Documentation / Modul

Share on Social Networks

Share Link

Use permanent link to share in social media

Share with a friend

Please login to send this document by email!

Embed in your website

Select page to start with

Post comment with email address (confirmation of email is required in order to publish comment on website) or please login to post comment

2. 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 non- commercial purposes, without asking a fee.


3. T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Recommendations and Conclusions ................................................................................................ ........... 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ ................................ 3 2. Waste Characterization ...................................................................................................... ....................... 4 2.1 Waste Generation Rates ..................................................................................................... .............. 4 2.2 Waste Composition .......................................................................................................... ................ 6 2.3 Waste Trends ............................................................................................................... ...................... 7 3.0 Consumer Societies ......................................................................................................... ...................... 11 4.0 Business Involvement in Waste Management ................................................................................... 12 4.1 Increased Partnerships ..................................................................................................... ............. 12 4.2 Extended product responsibility ............................................................................................ ...... 12 4.3 Environmental Labelling .................................................................................................... ........... 14 4.4 Waste exchanges ............................................................................................................ ................. 14 4.5 Pulp and Paper ............................................................................................................. .................. 14 5.0 Environmental and Health Impacts of Improper Solid Waste Management ............................... 15 6.0 Integrated Solid Waste Management .......................................................................................... ........ 16 6.1 Solid Waste Management Costs ............................................................................................... .... 17 7.0 Solid Waste Management Common Values ....................................................................................... 22 References ..................................................................................................................... ................................ 27 Waste Generation and Composition References .................................................................................... .30 Annex 1: Solid Waste Data ...................................................................................................... ................... 33 Annex 2: Waste Generation Rates ................................................................................................ ............. 35 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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.

27. Page 25 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 collection and 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.

30. Page 28 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 Systems 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 1996 Annual 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://www1.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 & Littlefield Publishers, 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.

31. Page 29 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 Study: Final Report. Cited in Environment Canada, 1998. State of the Environment Fact Sheet No. 95—1. Website. http:// www1.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/osoeeng/query=*/doc/{t344}? 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 Vehicles for Developing Countries. United Nations, 1995. World Urbanization Prospects: The 1994 Revision. 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 Technology Centre (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 Technology Centre (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.

1. What a W aste: May 1999 Solid W aste Management in Asia Urban Development Sector Unit East Asia and Pacific Region

21. Page 19 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Figure 15: Comparison Of Typical Solid Waste Management Practices Activity Low income Middle income High income Source reduction No organized programs, but reuse and Some discussion of source reduction, Organized education programs are low per capita waste generation rates but rarely incorporated in to any beginning to emphasize source reduction are common. organized program. and reuse of materials. Collection Sporadic and inefficient. Improved service and increased Collection rate greater than 90 percent. Service is limited to high visibility collection from residential areas. Compactor trucks and highly mechanized areas, the wealthy, and businesses Larger vehicle fleet and vehicles are common. willing to pay. more mechanization. Recycling Most recycling is through the Informal sector still involved, Recyclable material collection services informal sector and waste picking. some high technology sorting and high technology sorting Mainly localized markets and imports and processing facilities. and processing facilities. of materials for recycling. Materials are often imported Increasing attention towards long-term for recycling. markets. Composting Rarely undertaken formally even Large composting plants are Becoming more popular at both backyard though the waste stream has a high generally unsuccessful, and large-scale facilities. Waste stream percentage of organic material. some small-scale composting has a smaller portion of compostables than projects are more sustainable. low and middle income countries. Incineration Not common or successful because Some incinerators are used, Prevalent in areas with high land costs. of high capital and operation costs, but experiencing financial and Most incinerators have some form of high moisture content in the waste, operational difficulties; environmental controls and and high percentage of inerts. not as common as high income some type of energy recovery system. countries. Landfilling Low-technology sites, usually Some controlled and sanitary landfills Sanitary landfills with a combination of open dumping of wastes. with some environmental controls. liners, leak detection, leachate collection Open dumping is still common. systems, and gas collection and treatment systems. Costs Collection costs represent 80 Collection costs represent 50 to 80 Collection costs can represent to 90 percent of the municipal percent of the municipal solid waste less than 10 percent of the budget. solid waste management budget. management budget. Waste fees Large budget allocations to Waste fees are regulated by some are regulated by some local and intermediate waste treatment local governments, but the fee national governments, more facilities. Upfront community collection system is very inefficient. innovation in fee collection. participation reduces costs and increases options available to waste planners (e.g., recycling and composting).

34. Page 32 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 Management 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 International 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.

20. Page 18 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 I NTEGRATED S OLID W ASTE M ANAGEMENT Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) is defined by Tchobanoglous et 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 activities makes it possible to create an ISWM plan 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 chemical processes (e.g., composting, incineration) • landfilling

26. Page 24 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA • 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 S OLID W ASTE M ANAGEMENT C OMMON V ALUES 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 community- based operations, micro-enterprise development, waste separation for increased recycling and composting, and reduced collection frequency.

40. ANNEX 2 Kanpur (23) 1995 1,874,000 0.64 1,199,360 Kochi (23) 1995 670,000 0.52 348,400 Lucknow (23) 1995 1,619,000 0.62 1,003,780 Ludhiana (23) 1995 1,043,000 0.38 396,340 Madras (23) 1995 4,753,000 0.66 3,136,980 Madurai (23) 1995 941,000 0.39 366,990 Nagpur (23) 1995 1,625,000 0.27 438,750 Patna (23) 1995 917,000 0.36 330,120 Pune (23) 1995 2,244,000 0.31 695,640 Surat (23) 1995 1,499,000 0.6 899,400 Vadodara (23) 1995 1,031,000 0.39 402,090 Varanasi (23) 1995 1,031,000 0.4 412,400 Visakhapatnam (23) 1995 752,000 0.4 300,800 Nepal Kathmandu Valley (24) 1994 690,000 0.5 345,000 Sri Lanka Colombo (25)** 1994 615,000 0.98 602,700 Kandy (25)** 1994 104,000 0.58 60,320 Galle (25)** 1994 109,000 0.65 70,850 (1) World Bank, 1997 (2) Ecology and Environment Inc., 1993 n/i means not indicated n/a means not available C&D means construction and demolition **city population data are from United Nations, 1997. (3) World Bank, 1996 (4) Yunnan Insititute of Environmental Sciences, February 1996 (5) Beijing Environmental Sanitation Administration, 1996 (6) Wei et al., 1997 (7) Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau, 1994 (8) UNCRD 1989 "City Profiles," Supplemental document at the International Expert Group Seminar on Policy Responses Towards Improving SWM in Asian Metropolises (9) Government of Mongolia, City Government of Ulaantabaar, and the World Bank, 1995. Generation estimates are from Ministry of Infrastructure Development (1996-97) (10) Listyawan, 1997 (assumed density of 300 kg/m^3) (11) Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, 1995 (12) UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 1993 (used 1990 population and assumed average density of 300 kg/m^3) (13) Personal communication with UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, RWSG-EAP, Lao PDR and Cambodia office, 1998. Based on actual survey conducted by the Institute of Urban Centres for its 1996-97 SWM Project (14) Ogawa,1989 (15) Hani and Othman, 1992 (16) Cleaning Department, Yangon City Development Committee cited in Tin et al., 1995 (17) Capacity Building for Local Government Units on Environmental Management (Local-GEM), UNDP, EMB/DENR,1997; Urban Environment and Solid Waste Management Study, IBRO, EMB/DENR, 1995; and Study on Solid Waste Management for Metro Manila in the Republic of the Philippines, JICA, MMDA, 1997 (18) Signapore Ministry of the Environment, 1996 (23) Environmental Resources Management (ERM) India, 1995 (24) Consolidated Management Services Nepal Ltd., 1997 (19) Pollution Control Department, 1998 (20) Japan Waste Management Association, 1996 (population data from 1994) (21) Kampsax International A/S, 1998 (22) World Bank, 1998 (waste quantities are estimated, the country is divided into 6 Administrative Divisions) Page 38

13. Page 11 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 0.00 500,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,500,000.00 3,000,000.00 Low income Middle income High income Current 2025 0.00 200,000.00 400,000.00 600,000.00 800,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,200,000.00 1,400,000.00 Low income Middle income High income Current 2025 Figure 8: Total Waste Quantities and Volumes Generated by Low, Middle and High Income Countries (per day) 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 day— compared 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 income 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 volume. 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 Volume (m 3 ) Mass (tonnes)

24. Page 22 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 for primary waste collection, even if wastes are not 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 regulations are in place to mandate the amounts to be paid by various waste- generating sources, the retribution fees actually collected are very low. In Figure 19: Solid Waste Management Fees for Various Cities and Countries City, Country Household and Commercial Fees Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 1 US $0.15 to 0.25/apartment/month US $0.50 to 0.85/peri-urban household/month Two main hotels each pay $8.10 and $18.77 per month per occupant, average 30 occupants Hanoi, Vietnam 2 US $0.55/person/year Dhaka, Bangladesh 3 Less than US $0.63/person/year, residents pay a Conservancy Tax for solid waste management Vientiane, Lao 4 US $12 to 216/household/year US $360 to 960/non-governmental commercial organization/year Chennai (Madras), India 5 Residents and businesses do not pay any direct waste fees, pay only property tax. Some households pay NGOs about Rs 15 to 20 per month for primary collection services. Delhi, India 5 Proposed system where homeowner has to pay a fixed amount of Rs 15 to 20 per month for collection services. Beijing, China 6 US $3 to 7.20/household/year Shanghai, China 6 Residents do not pay any direct waste fees. Hong Kong 6 Private and commercial establishments do not pay any direct waste fees. Jakarta, Indonesia 6 US $1.80 to 9.60/household/year Denpasar, Indonesia 6 US $6/household/year Yangon, Myanmar 7 Waste disposal tax is paid. Thailand 8 Public Health Act (1992) empowers local authorities to set up solid waste collection fees for households, commercial enterprises, markets, and industry according to fees announced in the Act. 1 World Bank, 1998c 2 URENCO, 1995 3 World Bank, 1998a 4 UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 1998 5 Environmental Resource Management (ERM) India, 1998 6 Johannessen, 1998 7 Tin et al., 1995 8 Public Health Act (1992) B.E. 2535, Thailand

5. Page 3 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 760,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day, or approximately 2.7 million m 3 per day. In 2025, this figure will increase to 1.8 million tonnes of waste per day, or 5.2 million m 3 per day. These estimates are conservative; 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 1998 US dollars) on solid waste management activities. To carry out integrated solid waste management, local governments need partners. National governments must reduce the externalities of waste by considering measures such as full cost accounting, package deposits, manufacturer responsibility, and extended product care. The general community, which is probably the most important stakeholder in waste management 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 1 . “The big picture” projects regional urban MSW quantities and compositions in 2025. The forces of 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 increasingly consumeristic one billion urban Asians. The fear about these effects, however, is warranted, particularly since nearly 95 percent of environmental damage occurs before a product is discarded as Solid Waste “The impact doesn’t look too bad.” 1 Asia in this report is limited to China, Japan, Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. Overall Environmental Impact

6. Page 4 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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. W ASTE C HARACTERIZATION 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 under- recording 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 1 is that apart from localized anomalies, such as the use of coal for cooking and heating, urban waste generation rates are generally 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 sources 2 . 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).

19. Page 17 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 51 39 30 23 15 23 21 27 13 18 30 41 47 52 60 50 44 29 42 19 India Peru China Italy South Korea United States Chile Ukraine Poland Hungary Percent who strongly agree Percent who somewhat agree Figure 14: Results of Survey Question Asking Whether Respondents Would Contribute Part of Their Income if They Were Certain the Money Would be Used to Prevent Environmental Pollution (Anderson and Smith, 1997) Urban regions in Asia should begin to view their “urban ore” as an opportunity, as much as the disposal liability it now represents. For example, the Beijing or 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. 5.0 E NVIRONMENTAL AND H EALTH I MPACTS OF I MPROPER S OLID W ASTE M ANAGEMENT Improper solid waste management causes all types of pollution: air, soil, and water. Indiscriminate dumping of wastes contaminates surface and ground water supplies. In urban areas, solid waste clogs drains, creating stagnant water for insect breeding and floods during rainy seasons. Uncontrolled burning of wastes and improper incineration contributes significantly to 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 commonly found in municipal waste. Insect and rodent vectors are attracted to 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.

39. ANNEX 2 Malaysia Kuala Lumpur (8) 1989 920,000 1.29 1,186,800 Penang (8) 1989 524,000 0.71 372,040 Bemban New Village (14) 1989 6,300 0.39 2,457 Temoh New Village (14) 1989 3,800 0.45 1,710 Kota Setar (15) 1990 188,000 0.79 148,520 Pulau Pinang (15) 1990 494,000 0.73 360,620 Ipoh (15) 1990 400,000 0.54 216,000 Kelang (15) 1990 242,000 0.79 191,180 Seremban (15) 1990 170,000 0.71 120,700 Johor Bahru (15) 1990 300,000 1 300,000 Kota Bharu (15) 1990 193,000 0.52 100,360 Kuantan (15) 1990 188,000 0.53 99,640 Melaka (15) 1990 196,000 0.46 90,160 Petaling Jaya (15) 1990 360,000 0.51 183,600 Myanmar Yangon (16)** 1993 2,513,000 0.45 1,130,850 Philippines Metro Manila (17) 1995 9,452,000 0.53 5,009,560 Baguio (17) 1995 227,000 0.36 81,720 Batangas (17) 1995 212,000 0.39 82,680 Tacloban (17) 1995 167,000 0.55 91,850 Iligan (17) 1995 273,000 0.38 103,740 Cagayan de Oro (17) 1995 428,000 0.54 231,120 Olongapo (17) 1995 211,000 0.39 82,290 Singapore (18) 1996 3,000,000 1.1 3,300,000 Thailand Bangkok (19)** 1998 5,876,000 1 5,876,000 Chiangmai (19)** 1998 167,000 1.87 312,290 Nakhonsawan (19)** 1998 152,000 1.11 168,720 Udonthani (19)** 1998 137,000 0.62 84,940 Nakhonratchasima (19)** 1998 278,000 1.41 391,980 Rachaburi (19)** 1998 n/a 2.78 n/a Pattaya (19)** 1998 n/a 1.63 n/a Phuket (19)** 1998 n/a 2.15 n/a Songkhla (19)** 1998 243,000 1.11 269,730 Vietnam Halong (21) 1997 n/a 0.55 n/a South Asia Bangladesh Rajshahi (22) 1991 2,213,000 0.5 1,106,500 Barisal (22) 1991 466,000 0.4 186,400 Khulna (22) 1991 1,609,000 0.5 804,500 Dhaka (22) 1991 5,966,000 0.5 2,983,000 Chittagong (22) 1991 2,619,000 0.5 1,309,500 Sylhet (22) 1991 255,000 0.4 102,000 India Ahmedabad (23) 1995 2,677,000 0.59 1,579,430 Bangalore (23) 1995 4,130,000 0.48 1,982,400 Bhopal (23) 1995 1,063,000 0.51 542,130 Bombay (23) 1995 12,288,000 0.44 5,406,720 Calcutta (23) 1995 9,643,000 0.38 3,664,340 Coimbatore (23) 1995 816,000 0.43 350,880 Delhi (23) 1995 8,412,000 0.48 4,037,760 Hyderabad (23) 1995 4,099,000 0.38 1,557,620 Indore (23) 1995 1,092,000 0.32 349,440 Jaipur (23) 1995 1,458,000 0.4 583,200 Page 37

11. Page 9 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 W ASTE T RENDS 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. 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 Figure 6: Variations in Waste Generation and Composition by Affluence: Beijing, China Waste quantities and compositions vary not only between countries, but also between individual cities, and communities within a city. The figure below illustrates the differences between the waste composi- tions of two different residential areas in Beijing. The wealthier households produce significantly higher percentages of paper, plastic, metal, and glass wastes, most likely from packaging materials. Compostable matter, such as food, horticultural, and ash waste, are predominant in single-story resi- dential waste streams. The high ash and dirt content is from coal since gas is not yet as widespread among the population (Beijing Environmental Sanitation Administration, 1996). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Metal Glass Paper Plastic Organic Ash and dirt Percen t Single-story poorer residential areas Wealthier residential area

14. Page 12 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 streams of wealthier and more urbanized countries. Low and middle income countries have a larger percentage of high density organic matter and ash residues in their waste streams which weigh more, but do not take up as much space, as discarded packaging materials and household goods. 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 by 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 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. 3.0 C ONSUMER S OCIETIES Industrialized countries comprise only 16 percent of the world’s population, but they currently consume approximately 75 percent of global paper production. As shown in Figure 9, India, Indonesia, and China are three of the world’s four most populous countries and among the lowest consumers of paper per capita. However, as their GNP and urban populations grow, their paper consumption and related packaging wastes will also increase. If they follow industrialized countries, their paper requirements will be enormous. According to a 1992 study by the Indonesian Environmental Forum (Djuweng, 1997), Indonesian per capita paper consumption rose by 11.2 percent between 1981 and 1989. To meet local and international market demands and to fulfill its intention of becoming the world’s largest pulp and paper producer, Figure 9: Global Paper Consumption Rates (1995) Country Per capita Per capita GNP 2 Paper Consumption 1 (1995 US $) (kg/year) USA 313 26,980 Japan 225 39,640 Hong Kong 220 22,990 Germany 190 27,510 United Kingdom 170 18,700 Australia 152 18,720 South Korea 128 9,700 Malaysia 62 3,890 Chile 39 4,160 Poland 31 2,790 Russia 30 2,240 Thailand 30 2,740 Brazil 28 3,640 Bulgaria 20 1,330 China 17 620 Egypt 11 790 Indonesia 10 980 Nicaragua 4 380 India 3 340 Nigeria 3 260 Ghana 1 390 Lao PDR 1 350 Vietnam 1 240 1 Djuweng, 1997 2 World Bank, 1997b

17. Page 15 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 that 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 E NVIRONMENTAL L ABELING 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 Figure 12: CEMPRE - Business Involvement in Municipal Solid Waste The Brazilian Business Commitment for Recycling (CEMPRE) is a non-profit trade association that promotes recycling as a compone nt of integrated waste management. Established in 1992, CEMPRE’s members include a wide range of local and international companies, i.e., Brahm a, Coca-Cola, Danone, Entrapa, Gessy-Lever, Mercedes-Benz, Nestle, Paraibuna, Procter & Gamble, Souza Cruz, Suzano, Tetra Pak, and Vega. The companies came together to ensure that their perspective on solid waste (particularly packaging issues) was considered by waste planners, and to help local governments in their waste management efforts. CEMPRE educates the general public about waste and recycling through technical research, newsletters, data banks, and seminars. In addition, the organization provides, via the World Wide Web, tips on how to sell recyclable material; economic indicators on, and technical a spects of, waste collection and recycling; and a database on packaging and the environment (ECODATA). CEMPRE’s programs are directed principall y at mayors, directors of companies, academics, and non-governmental organizations. Active members have also promoted, and been granted, IS O 14001 certification, the international environmental certification system; and the Center for Packaging Technology works in partnersh ip with the govern- ment and the private sector to improve packaging systems. CEMPRE’s involvement has extended beyond Brazil. Recently, the Latin American Federation of Business Associations for the Prom otion of Inte- grated Solid Waste Management was created to exchange information among its members. The Association for the Defense of the En vironment and Nature (ADAN) in Venezuela, CEMPRE/Brazil, CEMPRE/Uruguay, the Industry and Commerce Pro-Recycling Organization (ICPRO) in Puer to Rico, and Sustenta in Mexico, have formed a partnership. Homepage: www.cempre.org.br

7. Page 5 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA waste management decisions are based disproportionately on residential waste, which accounts for an increasingly small fraction of the waste stream as an area industrializes. 2.1 W ASTE G ENERATION R ATES 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 MSW generation rates, as a weighted average of the waste data available from various cities. Waste generation rates for various Asian cities are in Annex 2. Figure 1: Sources and Types of Solid Wastes Source Typical waste generators Types of solid wastes Residential Single and multifamily dwellings Food wastes, paper, cardboard, plastics, textiles, leather, yard wastes, wood, glass, metals, ashes, special wastes (e.g., bulky items, consumer electronics, white goods, batteries, oil, tires), and household hazardous wastes Industrial Light and heavy manufacturing, Housekeeping wastes, packaging, food wastes, construction and fabrication, construction sites, demolition materials, hazardous wastes, ashes, special wastes power and chemical plants Commercial Stores, hotels, restaurants, markets, Paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, food wastes, glass, metals, special wastes, office buildings, etc. hazardous wastes Institutional Schools, hospitals, prisons, Same as commercial government centers Construction and demolition New construction sites, road repair, Wood, steel, concrete, dirt, etc. renovation sites, demolition of buildings Municipal services Street cleaning, landscaping, parks, Street sweepings; landscape and tree trimmings; general wastes from parks , beaches, other recreational areas, beaches, and other recreational areas; sludge water and wastewater treatment plants Process Heavy and light manufacturing, refineries, Industrial process wastes, scrap materials, off-specification products, slag, chemical plants, power plants, mineral tailings extraction and processing All of the above should be included as “municipal solid waste.” Agriculture Crops, orchards, vineyards, dairies, Spoiled food wastes, agricultural wastes, hazardous wastes (e.g., pesticides) feedlots, farms

8. Page 6 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Figure 2: Waste Composition of Low, Middle, and High Income Countries Note: Approximate scale only. Low Income Countries: Year 2025 Total waste=480,000,000 tonnes per year Paper 15% Plastic 6% Glass 3% Organic 60% Others 12% Metal 4% Middle Income Countries: Year 2025 Total waste=111,000,000 tonnes per year Paper 20% Metal 5% Glass 3% Plastic 9% Others 13% Organic 50% High Income Countries: Year 2025 Total waste=86,000,000 tonnes per year Paper 34% Glass 7% Others 11% Plastic 10% Metal 5% Organic 33% Low Income Countries: Current Total waste=158,000,000 tonnes per year Others 47% Glass 2% Plastic 4% Metal 1% Paper 5% Organic 41% Middle Income Countries: Current Total waste=34,000,000 tonnes per year Paper 15% Glass 2% Metal 3% Plastic 11% Others 11% Organic 58% 2025 Waste Quantities and Composition Current Waste Quantities and Composition Organic Paper Plastic Glass Metal Others 28% 36% 9% 7% 8% 12% High Income Countries: Current Total waste = 85,000,000 tonnes per year

16. Page 14 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 4.0 B USINESS I NVOLVEMENT IN W ASTE M ANAGEMENT 4.1 I NCREASED P ARTNERSHIPS 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 E XTENDED PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY 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. EPR does 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. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Hong Kong China Singapore Malaysia Indonesia Thailand India Number of restaurants in 1991 Number of restaurants in 1996 Figure 11: Number of McDonald’s Restaurants, 1991 and 1996 (McDonald’s Corporation, 1997)

23. Page 21 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA yen in 1993 on 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 disposal, 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 1992 Japanese survey of about 3,250 municipalities, 35 percent of the respondents imposed charges for general waste management services and 636 municipal 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. 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 electricity bill. Household and commercial waste service fees vary 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 Figure 17: Japanese Expenditures for Solid Waste Management Services (1993) Construction and repair expenses Operation and maintenance expenses Intermediate Final Collection Intermediate Final Purchase Consignment Others treatment disposal and treatment disposal of Facilities plants Others Research Personnel transportation vehicles, etc. 828,712 108,300 26,274 18,672 619,482 85,545 190,419 39,474 18,646 281,327 66,494 (Japan Waste Management Association, 1996) Figure 18: Japan’s Solid Waste Management Expenses 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Expenses per capita (yen/capita/year) 8,554 8,898 9,419 10,257 11,112 12,795 14,818 18,272 Expenses per disposal amount (yen/ton/year) 24,253 24,165 24,583 25,949 28,107 31,924 37,591 46,280 (Japan Waste Management Association, 1996)

29. Page 27 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA References Anderson, J., and D. Smith, 1997. Green, Greener, Greenest. The Washington Post , Saturday, November 22. Beijing Environmental Sanitation Administration, 1996. Options for Domestic Solid Waste Treatment in Beijing. Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program (MEIP), MEIP City Working Paper Series, January. Buggeln, R., 1998. Industrial Waste Exchanges: An Overview of Their Role. Tennessee Materials USA. CEMPRE News, 1997. Number 36, October. São Paulo, Brazil. City of Guelph, 1991. Wet/Dry Recycling Centre, Guelph, Ontario, Canada (personal communication). Coca-Cola Company, 1997. 1996 Annual 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 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. Davis, G.A., Wilt, C.A., and J.N. Barkenbus, 1997. Extended Product Responsibility: A Tool for 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 Wastes in 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 No. 95—1. Website. http:// www1.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/osoeeng/query=*/doc/{t344}? 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 Health, 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 Principles 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.

38. ANNEX 2 Country Year Urban Generation Rate Total Waste Population (kg/cap/day) (kg/day) East and North East Asia China Chongqing (1) 1997 2,752,000 1.2 3,302,400 Dalian (2) 1993 1,436,000 0.74 1,062,640 1,436,000 0.33 473,880 1,436,000 0.42 603,120 Shanghai (2)** 1993 8,206,000 0.6 4,923,600 Guilin (3)** 1995 557,000 0.85 473,450 Qujing (4) 1995 221,000 0.83 183,430 Beijing (5) 1991 11,157,000 0.88 9,818,160 Huangshi (11) 1993 570,000 0.87 495,900 Xiangfan (11) 1993 584,000 0.88 513,920 Yichang (11) 1993 391,000 0.88 344,080 Wuhan (6) 1993 6,800,000 0.6 4,080,000 6,800,000 2.3 15,640,000 Hong Kong (7) Residential 1994 6,200,000 1.17 7,254,000 Misc. 6,200,000 0.26 1,612,000 Commercial 6,200,000 3.9 24,180,000 Japan Sapporo (20)** 1993 1,745,000 1.73 3,018,850 Sendai (20)** 1993 959,000 1.21 1,160,390 Chiba (20)** 1993 854,000 1.07 913,780 Tokyo (20)** 1993 8,022,000 1.5 12,033,000 Kawasaki (20)** 1993 1,202,000 1.2 1,442,400 Yokohama (20)** 1993 3,300,000 1.2 3,960,000 Nagoya (20)** 1993 2,153,000 1.16 2,497,480 Kyoto (20)** 1993 1,448,000 1.46 2,114,080 Osaka (20)** 1993 2,575,000 2.27 5,845,250 Kobe (20)** 1993 1,519,000 1.75 2,658,250 Hiroshima (20)** 1993 1,106,000 1.03 1,139,180 Kita-kyushu (20)** 1993 1,019,000 1.29 1,314,510 Fukuoka (20)** 1993 1,275,000 1.44 1,836,000 Korea, Republic of Seoul (8) 1989 10,500,000 1.59 16,695,000 Mongolia Ulaanbaatar (9) 1995 594,000 0.6 356,400 South East Asia Indonesia Jakarta (10)** 1993 9,160,000 0.66 6,045,600 Bandung (10)** 1993 2,368,000 0.71 1,681,280 Semarang (10)** 1993 1,367,000 0.69 943,230 Surabaya (10)** 1993 2,700,000 1.08 2,916,000 Yogyakarta (12) 1991 480,000 0.78 374,400 Padang (12) 1991 639,000 0.9 575,100 Ujung Pandang (12) 1991 844,000 0.86 725,840 Lao PDR Vientiane (13) 1998 180,000 0.58 104,400 0.17 30,600 Khanthabouri (13) 1998 60,000 0.37 22,200 0.25 15,000 Tharher (13) 1998 30,000 0.38 11,400 0.08 2,400 Waste Generation Rates for Selected Asian Cities Page 36

42. ANNEX 2 Country Organic Paper Plastic Glass Metal Other Canada 34 28 11 7 8 13 Mexico 52 14 4 6 3 20 USA 23 38 9 7 8 16 Japan 26 46 9 7 8 12 Australia 50 22 7 9 5 8 Denmark 37 30 7 6 3 17 Finland 32 26 0 6 3 35 France 25 30 10 12 6 17 Greece 49 20 9 5 5 13 Luxembourg 44 20 8 7 3 17 Netherlands 43 27 9 4 5 8 Norway 18 31 6 4 5 36 Portugal 35 23 12 5 3 22 Spain 44 21 11 7 4 13 Switzerland 27 28 15 3 3 24 Turkey 64 6 3 2 1 24 Average 38 26 8 6 5 18 The following countries only consider household waste in the MSW composition: Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Turkey 1993 OECD Municipal Solid Waste Composition (percentage) (OECD, 1995) Page 40

9. Page 7 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Low income countries have the lowest percentage of urban 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. As predicted, the high income countries show the greatest generation rates, which vary from 1.1 to 5.07 kg per capita per day. Hong Kong generates enormous quantities of construction and 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 middle income countries, the figures for these countries do not represent all municipal solid wastes. The Singapore generation rate considers only residential wastes, 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 waste 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 Figure 3: Current Urban Municipal Solid Waste Generation Country GNP Per Capita 1 Current Urban Current Urban (1995 US $) Population MSW Generation (% of Total) 2 (kg/capita/day) Low Income 490 27.8 0.64 Nepal 200 13.7 0.50 Bangladesh 240 18.3 0.49 Myanmar 240* 26.2 0.45 Vietnam 240 20.8 0.55 Mongolia 310 60.9 0.60 India 340 26.8 0.46 Lao PDR 350 21.7 0.69 China 620 30.3 0.79 Sri Lanka 700 22.4 0.89 Middle Income 1,410 37.6 0.73 Indonesia 980 35.4 0.76 Philippines 1,050 54.2 0.52 Thailand 2,740 20.0 1.10 Malaysia 3,890 53.7 0.81 High Income 30,990 79.5 1.64 Korea, Republic of 9,700 81.3 1.59 Hong Kong 22,990 95.0 5.07 Singapore 26,730 100 1.10 Japan 39,640 77.6 1.47 1 World Bank, 1997b See Figure 7 for comparison to 2025. 2 United Nations, 1995 *estimated GNP

12. Page 10 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 2025. (See Figure 7.) These 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 Figure 7: 2025 Urban Per Capita Municipal Solid Waste Generation Country GNP Per Capita 2025 Urban 2025 Urban in 2025 Population MSW Generation (1995 US $) (% of Total) 1 (kg/capita/day) Low Income 1,050 48.8 0.6-1.0 Nepal 360 34.3 0.6 Bangladesh 440 40.0 0.6 Myanmar 580 47.3 0.6 Vietnam 580 39.0 0.7 Mongolia 560 76.5 0.9 India 620 45.2 0.7 Lao PDR 850 44.5 0.8 China 1,500 54.5 0.9 Sri Lanka 1,300 42.6 1.0 Middle Income 3,390 61.1 0.8-1.5 Indonesia 2,400 60.7 1.0 Philippines 2,500 74.3 0.8 Thailand 6,650 39.1 1.5 Malaysia 9,400 72.7 1.4 High Income 41,140 88.2 1.1-4.5 Korea, Republic of 17,600 93.7 1.4 Hong Kong 31,000 97.3 4.5 Singapore 36,000 100.0 1.1 Japan 53,500 84.9 1.3 1 United Nations, 1995 See Figure 3 to compare to current rates.

15. Page 13 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Figure 10: 1996 Per Capita Coca-Cola Consumption and Market Populations Market Population Per capita (millions) consumption* Indonesia is planning to produce 13.2 million tonnes of pulp and 32.7 million 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 foods, 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. Even 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 1996 Annual Report, Coca-Cola reported to shareholders that two of its four key objectives were to increase volume and expand its share of beverage sales worldwide by “...investing aggressively to ensure our products are pervasive, preferred....” In another part of the report, the President of the company was quoted as saying “When I think of Indonesia—a country on the Equator with 180 million people, a median age of 18, and a Moslem ban on alcohol— I feel I know what Heaven looks like” (Barnet and Cavanagh, 1994). If the per capita consumption of Coca-Cola goes up by just one serving a year in China, India, and Indonesia, 2.4 billion containers would be added to the waste stream. McDonald’s Corporation has a similar expansion goal: “The sun never sets on McDonald’s, whether we’re serving customers in the world’s great metropolitan centers or near the picturesque rice fields carved into the landscape of the Indonesia island of Bali, McDonald’s is at home everywhere.” (McDonald’s Corporation, 1997 Annual Report). In fact, McDonald’s is actively expanding in Asia, and the company announced plans to triple its presence in China over the next three years. (See Figure 11.) China 1,234 5 India 953 3 United States 266 363 Indonesia 201 9 Brazil 164 131 Japan 125 144 Philippines 69 117 Thailand 59 67 Korea, Republic of 45 72 Australia 18 308 Chile 14 291 *8-ounce servings of Company beverages per person per year (excludes products distributed by The Minute Maid Company) (Coca-Cola Company, 1997)

22. Page 20 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 between 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 S OLID W ASTE M ANAGEMENT C OSTS 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 their per capita GNP on urban waste services. The 0.5 percent GNP value can be used by low and middle income countries as a general guideline to prepare waste management budgets and for planning. These costs, however, are only about one- third of the overall total. Additional costs are paid by businesses and residents, exclusive of municipal taxes and fees, Hoornweg (1992). In Japan, municipal governments are responsible for solid waste management services and spent about 2,280 billion Figure 16: Municipal Urban Waste Services Expenditures City, Country Year Per Capita Per capita GNP % GNP Expenditure on SWM (US $) Spent on SWM (US $) New York, USA 1991 106 22,240 0.48 Toronto, Canada 1991 67 20,440 0.33 Strasbourg, France 1995 63 24,990 0.25 London, England 1991 46 16,550 0.28 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1994 15.25 4,000 0.38 Budapest, Hungary 1995 13.80 4,130 0.33 S ã o Paulo, Brazil 1989 13.32 2,540 0.52 Buenos Aires, Argentina 1989 10.15 2,160 0.47 Tallinn, Estonia 1995 8.11 3,080 0.26 Bogota, Colombia 1994 7.75 1,620 0.48 Caracas, Venezuela 1989 6.67 2,450 0.27 Riga, Latvia 1995 6 2,420 0.25 Manila, Philippines 1995 estimate 4 1,070 0.37 Bucharest, Romania 1995 2.37 1,450 0.16 Hanoi, Vietnam 1994 predict 2 250 0.80 Madras, India 1995 1.77 350 0.51 Lahore, Pakistan 1985 1.77 390 0.45 Dhaka, Bangladesh 1995 1.46 270 0.54 Accra, Ghana 1994 0.66 390 0.17 (MacFarlane, 1998)

28. Page 26 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Figure 21: Wuhan City Waste Composition 1984 1988 1994 80 60 40 20 0 Paper Metals Plastics Glass Textiles 0 200 400 600 800 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1989 Wood Primary Paper Recycled Paper Secondary Metals Industrial Minerals GNP (billions of dollars) 92 102 296 530 1042 2820 5453 Prim ary Metals Non Fuel Organics Figure 22: United States Material Consumption Trends, 1900-89 (millions of tonnes) (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1993. Cited in Hammond, 1998) (Wei et al., 1997) Millions of tonnes Thousand tonnes

10. Page 8 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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 0.5 kg per capita per day (World Bank, 1998a). 2.2 W ASTE C OMPOSITION Waste composition is also influenced 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 countries, which are located in Annex 2. Although the definitions and methodologies for determining composition were rarely discussed in waste studies, the compositions for 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 that the compostable fraction in high income countries, which ranges between 25 and 45 percent, is significantly lower than for low and Figure 4: Direct and Indirect Per Capita Consumption in India, 1989—90, Rupees/annum Commodities Rural per capita Urban per capita consumption consumption Sugarcane 84.34 79.34 Cotton 58.34 94.00 Coal and lignite 33.73 81.69 Crude petroleum and natural gas 60.34 162.03 Iron ore 0.37 0.81 Other metallic minerals 2.23 5.23 Cement 4.08 7.88 Iron and steel 43.15 95.48 Electricity, gas, and water supply 121.53 296.69 All commodities 4996.95 9720.20 Population (in millions) 606.6 204.6 Percentage of population 74.8 25.2 (Parikh et al., 1991. Cited in Hammond, 1998) Figure 5: Waste Composition Among Different Types of Households in Dalian, China Households Waste Content Percentage Type Percentage Organic Inorganic Other Cooking with gas Individual heating with coal 35.3 70.1 19.3 10.6 Cooking with coal Central heating with coal 46.5 66.6 25.5 7.9 Cooking with coal Individual heating with coal 18.2 38.3 60 2.7 (Dalian Environment and Sanitation Department (DESMB), 1990. Cited in Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1993)

36. 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 percentages are given on a dry or wet basis because the component percentages will 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 can be estimated. High income countries probably used mass as a basis since they have greater funding resources and support to complete a more accurate waste characterization. Another major inconsistency among the 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). Table 1 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 residue. Low income countries have a wet waste density typically between 350 to 550 kg/m 3 , middle income countries range from 200 to 350 kg/m 3 , and high income countries from 150 to 300 kg/m 3 . Table 1: Solid Waste Moisture Contents and Densities City, Country Moisture content (%) Density (kg/m 3 ) Low income countries 350-550 Yangon, Myanmar 1 n/a 400 Chongqing, China 2 42.5 550 Qujing, China 3 30.0 554 Dalian, China 4 49.7 400 Middle income countries 200-350 Bangkok, Thailand 5 49.1 350 Chonburi Municipality, Thailand 5 56.3 210 Rayong Municipality, Thailand 5 46.7 240 Batangas, Philippines 6 27.4 262 Metro Manila, Philippines 6 45.0 n/a Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 7 n/a 270 High income countries 150-300 Seoul, South Korea 7 n/a 302 Yokohama, Japan 8 45.0 n/a 1 Tin et al., 1995 2 World Bank, 1997a 3 Yunnan Institute of Environmental Sciences, 1996 4 Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1993 5 Pollution Control Department, 1998 6 Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1995 7 UNCRD, 1989 8 Japan Waste Management Association, 1997

43. ANNEX 2 China 3 620 1,505 Hong Kong 1 22,990 30,987 Japan 1 39,640 53,429 Korea, Dem.Peo.Rep. 2 240 435 Korea, Rep. of 2 9,700 17,570 Mongolia 2 310 562 Cambodia 2 270 489 Indonesia 3 980 2,379 Lao PDR 3 350 850 Malaysia 3 3,890 9,442 Myanmar* 3 240 583 Philippines 3 1,050 2,549 Singapore 1 26,730 36,028 Thailand 3 2,740 6,651 Vietnam 3 240 583 Bangladesh 2 240 435 India 2 340 616 Nepal 2 200 362 Sri Lanka 2 700 1,268 Gross National Product (GNP) for Various Countries 1 World Bank , 1997b Country Assumed Annual Growth Rate (%) 1995 Per Capita GNP 1 (1995 US $) Predicted 2025 Per Capita GNP (1995 US $) Page 41

25. Page 23 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA Jakarta, only 1 percent of the waste fees is transferred to the Cleansing Agency. To make 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 because: • 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: 1984 1988 2.00 0 0.50 1.00 1.50 1983 1985 1986 1987 1989 1990 1991 Waste Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) Tipping Fees (Can $/tonne) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Guelph municipal solid waste generation rates and landfill tipping fees (City of Guelph, 1991) Figure 20: Reducing Waste Quantities Through User Fees The City of Guelph, Canada increased its landfill tipping fees gradually from no charge in 1985 to Can $92 per tonne in 1991. The figure below shows a corresponding decrease in the waste generation rates as the residents attempted to avoid disposal fees. Illegal tipping was not a cause of the reduction; rather, a greater awareness and corresponding change in business practices were the main reasons quantities decr eased. The City of Date-shi, Japan reported a similar decrease of municipal waste quantities once disposal fees were introduced. The purpose of th e new system was to gain financial resources to build new disposal facilities. Initially the authorities met with public opposition, but are now receiving cooperation from the local residents who have succeeded in reducing their waste quantities. (Japan Waste Management Association, 1996) Waste Generation Rate (kg/capita/day) Tipping Fees (Can$/tonne)

18. Page 16 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA products has grown among countries and may potentially serve as an effective tool for environmental protection. To date, no studies quantify the effect of 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 1988 concluded 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 W ASTE 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 America— such 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 exchanges and industry response to projected waste quantities suggest that East Asian countries may benefit from working cooperatively in establishing secondary materials markets and from instituting consistent product and packaging design standards. 4.5 P ULP AND P APER 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; indeed, these industries have a natural desire to expand their markets. To meet the needs of business, Asian governments should aim for judicious use of legislation and market reforms to reduce resource consumption and waste generation rates, without impinging on economic growth. Paper is a good place to start. Countries such as China, Indonesia, and the Philippines are well positioned to adopt more progressive tax measures because their government revenue bases are still relatively new. For example, in the United States, (a country that has a more established tax regime that is more difficult to modify), every tax dollar that is shifted from income and investment and placed toward resource use and pollution generation enables the economy to gain an additional 45 to 80 cents beyond the revenue replaced in the form of additional work and investment and in environmental damage averted (Sitarz, 1998). Figure 13: Results of Survey Asking Whether Respondents Felt That Their Health Was Affected by Environmental Problems Country Percentage of respondents who said a great deal or a fair amount India 94 China 93 Hungary 92 Chile 88 South Korea 88 Peru 87 Poland 84 Italy 83 Ukraine 80 (Anderson and Smith, 1997)

41. ANNEX 2 Country Year MSW Generation Rate 1 Population 2 Total Waste kg/capita/day tonnes/day USA 1992 2 263.1 526,200 Australia 1992 1.89 18.1 34,209 Canada 1992 1.8 29.6 53,280 Finland 1990 1.7 5.1 8,670 Iceland 1992 1.53 0.3* 459 Norway 1992 1.4 4.4 6,160 The Netherlands 1992 1.37 15.5 21,235 France 1992 1.29 58.1 74,949 Denmark 1992 1.26 5.2 6,552 Austria 1990 1.18 8.1 9,558 Japan 1992 1.12 125.2 140,224 Belgium 1992 1.1 10.1 11,110 Switzerland 1992 1.1 7 7,700 Turkey 1992 1.09 61.1 66,599 Hungary 1992 1.07 10.2 10,914 Sweden 1990 1.01 8.8 8,888 Germany 1990 0.99 81.9 81,081 Spain 1992 0.99 39.2 38,808 Italy 1992 0.96 57.2 54,912 Poland 1992 0.93 38.6 35,898 Portugal 1992 0.9 9.9 8,910 Mexico 1992 0.85 91.8 78,030 Greece 1992 0.85 10.5 8,925 2 World Bank , 1997b *United Nations, 1995 OECD Municipal Solid Waste Generation Rates 1 OECD, 1995 Page 39

33. Page 31 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA *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 Project: Environmental Assessment Report, Final Draft. February. Hong Kong: ◊ Environmental Protection Department, 1996. Environment Hong Kong 1996: A Review of 1995. Hong Kong. *Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Website. http://www.pelb.wpelb.gov.hk/waste/current.htm India: ◊ *Environmental Resources Management (ERM) India, 1995. Status of Solid Waste Disposal in Metro Cities in India. New Delhi, India, December. Indonesia: ◊ *Listawayan, B., 1997. Prospects 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. ◊ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1995. OECD Environmental Data: Compendium 1995. Korea, Republic of: *Ogawa, H., 1989. World Health Organization assignment/mission reports. 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.

32. Page 30 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA 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, The Urban Environment, 1996—97. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Yunnan Institute of Environmental Sciences, 1996. Yunnan Environmental Project: Environmental Assessment Report, Final Draft. February. W ASTE G ENERATION AND C OMPOSITION R EFERENCES * indicates reference is for waste generation rate ◊ indicates reference 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 Waste 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 Environmental Sanitation Administration, 1996. Options for Domestic Solid Waste Treatment in Beijing. Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program, City Working Paper Series, January. ◊ *Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment for Hubei Province Urban Environmental Project. The Center of Environmental Planning and Assessment, May. ◊ *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. ◊ *Wei, 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. ◊ *World Bank, 1996. Guangxi Urban Environment Project, Draft Final Report. Washington, D.C., USA.

44. ANNEX 2 Current 2025 1995 Population Urban Waste Generation Predicted Population Predicted Urban Waste Generation Nepal 200 21.5 13.7 0.5 1,473 360 40.7 34.3 0.6 8,376 Bangladesh 240 119.8 18.3 0.49 10,742 440 196.1 40 0.6 47,064 Myanmar 240 2 46.5* 26.2 0.45 5,482 580 75.6 47.3 0.6 21,455 Vietnam 240 73.5 20.8 0.55 8,408 580 118.2 39 0.7 32,269 Mongolia 310 2.5 60.9 0.6 914 560 3.8 76.5 0.9 2,616 India 340 929.4 26.8 0.46 114,576 600 1,392.1 45.2 0.7 440,460 Lao PDR 350 4.9 21.7 0.69 734 850 9.7 44.5 0.8 3,453 China 620 1,200.2 30.3 0.79 287,292 1,500 1,526.1 54.5 0.9 748,552 Sri Lanka 700 18.1 22.4 0.89 3,608 1,300 25 42.6 1 10,650 Indonesia 980 193.3 35.4 0.76 52,005 2,400 275.6 60.7 1 167,289 Philippines 1,050 68.6 54.2 0.52 19,334 2,500 104.5 74.3 0.8 62,115 Thailand 2,740 58.2 20 1.1 12,804 6,700 73.6 39.1 1.5 43,166 Malaysia 3,890 20.1 53.7 0.81 8,743 9,440 31.6 72.7 1.4 32,162 Korea, Republic of 9,700 44.9 81.3 1.59 58,041 17,600 54.4 93.7 1.4 71,362 Hong Kong 22,990 6.2 95 5.07 29,862 31,000 5.9 97.3 4.5 25,833 Singapore 26,730 3 100 1.1 3,300 36,000 3.4 100 1.1 3,740 Japan 39,600 125.2 77.6 1.47 142,818 53,500 121.6 84.9 1.3 134,210 Low Income Countries Middle Income Countries High Income Countries 1 World Bank, 1997b Total (tonnes/day) 2 United Nations,1995 *assumed GNP Country waste generation rates are based on weighted averages from different cities within the country. GNP per capita 19951 Total 1 (millions) Urban 2 (% of Total) Generation Rate (kg/cap/day) Total Waste (tonnes/day) Predicted GNP per capita Country Total 2 (millions) Urban 2 (% of Total) MSW (kg/cap/day) Page 42

4. Page 1 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA WHAT A WASTE: Solid Waste Management in Asia R ECOMMENDATIONS AND C ONCLUSIONS • 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, collection methods, 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$25 billion 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 760,000 tonnes. By 2025, this rate will be increased to about 1.8 million 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. • 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. • Generally, solid waste planners place too much emphasis on residential waste; this waste represents only about 30 percent 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, based on projected waste generation rates and relative affluence to deal with the problem. • 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 follows life style trends of the US and Canada (as Hong Kong already seems to be doing) versus the 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. The urban areas of Asia now spend about US$25 billion on solid waste management per year; this figure will increase to about US$47 billion in 2025.

45. ANNEX 2 Low Income Countries Components Nepal Bangladesh Myanmar Lao PDR India Sri Lanka China Current Est. 1995 Urban Population 2.9 21.9 12.2 1.1 249.1 4.1 363.7 655 1,525.70 (in millions) Year 1994 1992 1993 1998 1995 1993-94 1991-95 2025 Type of Waste MSW Dom Dom, Com Dom, IC&I MSW Dom, Com Dom, Com, MSW MSW Compostables 80 84.37 80 54.3 41.8 76.4 35.8 41.0 60 Paper 7 5.68 4 3.3 5.7 10.6 3.7 4.6 15 Plastic 2.5 1.74 2 7.8 3.9 5.7 3.8 3.8 6 Glass 3 3.19 0 8.5 2.1 1.3 2 2.1 3 Metal 0.5 3.19 0 3.8 1.9 1.3 0.3 1.0 4 Others 7 1.83 14 22.5 44.6 4.7 54.3 47.5 12 Middle Income Countries Components Indonesia Philippines Thailand Malaysia Current Est. 2025 1995 Urban Population 68.4 37.2 11.6 10.8 128 296.7 Year 1993 1995 1995-96 1990 2025 Type of Waste MSW n/i n/i n/i MSW Compostables 70.2 41.6 48.6 43.2 57.5 50 Paper 10.9 19.5 14.6 23.7 14.9 20 Plastic 8.7 13.8 13.9 11.2 10.9 9 Glass 1.7 2.5 5.1 3.2 2.4 3 Metal 1.8 4.8 3.6 4.2 3.1 5 Others 6.2 17.9 14.2 14.5 11.1 13 Indonesia based on Jakarta, Bandung, and Surabaya. Philippines based on Metro Manila, Batangas, Olongapo, and Baguio. Thailand based on Bangkok, and the Municipalities of Chonburi, Rayong, Songkhla, and Chiangmai. High Income Countries Components Singapore Japan Hong Kong Current Est. 2025 1995 Urban Population 3 97.2 5.9 106.1 112.3 Year 1990 1993 1995 2025 Type of Waste MSW n/i Dom MSW Compostables 44.4 26 37.2 27.8 33 Paper 28.3 46 21.6 36.0 34 Plastic 11.8 9 15.7 9.4 10 Glass 4.1 7 3.9 6.7 7 Metal 4.8 8 3.9 7.7 5 Others 6.6 12 17.6 12.2 11 Bangladesh based on Dhaka. Myanmar based on Yangon. Nepal based on Kathmandu Valley. Composition of Urban Solid Waste in Asian Countries Lao PDR based on Vientiane and Khanthabouri. China based on Qujing, Guilin, Dalian, Wuhan, Beijing, Huangshi, Xiangfan, and Yichang. India based on 23 metro cities. Sri Lanka based on Colombo, Kandy, and Galle. Hong Kong based on the entire country. Japan based on Metropolitan Tokyo. Singapore based on the entire country. Malaysia based on 11 municipalities. Page 43

35. Page 33 WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA A NNEX 1: S OLID W ASTE D ATA 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: • 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 reliability 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 measures the waste at the source before any recycling, composting, burning, or open dumping takes place. However, 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 removes 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: • compostables (includes food, yard, and wood wastes) • paper • plastic • glass • 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


  • 79 Total Views
  • 59 Website Views
  • 20 Embeded Views


  • 0 Social Shares
  • 0 Dislikes

Share count

  • 0 Facebook
  • 0 Twitter
  • 0 LinkedIn
  • 0 Google+

Embeds 3

  • 3 inswa.org
  • 2 www.inswa.org
  • 5 dev.inswa.org