002. A concise review of MSWpolicies and legislation in the European Union,Japan, and Malaysia is presented below.

European Union: The main MSW legislationin the European Union is the EU Directive2008/98/EC that was enacted in 1975 andamended in 1991 and 2008. The EU Directive2008/98/EC aims to protect the environmentand human health through the prevention ofthe harmful effects of waste generation andwaste management [36]. The EU Directive2008/98/EC has set the targets for selectedwaste streams and is complemented by thefollowing legislation:

Directive 94/62/EC on packaging andpackaging waste.Directive 96/61/EC concerning integratedpollution prevention and control.Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill ofwaste.Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration ofwaste.Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehiclesDirective 2002/96/EC on waste electrical andelectronic equipmentDirective 2005/64/EC on reusability,recyclability, and recoverability of motorvehiclesDirective 2006/66/EC on batteries andaccumulators.

MSW policy in the European Union wasinitiated by its EU 1st Waste Strategy in 1989and EU 2nd Waste Strategy in 1996 [37]. Thecurrent main MSW policy in the EuropeanUnion is the EU Strategy on the Preventionand Recycling of Waste 2005 that sets outguidelines and measures to reduce the environ-mental impacts of waste production andmanagement. The main thrust of the strategyis on preventing waste and promoting effectiverecycling (Table 8.5).

Japan: The main MSW legislation in Japan isthe Waste Management and Public CleansingLaw (WMPC) enacted in 1970 and amended inTREAMS

TABLE 8.5 European Unions MSW Recycling Targets

Reuse/recycling target 2020

Reuse and recycling of waste materials such aspaper, metal glass from households, and similarwaste streams

50%

Reuse and recycling of nonhazardous constructionand demolition waste

70%

TABLE 8.6 Japans MSW Targets

Target criteria 1997 2005 2010

Volume generated 53 51 49

Volume recycled 5.9 (11%) 10 (20%) 12 (24%)

Volume by treatment 35 (66%) 34 (67%) 31 (63%)

Volume for disposal 12 (23%) 7.7 (15%) 6.4 (13%)

Unit: 907,184 t/yr.

TABLE 8.7 Malaysias MSW Targets

Level of service 2002 2003e2009 2010e2014 2015e2020

Extend collectionservice

75% 80% 85% 90%

Reduction andrecovery

3%e4%

10% 15% 17%

Closure of dumpsites (112 sites)

0% 50% 70% 100%

Source separation(urban areas)

None 20% 80% 100%

INTRODUCTION TO MSW POLICY AND LEGISLATION 1212001 [38]. The WMPC aims to protect the envi-ronment and improve public health and is com-plemented by the following legislation:

Law for Promotion of Effective Utilization ofResources 1991Containers and PackagingRecycling Law 1995Home Appliances Recycling Law 1998Basic Law for Establishing the Recycling-Based Society 2000Construction Materials Recycling Law 2000Food Recycling Law 2000Law on Promoting Green Purchasing 2000End-of-life Vehicle Recycling Law 2002

The main MSW policy in Japan is the BasicPolicy for Comprehensive and SystematicPromotion of Measures on Waste Reductionand Other Proper Waste Management 2001[39]. The basic waste policy sets the directionand targets for waste generation, reduction,and disposal as well as outlines the responsibil-ities of citizens, businesses, local governments,and the national government. The Japan WastePolicy 2001 has set the targets for MSWmanage-ment in Japan (Table 8.6) [40].

Malaysia: The main MSW legislation inMalaysia is the Solid Waste and PublicCleansing Management Act 2007 [41]. TheMSW Act aims to maintain proper sanitationand matters relating to sanitation and hasprovisions to prescribe additional legislationfor the following:

Reduction, reuse, and recycling of MSWincluding the use of environmentally friendlyor recycled material.II. WASTE STake back and deposit refund systemsincluding the responsibilities for manufacturers,assembler, importer, or dealers.

Methods, levels of recycling, and separationand storage of MSW.

The main MSW policy in Malaysia is theNational Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Manage-ment 2005 (NSP) and the Master Plan for WasteMinimization 2006 (MWM). The NSP aims toachieve sustainable waste management throughthe reduction, reuse, recycling, and use of appro-priate technologies, facilities, and equipment andhas set the MSWmanagement targets for Malay-sia. TheMWMaims toprovide the strategic direc-tion for stakeholders to minimize the amount ofMSW disposed in Malaysia (Table 8.7) [42].

9.2. Key Trends in MSW Policiesand Legislation

Key trends in MSW policies and legislationobserved from an overview of the EuropeanTREAMS

FIGURE 8.8 Municipal Policies & Legislation Timeline

8.MUNIC

IPALWASTEMANAGEMENT

122

II.WASTESTREAMS

INTRODUCTION TO MSW POLICY AND LEGISLATION 123Union, Japan, and Malaysia indicate thefollowing:

The basic waste legislation for both EuropeanUnion and Japan were formulated in the 1970sand expanded to other waste-related legislationin the 1990s and early 2000. Malaysia, represen-tative of a developing country, only enacted itswaste legislation in 2007.

Initial MSW legislation formulation focusedon basic aspects of MSW management such ascollection, transport and disposal, and sanita-tion, which were the focus of European Unionand Japan in the early 1970s. Subsequently,MSW legislation expanded in the 1990s toinclude MSW reduction, reuse, and recyclingincluding environmental protection measures.Finally, MSW legislation began to incorporateelements of sustainable forms of consumptionand production in the 2000s.

Policies and strategies of MSW managementinitially seem to be embedded within theEuropean Union and Japans waste legislationand only recently have been formulated intoa holistic waste policy and strategy in the2000s. Interestingly, Malaysia that is a devel-oping country first formulated its policy andstrategy before enacting its waste legislationthat may be indicative of lessons learnedfrom the more developed countries on MSWmanagement.

Common elements addressed in MSW poli-cies and legislation are content restriction,source separation, producers responsibility,recycling targets, minimum recycled materialcontent standards, landfill restriction/diversiontargets, and environmentally sound treatmentstandards [43] (Fig. 8.8).

Both the European Union and Japan asdeveloped countries have enacted specificlegislation on packaging recycling, appliancerecycling, and end-of-life vehicle recycling,whereas Japan has enacted additional legisla-tion pertaining to recycling-based society, cons-truction waste recycling, and green purchasing.Malaysia has provisions in its basic wasteII. WASTE Slegislation for enacting additional and specificlegislation pertaining to most of the above buthas not yet implemented it, including therequirement for source separation or packagingrecycling.

The potential impacts of MSW policies andlegislation varied as these were evolving overtime. Generally, impacts of MSW policies andlegislation on basic waste management andsanitation can be considered positive, whereasimpacts of MSW policies and legislation onwaste recycling and environmental pollutioncontrol are varied, and finally, impacts of MSWpolicies and legislation on decoupling MSWgeneration with economic growth have notbeen positive [4].

Experience in the European Union indicatesthat MSW policies and legislation may haveunintended effects in directing MSW in thewrong direction when market forces are notintegrated in the planning [37].

Revisions of European Union and Japansbasic waste legislation in 2000s may indicatethat MSW management is attempting to movetoward sustainable patterns of consumptionand production, where MSW policies and legis-lation will soon integrate life cycle thinking.References

[1] P. Agamuthu, Waste Management and Research 27(2009) 551e552.

[2] UNEP, Marine Litter in the Wider Caribbean Region: ARegional Overview and Action plan, 2008. Online: (Retrieved 11.10.2009).

[3] eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science andTechnology, Collaborative Working Group on SolidWaste Management in Low- and Middle-IncomeCountries, 2008, Eawag,Dubendorf, Switzerland, 2008.

[4] P. Agamuthu, S.H. Fauziah, V. Navarani,L. Khairudin, Proceedings of the internationalsymposium of environmental science and technology.Vol. II Part A, Science Press, Shanghai, China, 2009823e829.

[5] A. Hackl, G. Mauschitz, Waste Management andResearch 26 (2008) 5e10.TREAMS

http://www.cep.unep.org/about-cep/amep/marine-litter-in-the-wider-caribbean-a-regional-overview-action-planhttp://www.cep.unep.org/about-cep/amep/marine-litter-in-the-wider-caribbean-a-regional-overview-action-planhttp://www.cep.unep.org/about-cep/amep/marine-litter-in-the-wider-caribbean-a-regional-overview-action-plan

8. MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT124[6] H.H. Rogner, D. Zhou, R. Bradley, P. Crabbe,O. Edenhofer, B. Hare, L. Kuijpers, M. Yamaguchi,Introduction, in: B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch,R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate Change 2007,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UnitedKingdom, 2007.

[7] M. Ritzkowski, R. Stegmann, International Journal ofGreenhouse Gas Control 1 (2007) 281e288.

[8] N.L. Bindu, ENSEARCH Workshop, Asian Develop-ment Bank, Climate Change: Challenges and BusinessOpportunities, 2009, Environmental Management andResearch Association of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,2009.

[9] P. Agamuthu, S.H. Fauziah, International Conferenceon Climate Change and Bioresources, Tiruchirapalli,India, 2010.

[10] USEPA, Guidance for Landfilling Waste in Economi-cally Developing Countries, USEPA., 1998.

[11] World Health Organization, Guides for MunicipalSolid Waste Management in Pacific Island Countries.Western Pacific Regional Environmental HealthCentre (EHC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1996, pp. 12.

[12] E. Gidarakos, G. Havas, P. Ntzamilis, WasteManagement 26 (2006) 668e679.

[13] A.M. Troschinetz, J.R. Mihelcic, Waste Management29 (2008) 915e923.

[14] C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala, Journal of CleanerProduction 16 (2008) 1865e1871.

[15] UNDP Malaysia, Developing Solid Waste Manage-ment Model for Penang. United Nations Develop-ment Programme (UNDP), Malaysia, 2008. Online:

(Retrieved 11.06.2009).

[16] E.G.W. Gunawardana, S. Shimada, B.F.A. Basnayake,T. Iwata, Influence of biological pre-treatment ofmunicipal solid waste on landfill behaviour in SriLanka, Waste Management & Research 27 (2009)456e462.

[17] R.H. Shannon, Regional Movement of Plastic-baledMunicipal Solid Waste from Hawaii to Washington,Oregon, and Idaho, 2008, Online: (Retrieved 24.01.2009).

[18] Z. Keyuan, Ocean and Coastal Management 5 (2009)383e389.

[19] M.C. Chen, A. Ruijs, J. Wesseler, Resources, Conser-vation and Recycling 45 (2005) 31e47.

[20] A. Skordilis, Resources, Conservation and Recycling41 (2004) 243e254.

[21] EPATaiwan, Solid Waste: Year Book of EnvironmentalProtection Statistics, Taiwan Area, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Taiwan, 2002, 126e150.II. WASTE S[22] J.H. Kuo, H.H. Tseng, R.P. Srinivasa, M.Y. Wey,Applied Thermal Engineering, Article in Press, 2008.

[23] Eugene, Waste Management and Recycling in Singa-pore, 2008, Online: (Retrieved 11.10.2009).

[24] B. Renbi, S. Mardina, Waste Management 22 (2002)557e567.

[25] Green Island Alliance, Approaches to Pacific IslandWaste-Stream Reduction Through Scrap Recycling,2005, Online: (Retrieved 11.06.2009).

[26] C. Gillian, Island Studies Journal 1 (2006) 125e142.[27] GOJ, Waste Management and Public Cleansing, Law,

Government of Japan (GOJ) (2001).[28] Earth Force, Littering and Illegal Dumping: A

Historical Perspective, 2006, Online: (Retrieved 11.10.2009).

[29] A. Michelle, W. Adam, S. David, J. Paul, Plastic Debrisin the Worlds Oceans, Greenpeace International,Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2009, Online: (Retrieved 11.10.2009).

[30] Ocean Conservancy, Guide to Marine Debris and theInternational Coastal Cleanup, 2009, Online: (Retrieved 11.10.2009).

[31] J. Ljubomir, S. Seba, A. Ellik, Marine Litter: AGlobal Challenge, 2009, Online: (Retrieved 11.10.2009).

[32] UNEP, Global Environment Outlook 3 (GEO 3), 2009,Online: (Retrieved 26.04.2010).

[33] E. Jesse, Pacific Garbage Patch Plastic Takes Toll onBirds, 2009, Online: (Retrieved 11.10.2009).

[34] The Marine Bio Conservation Society, OceanDumping, 2009, Online: (Retrieved 11.10.2009).

[35] UNEP Island, Waste Management in Small IslandDeveloping States, Progress in the Implementationof the Programme of Action for the SustainableDevelopment of Small Island Developing States,United Nations Commission on SustainableDevelopment, 2009.

[36] EU, Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parlia-ment and of the Council, Official Journal of theEuropean Union, 2008.

[37] UN, Conference on Environment & DevelopmentRio de Janerio, Brazil, Agenda 21, United Nations,1992.TREAMS

http://www.undp.org.my/uploads/SWM-2008_final.pdfhttp://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer%3E%3Bhttp://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer%3E%3Bhttp://www.asiaisgreen.com.%3E%3Bhttp://www.greenislandalliance.org/main2/EPAReport_fnl.pdf%3E%3Bhttp://www.greenislandalliance.org/main2/EPAReport_fnl.pdf%3E%3Bhttp://www.earthforce.org/content/article/detail/1568%3E%3Bhttp://www.earthforce.org/content/article/detail/1568%3E%3Bhttp://www.oceans.greenpeace.orghttp://www.oceans.greenpeace.orghttp://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/PageServer%3Fpagename%3Dicc_home%3E%3Bhttp://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/PageServer%3Fpagename%3Dicc_home%3E%3Bhttp://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/PageServer%3Fpagename%3Dicc_home%3E%3Bhttp://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/PageServer%3Fpagename%3Dicc_home%3E%3Bhttp://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/Marine_Litter_A_Global_Challenge.pdf%3E%3Bhttp://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/Marine_Litter_A_Global_Challenge.pdf%3E%3Bhttp://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/Marine_Litter_A_Global_Challenge.pdf%3E%3Bhttp://www.unep.org/GEO/geo3/english/index.htm%3E%3Bhttp://www.unep.org/GEO/geo3/english/index.htm%3E%3Bhttp://www.newsweek.com/id/226075%3E%3Bhttp://www.newsweek.com/id/226075%3E%3Bhttp://marinebio.org/Oceans/ocean-dumping.asp%3E%3Bhttp://marinebio.org/Oceans/ocean-dumping.asp%3E%3B

INTRODUCTION TO MSW POLICY AND LEGISLATION 125[38] C. Monkhouse, A. Farmer, Applying IntegratedEnvironmental Assessment to EU Waste Policy,European Forum on Integrated EnvironmentalAssessment, 2003, Online (Retrieved 26.04.2010).

[39] GOM, Solid Waste and Public Cleansing ManagementBill 2007, Government of Malaysia (GOM), 2007.

[40] MOEJ, Basic Policy for Comprehensive and SystematicPromotion of Measures onWaste Reduction and OtherProper Waste Management, Announcement No. 34 ofthe Ministry of the Environment Japan (MOEJ), 2001.

[41] N. Tojo, Waste Management Policies and PolicyInstruments in Europe, International Institute forII. WASTE SIndustrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) at LundUniversity, Sweden, 2008.

[42] MHLG, National Strategic Plan for Solid WasteManagement, Local Government Department,Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG),Malaysia, 2005.

[43] EEA, Taking Sustainable Use of Resources Forward: AThematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling ofWaste, Commission of the European Communities,Brussels, 2005.

[44] K. Sakurai, T. Hoo, A Practitioners Guide forMunicipal Solid Waste Management in Pacific IslandCountries, WHO Environmental Health Centre, KualaLumpur, 1996, pp. 60e74.TREAMS

http://www.ieep.eu/publications/pdfs/2003/efieafinalreport.pdf%3E%3Bhttp://www.ieep.eu/publications/pdfs/2003/efieafinalreport.pdf%3E%3B

Chapter 8-Municipal Waste ManagementIntroductionDefinition of MSWMSW ManagementChallenges in MSW Management

MSW GenerationMSW CompositionTreatment and DisposalWaste Management and Climate ChangeMSW Management in Islands and Marine PollutionIntroduction to MSW Policy and LegislationMSW Policies and Legislation in an International ContextKey Trends in MSW Policies and Legislation

References