Solid Waste Management

Public Disclosure Authorized
... ........ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.-
..........~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ .... ~ ~
:~
.......... .....
:. s~:
...
a ........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~. ................. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

....
- ........ ........... _ -
.... ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... -,//
...
.....
......
... .
....
..
.....
I 9~~~~~~~... .
.. .. .. .
..
A ~~ ~~~~......
.....
The WorldBankis committed knowledgesharingwhichinvolvesnot only the Bank's to communities practiceand their partners,but the entire development of community. processof A knowledge management essentialto makesense out of and act upon the vast quantitiesof is information available today.Still in the earlystagesof implementation, knowledge management is expectedto changethe internaloperationof the WorldBankand transformthe organization's relationships with externalclients,partnersand stakeholders, becominga key way of doing businessin the 21stCentury. Giventhe speedof globalchangeand the value of learningfromongoingactivities, Urban the Development Divisionand GlobalUrbanPartnership the WorldBankare committed of to communicating resultsof the Bank'surbanworkto the development the communityas quickly and clearlyas possible. Towardthat end, this informalor 'gray paper'series is publishedin print, with abstracts furnishedon-lineat www.worldbank.org. The Urbanand LocalGovernment WorkingPapersSeriespresentscurrentresearch,policies and tools underdevelopment the Bankon a broadrangeof development by issuesand practices in the urbandevelopment local governance and field. These papersreflectwork-in-progress, and somemay appearin theirfinal form at a later date as publications underthe Bank'sofficial TechnicalPaperSeries. The Urbanand Local Government WorkingPapersSeriesis gearedto a technicalaudienceand is intendedto aid the work and improvethe resultsof both Bankand nonBanktechniciansand practitioners workingin this field.
AngelaGriffin UrbanSectorManager
Tim Campbel GlobalUrbanPartnership
UrbanDevelopment Division Transportation, Waterand UrbanDevelopment Department Finance,PrivateSectorand Infrastructure Network The WorldBank
Cover: Wastepickers workingat Carmonalandfill, Philippines. Photoby Lars MikkelJohannessen
What a Waste: Solid Waste Management

in Asia
May 1999
Urban Development Sector Unit East Asia and Pacific Region
Copyright 1999 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing May 1999
Urban and Local Government Working Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development community with the least possible delay. The typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. Some sources cited in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Request for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to the Urban Development Division at the address in the copyright notice above. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally give permission promptly and, when reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee.
WHATA WASTE: SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT ASIA IN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Recommendations 1. Introduction and Conclusions ......................................... .... Rates ......................................... ........................................ 1 3 4 6 7 11 ......................................... 12 12 12 14 14 14 of Improper Solid Waste Management ............................... 15 16 17 22 27 ........................... . ........... 30 33 35 .................................................................. Values ......................... .......................................... . .........................................
2. Waste Characterization 2.1 Waste Generation 2.2 Waste Composition 3.0 Consumer
4...............................
2.3 Waste Trends ......................................... Societies ......................................... in Waste Management responsibility ......................................... ......................................... 4.0 Business Involvement 4.2 Extended product
4.1 Increased Partnerships 4.3 Environmental
Labelling ......................
4.4 Waste exchanges ...................... 4.5 Pulp and Paper ...................... 5.0 Environmental 6.0 Integrated and Health Impacts Solid Waste Management Common
6.1 Solid Waste Management 7.0 Solid Waste Management Waste Generation
Costs ...................................................................
References ................................................................... and Composition References ........................... Annex 1: Solid Waste Data .................................................................. Annex 2: Waste Generation Rates ...................................................................
This paper was prepared by Daniel Hoornweg, researched by Laura Thomas and overseen by Keshav Varma (EASUR). Information and comments were supplied by many World Bank and UNDP staff, particularly George N. Plant, L. Panneer Selvam, and Richard W. Pollard, and Carl Bartone of the Transport, Water, and Urban Development Department. Melissa Fossberg, Gabriela Boyer, Beth Rabinowitz, and Laura Lewis edited and prepared the paper.
WHAT A WASTE:
Solid Waste Management in Asia

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS * Solid waste data is largely unreliable. This report contains one of the most comprehensive compilations of municipal solid waste data in Asia; yet, due to inconsistencies in data recording, definitions,collectionmethods, and seasonal variations, the data can only be considered approximate, albeit more accurate than most. For planning purposes, however, the data presented in this report should be sufficient. The urban areas of Asia now spend about US$25billion on solid waste management per year; this figure will increase to at least US$50 billion in 2025.Today's daily waste generation rate is about 760,000tonnes. By 2025,this rate will be increased to about 1.8million tonnes per day Japan spends about ten times more for waste disposal than collection costs (mostly incineration costs). Total waste management costs in low income countries are usually more than 80 percent for collection costs. Lower cost landfilling is usually a more practical waste disposal option than incineration. THE URBANAREAS Municipal governments are usually the responsible agency for solid waste collection and disposal, but the magnitude of the problem is well beyond the ability of any municipal government. They need help. In addition to other levels of government, businesses and the general community need to
be more involved in waste management.
e
OF ASIA NOWSPEND ABOUT US$25

BILLION SOLID ON WASTE MANAGEMENT PER YEAR;THIS FIGURE WILL
INCREASE TO ABOUT
Generally, solid waste planners place too much emphasis on residential waste; this waste represents only about 30percent of the overall municipal waste stream but often receives the lion's share of attention. The waste components requiring priority attention in Asia are organics and paper. Indonesia and the Philippines as well as parts of China and India are the Asian countries facing the greatest waste management challenge, basecd on projected waste generation rates and relative affluence to deal with the problem.
US$47 BILLION IN
2025.
In terms of waste management trends, no region of the world faces a greater need to break the inextricable link between waste generation rates and affluence than Asia. For example, if Asia followvs style trends of the US and Canada (as Hong Kong already seems to be doing) versus the life more typical European urban resident, the world would need to supply about 500 million tonnes more resources in 2025. Asia should pursue regional approaches to many solid waste management problems, e.g., packaging regulations and import/export rules. Urban residents generate two to three times more solid waste than their fellow rural citizens. Municipalities should charge for waste disposal, and possibly collection,based on generation rates. Industrialized countries contain 16 percent of the world's population but use about 75 percent of the world's paper supply. Residents of India, Indonesia, and China, for example, are aspiring to be as affluent as more industrialized nations. This would require a doubling of the world's current level of paper production.
PageI
* * * *
WHATA WASTE: SOLIDWASTEMANAGEMENT ASIA IN
1. INTRODUCTION: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA As urbanization and economic development increases in Asia, nowhere is the impact more obvious than in society's "detritus," or solid waste. Today,the urban areas of Asia produce about 760,000tonnes of 3 municipal solid waste (MSW) per day, or approximately 2.7 million m per day. In 2025,this figure will 3 per day. These estimates are conservative; increase to 1.8million tonnes of waste per day, or 5.2million m the real values are probably more than double this amount. Local governments in Asia currently spend about US $25 billion per year on urban solid waste management. This amount is used to collect more than 90 percent of the waste in high income countries, between 50 to 80 percent in middle income countries, and only 30 to 60 percent in low income countries. In 2025,Asian governments should anticipate spending at least double this amount (in 1998US dollars) on solid waste management activities. To carry out integrated .r, _ '
solid waste management,
"TJhe impact look had:" doesn't too
local governments need partners. National governments must reduce the externalities of waste by considering measures such as full cost accounting, package deposits, manufacturer responsibility,_-E and extended product care.
The general community,
J/
Wote
_ -vE
which is probably the most / important stakeholder in

waste management
Environmenttal
Impact
activities, must also actively participate in the solutions

by modifying their behavior
patterns. For example, they need to exert discipline in separating waste, using containers in a beneficial way, and exercising environmentally friendly purchasing habits. This paper reviews the broad trends related to solid waste management in Asia'. "The big picture" projects regional urban MSW quantities and compositions in 2025.The forcesof these trends are analyzed, and preliminary suggestions for reducing the impact of these trends are provided. The paper also briefly discusses possible policies and budget requirements for dealing with this burgeoning waste stream. This paper contains one of the most comprehensive collections of solid waste generation data. In compiling these data, the authors identified shortcomings with terminology used and sampling methods and built-in problems with consistency. In Annex 1, recommendations are made to help overcome these limitations and for improving solid waste data collection and presentation. Annex 2 presents waste generation rates for selected Asian cities. It is beyond the scope of this paper to venture into the debate on "the limits to growth" vis-a-vis resource consumption or the negative environmental impacts that will occur from wastes generated by an increasinglyconsumeristic one billionurban Asians. The fear abou t these ei,fects, however, is warranted, particularly since nearly 95 percent of environmental damage occurs befere a product is discarded as
'Asia in this report is limited to China, Japan, Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malavsia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.
Page 3
WHATA WASTE: SOLIDWASTE MANAGEMENT ASIA IN
solid waste. This paper discusses the concern about environmental effects associated with solid waste management as well as the escalating costs that solid waste management consumes from local government budgets and how to handle these increases. This paper focuses on waste management only as it pertains to urban environments, based on (1) projections that in 2025 about 52 percent of Asia's population will reside in urban areas, and (2) evidence that urban residents generate at least two times more waste per capita than their rural counterparts. Although urban waste management data may be inconsistent and unreliable, rural solid waste management data are virtually nonexistent and are derived only from assumptions regarding purchasing habits. Given these factors, it is clear that solid waste management efforts must target priority urban areas. This paper does not review -where the waste goes." A follow-up study that reviews composting rates (existing and potential), recycling (existing programs, potential markets), number and working conditions of waste pickers, would be a valuable contribution to municipal waste management planning.
2. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Solid waste streams should be characterized by their sources, by the types of wastes produced, as well as by generation rates and composition. Accurate information in these three areas is necessary in order to monitor and control existing waste management systems and to make regulatory, financial, and institutional decisions. Annex 1 discusses in detail reliability issues and compositions of waste data. Better consistency in definition and methodology is needed. Although this paper contains one of the most comprehensive compilations of MSW data for Asia, readers must exercise caution in interpretating the data. Severe underrecording of waste quantities is typical, and total waste generation is usually much higher than that reported by government agencies. One important observation shown in Annex I is that apart from localized anomalies, such as the use of coal for cooking and heating, urban waste generation rates are genera:lly consistent vis-a-vis local economic activity and residential wealth. Because waste characterization studies are relatively expensive to conduct, the general "rules of thumb" provided in this paper should provide sufficient direction for the purposes of waste management planning. In the context of this paper, waste is defined as any unwanted material intentionally thrown away for disposal. However, certain wastes may eventually become resources valuable to others once they are removed from the waste stream. This definition of waste may differ somewhat from definitions used by other international data sources. Knowledge of the sources and types of waste in an area is required in order to design and operate appropriate solid waste management systems. (See Figure 1.) There are eight major classifications of solid waste generators: residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, construction and demolition, municipal services, process, and agricultural. MSW includes wastes generated from residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, construction, demolition, process, and municipal services. However, this definition varies greatly among waste studies, and some sources are commonly excluded, such as industrial, construction and demolition, and municipal services. Often only residential waste is referred to as MSW, and in high income countries, only 25 percent to 35 percent of the overall waste stream is from residential sources2 . It is important to define the composition of the municipal waste stream in a clear and consistent fashion. For example, if this municipal waste stream includes construction and demolition waste, the quantity of waste is doubled. Far too often,
2
Personal Communication: Region of Vancouver, 25 percent residential (Linda Shore); Copenhagen, 30 percent residential (Helmer Olsen); Toronto, 35 percent residential (excluding construction and demolition - Tim Michael); Osaka, 37 percent residential (excluding industrial waste - Mr. Sawachi).
Page4
WHATA WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ASIA IN
waste management decisions are based disproportionately on residential weaste,which accounts for an increasingly small fraction of the waste stream as an area industrializes.
2.1 WASTE GENERATIONRATES

Waste generation rates are affected by socioeconomic development, degree of industrialization, and climate. Generally, the greater the economic prosperity and the higher percentage of urban population, the greater the amount of solid waste produced. Figure 2 gives urban MSWgen.erationrates, as a weighted average of the waste data available from various cities. Waste generation rates for various Asian cities are in Annex 2.
FigureSources Types Solid 1: and of Wastes

Source Typical generators waste Typessolid of wastes
Residential
Singlemultifamily and dwellings
Food paper, wastes, cardboard, textiles, yard wood, plastics, leather,wastes, glass, ashes, wastes bulky consumer metals, special (e.g., items, electronics, white batteries, and goods, oil, tires), household wastes hazardous
Industrial
Light heavy and manufacturing, Housekeeping wastes, packaging, construction food wastes, and fabrication, sites, construction demolition hazardous ashes, wastes materials, wastes, special power chemical and plants Stores, restaurants, hotels, markets, Paper, cardboard, wood, wastes, metals, wastes, plastics, food glass, special office buildings, etc. hazardous wastes Schools, prisons, hospitals, government centers Same as commercial
Commercial
Institutional
Construction and demolition construction repair, New sites, road Wood, concrete, steel, dirt, etc. renovation sites, demolition ofbuildings Municipal services Street landscaping, cleaning, parks, Street sweepings; and trimmings; wastes parks, landscape tree general from beaches,recreational other areas, beaches, recreationilsludge and other areas; water wastewater plants and treatment Heavy light and manufacturing, Industrial wastes, materials, refineries, process scrap off-specification products, slag, chemical power mineral tailings plants, plants, extraction and processing
Process
All the of above be should included as "municipal solid waste." Agriculture Crops, vineyards, orchards, dairies, feedlots, farms Spoiledwastes, food agricultural hazardous(e.g., wastes, wastes pesticides)
Page S
FigureWaste 2: Composition Middle, High ofLow, and Income Countries Current Quantities Composition Waste and High InEome Countries: (urrent Total = 85,000,000 per waste tonnes year 2025 Waste Quantities Composition and
High Intome Counlries:2025 Year
Total waste=86,000,000 peryear tonnes
Olhers
1i 2
Metal Orgonic~~~~~~~~~~~Mta
Glas
33
36%
Middle Income Countries: Current Total waste=34,000,000 year tonnes per Plastic50
Metal 1 1
Middle Countries:2025 Income Year Total wastei 11,000,000 per tonnes yea Others
15%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
36%~~~~~~~0
2%X
9%
Organic
58o
Gl s
9%
^hOrganOic
12%o 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ % 2 3% T Income ow Countries: Current Total waste=158,000,000 year tonnes per etlGlass Plati
ola2%i
Gas
GlassOrgni Low Income Countries:2025 Year Total waste=480,000,000 year tonnes per Others Organic
Orgni
O% h I1X t
15%~~~~~~~~5
5PiatE60X s
Page 6
Low income countries have the
lowest
percentage
of urban
FigureCurrent Muilcipal Waste 3: Urban Solid Generation

Country
LowIncome Nepal
populations and the lowest waste generation rates, ranging between 0.4 to 0.9 kg per capita per day All of the countries that have a GNP per capita less than US $400 produce under 0.7 kg per capita per day. As GNP increases toward the middle income range, the per capita waste generation rates also increase, ranging from 0.5 to 1.1 kg per day. the high income As predicted, show the greatest countries generation rates, which vary from 1.1 to 5.07 kg per capita per day. Hong Kong generates enormous and quantities of construction demolition waste, which explains their exceptionally high per capita MSW generation rate in comparison to other countries. Hong Kong's waste generation rate better reflects the true quantities of waste produced by all activities within the municipality than some of the other countries. Although Singapore and Japan report significantly lower generation rates than other high and the middle income countries, figures for these countries do not represent all municipal solid wastes.
Urban l irban Current GNP Capita Current Per T) Generation (1995US PopulationMSW 2 (% ofTotal) (kg/capita/day) 0.64 490 27.8
200 240 240* 240 310 340 350 620 700 13.7 18.3 26.2 20.8 60.9 26.8 21.7 30.3 22.4 0.50 0.49 0.45 0.55 0.60 0.46 0.69 0.79 0.89
Bangladesh
Myanmar Vietnam Mongolia India Lao PDR China SriLanka
Middle Income
Indonesia Philippines
1,410
980 1,050 , , 3,890
37.6
35.4 54.2
0.73
0.76 0.52
Malaysia
53.7
0.81
Income High
Republic of Korea, Kong Hong Singapore Japan 'WorldBank, 1997b
2
30,990
9,700 22,990 26,730 39,640
79.5
81.3 95.0 100 77.6
1.64
1.59 5.07 1.10 1.47
The Singa pore generation rate considers only residential wastes,
See Figure 7 for comparison to 2025.
whereas the Japanese data include only wastes produced from households and general wastes from business activities. For both countries, total waste quantities would be much higher if industrial, commercial, institutional, construction and demolition, and municipal services wastes were also included. Comparing generation rates for various countries is problematic. As demonstrated by Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan, global inconsistencies in the way municipal solid waste is defined and quantified can lead to significant differences among the "official" waste generation rates. As mentioned previously, very little information about rural waste generation rates in Asian countries is available; however, one can assume that rural populations will generate less wvaste because these areas have lower per capita incomes. Urbanization and rising incomes, which lead to more use of resources and therefore more waste, are the two most important trends that factor into rising waste generation rates. Figure 4 exemplifies this trend. Individuals living in Indian urban areas use nearly twice as many resources per capita than those living in a rural setting. Because they consume and generate more solid
UnitedNations, 1995 *estimated GNP
Page 7
waste, the Indian urban population is expected to produce far more waste per capita than its rural population. This difference between rural and urban waste generation rates also exists in other Asian countries, such as in Bangladesh, where the rural population generates only 0.15 kg per capita per day, while their urban counterparts generate 0.4 to 0.5kg per capita per day (World Bank, 1998a).
2.2 WASTE COMPOSITION

Waste composition is alsoinfluenced by external factors, such as geographical location, the population's standard of living, energy source, and weather. Figure 3 presents the current average urban waste compositions for low, middle, and high income Asian countries. The percentages are based on a weighted average of the compositions for individual and Per Consumption inIndia countries, which are located in Annex 2. Figure Direct Indirect apita 4: 1989r90 Pesaannum the definitions and Although methodologies for determining 1989-90, Rupees/annum composition were rarely discussed in
waste studies, the compositions for
Commodities
Sugarcane
municipal solid waste are assumed to be based on wet weight. Generally, all low and middle income countries have a high percentage of compostable organic matter in the urban waste stream, ranging from 40 to 85 percent of the total. China and India diverge from this trend because they traditionally use coal as a household fuel source. The ash that is subsequently produced is very dense and tends to dominate the waste stream in terms of weight. Ash is included in the "others" category and makes up 45 and 54 percent of India and China's waste composition, respectively.Figure 5 shows the degree to which the preference of coal over gas in a Chinese city increases the percentage of inorganics in the waste stream. This increase obviously has considerable implications for these countries as income levels increase.
Figure 2 shows
per per Rural capitaUrban capita consumption consumption

84.34 58.34 33.73 79.34 94.00 81.69
Cotton and Coal lignite
Crudepetrajeumandnaturalgas 60.34 Iron ore 0.37 metallic minerals 2.23 Other Cement Iron steel and Electricity, water gas, and supply
162.03 0.81
5.23
4.08
43.15 121.53 4996.95 606.6
7.88
95.48 296.69 9720.20 204.6
All commodities
Population (inmillions)
Percentageofpopulation
74.8
25.2
(Parikhet al., 1991. Cited in Hammond, 1998)
Among Types inDalian, China FigureWaste 5: Composition Different ofHouseholds Households

Type heating coal (ooking gasIndividual with with Cooking coal With Central with heating coal with Individual with heating coal Cooking coal Waste Content Percentage Percentage Organic InorganicOther 19.3 10.6 35.3 70.1 25.5 7.9 46.5 66.6 18.2 38.3 60 2.7
the that co m p ost a bl e

fraction in high
income countries, which ranges between 25 and 45 percent, is

significantly lower
than for low and
1990. Cited in Ecologyand (Dalian Environment and Sanitation Department (DESMB), Environment, Inc., 1993)
Page 8
WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA
middle income countries. The percentage of consumer packaging wastes increases relative to the population's degree of wealth and urbanization. The presence of paper.. plastic, glass, and metal becomes more prevalent in the waste stream of middle and high income countries.
2.3 WASTE TRENDS

Waste quantities are inextricably linked to economic activity and resource consumption. Over the next 25 years, poverty in Asia is expected to continue declining (despite recent economic performance). If the pace of capital accumulation and productivity growth continues, then the wages of unskilled workers in all countries and regions are expected to increase substantially (World Bank, 1997c). Besides economic growth, Asian countries are also experiencing urban growth rates of approximately 4 percent per year; a trend that is expected to continue for several decades. By 2025, the Asian population is projected to be about 52 percent urban. Cities in developing countries are experiencing unprecedented population growth because they provide, on average, greater economic and social benefits than do rural areas (World Resources Institute, 1996). In fact, rural-to-urban migration is estimated to account for 40 to 60 percent of annual urban population growth in the developing world (McGee and Griffiths, 1994). The economic and population growth experienced by many Asian countries follows similar material consumption trends as those found in the United States and other industrialized countries over the past century. As shown in Figure 22, the overall consumption rates in the United States dramatically increased as the economy prospered, despite periods where Americans experienced economic hardships such as the Great Depression in the early 1930's and the energy crisis of the mid-1970's. Figure Variations WasteGeneration Composition 6: in and Japan has experienced waste trends comparable to the United States over the past two decades. Waste quantities were rising until 1970, declined temporarily after the 1973 energy crisis, and then rose again slightly As the economy prospered in the late 1980's, waste quantities increased sharply. However, since 1990, generation rates have stabilized due to an economic slow-down and the implementation of waste reduction policies (Japan Waste Management Association, 1996). China is also experiencing rapid population and economic growth. Consequently, municipal solid waste is increasing in excess of 10
byAffluence: China Beijing,

Waste quantities compositions only and vary not between countries, also but between individual cities, andcommunities a city. figure within The below illustraies differences the between waste the compositions twodifferent of residential inBeijing. wealthier areas The households produce significantly higher percentagespaper, of plastic, metal, glass and wastes, likely packaging most from materials. (ompostable such food, matter, as horticultural, ashwaste, predominant and are insingle-story residential streams. highashanddirtcontent fromcoal gasis notyetaswidespread waste The is since among population the (Beijing Environmental Sanitation Administration, 1996). Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 -
Metal Glass Paper Plastic Organic Ash dirt and T Single-story residential W Wealthier poorer arecs residential area
Page 9
percent per year. Wuhan City, the
capital of Hubei province, with a

population of more than 6.8 million, has an extensive industrial base comprised of metallurgical industries, manufacturing, textiles, transport manufacturing, oil processing, pharmaceuticals, electrical equipment, construction materials, and food industries. According to the Environmental Protection Department for Wuhan City, MSW quantities have increased from 1.19 million tonnes in 1985 to 1.50 million tonnes in 1993 (Wei et al, 1997). Not only are the quantities of waste increasing commensurate with the growing economy and expanding population; the composition is also shifting towards plastic and paper packaging (see Figure 21), a reflection of improved living standards. Historical waste generation patterns of both developed and developing countries, economic trends, and population predictions, and per capita municipal solid waste generation rates and compositions are estimated for Asian countries in
Figure 2025 7: Urban Capita Per Municipal Waste Solid Generation Country
LowIncome
GNP Capita Per in2025 (1995 $) US 1,050

360 440 580 580 560 620 850
2025 Urban 2025Urban Population MSW Generation (% ofTotal)' (kg/capita/day) 48.8 0.6-1.0
34.3 40.0 47.3 39.0 76.5 45.2 44.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8
Bangladesh Myanmcr Vietnam Mongolia India Lao PDR China SriLanka Middle Income Indonesia Philippines Thailand Malaysia
1,500
1,300 3,390 2,400 2,500 6,650 9,400
54.5
42.6 61.1 60.7 74.3 39.1 72.7
0.9
1.0 0.8-1.5 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.4
High Income
Korea, Republic of Hong Kong Singapore
41,140
17,600 31,000 36,000 ,
88.2
93.7 97.3 100.0
1.1-4.5
1.4 4.5 1.1
Japan
'United Nations, 1995
53,500
84.9
1.3
2025. (See Figure 7.) These
See Figure 3 to compare to current rates.
estimates are conservative, but they demonstrate that most Asian countries, particularly the low and middle income countries, will have to deal with enormous quantities of urban waste with a changing composition in the years to come. Figure 2 compares and contrasts the urban waste composition and the total amount of waste generated by the current and future populations for these same countries. The urban per capita waste generation rate for most of the low income countries will increase by approximately 0.2 kg per day because these countries have relatively high annual GNP growth rates and urban population growth rates. As China, India, and Mongolia become more prosperous and move away from coal as the traditional fuel, the ash composition will greatly decrease and the percentage of compostable organic matter will increase slightly. Packaging wastes, such as paper, plastic, and glass, will become more predominant in the waste stream as the economies increase and the population becomes more urbanized. By contrast, the middle income countries should anticipate a per capita increase of about 0.3 kg per day since their economies are predicted to grow at the highest rates and will experience significant
Page 10
Figure Total 8: Waste QuantitiesVolumes and Generated Middle High byLow, and Income Countries day) (per
Volume3) (m
3,000,000.00
1,400,000.00 1.200,000.00
Mass (tonnes)
2,500,000.00 2,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
1,000,000.00
600,000.00 400,000.00
2,000,000.00
500,000.00
200,000.00
0.00 Low income

i
._. Middle income Current * 2025 Highincome

0.0
_ ;
Low incc.me
a
_m
Middleincome
High income
Current2025 *
population growth in the urban sector. Indonesia and the Philippines will be producing significant quantities of waste, which will require management with a still relatively small per capita GNP. Although Thailand and Malaysia will have the highest per capita waste production rates, they should have stronger economies and more resources to begin implementing integrated solid waste management plans. Overall, the waste composition is predicted to become even more variable as the percentage of compostable matter declines, and packaging wastes, especially paper and plastic, increase. As a whole, urban populations from low and middle income countries will triple their current rate of municipal solid waste generation over the next 25 years. Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Vietnam, Lao PDR, and India can each expect their urban waste quantities to increase by about four to six times the current amount. By 2025, the low income countries will generate more than twice as much municipal waste than all of the middle and high income countries combined-approximately 480 million tonnes of waste per year. Such a dramatic increase will place enormous stress on limited financial resources and inadequate waste management systems. The per capita municipal solid waste generation rate in high income countries is expected to remain stable or even decrease slightly due to the strengthening of waste minimization. programs. The total amount of waste generated in 2025 will increase by a relatively small amount-about 1 million tonnes per daycompared to the current waste quantities. Construction activity in Hong Kong is expected to continue. No immediate proposals are underway regarding how to reduce construction and demolition wastes. Thus., wastes from this sector will remain high and keep contributing significantly to the municipal waste generation rate. Singapore and Japan both have the lowest waste generation rates of all the high income countries and even some of the middle income countries. However, their rates may reflect definition inconsistencies rather than waste minimization practices. Although these two countries have implemented integrated solid waste management plans, it is unlikely that they will significantly reduce their waste quantities below current levels. The overall MSW composition for high inccme countries is predicted to be relatively stable; only a slight decrease is expected in metal and glass wastes and increases should occur in plastic, paper and compostable wastes. A different trend emerges when comparing waste amounts in terms of vol Lime.Figure 8 shows average waste densities of 500 kg/m3, 300 kg/m3, and 150 kg/m3 were used to calculate the volume of waste generated for low, medium, and high income countries, respectively. Whereas the low income countries
Page 11
currently produce the highest quantity of waste on a mass basis, the high income countries generate the most waste on a volumetric basis. This increase in volume is a result of paper, plastics, bulky wastes, and other multi-material packaging prevalent in the waste Figure Global Consumption (1995) 9: Paper Rates streams of wealthier and more urbanized countries. Low and middle income countries have a larger Country Percapita Per capita 2 GNP 1 percentage of high density organic matter and ash Paper Consumption (1995US$) residues in their waste streams which weigh more, but (kg/year) do not take up as much space, as discarded packaging USA 313 26,980 materials and household goods. Japan 225 39,640 In 2025, the high income countries are expected to generate about the same quantity of wastes, in terms of both mass and volume. Low income countries will be the largest generator of wastes on a mass basis, and will also surpass the total volume of waste produced bv the high income countries. The increasing percentage of plastic and paper materials in the waste stream will contribute to the growing waste volume. In the next 25 years, both low and middle income countries will experience about a three-fold increase in their overall waste quantities and volumes, while South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan will Hong Kong Germany United Kingdom Australia 220 190 170 152 22,990 27,510 18,700 18,720
Malaysia Chile
62 39
3,890 4,160
Poland
Russia
31
30
2,790
, 2,240
stay relatively constant. There is little doubt that the low and middle income countries of Asia are following a development path similar to the United States. (See Figure 2.) Compounding this is the fact that much of Asia's urban growth is occurring in very large cities, which exacerbates waste disposal and collection problems.
Thailand Brazil Bulgaria (hina Egypt Indonesia Nicaragua
30 28 20 17 11 10 4
2,740 3,640 1,330 620 790 980 380
3.0
CONSUMEPR SOCIETIES
India
340
Industrialized countries comprise only 16 percent Nigeria 3 260 of the world's population, but they currently consume Ghana 1 390 approximately 75 percent of global paper production. Lao PDR 1 350 As shown in Figure 9, India, Indonesia, and China are three of the world's four most populous countries and Vietnam 1 240 among the lowest consumers of paper per capita. 1Djuweng, 1997 However, as their GNP and urban populations grow, 2 WorldBank, 1997b their paper consumption and related packaging wastes I will also increase. If they follow industrialized countries, their paper requirements will be enormous. According to a 1992study by the Indonesian Environmental Forum (Djuweng, 1997),Indonesian per capita paper consumption rose by 11.2percent between 1981and 1989.To meet local and international market demands and to fulfill its intention of becoming the world's largest pulp and paper producer,
Page 12
Indonesia is planning to produce 13.2million tonnes of pulp and 32.7million tonnes of paper annually by 2000. As countries become richer and more urbanized, their waste composition changes. The substantial increase in use of paper and paper packaging is probably the most obvious change.The next most significant change is a much higher proportion of plastics, multimaterial items, and "consumer products" and their related packaging materials. More newspapers and magazines (along with corresponding increases in advertising), fast-service restaurants, single-serving beverages, disposable diapers, more packaged foocls,and more mass produced products are all byproducts of widespread increases in local "disposable incomes." A negative side of greater affluence is that it brings with it more waste, of higher volume (making waste more expensive to collect). Often, increased use of plastic waste and food packaging results in a related rise in the amount of litter. The rate of change in MSW quantities and composition in Asia is unprecedented. As lifestyles rapidly change, the related conveniences and products-mobile phones, electronics, polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC)plastic, disposable diapers- pose special waste disposal challenges. E-ven more problematic is the fact that in most low and middle income countries, development of waste management systems woefully lags behind the realities of a quickly changing waste stream. In addition, newly mobilized consumers and their market-savvy suppliers rarely consider the potential waste management problems that go hand in hand with changing lifestyles. The Coca-Cola Company is one telling example of how a multinational company may endeavor to increase its market share- in this case in China, India, and Indonesia. (See Figure 10). In its 1996Annual Report, Coca-Cola reported to Figure 1996 Capita 10: Per Coca-Cola Consumption shareholders that two of its four key objectives were to and Market Populations increase volume and expand its share of beverage sales worldwide by "...investing aggressively to ensure our Market Population Per capita products are pervasive, preferred...." (millions) consumption* In another part of the report, the President of the company was quoted as saying "When I think of Chinc 1,234 5 Indonesia-a country on the Equator with 180 million India 953 3 people, a median age of 18, and a Moslem ban on United States 266 363 alcohol-I feel I know what Heaven looks like" (Barnet 201 9 and Cavanagh, 1994).If the per capita consumption of Indonesia Coca-Cola goes up by just one serving a year in China, Brazil 164 131 India, and Indonesia, 2.4 billion containers would be Japan 125 144 added to the waste stream. Philippines 69 117 McDonald's Corporation has a similar expansion Thailand 59 67 goal: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Korea, Republic of 45 72 "The sun never sets on McDonald's, whether we're serving customers in the world's great metropolitan Australia 18 308 centers or near the picturesque rice fields carved into Chile 14 291 the landscape of the Indonesia island of Bali, McDonald's is at home everywhere." (McDonald's '8-ounceservings of Company beverages per person per Corporation, 1997 Annual Report). In fact, McDonald's year (excludes products distributed by The Minute Maid Company) is actively expanding in Asia, and the company (Coca-Cola Company, 1997) announced plans to triple its presence in China over the next three years. (See Figure 11.)
Page 13
Figure Number McDonald's 11: of Restaurants, and1996 1991

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Hong Kong China
E3Number ofrestaurants * in1991 (McDonald's Corporation, 1997)
Singapore Malaysia Indonesia Thailand Number ofrestaurants in 1996
India
4.0
BUSINESS INVOLVEMENT IN WASTE MANAGEMENT
4.1 INCREASED PARTNERSHIPS McDonald's and Coca Cola were mentioned previously as examples of companies that represent the overall shift toward a "consumer society." In pursuit of expansion, multinational corporations, with global marketing programs, undoubtedly change and increase the overall waste stream. On the positive side, many of the larger multinational corporations-such as McDonald's, Coca.-Cola,and Unilever-often have progressive programs that address their specific, as well as the overall, waste stream. By contrast, however, local national firms (e.g., bottled water vendors in Indonesia) are often even more prolific waste generators than their international counterparts. However, the larger multinational companies, with their global expertise, can also become powerful allies to local governments in the fight against waste. CEMPRE,which originally started in Brazil, is a good example of this type of collaborative partnership. (See Figure 12.) More and more, governments are realizing that they can not handle waste management alone. To respond to the call, many progressive companies are working as equal partners with governments in developing comprehensive waste management programs. 4.2 EXTENDEDPRODUCTRESPONSIBILITY Extended product responsibility (EPR) is a voluntary measure, which places the onus upon the manufacturer to reduce the environmental impacts of their product at each stage of the product's life cycle-that is from the time the raw materials are extracted, produced and distributed, through the end use and final disposal phases. EPRdoes not consider only the manufacturers accountable for environmental impacts; this responsibility is extended to all those involved in the product chain, from manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, consumers, and disposers of products.
Page 14
WHATA WASTE:SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT ASIA IN
Figure CEMPRE 12: - Business Involvement inMunicipal Waste Soilid

The Brazilian Commitment Business forRecycling isa non-profit association (CEMPRE) trade that promotes as component recycling a ofintegrated waste management. in1992, Established CEMPRE's include rangelocal internation(il members awide of and companies, i.e., Brahma, Coca-Cola, Danone, Gessy-Lever, Entrapa, Mercedes-Benz, Nestle, Paraibuna, & Gamble, Cruz, Procter Souza Suzano, Pak, Vega. companies Tetra and The came together toensure their that perspective waste on solid (particularly packaging was issues)considered planners,tohelp by waste and local governments waste intheir management efforts. CEMPRE the educates general about and public waste recycling technical newsletters, through research, data banks, seminars. and Inaddition, the organization viathe provides, World Web, onhow sell Wide tips to recyclable economic on, technical of, material; indicators and aspects waste collectionrecycling;adatabase and and on pockaging environment and the (ECODATA). programs CEMPRE's are directed principally atmayors, directors ofcompanies, and academics, non-governmental organizations. members also Active have promoted,been and granted, 14001 ISO certification, the international environmental system;the certification and CenterPackaging for Technologyinpartnership governworks with the ment the and private toimprove sector packaging systems. CEMPRE's has involvement extended Brazil. beyond Recently, American the Latin Federotion ofBusiness AissociationsPromotion forthe ofIntegrated Waste Solid Managementwas exchange created to information its among members. The Association Defense Environment forthe ofthe and Nature inVenezuela, (ADAN) CEMPRE/Brazil, CEMPRE/Uruguay, and the Industry Commerce Pro-Recyclinci (ICPRO) Rico, Organization inPuerto and Sustenta inMexico, formed have apartnership. Homepage: www.cempre.org.br
In the last few years, the governments of Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden have each begun to develop comprehensive frameworks for EPR. In Germany, the Ecocycle Waste Act of 1994 sets general environmental goals for manufacturers. It provides guidelines for goods thtat are long-lived as well as those that can be re-used: regarding their reusability and recyclability; for using secondary materials in production; for indicating when products contain hazardous materials; and for returning products to suppliers at the end of their useful lives. The Dutch government implemented a new policy that requires distribution of life cycle assessment information at each stage for manufactured products. In 1994, Sweden designed a new law to promote more efficient use of resources in the production, recovery, and reuse of waste. The Swedish Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources issued ordinances requiring increased return and recycling of consumer packaging, scrap paper, old automobiles, and used tires. In addition, Swedish battery manufacturers have voluntarily agreed to develop a recycling program for nickel-cadmium batteries (Davis et al., 1997). 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL LABELING Environmental labeling of consumer products has helped raise environmental consciousness and momentum throughout Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Under environmental labeling programs, businesses voluntarily label their products to inform consumers and promote products determined to be more environmentally friendly than other functionally and competitively similar products. Environmental labeling can help achieve a number of goals, including improving the sales or image of a labeled product; raising consumers' environmental awareness; providing accurate, complete information regarding product ingredients; and making manufacturers more accountable for the environmental impacts of their products. Labeling programs are becoming more popular. These programs have been established in numerous OECD countries: Germany, Canada, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Portugal, and France (OECD, 1991). In practice, however, the operation of labeling programs is more difficult than initially anticipated. Problems include the difficulty in assessing the entire life cycle of the product in a comprehensive way; becoming self-financed; or establishing product categories. Despite these difficulties, labeling of consumer
Page 15
products has grown among countries and may potentially serve as an effective tool for environmental protection. Todate, no studies quantify the effectof environmental labels on product sales or the subsequent environmental impact. However, a qualitative study of the German labeling program conducted by Environmental Data Services,Inc., in 1988concluded that the environmental label fostered environmental awareness among consumers, expanded consumers' choice of environmentally friendlier products, stimulated the development of products with lesser environmental impact, and thus reduced waste, pollution, and domestic waste quantities (OECD, 1991).
4.4 WASTE EXCHANGES

Waste exchanges provide another practical way for businesses and industries to divert waste from disposal to a beneficial use. More than 50 waste exchanges exist in major centers across North Americasuch as New York,Chicago, and Toronto-and in most cases are provided as a free service to industries. Waste lists are published three to four times a year, some are updated monthly, and most exchanges have web sites on the Internet with links to other exchanges. Through waste exchanges, companies save thousands of dollars in avoided disposal costs or in obtaining raw materials at reduced prices. According to Dr. Bob Laughlin, former director of the oldest waste exchange in North America, the Canadian Waste Materials Exchange, materials listed on the exchange have a 20 percent chance of becoming diverted for useful purposes. It is also clear that Internet exposure is helping to increase the exchange rates (Buggeln, 1998). Waste exchangesand industry response to projected waste quantities suggest that EastAsian countries may benefit from working cooperatively in establishing secondary materials markets and from instituting consistent product and packaging design standards.
4.5 PULP AND PAPER

Perhaps the next most important area for strengthened partnerships between business and government is in the pulp and paper industry. Businesses are undoubtedly aware of the huge potential Asian market. The pulp and paper industry should not be expected to reduce the growth of their products voluntarily; Figure ResultsSurvey 13: of Asking Whether Was Respondents Their Felt That Health Affected indeed, these industries have a natural desire to expand their markets. To meet the needs of business, Asian byEnvironmental Problems governments should aim for judicious use of legislation ofrespondents Percentage and market reforms to reduce resource consumption Country who agreat orafairamount said deal and waste generation rates, without impinging on India 94 economic growth. Paper is a good place to start. 93 Countries such as China, Indonesia, and the China Philippines are well positioned to adopt more progressive tax measures because their government Hungary 92 88 revenue bases are still relatively new. For example, in Chile Korea 88 the United States,(a country that has a more established Sauth tax regime that is more difficult to modify), every tax dollar that is shifted from income and investment and Peru 87 84 placed toward resource use and pollution generation Poland 83 enables the economy to gain an additional 45 to 80 cents Italy beyond the revenue replaced in the form of additional work and investment and in environmental damage Ukraine 80 averted (Sitarz, 1998). (Sitarz, averted 1998). (Anderson and Smith, 1997)
Page 16
Urban regions in Asia should begin to view their

uran ore" as the disposal as much as aneopsportunil
of Question Whether Asking Respondents Figure ResultsSurvey 14: Income Were ifThey Certain Money the Would Contribute ofTheir Part
Pollution Would Used Prevent be to Environmental I India
P
liability it now represents. For example, the Beijingor Jakarta regions in 2025 will produce more paper and metal than the world's largest manufacturing facilities. Robust, fair, and long-term partnerships should be sought with receptive resource manufacturers to incorporate these materials.
51 39 30 52 47
3D
eru China Italy
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL
AND HEALTH IMPACTS OF IMPROPER SOLID
WASTE
South Korea United States Chile
60 50 44
MANAGEMENT
29 Ukraine Improper solid waste management causes all types of pollution: air, soil, and water. Indiscriminate Poland 42 dumping of wastes contaminates surface and 19C Hungary ground water supplies. In who agree who agree * Percent strongly o Percent sumewhat urban areas, solid waste clogs drainis, creating stagnant water for insect breeding and (Anderson Smith, 1997) and floods during rainy seasons. Uncontrolled burning of wastes and improper incineration contributes significantlyto urban air pollution. Greenhouse gases are generated from the decomposition of organic wastes in landfills, and untreated leachate pollutes surrounding soil and water bodies. These negative environmental impacts are only a result of solid waste disposal; they do not include the substantial environmental degradation resulting from the extraction and processing of materials at the beginning of the product life cycle. In fact, as much as 95 percent of an item's environmental impact occurs before it is discarded as MSW. Health and safety issues also arise from improper solid waste management. Human fecal matter is to commonly found in municipal waste. Insect and rodent vectors are attractecL the waste and can spread diseases such as cholera and dengue fever. Using water polluted by solid waste for bathing, food irrigation, and drinking water can also expose individuals to disease organisms and other contaminants. The U.S.
Page 1 7
WHAT WASTE: A SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENTASIA IN
Public Health Service identified 22 human diseases that are linked to improper solid waste management (Hanks, 1967.Cited in Tchobanoglous et al., 1993).Waste workers and pickers in developing countries are seldom protected from direct contact and injury; and the co-disposal of hazardous and medical wastes with municipal wastes poses serious health threat. Exhaust fumes from waste collection vehicles, dust stemming from disposal practices, and open burning of waste also contribute to overall health problems. People know that poor sanitation affects their health, and nowhere is this link more apparent than in low income countries. Perhaps surprisingly, low income countries are also the most willing to pay for environmental improvements. Environics International Ltd. surveyed 24 countries, asking whether respondents believed that their health was affected by environmental problems. (See Figure 14.) India, China, and South Korea ranked among the top five countries that indicated their health was affected a great deal or a fair amount, with a response of 94, 93, and 88 percent, respectively. (Other Asian countries were not included in the survey). Figure 14 shows that these same countries also showed the highest positive response to the question of whether they would agree to contribute part of their income if they were certain the money would be used to prevent environmental pollution.
6.0
INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Integrated solid waste management (ISWM)is defined by Tchobanoglouset al. (1993)as the selection and application of appropriate techniques, technologies, and management programs to achieve specific waste management objectives and goals. Understanding the inter-relationships among various waste activitiesmakes it possible to create an ISWMplan where individual components complement one another. The UNEP International Environmental Technology Centre (1996)describes the importance of viewing solid waste management from an integrated approach: * Some problems can be solved more easily in combination with other aspects of the waste system than individually; * Adjustments to one area of the waste system can disrupt existing practices in another area, unless the changes are made in a coordinated manner; * Integration allows for capacity or resources to be completely used; economies of scale for equipment or management infrastructure can often only be achieved when all of the waste in a region is managed as part of a single system; * Public, private, and informal sectors can be included in the waste management plan; * An ISWM plan helps identify and select low cost alternatives; * Some waste activities cannot handle any charges, some will always be net expenses, while others may show a profit. Without an ISWM plan, some revenue-producing activities are "skimmed off" and treated as profitable, while activities related to maintenance of public health and safety do not receive adequate funding and are managed insufficiently. Waste hierarchies are usually established to identify key elements of an ISWM plan. The general waste hierarchy accepted by industrialized countries is comprised of the following order: * reduce * reuse * recycle * recover waste transformation through physical, biological, or chemicalprocesses (e.g., composting, incineration) * landfilling
Page 18
Figure Comparison 15: OfTypical Waste Solid Management Practices Activity Source reduction Low income Middle income High income No organized programs, and Some but reuse discussion reduction,Organized programs ofsource education are low capita generation but per waste rates rarely incorporated intoany beginning toemphasize reduction source are common. organized program. and ofmaterials. reuse Sporadic and inefficient. Improved and service increased Service tohigh islimited visibility collection residential from areas. areas, wealthy, businessesLarger fleet the and vehicle and willingpay. to more mechanization. Most recycling isthrough the Informal still sector involved, informal and picking. some technology sector waste high sorting Mainly localized and markets imports and processing facilities. ofmaterials forrecycling. Materials imported are often forrecycling. Rarely undertaken even formally though waste hashigh the stream a percentage material. oforganic Large composting are plants generally unsuccessful, some small-scale composting projectsmore are sustainable. Some incinerators are used, but experiencing and financial operational difficulties; not common income as as high countries. (ollection greater 90percent. rate than Compactor and mechanized trucks highly vehiclescommon. are
Collection
Recycling
Recyclable collection material services and technology high sorting and processing facilities. Increasing towards attention long-term markets. Becomingpopular backyard more atboth and large-scale Waste facilities. stream hassmaller ofcompostables a portion than low middle countries. and income Prevalent with land inareas high costs. Most incineratorssome of have form environmental and controls some ofenergy type recovery system.
(omposting
Incineration
Not common orsuccessful because ofhigh and capital operation costs, high moisture inthe content waste, and percentage high ofinerts.
Landfilling
Low-technology sites, usually open dumping ofwastes.
Some controlled and sanitary landfill! Sanitary with combination landfills a of with environmental some (ontrols. liners, detection, collection leak leachate Open dumping common. isstill systems, collectiontrentment and gas and systems. Collectioncan costs represent less 10 than percent budget. ofthe Large allocations budget to intermediatetreatment waste facilities. community Upfront participation costs increases reduces and options available planners towaste (e.g., recyclingcomposting). and
(osts
Collectionrepresent costs 80 (ollection represent 80 (osts 50 to to90percent municipal ofthe percent municipal waste ofthe solid solid management waste budget. management Waste budget. fees Waste are fees regulated by some are regulated local by some and local governments, fee but the national governments, more collection isvery system inefficient. innovation collection. infee
Page 19
Despite progress in a few countries, fundamental environmental, financial, institutional and social problems still exist within all components of the waste systems in low and middle income countries of Asia. Recognizing that each country, region, and municipality has its own unique site-specific situations, general observations are delineated in Figure 15. Common to all countries is an increasing awareness about the linkages betweerL waste generation and resource consumption vis-a-vis sustainable development; greater involvement of the business community in recycling; and the increasing awareness of the value of source separation and marketability of good quality compost. Incineration is mainly used for volume reduction and its high costs will continue to inhibit its use. Siting for landfills is difficult,which often causes sites to be established in inferior locations. In addition, increasing attention is focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from waste.
6.1
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS
MacFarlane (1998) highlights a relationship between per capita solid waste management costs and per capita GNP.As shown in Figure 16, cities in both developing and industrialized countries generally do not spend more than 0.5 percent of Figure Munidpal 16: Urban Waste Services Expenditures their per capita GNP on urban City, Country Year Per Capita Per capita GNP % GNP Expenditure onSWM (US S) Spent SWM on waste services. The 0.5 percent GNP (US $) 106 22,240 0.48 value can be used New USA York, 1991 by low and middle 67 20,440 0.33 Toronto, Canada 1991 income countries as 63 24,990 0.25 a general guideline Strasbourg, France 1995 0.28 to prepare waste London, England 1991 46 16,550 management budgets and for Kualn Lumpur, Malaysia 1994 15.25 4,000 0.38 planning. These Budapest, Hungary 1995 13.80 4,130 0.33 0.52 costs, however, are Sao Paulo, Brazil 1989 13.32 2,540 only about oneBuenosAires,Argentina 1989 10.15 2,160 0.47 third of the overall 0.26 Estonia 1995 8.11 3,080 total. Additional Tallinn, 0.48 costs are paid by Bogota, Colombia 1994 7.75 1,620 businesses and (aras Venezuela 1989 6.67 2,450 0.27
residents, exclusive ,
of municipal taxes and fees, Hoornweg (1992). In Japan,

muni cip
Riga, Latvia Manila, Philippines Bucharest, Romania Hanoi, Vietnam Madras, India Lahore, Pakistan Dhaka, Bangladesh Acra, Ghana (MacFarlane, 1998)
1995 1995 1995 1994 1995 1985 1995 1994
6 estimate 4 2.37 predict 2 1.77 1.77 1.46 0.66
2,420 1,070 1,450 250 350 390 270 390
0.25 0.37 0.16 0.80 0.51 0.45 0.54 0.17
al
governments are responsible for solid waste management services and spent about 2,280 billion
Page 20
Figure Japanese 17: Expenditures Waste forSolid Managemenit (1993) Services Construction expenses and repair Operation and maintenance expenses Intermediate Final Collection Intermediate Final Purchase Consignment Others treatment disposal and treatment disposal of Facilitiesplants Others Research Personnel transportation vehicles, etc.
828,712 108,300 26,274 18,672 619,482 85,545 190,419 39474 18,646 281,327 66,494
(Japan Waste Management Association, 1996)
yen in 1993on general waste services,accounting for approximately 5 percent of general municipal budgets. The breakdown of the country's waste expenditures is shown in Figure 17. Approximately 45 percent of the total budget is spent on intermediate treatment facilities, namely, incineration plants, compared to only 4 percent allocated towards collection and 6 percent for final disposal. Compared to high income countries, municipalities in low and middle income countries allocate the majority of their solid waste management budget to collection and transportation services. Final disposal costs are minimal because disposal is usually accomplished through open dumping. In Malaysia, about 70 percent of the MSW budget is spent on the waste collection (Sinha, 1993).The City of Ahmedabad, India, spends about 86 percent of its solid waste budget on collection, 13 percent on transportation, and only 1 percent on final disposal (Jain and Pant, 1994). Typically,90 percent of Indonesian solid waste management budgets is allocated for activities related to collection: street sweeping, transportation, and vehicle operation and maintenance. If a sanitary landfill is used for final dispc sal, collection costs decrease to about 80 percent (Cointreau-Levine et al., 1994). Per capita and per ton waste management expenses of municipal governments have increased every year in Japan, as shown in Figure 18.According to a 1992Japanese survey of about 3,250municipalities, 35 percent of the respondents imposed charges for general waste management services and 636municipal governments have adopted a fee structure, whereby the charges increase in relation to the amount of waste disposed. Revenues from waste fees cover only 4 percent of the total management expenses.
Figure Japan's Waste 18: Solid Management Expenses 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Expenses (yen/capita/year) per capita 8,554 8,898 9,419 10,257 11,112 12,79514,818 18,272 Expenses amount per disposal (yen/ton/year) 24,25324,165 24,583 25,949 28,107 31,92437,591 46,280
In low and middle income countries, some municipalities attempt to directly charge residents and commercial enterprises for waste services. Waste fees are often regulated by the local government and officially collected through a variety of forms, such as a general household sanitation fee, environment fee, or included in the water and electricitybill.Household and commercialwaste service feesvary between cities and countries, as shown in Figure 19. Certain cities collect fees based on the amount of waste generated. Others only charge a flat rate per month or year.By contrast, some cities do not collect any fees at all; they completely subsidize solid waste services through general funds. Even when waste fees or taxes are imposed by the local government, waste managers often complain that fees are inadequate to cover the costs of waste services, the fee collection system is inefficient or unsupervised and subject to
Page 21
illegal practices, or that collected money is not transferred directly to the waste management department, or that money is used for purposes other than solid waste management. All residential areas in Jakarta are required to pay e prifr wastes alecono, n wastes are not everi if adequately or regularly collected. The waste collection fees are configured based upon the community's affluence as well as the desired quality of service. The system places poorer residents at a disadvantage because the quality of their primary collection service suffers from the small revenues generated. Local governments also collect retribution fees to cover the costs of transportation and final disposal. Although mandate the amounts to be paidate varounts wateb e paid by various wastegenerating sources, the retribution fees actually collected are very low. In
Figure Solid 19: Waste Management forVarious and Fees Cities Countries
City, Country Ulaanbaater, 1 Mongolia Hanoi, 2 Vietnam
3 Dhaka, Bangladesh
4 Vientiane, Lao
Household and Commercial Fees US to 0.25/apartment/monthto0.85/peri-urban $0.15 US $0.50 household/month hotels payS8.10 SI8.77 Two main each and per
month occupant, per average occupants 30 US SO.55/person/year Less US than $0.63/person/year, paya Conservancy residents Tax forsolid management waste US to216/household/year to960/non-governmental SI2 US $360 commercial organization/year Residents businesses pay direct fees, only and donot any waste pay property Some tax. households about 15to20per pay NGOs Rs month forprimary collection services. Proposed where system homeowner pay fixed has to a amount Rs of 115 20permonth collection to for services. US to 7.20/household/year $3 Residents pay direct fees. donot any waste Private commercial and establishments pay direct donot any waste fees.
Chennoi (Madras), 5 India Delhi, 5 India Beijing, 6 (hina Shanghai, 6 China Hong 6 Kong
6 Jakarta,Indonesia
Denpasar, 6 Indonesia Yangon, 7 Myanmar Thailand'
US$1.80to9.60/household/year US $6/household/year
Waste disposal ispaid. tax Public Act 992) Health (1 empowers uuthorities upsolid local toset waste collectionforhouseholds, fees commercial enterprises, markets, and industryaccording fees announced the Act. to in
'World Bank, 1998c 2 URENCO, 1995 'WorldBank, 1998a 'UNDP /World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 1998 'Environmental Resource Management (ERM) India, 1998 'Johannessen, 1998 'Tin et al., 1995 'Public Health Act (1992) B.E. 2535, Thailand
Page22
Jakarta, only 1 percent of the waste fees is transferred to the Cleansing Agency.Tomake up the difference in missing fees, the city uses its general fund to pay for this stage of waste management. The Cleansing Agency tries to collect door-to-door, but the system is seriously flawed becau-se: * collectors are few and part-time * collectors lack incentive * money passes through the hands of at least six agencies * Cleansing Agency does not automatically keep the revenues (Porter, 1996) Even if fees are imposed on the public for waste management services, they are usually priced on the basis of direct costs for limited activities, such as collection and landfill operations. Full cost accounting attempts to cover externalities and includes all waste management costs that are often only partially accounted for, or altogether ignored, such as:
Figure Reducing Quantities 20: Waste Through Fees User

The ofGuelph, increased tipping gradually no City Canada itslandfill fees from (harge1985 Can per in1991. figure in to S92 tonne The below shows acorresponding inthe generationas residents toavoid decrease waste rotes the attempted disposal Illegal was acause fees. tipping not of the reduction; agreater rather, awareness and correspondinginbusiness were main change practicesthe reasons quantities decreased. of The City Date-shi, reported decrease Japan asimilar ofmunicipal quantitiesdisposalwere waste once fees introduced. The purpose new was ofthe system togain financial resources new tobuild disposal Initially authorities public facilities. the met with opposifion, now but are receiving cooperation from local the residentshave who succeeded their quantities. inreducing waste
Guelph municipal waste solid generation and rates landfill tipping fees
100
2.00 80 1.50
40
0.50
(Ct of Gulha91
20
--
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988 1989
1990
1991
I ]
(City of Guelph, 1991)
L.............J (kg/capita/day)
~~Waste Generation Rate
Tipp)ing Fees ((cn S/tonne)
Page 23
* * * * * * * * *
disposal site selection studies and procedures public hearings, approvals, and permits design work capital costs operating costs development of infrastructure to support disposal facilities (e.g., access roads) social costs (e.g., declining real estate values, traffic congestion) closure and post-closure costs environmental costs (e.g., air and water pollution, noise) (Resource Integration Systems Limited et al., 1992)
7.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMON VALUES

In order to help solid waste management practitioners, a few "common values," or strategies, can be proposed. There is a striking degree of similarity in municipal waste management needs and constraints across Asia. 1. Developing waste disposal facilities such as landfills and incinerators often generates tremendous concern-both warranted and reactionary. However, it is possible to reduce opposition to new facilities by involving the community and following a technically sound and transparent site selection process, and, wherever possible, using local conditions to ameliorate potential environmental impacts and costs, e.g., siting landfills in geotechnically superior locations. Waste disposal facilities, which often have a useful life in excess of 25 years, need to be well integrated within a sound master plan that reflects regional requirements, standard operating procedures, and financing mechanisms. Sound technical justification and a transparent planning process that respects the general public's valid concerns may not eliminate public opposition, but it is the best way to minimize it. 2. Local governments should minimize residential waste collection frequency to a maximum of twice per week, which is adequate from a public health perspective, but requires social acceptance. Citizens should be encouraged to place their waste in containers that enhance collection efficiency. 3. Local governments should focus primarily on residential waste collection, especially from poor and densely populated areas, and empower the private sector to pick up waste from non-residential sources. Commercial, institutional, and industrial waste collection can usually be self-financing. Local governments should license private haulers to generate revenues and to ensure proper collection- and disposal. 4. Waste collection and disposal fees should be based on waste generation rates. Direct user charges and waste fee collection should begin with the business community. 5. An integrated approach toward solid waste management needs to be followed. Municipal waste managers should opt for the least technically complex and most cost-effective solution (e.g., limited mechanization and incineration). Waste diversion should be maximized. 6. All levels of government, including multi-national agencies and transnational corporations, must play a role in long-term program development, e.g., extended product responsibility, life-cycle analysis, waste exchanges, natural resources tax regimes. 7. Local governments must honestly and respectfully gauge the public's willingness and ability to participate in the design and implementation of waste management programs. Through good partnerships, progressive programs can be developed in a complementary manner. These programs include communitybased operations, micro-enterprise development, waste separation for increased recycling and composting, and reduced collection frequency.
Page 24
WHATA WASTE: SOLIDWASTEMANAGEMENT ASIA IN 8. All levels of government should promote the hierarchy of waste management (i.e., reduce, reuse, recycle, recover) and encourage waste separation to maximize flexibility to deal with future changes. Wherever appropriate, governments should view solid waste as a resource, rather than just a "local problem." 9. Although waste collection,treatment, and disposal costs often place a large burden on local government finances, improper disposal is far more expensive in the long run, with costs accruing over many years. 10. Local governments are usually in the best position to assume key responsibility for municipal solid waste collectionand disposal. However, sustainable financing and sustainable service provision still needs to be defined by a broader set of stakeholders. Local governments need the assistance of all levels of government to provide waste management services efficiently. Regional approaches to waste disposal, e.g., shared landfills are especially important.
Page 25
IN WHATA WASTE: SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT ASIA
City Composition Figure Wuhan Waste 21:

80
Paper 60 Metals Plastics Glass Textiles

40
20
1984
(Wei et al., 1997)
1988
1994
Trends, States Material Consumption 1900-89 Figure United 22: (millionstonnes) of

800
Industrial Minerals
600
Paper Recycled
Secondary Metals
w 400-
Primary Paper
200_
0
01900
1910
1920
1930
92
1940
102
1950
296
1960
530
1970
1042
1980
2820
1989
5453
GNP ofdollars) (billions
(U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1993. Cited in Hammond, 1998)
Page 26
REFE:RENCES Anderson, J., and D. Smith, 1997.Green, Greener, Greenest. The Washingtoni Pcst, Saturday, November 22. Beijing Environmental Sanitation Administration, 1996.Options for Domestic Solid Waste Treatment in Beijing.Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program (MEIP),MELPCity Workinlg PaperSeries, January. Buggeln, R., 1998.Industrial Waste Exchanges:An Overview of Their Role. Tennessee Materials USA. CEMPRENews, 1997.Number 36, October. Sao Paulo, Brazil. City of Guelph, 1991.Wet/Dry Recycling Centre, Guelph, Ontario, Canada (personal communication). Coca-Cola Company, 1997.1996Annual Report. Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Cointreau, S J., 1982.Environmental Management of Urban Solid Wastes in Developing Countries: A Project Guide. Urban Development Technical Paper Number 5, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. Cointreau-Levine, S., P.T. Arkonin Consultants, and Osana International Inc., 1994.Final Report: Technical Assistance Project on Private Sector Participation in Infrastructure Public Services Solid Waste Management Sector,Indonesia. World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. Collaborative Research in the Economics of Environment and Development (CREED),1996.International Trade and Recycling in Developing Countries: The Case of Waste Paper in India. November. Dalian Environment and Sanitation Department (DESMB),1990.Cited in Eco'logyand Environment, Inc., 1993.Liaoning Environmental Project:Dalian Solid WasteManagement Facility Report, Dalian, People's Republic of China. Lancaster, New York, USA, June. Prepared for Liaoning Urban Construction and Renewal Project Office,Shenyan, People's Republic of China. Davis, G.A.,Wilt, C.A., and J.N.Barkenbus,1997.Extended Product Responsibility: A Toolfor a Sustainable Economy. Environment, Vol.39, No. 7, September. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),1995.Urban Environment and Solid Waste Management Study, IBRO,EMB/DENR, Philippines. Diaz, L.F.,Savage, G.M.,and L.L.Eggerth, 1997.Managing Solid Wastesin Developing Countries. Wastes Management, October. Djuweng, S., 1997.Timber Estates Threaten Forests. The Jakarta Post, October 10. Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1993.Liaoning Environmental Project: Dalian Solid Waste Management Facility Report, Dalian, People's Republic of China. Lancaster, New York, USA, June. Prepared for Liaoning Urban Construction and Renewal Project Office,Shenyan, People's Republic of China. Environment Canada, 1998. State of the Environment Fact Sheet Nc. 95-1. Website. http:// wwwl.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/ foliocgi.exe/osoeeng/ query=*/ doc/ {t3441? Environmental Protection Department, 1996.Environment Hong Kong 1996:A Review of 1995.Hong Kong. Environmental Resources Management (ERM)India, 1998.New Delhi, India (personal communication). Hanks, T.G.,1967.Solid Waste/Disease Relationships. U.S.Department of He.alth,Education, and Welfare, Solid Wastes Program, Publication SW-1c,Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Cited in Tchobanoglous, G., Thiesen, H., and S. Vigil. 1993.Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering ]?rinciples and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York,USA. Hoornweg, D., 1992. A Preferred Waste Management System for the City of Guelph. Masters Thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Page 27
WHAT WASTE: A SOLIDWASTE MANAGEMENTASIA IN
Huysman, M. and I. Baud, 1993. Solid Waste Recovery,Re-use, and Recycling: Formal and Informal Aspects of Production and Employment in Indian Cities. Conference paper, Department of Geography, University of Amsterdam. International Environment Report, 1997.Vol.20, No. 4, pp. 158-159. Jain, A.P. and G.B.Pant, 1994.Solid Waste Management in India. Conference paper presented at the 20th WEDC Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Japan Waste Management Association, 1996.Waste Management in Japan 1996.Tokyo, Japan. Johannessen, L.M., 1998.Technical Report on Asia: The Emerging Approach to Landfilling of Municipal Solid Waste. Transportation, Water and Urban Development Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. Listyawan, B., 1996. Prospects of Recycling Svstems in Indonesia. Recycling in Asia: Partnerships for Responsive Solid Waste Management. United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), Nagoya, Japan. MacFarlane,C., 1998.Solid Waste Management Consultant, Markham, Canada (personal communication). McDonald's Corporation, 1997.The Annual: McDonald's Corporation 1996Annual Report. Oak Brook, Illinois, USA. McGee,T.G.and C.J. Griffiths, 1993.Global Urbanization: Towards the Twenty-First Century. Population Distribution and Migration. Draft proceedings of the United Nations Expert Meeting on Population Distribution and Migration, Santa Cruz, Bolivia,January 18-22 (United Nations, New York,August, 1994). National Packaging Monitoring System, 1993.Database accessible through the Solid Waste Management Division, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Cited in Environment Canada, 1998.State of the Environment Fact Sheet No. 95-1. Website. http://wwwl.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/osoeeng/query=*/doc/. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1991.Environmental Labeling in OECD Countries. Publications Service, Paris, France. Organisation for Economic and Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1995. OECD Environmental Data: Compendium 1995.Publications Service, Paris, France. Parikh, J. et al., 1991.Consumption Patterns: The Driving Force of Environmental Stress. Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research Discussion Paper No. 59, 1-3, Bombay.Cited in Hammond A.L., Natural Resource Consumption: North and South. Paper in Ethics of Consumption: The Good Life, Justice, and Global Stewardship. Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers, Inc., Lanham, Maryland, USA,1998. Perla, M., 1997.Community Composting in Developing Countries. Biocycle,June, pp. 48-51. Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau, 1998. Hong Kong Special Administration of the People's Republic of China. Website.http: / / www.pelb.wpelb.gov.hk/waste/ current.htm Pollution Control Department, 1998(personal communication with staff, Bangkok, Thailand). Porter, R.,1996.The Economics of Water and Waste:A Case Study of Jakarta, Indonesia. Avebury Ashgate Publishing Ltd., England. Powell, J., 1983.A Comparison of the Energy Savings from the Use of Secondary Materials. Conservation & Recycling 6 (1/2), pp. 27-32. Cited in van Beukering, P., 1994.An Economic Analysis of Different Types of Formal and Informal Entrepreneurs, Recovering Urban Solid Waste in Bangalore (India). Resources, Conservation and Recycling (12),pp. 229-252. Public Health Act (1992)B.E.2535 and the Regulation of the Ministry of Public Health (1985) B.E.2528, Thailand.
Page 28
Rechargeable Battery Recycling in Canada (RBRC),1997.Charge Up to Recycle!Comes to Canada. Press release. Toronto, Canada. Resource Integration Systems Limited, 1992.National Waste Minimization Stady: Final Report. Cited in Environment Canada, 1998. State of the Environment Fact Sheet No, 95-1. Website. http:// wwwl.ec.gc.ca/ cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/ osoeeng/query=*/doc / it344)? Resource Integration Systems Limited and VHB Research & Consulting Inc., 1992.Waste Minimization Measures for a Waste Reduction Advisory Committee 3 Rs Strategy: Final Report. Canada, May. Selvam, P., 1996.A Review of Indian Experiences in Composting of Municipal Solid Wastes and a Case Study on Private Sector on Private Sector Participation. Conference of Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Rural-Urban Connection, Washington, D.C., USA, September 23-24. Sinha, K., 1993. Partnership in Solid Waste Collection: Malaysian Experience. Regional Development Dialogue, Vol. 14, No. 3, Autumn. Sitarz, D. (ed)., 1998.Sustainable America. President's Council on Sustainable Development, Earthpress, USA. Tchobanoglous, G., Thiesen, H., and S. Vigil. 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, USA. Tin, A.M., Wise, D.L., Su, W., Reutergardh, L., and S. Lee, 1995.Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Municipal Solid Waste Collection System in Yangon, Myanmar. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 14, pp. 103-131. United Nations. Refuse Collection Vehiclesfor Developing Countries. United Nations, 1995.World Urbanization Prospects: The 1994Revision. Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, Population Division, New York, USA. United Nations, 1997.1995 Demographic Yearbook. Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, Statistics Division, New York,USA. United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD),1989.City Profiles.Supplemental document at the International Expert Group Seminar on Policy Responses Towards Improving Solid Waste Management in Asian Metropolises. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),1997.Human Development Report. Oxford University Press, New York,USA. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/World Bank Water and. Sanitation Program, 1998. (personal communication with Regional Water and Sanitation Group for East Asia and the Pacific,Lao PDR and Cambodia Office). Data based on actual survey conducted by the Institute of Urban Centres for its Solid Waste Management Project in 1996-97. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)International Environmental TechnologyCentre (IETC), 1996. International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management. Technical Publication Series, No. 6, Osaka/Shiga. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)International Environmental TechnologyCentre (IETC), 1998.Newsletter and Technical Publications, Municipal Solid Waste Management, Regional Overview and Information Sources: Asia. Website. http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/ESTdir/pub/MSW/RO/Asia. United States Bureau of Mines, 1993.Materials and the Economy. Minerals Today, 15,April. Cited in Hammond, A.L. in Crocker, D.A. and T. Linden, 1998.Ethics of Consumption: The Good Life, Justice, and Global Stewardship. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Maryland, USA.
Page 29
Urban Environment Company (URENCO), 1995. Solid Waste Management in Hanoi, Vietnam. Warmer Bulletin (44), February. Warmer Bulletin, 1996. International News: China and India. (51), November, p. 20. Wei, J., Herbell, J., and S. Zhang, 1997. Solid Waste Disposal in China: Situation, Problems and Suggestions. Waste Management and Research (15), pp. 573-583. World Bank, 1997a. Fact Finding Report: Solid Waste Management. Chongqing Urban Environment Project, Washington, D.C., USA, October 20. World Bank, 1997b. World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World. Washington, D.C., USA. World Bank, 1997c. Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries. International Economics Department, Washington, D.C., USA, June 25. World Bank, 1998a. Draft Report: Bangladesh Sectoral Analysis. Washington, D.C., USA. World Bank, 1998b. Waste Imports for Recycling. Forthcoming paper. Washington, D.C., USA. World Bank, 1998c. (personal communication with staff in Mongolia). World Resources Institute, 1996. World Resources: A Guide to the Global Environment, Environment, 1996-97. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Yunnan Institute of Environmental Sciences, 1996. Yunnan Environmental Assessment Report, Final Draft. February. The Urban
Project: Environmental
WASTE GENERATION
*
AND COMPOSITION
REFERENCES
indicates reference is for waste generation rate indicates r eference is for waste composition
Bangladesh: Ahmed, M.F., 1992. Municipal Waste Management in Bangladesh With Emphasis on Recycling. Presented at the Regional Workshop of Urban WVaste Management in Asian Cities, Dhaka, Bangladesh, April. Cited in World Bank, 1998. Sectoral Analysis in Bangladesh, Draft Report. Washington, D.C., January. *World Bank, 1998. Sectoral Analysis in Bangladesh, Draft Report. Washington, D.C., USA. China: *Beijing Envir onmental Sanitation Administration, 1996. Options for Domestic Solid Waste Treatment in Beijing. Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program, City Working Paper Series, January. 'Chinese Resear ch Academy of Environmental Sciences, 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment for Hubei Province Urban Environmental Project. The Center of Environmental Planning and Assessment, May. *Ecology and Envir onment, Inc., 1993. Liaoning Environmental Project: Dalian Solid Waste Management Facility Report, Dalian, People's Republic of China. Lancaster, New York, USA, June. Prepared for Liaoning Urban Construction and Renewal Project Office, Shenyan, People's Republic of China. *W ei, J-B., Herbell, J-D. and S. Zhang, 1997. Solid Waste Disposal in China: Situation, Problems, and Suggestions. Waste Management and Research, 15, pp. 573-583. *W orld Bank, 1996. Guangxi Urban Environment Project, Draft Final Report. Washington, D.C., USA.
Page 30
WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WAkSTE MANAGEMENT ASIA IN
*World Bank, 1997. Fact Finding Report, Solid Waste Management. Chongqing Urban Environment Project, Washington, D.C., USA. *Yunnan Institute of Environmental Sciences, 1996. Yunnan Environmental Assessment Report, Final Draft. February. Hong Kong: Envir onmental Protection Department, 1996. Environment Hong Kong 1996: A Review of 1995. Hong Kong. *Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau, Hong Kong Special Adminiistration of the People's Republic of China. Website. http://www.pelb.wpelb.gov.hk/waste/current.]hItm India: *Envir onmental Resources Management (ERM) India, 1995. Status of Solid Waste Disposal in Metro Cities in India. New Delhi, India, December. Indonesia: *Listawayan, B., 1997. Pr ospects of Recycling Systems in Indonesia. Recycling in Asia: Partnerships for Responsive Solid Waste Management. United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), Nagoya, Japan. 'United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 1993. Community Involvement in Primary Collection of Solid Waste In Four Indonesian Cities. Regional Water and Sanitation Group for East Asia and the Pacific, December. Japan: *Japan Waste Management Association, 1996. Waste Management in Japan 1996. Tokyo Metropolitan Waste Management Office, Tokyo, Japan. Or ganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1995. OECD Environmental Data: Compendium 1995. Korea, Republic of: *Ogawa, H., 1989. World Health Organization assignment/mission Lao PDR: *UNDP/ World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 1998 (personal communication with Regional Water and Sanitation Group for East Asia and the Pacific, Lao PDR and Cambodia Office). Data based on actual survey conducted by the Institute of Urban Centres for its Solid Waste Management Project in 1996-97. Malaysia: *Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia, 1990. Technical Guideline on Sanitary Landfill. Cited in Hani, L.M. and F.H. Othman, 1992. Collection and Disposal Problems of Solid Waste in Major Cities of Developing Countries: A Case Study in Malaysia. Journal of Resource Management and Technology, Vol. 20, No. 3, September. *Ogawa, H., 1989. World Health Organization assignment/mission reports. *United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), 1989. City Profiles. Supplemental document at the International Expert Group Seminar on Policy Responses Towards Improving Solid Waste Management in Asian Metropolises. reports. Project: Environmental
Page 31
Mongolia: *Government of Mongolia, City Government of Ulaanbaatar and the World Bank, 1995. Urban Services Project Ulaanbaatar, Feasibility Study. Main Report, Volume 1, December. Myanmar: 'Cleaning Department, Yangon City Development Committee, unpublished departmental data, 1993. Cited in Tin, A.M., Wise, D.L., Su, W.-H., Reutergardh, L., and S.-K. Lee, 1995. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Municipal Solid Waste Collection System in Yangon, Myanmar. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 14, pp. 103-131. Nepal: Consolidated Management Services Nepal Ltd., 1997. Solid Waste Managem,ent in the Kathmandu Valley. Warmer Bulletin 53, March. Philippines: *United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 1997. Capacity Building for Local Government Units on Environmental Management (Local-GEM), EMB/DENR. 'Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), 1995. Urban Environment and Solid Waste Management Study, IBRO, EMB/DENR, Philippines. 'Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), 1997. Study on Solid Waste Management for Metro Manila in the Republic of the Philippines. Singapore: Hon, L.F., 1991. Solid Waste Management in Singapore. Presented at the ][nternational Conference on Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Singapore, June 27-30. *Singapore Ministry of the Environment, 1996. Website. http://ww.gov.sg:80/env/function/solid.html Sri Lanka: *Metropolitan Colombo Solid Waste Management Study, 1993. Galle Solid Waste Management Study, 1994. Kandy Solid Waste Management Study, 1994 (personal communication with World Bank staff in Sri Lanka, March 1998). Thailand: 'Pollution Control Department, 1998. Thailand (personal communication with staff). Vietnam: *Kampsax International A/ S, 1998. Halong City Water Supply and Sanitation Project, Annex 6: Evaluation of Three Solid Waste Collection Pilot Projects. Prepared for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Danida and Socialist Republic of Vietnam, January.
Page 32
ANNEX 1: SOLID WASTE DATA

Waste data, including both generation rates and composition, should be considered with a degree of caution due to global inconsistencies in definitions of common terms and methodologies. The reliability of the data is questionable due to:
* * * * * * * *
X
undefined words or phrases units omitted inconsistent units used dates not indicated study methodologies not discussed estimates made without any basis incomplete data inconsistent values sources of information not referenced
In most low and middle income countries, the reliabilitv of solid waste data is further reduced by large seasonal variations (e.g., seasonal rains and uncontainerized waste), incomplete waste collection and disposal (e.g., significant level of waste is disposed directly by the generator by burning or throwing in waterways and low lying areas), and a lack of weigh scales at landfill sites to record waste quantities. It is rarely mentioned at what stage the waste generation rates and composition were determined, and whether they were estimated or physically measured. The most accurate method mneasures the waste at the source before any recycling, composting, burning, or open dumping takes place. I-lowever, the generation rate and composition are commonly calculated using the waste quantities arriving at the final disposal site. This way of measuring does not accurately represent the waste stream because waste can be diverted prior to final disposal, especially in low and middle income countries where the informal sector rermoves a large amount of recyclable waste during collection, transfer, and transportation. As well, in most low and middle income countries, waste collection efficiency is low and formal services do not extend to all communities, thereby reducing the quantities of waste delivered to disposal sites. Measuring waste quantities arriving for final disposal is most practical for municipal purposes, and large variations can be observed if the economic situation changes, yet growing waste quantities associated with increasing GNP are not necessarily a true reflection of increased waste; they may be attributable to changes in the relative scavenging value of the materials. Waste composition indicates the components of the waste stream given as a percentage of the total mass or volume. The component categories used within this report are: * * *
e
compostables (includes food, yard, and wood wastes) paper plastic
grlass
metal others (includes ceramics, textiles, leather, rubber, bones, inerts, ashes, coconut husks, bulky wastes, household goods)
* *
"Others" wastes should be differentiated into two categories: "other-residue" and "other-consumer products." "Other-residue" is made up of ash, inerts, dirt, and sweepings and is a significant component of the waste
Page 33
stream in low and middle income countries. "Other- consumer products" consists of bulky wastes, household appliances, electronics, and multi-material packaging (e.g., tetra-paks and blister packaging). This waste stream is much more significant in high income countries and differs from "other-residue" in that the volumes are much higher per kilogram of waste and are generally combustable. It is important to cite whether the
Table Solid 1: Waste Moisture Contents Densities and

City, Country Moisture content Density 3) (%) (kg/mr Lowincome countries 350-550 Yangon, Myanmurl n/o 400 Chongqing,2 China Qujing, 3 China Dalian, 4 China 42.5 30.0
49.7
550
554
400
percentages are given on a dry or wet basis because the component percentageswill differ markedly depending on the moisture content. Rarely is it indicated within a waste study whether the percentage is on a wet or dry basis, and/or based on volume or mass. It is assumed that the composition was determined on a wet basis because most countries have financial restrictions and a lack of physical resources to remove moisture from the waste. Probably both mass and volume measurements were used depending upon the country. Low and middle income countries would be more inclined to use volume since it does not require measuring equipment and
Middle countries income Bangkok, Thailand 49.1 Chonburi Municipality,5 56.3 Thailand
Rayong Municipality, Thailand'46.7
200-350
350 210
240
Batangas Philippines' 27.4

6 Metro Philippines 45.0 Manila,
262 n/a
270
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia'
n/a n/a 45.0
High income countries

Seoul, Korea South 7 Yokohama, Japan'
150-300
302 n/a
can be
can be Hgh incomecountries estimated.esimated. High income countries
characterization.
probably used mass as a basis since they have greater funding resources and support to complete complete a more accurate waste a more accuate waste
2Tin et al., 1995 2 3W\orld Bank, 1997a Yunnan Institute of Environmental Sciences, 1996 4 Ecologv and Environment, Inc., 1993 5Pollution Control Department, 1998 6 7 Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1995 UNCRD, 1989
'Japan
Waste Management Association, 1997
Another major inconsistency among the I various waste studies is the use of U.S. imperial units versus metric units. Frequently the U.S. imperial ton and the metric tonne are interchanged for one another when reporting waste quantities. Data are also denoted by the letter "t" to denote the unit, causing the true value to be unknown. Within this report, all of the units are metric, unless clearly noted. Waste densities and moisture contents are needed to convert data to a common frame of reference for comparison (e.g.,from mass to volume and from wet to dry). Table1 shows solid waste moisture contents and densities as reported by specific cities. Usually the higher the percentage of organic matter, the higher the moisture content and the density of the waste stream. The waste density of low income countries such as China, India, and Mongolia is further influenced by significant quantities of discarded coal ash 3 residue. Low income countries have a wet waste density typically between 350 to 550 kg/rm , middle 3 , and high income countries from 3 income countries range from 200 to 350 kg/m 150 to 300 kg/rm .
ANNEX
2: WASTE GENERATION RATES
ANNEX 2
Waste GenerationRatesfor SelectedAsianCities

Country East and North EastAsia China Chongqing(1) Dalian (2) Year Urban
Population
GenerationRate
(kg/cap/day)
Total Waste
(kg/day)
1997 1993
Shanghai(2)** Guilin (3)** Qujing (4) Beijing (5) Huangshi(11) Xiangfan(11) Yichang (11) Wuhan (6) Hong Kong (7) Residential Misc.
Commercial
1993 1995 1995 1991 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994
2,752,000 1,436,000 1,436,000 1,436,000 8,206,000 557,000 221,000 11,157,000 570,000 584,000 391,000 6,800,000
6,800,000
1.2 0.74 0.33 0.42 0.6 0.85 0.83 0.88 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.6
2.3
3,302,400 1,062,640 473,880 603,120 4,923,600 473,450 183,430 9,818,160 495,900 513,920 344,080 4,080,000
15,640,000
6,200,000 6,200,000
6,200,000
1.17 0.26
3.9
7,254,000 1,612,000
24,180,000
Japan Sapporo(20)** Sendai(20)** Chiba (20)** Tokyo (20)** Kawasaki(20)** Yokohama(20)** Nagoya(20)** Kyoto (20)** Osaka(20)** Kobe (20)** Hiroshima(20)** Kita-kyushu(20)** Fukuoka(20)** Korea, Republicof Seoul (8) Mongolia Ulaanbaatar(9) South EastAsia Indonesia Jakarta (10)** Bandung(10)** Semarang(10)** Surabaya(10)** Yogyakarta(12) Padang(12) Ujung Pandang(12) Lao PDR Vientiane(13) Khanthabouri(13) Tharher (13)
1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1989 1995
1,745,000 959,000 854,000 8,022,000 1,202,000 3,300,000 2,153,000 1,448,000 2,575,000 1,519,000 1,106,000 1,019,000 1,275,000 10,500,000 594,000
1.73 1.21 1.07 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.16 1.46 2.27 1.75 1.03 1.29 1-44 1.59 0.6
3,018,850 1,160,390 913,780 12,033,000 1,442,400 3,960,000 2,497,480 2,114,080 5,845,250 2,658,250 1,139,180 1,314,510 1,836,000 16,695,000 356,400
1993 1993 1993 1993 1991 1991 1991 1998 1998 1998
9,160,000 2,368,000 1,367,000 2,700,000 480,000 639,000 844,000 180,000 60,000 30,000
0.66 0.71 0.69 1.08 0.78 0.9 0.86 0.58 0.17 0.37 0.25 0.38
0.08
6,045,600 1,681,280 943,230 2,916,000 374,400 575,100 725,840 104,400 30,600 22,200 15,000 11,400
2,400
Page 36
ANNEX 2 Waste Generation Rates for Selected Asian Cities (cont.) Malaysia Kuala Lumpur (8) Penang (8) Bemban New Village (14) Temoh New Village (14) Kota Setar (15) Pulau Pinang (15) Ipoh (15) Kelang (15) Seremban (15) Johor Bahru (15) Kota Bharu (15) Kuantan (15) Melaka (15) Petaling Jaya (15) Myanmar Yangon (16)** Philippines Metro Manila (17) Baguio (17) Batangas (17) Tacloban (17) Iligan (17) Cagayan de Oro (17) Olongapo (17) Singapore (18) Thailand Bangkok (19)** Chiangmai (19)** Nakhonsawan (19)** Udonthani (19)** Nakhonratchasima (19)** Rachaburi (19)** Pattaya (19)** Phuket (19)** Songkhla (19)** Vietnam Halong (21) South Asia Bangladesh Rajshahi (22) Barisal (22) Khulna (22) Dhaka (22) Chittagong (22) Sylhet (22) India Ahmedabad (23) Bangalore (23) Bhopal (23) Bombay (23) Calcutta (23) Coimbatore (23) Delhi (23) Hyderabad (23) Indore (23) Jaipur (23) 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1993 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1996 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1997 920,000 524,000 6,300 3,800 188,000 494,000 400,000 242,000 170,000 300,000 193,000 188,000 196,000 360,000 2,513,000 9,452,000 227,000 212,000 167,000 273,000 428.000 211.000 3,000,000 5,876,000 167.000 152,000 137,000 278,000 n/a n/a n/a 243,000 n/a 1.29 0.71 0.39 0.45 0.79 0.73 0.54 0 79 0 71 1 0,52 0.53 0.46 0.51 0.45 0.53 0.36 0.39 0.55 0.38 C.54 C.39 1.1 1 1.87 1.11 0.62 '.41 2.78 1.63 2.15 1.11 0.55 1,186,800 372,040 2,457 1,710 148,520 360,620 216,000 191,180 120,700 300,000 100,360 99,640 90,160 183,600 1,130,850 5,009,560 81,720 82,680 91,850 103,740 231,120 82,290 3,300,000 5,876,000 312,290 168,720 84,940 391,980 n/a n/a n/a 269,730 n/a
1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995
2,213,000 466,000 1,609,000 5,966,000 2,619,000 255,000 2,677,000 4,130,000 1,063,000 12,288.000 9,643,000 816,000 8,412,000 4,099,000 1,092,000 1,458,000
0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.59 0.48 0.51 0.44 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.38 0.32 0.4
1,106,500 186,400 804,500 2,983,000 1,309,500 102,000 1,579,430 1,982,400 542,130 5,406,720 3,664,340 350,880 4,037,760 1,557,620 349,440 583,200
37 Page
ANNEX2 WasteGeneration Ratesfor Selected Asian Cities(cont.) Kanpur(23) Kochi (23) Lucknow(23) Ludhiana(23) Madras(23) Madurai(23) Nagpur(23) Patna (23) Pune (23) Surat (23) Vadodara(23) Varanasi (23) Visakhapatnam (23) Nepal KathmanduValley (24) Sri Lanka Colombo(25)** Kandy (25)** Galle (25)** n/i means not indicated n/a means not available C&D meansconstructionand demolition *-city populationdata are from United Nations,1997. (1) World Bank, 1997 (2) Ecologyand EnvironmentInc., 1993 (3) World Bank, 1996 (4) Yunnan Insitituteof EnvironmentalSciences,February1996 (5) Beijing Environmental SanitationAdministration,1996 (6) Wei et al., 1997 (7) Planning,Environmentand Lands Bureau, 1994 (8) UNCRD 1989"City Profiles,"Supplementaldocumentat the InternationalExpertGroupSeminaron PolicyResponsesTowards ImprovingSWM in Asian Metropolises (9) Governmentof Mongolia,City Governmentof Ulaantabaar, the World Bank, 1995. Generation and estimatesare from Ministryof InfrastructureDevelopment 996-97) (1 (10) Listyawan, 1997(assumeddensity of 300 kg/mA3) (11) Chinese ResearchAcademyof Environmental Sciences, 1995 (12) UNDP/WorldBank Water and SanitationProgram,1993 (used 1990 populationand assumed average densityof 300 kg/mA3) (13) Personalcommunicationwith UNDP/WorldBank Water and SanitationProgram,RWSG-EAP,Lao PDR and Cambodiaoffice,1998. Basedon actual surveyconducted by the Instituteof Urban Centres for its 1996-97SWM Project (14) Ogawa,1989 (15) Hani and Othman, 1992 (16) CleaningDepartment,Yangon City DevelopmentCommitteecited in Tin et al., 1995 (17) CapacityBuildingfor Local GovernmentUnits on Environmental Management(Local-GEM), UNDP,EMB/DENR,1997; Urban Environmentand Solid Waste ManagementStudy, IBRO, EMB/DENR,1995;and Studyon Solid Waste Managementfor Metro Manila in the Republicof the Philippines, JICA, MMDA, 1997 (18) SignaporeMinistryof the Environment,1996 (19) PollutionControlDepartment,1998 (20) Japan Waste Management Association,1996 (populationdata from 1994) (21) KampsaxInternationalA/S, 1998 (22) World Bank,1998 (waste quantitiesare estimated,the country is divided into 6 Administrative Divisions) (23) Environmental ResourcesManagement(ERM)India, 1995 (24) ConsolidatedManagementServicesNepal Ltd., 1997 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1994 1994 1994 1994 1,874,000 670,000 1,619,000 1,043,000 4,753,000 941,000 1,625,000 917,000 2,244,000 1,499,000 1,031,000 1,031,000 752,000 690,000 615,000 104,000 109,000 0.64 0.52 0.62 0.38 0.66 0.39 0.27 0.36 0.31 0.6 0.39 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.98 0.58 0.65 1,199,360 348,400 1,003,780 396,340 3,136,980 366,990 438,750 330,120 695,640 899,400 402,090 412,400 300,800 345,000 602,700 60,320 70,850
Page 38
ANNEX2
OECD Municipal Solid Waste Generation Rates

Country Year
MSW Generation Rate' kglcapitalday Population2 Total Waste tonnes/day
USA Australia Canada Finland Iceland Norway The Netherlands France Denmark Austria Japan Belgium Switzerland Turkey Hungary Sweden Germany Spain Italy Poland Portugal Mexico Greece 'OECD, 1995 2WorldBank, 1997b *UnitedNations,1995
1992 1992 1992 1990 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1990 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1990 1990 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992
2 1.89 1.8 1.7 1.53 1.4 1.37 1.29 1.26 1.18 1.12 1.1 1.1 1.09 1.07 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.93 0.9 0.85 0.85
263.1 18.1 29.6 5.1 0.3* 4.4 15.5 58.1 5.2 8.1 125.2 10.1 7 61.1 10.2 8.8 81.9c 39.2 57.2 38.6 9.9 91.8 10. 5
526,200 34,209 53,280 8,670 459 6,160 21,235 74,949 6,552 9,558 140,224 11,110 7,700 66,599 10,914 8,888 81,081 38,808 54,912 35,898 8,910 78,030 8,925
Page 39
ANNEX 2
1993OECD MunicipalSolidWaste Composition (percentage)

Country Canada Mexico USA Japan Australia Denmark Finland France Greece Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Switzerland Turkey Average (OECD, 1995) Organic 34 52 23 26 50 37 32 25 49 44 43 18 35 44 27 64 38 Paper 28 14 38 46 22 30 26 30 20 20 27 31 23 21 28 6 26 Plastic 11 4 9 9 7 7 0 10 9 8 9 6 12 11 15 3 8 Glass 7 6 7 7 9 6 6 12 5 7 4 4 5 7 3 2 6 Metal 8 3 8 8 5 3 3 6 5 3 5 5 3 4 3 1 5 Other 13 20 16 12 8 17 35 17 13 17 8 36 22 13 24 24 18
The following countries only consider household waste in the MSW composition: Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Turkey.
Page 40
ANNEX 2
Gross NationalProduct(GNP)for VariousCountries

Country~ Country Assumed AnnualGrowth Rate (%) 1995Per 1 CapitaGNP CpiaPN1 (1995 US $) vredRce 2025PerCapita m GNued (1!95 U
China Hong Kong Japan Korea, Dem.Peo.Rep. Korea, Rep. of Mongolia Cambodia Indonesia Lao PDR Malaysia Myanmar* Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam Bangladesh India Nepal Sri Lanka 'World Bank, 1997b
3 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 2 2
620 22,990 39,640 240 9,700 310 270 980 350 3,890 240 1,050 26,730 2,740 240 240 340 200 700
1,505 30,987 53,429 435 17,570 562 489 2,379 850 9,442 583 2,549 36,028 6,651 583 435 616 362 1,268
Page 41
ANNEX 2
Current 1995 Country GNPper Population capita 1~1 2 19951 Total Urban (millions) (% of Total) UrbanWaste Gene ration Generation Rate TotalWaste (kg/cap/day) (tonnes/day) Predicted GNPper capita
12
2025 Predicted Population

2
Predicted Urban WasteGeneration MSW (kg/cap/day) Total (tonnes/day)
Total (millions)
Urban (% of Total)
LowIncomeCountries
Nepal Bangladesh Myanmar Vietnam Mongolia India Lao PDR China Sri Lanka
MiddleIncomeCountries
200 240 2402 240 310 340 350 620 700 980 1,050 2,740 3,890
21.5 119.8 46.5* 73.5 2.5 929.4 4.9 1,200.2 18.1 193.3 68.6 58.2 20.1
13.7 18.3 26.2 20.8 60.9 26.8 21.7 30.3 22.4 35.4 54.2 20 53.7
0.5 0.49 0.45 0.55 0.6 0.46 0.69 0.79 0.89 0.76 0.52 1.1 0.81
1,473 10,742 5,482 8,408 914 114,576 734 287,292 3,608 52,005 19,334 12,804 8,7431
360 440 580 580 560 600 850 1,500 1,300 2,400 2,500 6,7001 9,440
40.7 196.1 75.6 118.2 3.8 1,392.1 9.7 1,526.1 25 275.6 104.5 736 31.6
34.3 40 47.3 39 76.5 45.2 44.5 54.5 42.6 60.7 74.3 39.1 72.7 93.7 97.3 100 84.9
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1 0.81 1.51 1.41
1.4
8,376 47,064 21,455 32,269 2,616 440,460 3,453 748,552 10,650 167,289 62,115 43,166 32,162 71,362 25,833 3,740 134,210
Indonesia Philippines Thailand Malaysia

HighIncomeCountries
Korea, Republic o 9,700T 44.9 81.3 1.591 58,041 17,600| 54.4 Hong Kong | 22,990| 6.2! 95! 5.07 29,862 31,000w 5.9 Singapore | 26,730| 31 100 1.1| 3,300 36,000w 3.4 Japan | .39,6001 125.2 77.61 1.47 142,818 53,5001 121.6 1 World Bank, 1997b 2 United Nations,1995 *assumed GNP Country waste generation rates are based on weighted averages from different cities within the country.
4.5 1.1 1.3
ANNEX 2
Compositionof UrbanSolid Waste in Asian Countries Low Income Countries

Components
1995 Urban Population (in millions) Nepal Bangladesh Myanmar Lao PDR India Sri Lanka China Current Est.
2.9 1994
MSV
21.9 1992
Dom
12.2 1993
Dom Com
1.1 1998
Dom, IC&r
249.1
4.1 363.7
655 1,525.70 2025

MS"
Year Type of Waste Compostables Paper Plastic Glass Metal Others
1995 1993-94 991-95

MSV Dom, Com Dom Corn MS"
80 7 2.5 3 0.5 7
84.37 5.68 1.74 3.19 3.19 1.83
80 4 2 0 0 14
54.3 3.3 7.8 8.5 3.8 22.5
41.8 5.7 3.9 2.1 1.9 44.6
76.4 10.6 5.7 1.3 1.3 4.7
35.8 3.7 3.8 2 0.3 54.3
41.0 4.6 3.8 2.1 1.0 47.5
60 15 6 3 4 12
Nepal basedon KathmanduValley. Bangladesh based on Dhaka. Myanmar based on Yangon. Lao PDR basedon Vientiane and Khanthabouri. China basedon Qujing, Guilin, Dalian, Wuhan, Beijing, Huangshi,Xiangfan,and Yichang. India based on 23 metro cities. Sri Lanka based on Colombo, Kandy,and Galle.
Middle Income Countries

Components
1995 Urban Population Indonesia Philippines Thailand Malaysia Current Est. 2025
68.4 1993
MSW
37.2 1995
n/i
11.6 1995-96
n/i
10.8 1990
n/i
128
296.7 2025
MSW
70.2 10.9 8.7 1.7 1.8 6.2
41.6 19.5 13.8 2.5 4.8 17.9
48.6 14.6 13.9 5.1 3.6 14.2
43.2 23.7 11.2 3.2 4.2 14.5
57.5 14.9 10.9 2.4 3.1 11.1
50 20 9 3 5 13
Indonesia based on Jakarta, Bandung,and Surabaya. Philippines based on Metro Manila,Batangas, Olongapo,and Baguio. Thailand based on Bangkok, and the Municipalitiesof Chonburi, Rayong,Songkhla, and Chiangmai. Malaysia based on 11 municipalities.
High Income Countries

Components
1995 Urban Population Singapore Japan Hong Kong Current Est. 2025
3 1990
MSW
97.2 1993
n/i
5.9 1995
Dom
106.1
112.3 2025
MSW
44.4 28.3 11.8 4.1 4.8 6.6
26 46 9 7 8 121
37.2 21.6 15.7 3.9 3.9 17.6
27.8 36.0 9.4 6.7 7.7 12.2
33 34 10 7 5 11
Singapore basedon the entire country. Japan basedon MetropolitanTokyo. Hong Kong based on the entire country. Page 43
URBAN AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORKING PAPER SERIES Current Publications
UWP 1
What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. Daniel Hoornweg with Laura Thomas
UWP 2z
Learning from the World Bank's Experience of Natural Disaster Related Assistance. Roy Gilbert and Alcira Kreimer
UWP 3
Observations of Solid Waste Landfills in Developing Countries: Alrica, Asia, and Latin America. Lars Mikkel Johannessen with Gabriela Boyer
UWP 4
Guidance Note on Recuperation of Landfill Gas from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Lars Mikkel Johannessen
UWP 5
Guidance Note on Leachate Management for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. LarsMikkel Johannessen
INFORMATION
For moreinformation about the Urbanand Local Government WorkingPaperSeries,contact:

Urban Publications Coordinator Urban Development Division Transportation, Water & Urban Development Department The VVorldBank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Facsimile: (202) 522-3232 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.worldbank.org
Recycled Paper
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a........ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~

/ ........
/~~~~~~~~~~~........
/,
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....
-.
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.. . . .
4......
~..
. . . . . . .

Solid Waste Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solid Waste Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solid Waste Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Disclosure Authorized

... ........ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.-

..........~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ .... ~ ~

Public Disclosure Authorized

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~. ................. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Disclosure Authorized

Tim Campbel GlobalUrbanPartnership

Cover: Wastepickers workingat Carmonalandfill, Philippines. Photoby Lars MikkelJohannessen

What a Waste: Solid Waste Management

Urban Development Sector Unit East Asia and Pacific Region

WHATA WASTE: SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT ASIA IN

4.1 Increased Partnerships 4.3 Environmental

Solid Waste Management in Asia

OF ASIA NOWSPEND ABOUT US$25

WHATA WASTE: SOLIDWASTEMANAGEMENT ASIA IN

"TJhe impact look had:" doesn't too

which is probably the most / important stakeholder in

activities, must also actively participate in the solutions

WHATA WASTE: SOLIDWASTE MANAGEMENT ASIA IN

WHATA WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ASIA IN

2.1 WASTE GENERATIONRATES

FigureSources Types Solid 1: and of Wastes

Singlemultifamily and dwellings

WHATA WASTE: SOLIDWASTE MANAGEMENT ASIA IN

Low income countries have the

FigureCurrent Muilcipal Waste 3: Urban Solid Generation

The Singa pore generation rate considers only residential wastes,

See Figure 7 for comparison to 2025.

UnitedNations, 1995 *estimated GNP

WHATA WASTE: SOLIDWASTEMANAGEMENT ASIA IN

2.2 WASTE COMPOSITION

per per Rural capitaUrban capita consumption consumption

Cotton and Coal lignite

(Parikhet al., 1991. Cited in Hammond, 1998)

Among Types inDalian, China FigureWaste 5: Composition Different ofHouseholds Households

the that co m p ost a bl e

income countries, which ranges between 25 and 45 percent, is

than for low and

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

2.3 WASTE TRENDS

byAffluence: China Beijing,

WHATA WASTE: SOLIDWASTE MANAGEMENT ASIA IN

percent per year. Wuhan City, the

capital of Hubei province, with a

GNP Capita Per in2025 (1995 $) US 1,050

2025. (See Figure 7.) These

See Figure 3 to compare to current rates.

WHATA WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ASIA IN

0.00 Low income

._. Middle income Current * 2025 Highincome

WHATA WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ASIA IN

Thailand Brazil Bulgaria (hina Egypt Indonesia Nicaragua

2,740 3,640 1,330 620 790 980 380

WHATA WASTE: SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT ASIA IN

WHATA WASTE: SOLIDWASTE MANAGEMENT ASIA IN

Figure Number McDonald's 11: of Restaurants, and1996 1991

Singapore Malaysia Indonesia Thailand Number ofrestaurants in 1996

BUSINESS INVOLVEMENT IN WASTE MANAGEMENT

WHATA WASTE:SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT ASIA IN

Figure CEMPRE 12: - Business Involvement inMunicipal Waste Soilid