What A Waste Asia

WhataWaste:
SolidWaste
Management
inAsia
May1999
UrbanDevelopmentSectorUnitEastAsiaandPacificRegion
Copyright 1999 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington,
D.C. 20433, U.S.A.
All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing May 1999
Urban and Local Government Working Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development
community with the least possible delay. The typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures
appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. Some sources cited in this paper may be
informal documents that are not readily available.
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be
attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the
countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no
responsibility for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this
volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or
acceptance of such boundaries.
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Request for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to the Urban
Development Division at the address in the copyright notice above. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will
normally give permission promptly and, when reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Recommendations
1.
2.
and
Introduction
Waste
Conclusions...........................................................................................................1
................................................................................................................................................3
Characterization
2.1
Waste
Generation
2.2
Waste
Composition
2.3
Waste
Trends
.............................................................................................................................4
Rates...................................................................................................................4
..........................................................................................................................6
.....................................................................................................................................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
4.4
Waste
Labelling
exchanges
...............................................................................................................14
.............................................................................................................................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.......................................................................................22References.............................................................................
........................................................................27Waste
Generation
and
Composition
References
.....................................................................................30Annex
1:
Solid
Waste
Data .........................................................................................................................33Annex 2: Waste Generation
Rates.............................................................................................................35
ThispaperwaspreparedbyDanielHoornweg,researchedbyLauraThomasandoverseenbyKeshavVarma(EASUR).
InformationandcommentsweresuppliedbymanyWorldBankandUNDPstaff,particularlyGeorge
N.Plant,L.PanneerSelvam,andRichardW.Pollard,andCarlBartoneoftheTransport,Water,andUrbanDevelopment
Department.MelissaFossberg,GabrielaBoyer,BethRabinowitz,andLauraLewiseditedandpreparedthepaper.
WHAT A WASTE:
SolidWasteManagementinAsia
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Solidwastedataislargelyunreliable.Thisreportcontainsoneofthemostcomprehensivecompilationsofmunicipalsolid
wastedatainAsia;yet,duetoinconsistenciesindatarecording,definitions,collectionmethods,andseasonalvariations,the
datacanonlybeconsideredapproximate,albeitmoreaccuratethanmost.Forplanningpurposes,however,thedata
presentedinthisreportshouldbesufficient.
TheurbanareasofAsianowspendaboutUS$25billiononsolidwastemanagementperyear;thisfigurewillincreasetoat
leastUS$50billionin2025.Todaysdailywastegenerationrateisabout760,000tonnes.By2025,thisratewillbeincreasedto
about1.8milliontonnesperday.
Japanspendsabouttentimesmoreforwastedisposalthancollectioncosts(mostlyincinerationcosts).Totalwaste
managementcostsinlowincomecountriesareusuallymorethan80percentforcollectioncosts.Lowercostlandfillingis
usuallyamorepracticalwastedisposaloptionthanincineration.The
urban areas
Municipalgovernmentsareusuallytheresponsibleagencyforsolidwasteof Asia now spend collectionand
disposal,butthemagnitudeoftheproblemiswellbeyondabout US$25 theabilityofanymunicipalgovernment.
Theyneedhelp.Inadditiontootherlevelsofgovernment,businessesandthegeneralcommunityneedtobillion on
solid bemoreinvolvedinwastemanagement.waste management
Generally,solidwasteplannersplacetoomuchemphasisonresidentialper year; thiswaste;thiswasterepresents
onlyabout30percentoftheoverallmunicipal
figure will
wastestreambutoftenreceivesthelionsshareofattention.
increase to about
ThewastecomponentsrequiringpriorityattentioninAsiaareorganicsand
US$47 billion in
paper.
IndonesiaandthePhilippinesaswellaspartsofChinaandIndiaarethe2025.
Asiancountriesfacingthegreatestwastemanagementchallenge,basedonprojectedwastegenerationratesandrelative
affluencetodealwiththeproblem.
Intermsofwastemanagementtrends,noregionoftheworldfacesagreaterneedtobreaktheinextricablelinkbetweenwaste
generationratesandaffluencethanAsia.Forexample,ifAsiafollowslifestyletrendsoftheUSandCanada(asHongKong
alreadyseemstobedoing)versusthemoretypicalEuropeanurbanresident,theworldwouldneedtosupplyabout500
milliontonnesmoreresourcesin2025.
Asiashouldpursueregionalapproachestomanysolidwastemanagementproblems,e.g.,packagingregulationsand
import/exportrules.
Urbanresidentsgeneratetwotothreetimesmoresolidwastethantheirfellowruralcitizens.
Municipalitiesshouldchargeforwastedisposal,andpossiblycollection,basedongenerationrates.
Industrializedcountriescontain16percentoftheworldspopulationbutuseabout75percentoftheworldspapersupply.
ResidentsofIndia,Indonesia,andChina,forexample,areaspiringtobeasaffluentasmoreindustrializednations.This
wouldrequireadoublingoftheworldscurrentlevelofpaperproduction.
ffd8ffe000104a4649460001020100c800c80000ffe20c584943435f50524f46494c4500010100000c484c696e6f021000006d6e747252474
22058595a2007ce00020009000600310000616373704d5346540000000049454320735247420000000000000000000000000000f6d60001
00000000d32d48502020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00001163707274000001500000003364657363000001840000006c77747074000001f000000014626b707400000204000000147258595a0
0000218000000146758595a0000022c000000146258595a0000024000000014646d6e640000025400000070646d6464000002c40000008
8767565640000034c0000008676696577000003d4000000246c756d69000003f8000000146d6561730000040c0000002474656368000004
300000000c725452430000043c0000080c675452430000043c0000080c625452430000043c0000080c7465787400000000436f7079726967
6874202863292031393938204865776c6574742d5061636b61726420436f6d70616e790000646573630000000000000012735247422049
454336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000012735247422049454336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000
1. Introduction: Solid Waste Management in Asia

AsurbanizationandeconomicdevelopmentincreasesinAsia,nowhereistheimpactmoreobvious
thaninsocietysdetritus,orsolidwaste.Today,theurbanareasofAsiaproduceabout760,000tonnes
ofmunicipalsolidwaste(MSW)perday,orapproximately2.7millionm 3 perday.In2025,thisfigurewill
increaseto1.8milliontonnesofwasteperday,or5.2millionm 3perday.Theseestimatesareconservative;therealvaluesare
probablymorethandoublethisamount.
LocalgovernmentsinAsiacurrentlyspendaboutUS$25billionperyearonurbansolidwastemanagement.Thisamount
isusedtocollectmorethan90percentofthewasteinhighincomecountries,between50to80percentinmiddleincome
countries,andonly30to60percentinlowincomecountries.In2025,Asiangovernmentsshouldanticipatespendingatleast
doublethisamount(in1998USdollars)onsolidwastemanagementactivities.
Tocarryoutintegratedsolidwastemanagement,localgovernmentsneedpartners.Nationalgovernments
mustreducetheexternalitiesofwastebyconsideringmeasuressuchasfullcostaccounting,packagedeposits,
manufacturerresponsibility,andextendedproductcare.Thegeneralcommunity,whichisprobablythemost
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
containersinabeneficialway,andexercisingenvironmentallyfriendlypurchasinghabits.
Thispaperreviewsthebroadtrends relatedtosolidwastemanagementinAsia1.Thebigpictureprojectsregional
urbanMSWquantitiesandcompositionsin2025.Theforcesofthesetrendsareanalyzed,andpreliminarysuggestionsfor
reducingtheimpactofthesetrendsareprovided.Thepaperalsobrieflydiscussespossiblepoliciesandbudgetrequirements
fordealingwiththisburgeoningwastestream.
Thispapercontainsoneofthemostcomprehensivecollectionsofsolidwastegenerationdata.Incompilingthesedata,
theauthorsidentifiedshortcomingswithterminologyusedandsamplingmethodsandbuiltinproblemswithconsistency.
InAnnex1,recommendationsaremadetohelpovercometheselimitationsandforimprovingsolidwastedatacollectionand
presentation.Annex2presentswastegenerationratesforselectedAsiancities.
Itisbeyondthescopeofthispapertoventureintothedebateonthelimitstogrowthvisavisresourceconsumptionor
thenegativeenvironmentalimpactsthatwilloccurfromwastesgeneratedbyanincreasinglyconsumeristiconebillionurban
Asians.Thefearabouttheseeffects,however,iswarranted,particularlysincenearly95percentofenvironmentaldamage
occursbeforeaproductisdiscardedas
1AsiainthisreportislimitedtoChina,Japan,HongKong,RepublicofKorea,Mongolia,Indonesia,LaoPDR,Malaysia,Myanmar,Philippines,Singapore,
Thailand,Vietnam,Bangladesh,India,Nepal,andSriLanka.
WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA
solidwaste.Thispaperdiscussestheconcernaboutenvironmentaleffectsassociatedwithsolidwastemanagementaswell
astheescalatingcoststhatsolidwastemanagementconsumesfromlocalgovernmentbudgetsandhowtohandlethese
increases.
Thispaperfocusesonwastemanagementonlyasitpertainstourbanenvironments,basedon(1)projectionsthatin2025
about52percentofAsiaspopulationwillresideinurbanareas,and(2)evidencethaturbanresidentsgenerateatleasttwo
timesmorewastepercapitathantheirruralcounterparts.Althoughurbanwastemanagementdatamaybeinconsistentand
unreliable,ruralsolidwastemanagementdataarevirtuallynonexistentandarederivedonlyfromassumptionsregarding
purchasinghabits.Giventhesefactors,itisclearthatsolidwastemanagementeffortsmusttargetpriorityurbanareas.
Thispaperdoesnotreviewwherethewastegoes. Afollowupstudythatreviewscompostingrates(existingand
potential),recycling(existingprograms,potentialmarkets),numberandworkingconditionsofwastepickers,wouldbea
valuablecontributiontomunicipalwastemanagementplanning.
2. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Solidwastestreamsshouldbecharacterizedbytheirsources,bythetypesofwastesproduced,aswellasbygeneration
ratesandcomposition.Accurateinformationinthesethreeareasisnecessaryinordertomonitorandcontrolexistingwaste
managementsystemsandtomakeregulatory,financial,andinstitutionaldecisions.
Annex 1 discusses in detail reliability issues and compositions of waste data. Better consistency in definition and
methodologyisneeded.AlthoughthispapercontainsoneofthemostcomprehensivecompilationsofMSWdataforAsia,
readersmustexercisecautionininterpretatingthedata.Severeunderrecordingofwastequantitiesistypical,andtotalwaste
generationisusuallymuchhigherthanthatreportedbygovernmentagencies.
OneimportantobservationshowninAnnex1isthatapartfromlocalizedanomalies,suchastheuseofcoalforcooking
andheating,urbanwastegenerationratesaregenerallyconsistentvisavislocaleconomicactivityandresidentialwealth.
Becausewastecharacterizationstudiesarerelativelyexpensivetoconduct,thegeneralrulesofthumbprovidedinthis
papershouldprovidesufficientdirectionforthepurposesofwastemanagementplanning.
Inthecontextofthispaper,wasteisdefinedasanyunwantedmaterialintentionallythrownawayfordisposal.However,
certainwastesmayeventuallybecomeresourcesvaluable toothersoncetheyareremovedfromthewastestream.This
definitionofwastemaydiffersomewhatfromdefinitionsusedbyotherinternationaldatasources.
Knowledgeofthesourcesandtypesofwasteinanareaisrequiredinordertodesignandoperateappropriatesolidwaste
managementsystems.(SeeFigure1.)Thereareeightmajorclassificationsofsolidwastegenerators:residential,industrial,
commercial,institutional,constructionanddemolition,municipalservices,process,andagricultural.
MSWincludeswastesgeneratedfromresidential,commercial,industrial,institutional,construction,demolition,process,
and municipal services. However, this definition varies greatly among waste studies, and some sources are commonly
excluded,suchasindustrial,constructionanddemolition,andmunicipalservices.Oftenonlyresidentialwasteisreferredto
asMSW,andinhighincomecountries,only25percentto35percentoftheoverallwastestreamisfromresidentialsources 2.
Itisimportanttodefinethecompositionofthemunicipalwastestreaminaclearandconsistentfashion.Forexample,ifthis
municipalwastestreamincludesconstructionanddemolitionwaste,thequantityofwasteisdoubled.Fartoooften,
2
PersonalCommunication:RegionofVancouver,25percentresidential(LindaShore);Copenhagen,30percentresidential(HelmerOlsen);Toronto,35
percentresidential(excludingconstructionanddemolitionTimMichael);Osaka,37percentresidential(excludingindustrialwasteMr.Sawachi).
wastemanagementdecisionsarebaseddisproportionatelyonresidentialwaste,whichaccountsforanincreasinglysmall
fractionofthewastestreamasanareaindustrializes.
2.1 WASTE GENERATION RATES

Wastegenerationratesareaffectedbysocioeconomicdevelopment,degreeofindustrialization,andclimate.Generally,
thegreatertheeconomicprosperityandthehigherpercentageofurbanpopulation,thegreatertheamountofsolidwaste
produced.Figure2givesurbanMSWgenerationrates,asaweightedaverageofthewastedataavailablefromvariouscities.
WastegenerationratesforvariousAsiancitiesareinAnnex2.
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
Figure 2: Waste Composition of Low, Middle, and High Income Countries
Current Waste Quantities and Composition 2025 Waste Quantities and Composition
High Income Countries: Current High Income Countries: Year
2025 Total waste = 85,000,000 tonnes per year Total
waste=86,000,000 tonnes per year Others Metal
ffd8ffe000104a4649460001020100c800c80000ffe20c584943435f50524f
46494c4500010100000c484c696e6f021000006d6e74725247422058595
a2007ce00020009000600310000616373704d534654000000004945432
0735247420000000000000000000000000000f6d6000100000000d32d4
8502020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000116370727400000
1500000003364657363000001840000006c77747074000001f00000001
4626b707400000204000000147258595a00000218000000146758595a0
000022c000000146258595a0000024000000014646d6e6400000254000
00070646d6464000002c400000088767565640000034c0000008676696
577000003d4000000246c756d69000003f8000000146d6561730000040c
0000002474656368000004300000000c725452430000043c0000080c67
5452430000043c0000080c625452430000043c0000080c746578740000
0000436f70797269676874202863292031393938204865776c6574742d
5061636b61726420436f6d70616e790000646573630000000000000012
735247422049454336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000012
735247422049454336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000011%
Others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%5%
OrganicMetalOrganicGlass
33%8%28%7%
Glass
7%
Plastic
10%
Plastic
9%
PaperPaper36%34%
MiddleIncomeCountries:CurrentMiddleIncomeCountries:Year2025Totalwaste=34,000,000tonnesperyearTotal
waste=111,000,000tonnesperyear
Others
Others
5247422058595a2007ce00020009000600310000616373704d5346540000000049454320735247420000000000000000000000000
000f6d6000100000000d32d485020200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000001163707274000001500000003364657363000001840000006c77747074000001f000000014626b707400
000204000000147258595a00000218000000146758595a0000022c000000146258595a0000024000000014646d6e6400000254000
00070646d6464000002c400000088767565640000034c0000008676696577000003d4000000246c756d69000003f8000000146d65
61730000040c0000002474656368000004300000000c725452430000043c0000080c675452430000043c0000080c6254524300000
43c0000080c7465787400000000436f70797269676874202863292031393938204865776c6574742d5061636b61726420436f6d70
616e790000646573630000000000000012735247422049454336313936362d322e310000000000000000000000127352474220494
13%
54336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Metal
11%
Metal
ffd8ffe000104a4649460001020100c800c80000ffe20c584943435f50524f46494c4500010100000c484c696e6f021
000006d6e74725247422058595a2007ce00020009000600310000616373704d53465400000000494543207352474
20000000000000000000000000000f6d6000100000000d32d4850202000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000116370727400000150000000336465736
3000001840000006c77747074000001f000000014626b707400000204000000147258595a0000021800000014675
8595a0000022c000000146258595a0000024000000014646d6e640000025400000070646d6464000002c40000008
8767565640000034c0000008676696577000003d4000000246c756d69000003f8000000146d6561730000040c000
0002474656368000004300000000c725452430000043c0000080c675452430000043c0000080c625452430000043c
0000080c7465787400000000436f70797269676874202863292031393938204865776c6574742d5061636b617264
20436f6d70616e790000646573630000000000000012735247422049454336313936362d322e3100000000000000
0000000012735247422049454336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000005%
3%
Glass
Glass
3%
2%
Organic
Organic
Plastic
Plastic
58%
50%
11%
9%
Paper
15%
Paper
20%
LowIncomeCountries:Year
2025LowIncomeCountries:CurrentTotalwaste=480,000,000tonnesper
yearTotalwaste=158,000,000tonnesperyearOthers12%
000006d6e74725247422058595a2007ce00020009000600310000616373704d53465400000000494543207352474
20000000000000000000000000000f6d6000100000000d32d4850202000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000116370727400000150000000336465736
3000001840000006c77747074000001f000000014626b707400000204000000147258595a0000021800000014675
8595a0000022c000000146258595a0000024000000014646d6e640000025400000070646d6464000002c40000008
8767565640000034c0000008676696577000003d4000000246c756d69000003f8000000146d6561730000040c000
0002474656368000004300000000c725452430000043c0000080c675452430000043c0000080c625452430000043c
0000080c7465787400000000436f70797269676874202863292031393938204865776c6574742d5061636b617264
20436f6d70616e790000646573630000000000000012735247422049454336313936362d322e3100000000000000
0000000012735247422049454336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000Metal4%
Others
Organic
Glass
47%
41%3%
Plastic6%
Paper
5%
MetalGlassPlastic1%
ffd8ffe000104a464946
0001020100c800c80000f
fe20c584943435f50524f
46494c4500010100000c
484c696e6f021000006d
6e74725247422058595a
2007ce00020009000600
310000616373704d5346
54000000004945432073
52474200000000000000
00000000000000f6d600
0100000000d32d485020
20000000000000000000
00000000000000000000
00000000000000000000
00000000000000000000
00000000000000001163
70727400000150000000
33646573630000018400
00006c77747074000001f
000000014626b7074000
00204000000147258595
a0000021800000014675
8595a0000022c0000001
46258595a00000240000
00014646d6e640000025
400000070646d6464000
002c4000000887675656
40000034c00000086766
96577000003d40000002
46c756d69000003f8000
000146d6561730000040
c0000002474656368000
004300000000c7254524
30000043c0000080c675
452430000043c0000080
c625452430000043c000
0080c746578740000000
0436f707972696768742
02863292031393938204
865776c6574742d50616
36b61726420436f6d706
16e79000064657363000
00000000000127352474
22049454336313936362
d322e310000000000000
00000000012735247422
049454336313936362d3
22e31000000000000000
00000000000000000000
0000000000000000000
Organic
2%4%60%
Paper15%
Note:Approximatescaleonly.
Lowincomecountrieshavethelowestpercentageof
urbanpopulationsandthelowestwastegenerationrates,
rangingbetween
1to0.9kgpercapitaperday.AllofthecountriesthathaveaGNPpercapitalessthanUS$400produceunder0.7kgper
capitaperday.AsGNPincreasestowardthemiddleincomerange,thepercapitawastegenerationratesalsoincrease,
rangingfrom0.5to1.1kgperday.Aspredicted,thehighincomecountriesshowthegreatestgenerationrates,whichvary
from
2to5.07kgpercapitaperday.HongKonggeneratesenormousquantitiesofconstructionanddemolitionwaste,which
explainstheirexceptionallyhighpercapitaMSWgenerationrateincomparisontoothercountries.HongKongswaste
generationratebetterreflectsthetruequantitiesofwasteproducedbyallactivitieswithinthemunicipalitythansomeofthe
othercountries.AlthoughSingaporeandJapanreportsignificantlylowergenerationratesthanotherhighandmiddle
incomecountries,thefiguresforthesecountriesdonotrepresentallmunicipalsolidwastes.TheSingaporegenerationrate
considersonlyresidentialwastes,whereastheJapanesedataincludeonlywastesproducedfromhouseholdsandgeneral
wastesfrombusinessactivities.Forbothcountries,totalwastequantitieswouldbemuchhigherifindustrial,commercial,
institutional,constructionanddemolition,andmunicipalserviceswasteswerealsoincluded.Comparinggenerationratesfor
variouscountriesisproblematic.AsdemonstratedbyHongKong,Singapore,andJapan,globalinconsistenciesintheway
municipalsolidwasteisdefinedandquantifiedcanleadtosignificantdifferencesamongtheofficialwastegeneration
rates.Asmentionedpreviously,verylittleinformationaboutruralwastegenerationratesinAsiancountriesisavailable;
however,onecanassumethatruralpopulationswillgeneratelesswastebecausetheseareashavelowerpercapitaincomes.
Urbanizationandrisingincomes,whichleadtomoreuseofresourcesandthereforemorewaste,arethetwomostimportant
trendsthatfactorintorisingwastegeneration
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
2
WorldBank,1997bSeeFigure7forcomparisonto2025.
UnitedNations,1995*estimatedGNP
rates.Figure4exemplifiesthistrend.IndividualslivinginIndianurbanareasusenearlytwiceasmanyresourcespercapita
thanthoselivinginaruralsetting.Becausetheyconsumeandgeneratemoresolid
waste,theIndianurbanpopulationisexpectedtoproducefarmorewastepercapitathanitsruralpopulation.Thisdifference
betweenruralandurbanwastegenerationratesalsoexistsinotherAsiancountries,suchasinBangladesh,wheretherural
populationgeneratesonly0.15kgpercapitaperday,whiletheirurbancounterpartsgenerate0.4to0.5kgpercapitaperday
(WorldBank,1998a).
2.2 WASTE COMPOSITION

Wastecompositionisalsoinfluencedbyexternalfactors,suchasgeographicallocation,thepopulationsstandardof
living,energysource,andweather.Figure3presentsthecurrentaverageurbanwastecompositionsforlow,middle,and
highincomeAsiancountries.Thepercentagesarebasedonaweightedaverageofthecompositionsforindividualcountries,
whicharelocatedinAnnex2.Althoughthedefinitionsandmethodologiesfordeterminingcompositionwererarely
discussedinwastestudies,thecompositionsformunicipalsolidwasteareassumedtobebasedonwetweight.
Generally,alllowandmiddleincomecountrieshaveahighpercentageofcompostableorganicmatterintheurbanwaste
stream,rangingfrom40to85percentofthetotal.ChinaandIndiadivergefromthistrendbecausetheytraditionallyusecoal
asahouseholdfuelsource.Theashthatissubsequentlyproducedisverydenseandtendstodominatethewastestreamin
termsofweight.Ashisincludedintheotherscategoryandmakesup45and54percentofIndiaandChinaswaste
composition,respectively.Figure5showsthedegreetowhichthepreferenceofcoalovergasinaChinesecityincreasesthe
percentageofinorganicsinthewastestream.Thisincreaseobviouslyhasconsiderableimplicationsforthesecountriesas
income
Figure 4: Direct and Indirect Per Capita

Consumption in India, 198990,
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
(Parikhetal.,1991.CitedinHammond,1998)
levelsincrease.
Figure2showsthatthecompostablefractioninhighincome countries,whichrangesbetween25and45percent,is
significantly lower thanfor low andmiddle income countries.The percentage ofconsumer packaging wastesincreases
relativetothepopulationsdegreeofwealthandurbanization.Thepresenceofpaper,plastic,glass,andmetalbecomesmore
prevalentinthewastestreamofmiddleandhighincomecountries.
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
(DalianEnvironmentandSanitationDepartment(DESMB),1990.CitedinEcologyand
Environment,Inc.,1993)
2.3 WASTE TRENDS

Wastequantitiesareinextricablylinkedtoeconomicactivityandresourceconsumption.Overthenext25years,poverty
inAsiaisexpectedtocontinuedeclining(despiterecenteconomicperformance).Ifthepaceofcapitalaccumulationand
productivitygrowthcontinues,thenthewagesofunskilledworkersinallcountriesandregionsareexpectedtoincrease
substantially(WorldBank,1997c).Besideseconomicgrowth,Asiancountriesarealsoexperiencingurbangrowthratesof
approximately4percentperyear;atrendthatisexpectedtocontinueforseveraldecades.By2025,theAsianpopulationis
projectedtobeabout52percenturban.Citiesindevelopingcountriesareexperiencingunprecedentedpopulationgrowth
becausetheyprovide,onaverage,greatereconomicandsocialbenefitsthandoruralareas(WorldResourcesInstitute,1996).
Infact,ruraltourbanmigrationisestimatedtoaccountfor40to60percentofannualurbanpopulationgrowthinthe
developingworld(McGeeandGriffiths,1994).
TheeconomicandpopulationgrowthexperiencedbymanyAsiancountriesfollowssimilarmaterialconsumptiontrends
asthosefoundintheUnitedStatesandotherindustrializedcountriesoverthepastcentury.AsshowninFigure22,the
overallconsumptionratesintheUnitedStatesdramaticallyincreasedastheeconomyprospered,despiteperiodswhere
AmericansexperiencedeconomichardshipssuchastheGreatDepressionintheearly1930sandtheenergycrisisofthemid
1970s.
JapanhasexperiencedwastetrendscomparabletotheUnitedStatesoverthepasttwodecades.Wastequantitieswere
risinguntil1970,declinedtemporarilyafterthe1973energycrisis,andthenroseagainslightly.Astheeconomyprosperedin
thelate1980s,wastequantitiesincreasedsharply.However,since1990,generationrateshavestabilizedduetoaneconomic
slowdownandtheimplementationofwastereductionpolicies(JapanWasteManagementAssociation,1996).
Chinaisalsoexperiencingrapidpopulationandeconomicgrowth.Consequently,municipalsolidwasteisincreasingin
excessof10
22058595a2007ce00020009000600310000616373704d5346540000000049454320735247420000000000000000000000000000f6d60001
00000000d32d48502020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00001163707274000001500000003364657363000001840000006c77747074000001f000000014626b707400000204000000147258595a0
0000218000000146758595a0000022c000000146258595a0000024000000014646d6e640000025400000070646d6464000002c40000008
8767565640000034c0000008676696577000003d4000000246c756d69000003f8000000146d6561730000040c0000002474656368000004
300000000c725452430000043c0000080c675452430000043c0000080c625452430000043c0000080c7465787400000000436f7079726967
6874202863292031393938204865776c6574742d5061636b61726420436f6d70616e790000646573630000000000000012735247422049
454336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000012735247422049454336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000
percentperyear.WuhanCity,thecapitalofHubei
province,withapopulationofmorethan6.8million,
hasanextensiveindustrialbasecomprisedof
metallurgicalindustries,manufacturing,textiles,
transportmanufacturing,oilprocessing,
pharmaceuticals,electricalequipment,construction
materials,andfoodindustries.Accordingtothe
EnvironmentalProtectionDepartmentforWuhanCity,
MSWquantitieshaveincreasedfrom1.19million
tonnesin1985to1.50milliontonnesin1993(Weietal,
1997).Notonlyarethequantitiesofwasteincreasing
commensuratewiththegrowingeconomyand
expandingpopulation;thecompositionisalsoshifting
towardsplasticandpaperpackaging(seeFigure21),a
reflectionofimprovedlivingstandards.
Historicalwastegenerationpatternsofbothdevelopedanddevelopingcountries,economictrends,andpopulation
predictions,andpercapitamunicipalsolidwastegenerationratesandcompositionsareestimatedforAsiancountriesin
2025.(SeeFigure7.)Theseestimatesareconservative,buttheydemonstratethatmostAsiancountries,particularlythelow
andmiddleincomecountries,willhavetodealwithenormousquantitiesofurbanwastewithachangingcompositioninthe
yearstocome.Figure2comparesandcontraststheurbanwastecompositionandthetotalamountofwastegeneratedbythe
currentandfuturepopulationsforthesesamecountries.
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
UnitedNations,1995SeeFigure3tocomparetocurrentrates.
Theurbanpercapitawastegenerationrateformostofthelowincomecountrieswillincreasebyapproximately0.2kgper
daybecausethesecountrieshaverelativelyhighannualGNPgrowthratesandurbanpopulationgrowthrates.AsChina,
India,andMongoliabecomemoreprosperousandmoveawayfromcoalasthetraditionalfuel,theashcompositionwill
greatlydecreaseandthepercentageofcompostableorganicmatterwillincreaseslightly.Packagingwastes,suchaspaper,
plastic,andglass,willbecomemorepredominantinthewastestreamastheeconomiesincreaseandthepopulationbecomes
moreurbanized.
Bycontrast,themiddleincomecountriesshouldanticipateapercapitaincreaseofabout0.3kgperdaysincetheir
economiesarepredictedtogrowatthehighestratesandwillexperiencesignificantpopulationgrowthintheurbansector.
IndonesiaandthePhilippineswillbeproducingsignificantquantitiesofwaste,whichwillrequiremanagementwithastill
relativelysmallpercapitaGNP.AlthoughThailandandMalaysiawillhavethehighestpercapitawasteproductionrates,
theyshouldhavestrongereconomiesandmoreresourcestobeginimplementingintegratedsolidwastemanagementplans.
Overall,thewastecompositionispredictedtobecomeevenmorevariableasthepercentageofcompostablematterdeclines,
andpackagingwastes,especiallypaperandplastic,increase.
22058595a2007ce00020009000600310000616373704d5346540000000049454320735247420000000000000000000000000000f6d60001
00000000d32d48502020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00001163707274000001500000003364657363000001840000006c77747074000001f000000014626b707400000204000000147258595a0
0000218000000146758595a0000022c000000146258595a0000024000000014646d6e640000025400000070646d6464000002c40000008
8767565640000034c0000008676696577000003d4000000246c756d69000003f8000000146d6561730000040c0000002474656368000004
300000000c725452430000043c0000080c675452430000043c0000080c625452430000043c0000080c7465787400000000436f7079726967
6874202863292031393938204865776c6574742d5061636b61726420436f6d70616e790000646573630000000000000012735247422049
454336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000012735247422049454336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000
Asawhole,urbanpopulationsfromlowandmiddleincomecountrieswilltripletheircurrentrateof
municipalsolidwastegenerationoverthenext25years.Nepal,Bangladesh,Myanmar,Vietnam,Lao
PDR,andIndiacaneachexpecttheirurbanwastequantitiestoincreasebyaboutfourtosixtimesthe
currentamount.By2025,thelowincomecountrieswillgeneratemorethantwiceasmuchmunicipal
wastethanallofthemiddleandhighincomecountriescombinedapproximately480milliontonnesof
wasteperyear.Suchadramaticincreasewillplaceenormousstressonlimitedfinancialresourcesand
inadequatewastemanagementsystems.
Thepercapitamunicipalsolidwastegenerationrateinhighincomecountriesisexpectedtoremain
stableorevendecreaseslightlyduetothestrengtheningofwasteminimizationprograms.Thetotal
amountofwastegeneratedin2025willincreasebyarelativelysmallamountabout1milliontonnes
perdaycomparedtothecurrentwastequantities.ConstructionactivityinHongKongisexpectedto
continue.Noimmediateproposalsareunderwayregardinghowtoreduceconstructionanddemolition
wastes. Thus, wastes from this sector will remain high and keep contributing significantly to the
municipalwastegenerationrate.SingaporeandJapanbothhavethelowestwastegenerationratesofall
thehighincomecountriesandevensomeofthemiddleincomecountries.However,theirratesmay
reflectdefinitioninconsistenciesratherthanwasteminimizationpractices.Althoughthesetwocountries
haveimplementedintegratedsolidwastemanagementplans,itisunlikelythattheywillsignificantly
reduce their waste quantities below current levels. The overall MSW composition for high income
countriesispredictedtoberelativelystable;onlyaslightdecreaseisexpectedinmetalandglasswastes
andincreasesshouldoccurinplastic,paperandcompostablewastes.
A different trend emerges when comparing waste amounts in terms of volume. Figure 8 shows
averagewastedensitiesof500kg/m3,300kg/m3,and150kg/m3wereusedtocalculatethevolumeof
wastegeneratedforlow,medium,andhighincomecountries,respectively. Whereasthelowincome
countries
currentlyproducethehighestquantityofwasteonamassbasis,thehighincomecountriesgeneratethe
mostwasteonavolumetricbasis.Thisincreaseinvolumeisaresultofpaper,plastics,bulkywastes,andothermulti
materialpackagingprevalentinthewastestreamsofwealthierandmoreurbanizedcountries.Lowandmiddleincome
countrieshavealargerpercentageofhighdensityorganicmatterandashresiduesintheirwastestreamswhichweighmore,
butdonottakeupasmuchspace,asdiscardedpackagingmaterialsandhouseholdgoods.
In2025,thehighincomecountriesareexpectedtogenerateaboutthesamequantityofwastes,intermsofbothmassand
volume.Lowincomecountrieswillbethelargestgeneratorofwastesonamassbasis,andwillalsosurpassthetotalvolume
ofwasteproducedbythehighincomecountries.Theincreasingpercentageofplasticandpapermaterialsinthewaste
stream will contribute to the growing waste volume. Inthe next 25 years, both lowand middle income countries will
experience about a threefold increase in their overall waste quantities and volumes, while South Korea, Hong Kong,
Singapore,andJapanwillstayrelativelyconstant.
ThereislittledoubtthatthelowandmiddleincomecountriesofAsiaarefollowingadevelopmentpathsimilartothe
UnitedStates.(SeeFigure2.)CompoundingthisisthefactthatmuchofAsiasurbangrowthisoccurringinverylargecities,
whichexacerbateswastedisposalandcollectionproblems.
3.0 CONSUMER SOCIETIES

Industrializedcountriescompriseonly16percentoftheworldspopulation,buttheycurrentlyconsumeapproximately
75percentofglobalpaperproduction.AsshowninFigure9,India,Indonesia,andChinaarethreeoftheworldsfourmost
populouscountriesandamongthelowestconsumersofpaperpercapita.However,astheirGNPandurbanpopulations
grow,theirpaperconsumptionandrelatedpackagingwasteswillalsoincrease.Iftheyfollowindustrializedcountries,their
paperrequirementswillbeenormous.
Figure 9: Global Paper Consumption Rates (1995)
Country Per capita

Paper Consumption1
(kg/year)
Per capita
GNP2
(1995 US $)
USA 313
Japan 225
26,980
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
Djuweng,1997
WorldBank,1997b
According to a 1992 study by the Indonesian Environmental Forum (Djuweng, 1997), Indonesian per capita paper
consumptionroseby11.2percentbetween1981and1989.Tomeetlocalandinternationalmarketdemandsandtofulfillits
intentionofbecomingtheworldslargestpulpandpaperproducer,Indonesiaisplanningtoproduce13.2milliontonnesof
pulpand32.7milliontonnesofpaperannuallyby2000.
Ascountriesbecomericherandmoreurbanized,theirwastecompositionchanges. Thesubstantialincreaseinuseof
paper and paper packaging is probably the most obvious change. The next most significant change is a much higher
proportionofplastics,multimaterialitems,andconsumerproductsandtheirrelatedpackagingmaterials.
Morenewspapersandmagazines(alongwithcorrespondingincreasesinadvertising),fastservicerestaurants,single
serving beverages, disposable diapers, more packaged foods, and more mass produced products are all byproducts of
widespreadincreasesinlocaldisposableincomes.Anegativesideofgreateraffluenceisthatitbringswithitmorewaste,
ofhighervolume(makingwastemoreexpensivetocollect).Often,increaseduseofplasticwasteandfoodpackagingresults
inarelatedriseintheamountoflitter.
TherateofchangeinMSWquantitiesandcompositioninAsiaisunprecedented.Aslifestylesrapidlychange,therelated
conveniencesandproductsmobilephones,electronics,polyvinylchlorideplastic(PVC)plastic,disposablediaperspose
special waste disposal challenges. Even more problematic is the fact that in most low and middle income countries,
developmentofwastemanagementsystemswoefullylagsbehindtherealitiesofaquicklychangingwastestream.
Inaddition,newlymobilizedconsumersandtheirmarketsavvysuppliersrarelyconsiderthepotentialwaste
managementproblemsthatgohandinhandwithchanginglifestyles.TheCocaColaCompanyisonetellingexampleofhow
amultinationalcompanymayendeavortoincreaseitsmarketshareinthiscaseinChina,India,andIndonesia.(SeeFigure
10).Inits1996AnnualReport,CocaColareportedtoshareholdersthattwoofitsfourkeyobjectivesweretoincreasevolume
andexpanditsshareofbeveragesalesworldwideby...investingaggressivelytoensureourproductsarepervasive,
preferred.
Inanotherpartofthereport,thePresidentofthecompanywasquotedassayingWhenIthinkofIndonesiaacountry
ontheEquatorwith180millionpeople,amedianageof18,andaMoslembanonalcoholIfeelIknowwhatHeavenlooks
like(BarnetandCavanagh,1994).IfthepercapitaconsumptionofCocaColagoesupbyjustoneservingayearinChina,
India,andIndonesia,2.4billioncontainerswouldbeaddedtothewastestream.
McDonaldsCorporationhasasimilarexpansiongoal:
ThesunneversetsonMcDonalds,whetherwereservingcustomersintheworldsgreatmetropolitancentersornear
thepicturesquericefieldscarvedintothelandscapeoftheIndonesiaislandofBali,McDonaldsisathomeeverywhere.
(McDonalds Corporation, 1997 Annual Report). In fact, McDonalds is actively expanding in Asia, and the company
announcedplanstotripleitspresenceinChinaoverthenextthreeyears.(SeeFigure11.)
Figure 10: 1996 Per Capita CocaCola Consumption and Market

Populations
Market Population Per capita
(millions) consumption*
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
*8ounceservingsofCompanybeveragesperpersonper
year(excludesproductsdistributedbyTheMinuteMaid
Company)(CocaColaCompany,1997)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4.0 BUSINESS INVOLVEMENT IN WASTE MANAGEMENT
4.1 INCREASED PARTNERSHIPS
McDonaldsandCocaColawerementionedpreviouslyasexamplesofcompaniesthatrepresenttheoverallshifttoward
aconsumersociety.Inpursuitofexpansion,multinationalcorporations,withglobalmarketingprograms,undoubtedly
changeandincreasetheoverallwastestream.Onthepositiveside,manyofthelargermultinationalcorporationssuchas
McDonalds,CocaCola,andUnileveroftenhaveprogressiveprogramsthataddresstheirspecific,aswellastheoverall,
wastestream.
Bycontrast,however,localnationalfirms(e.g.,bottledwatervendorsinIndonesia)areoftenevenmoreprolificwaste
generatorsthantheirinternationalcounterparts.However,thelargermultinationalcompanies,withtheirglobalexpertise,
canalsobecomepowerfulalliestolocalgovernmentsinthefightagainstwaste.CEMPRE,whichoriginallystartedinBrazil,
isagoodexampleofthistypeofcollaborativepartnership.(SeeFigure12.)
Moreandmore,governmentsarerealizingthattheycannothandlewastemanagementalone.Torespondtothecall,
many progressive companies are working as equal partners with governments in developing comprehensive waste
managementprograms.
4.2 EXTENDED PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY

Extendedproductresponsibility(EPR)isavoluntarymeasure,whichplacestheonusuponthemanufacturertoreduce
theenvironmentalimpactsoftheirproductateachstageoftheproductslifecyclethatisfromthetimetherawmaterials
areextracted,producedanddistributed,throughtheenduseandfinaldisposalphases.EPRdoesnotconsideronlythe
manufacturersaccountableforenvironmentalimpacts;thisresponsibilityisextendedtoallthoseinvolvedintheproduct
chain,frommanufacturers,suppliers,retailers,consumers,anddisposersofproducts.
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 component of integrated waste management. Established in 1992, CEMPREs members include a
wide range of local and international companies, i.e., Brahma, 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 aspects of, waste collection and recycling; and a
database on packaging and the environment (ECODATA). CEMPREs programs are directed principally at
mayors, directors of companies, academics, and non-governmental organizations. Active members have also
promoted, and been granted, ISO 14001 certification, the international environmental certification system; and
the Center for Packaging Technology works in partnership with the government and the private sector to
improve packaging systems.
CEMPREs involvement has extended beyond Brazil. Recently, the Latin American Federation of Business
Associations for the Promotion of Inte-grated Solid Waste Management was created to exchange information
among its members. The Association for the Defense of the Environment and Nature (ADAN) in Venezuela,
CEMPRE/Brazil, CEMPRE/Uruguay, the Industry and Commerce Pro-Recycling Organization (ICPRO) in Puerto
Rico, and Sustenta in Mexico, have formed a partnership.
Homepage: www.cempre.org.br
In the last few years, the governments of Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden have each begun to develop
comprehensive frameworks for EPR. In Germany,the Ecocycle Waste Act of 1994sets general environmental goals for
manufacturers. Itprovidesguidelinesforgoodsthatarelonglivedaswellasthosethatcanbereused:regardingtheir
reusabilityandrecyclability;forusingsecondarymaterialsinproduction;forindicatingwhenproductscontainhazardous
materials;andforreturningproductstosuppliersattheendoftheirusefullives.TheDutchgovernmentimplementedanew
policy that requires distribution of life cycle assessment information at each stage for manufactured products. In 1994,
Swedendesignedanewlawtopromotemoreefficientuseofresourcesintheproduction,recovery,andreuseofwaste.The
SwedishMinistryoftheEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesissuedordinancesrequiringincreasedreturnandrecyclingof
consumer packaging, scrap paper, old automobiles, and used tires. In addition, Swedish battery manufacturers have
voluntarilyagreedtodeveloparecyclingprogramfornickelcadmiumbatteries(Davisetal.,1997).
4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL LABELING

Environmental labeling of consumer products has helped raise environmental consciousness and momentum
throughoutOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)countries.Underenvironmentallabeling
programs,businessesvoluntarilylabeltheirproductstoinformconsumersandpromoteproductsdeterminedtobemore
environmentally friendly than other functionally and competitively similar products. Environmental labeling can help
achieveanumberofgoals,includingimprovingthesalesorimageofalabeledproduct;raisingconsumersenvironmental
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
programshavebeenestablishedinnumerousOECDcountries:Germany,Canada,Japan,Norway,Sweden,Finland,Austria,
Portugal,andFrance(OECD,1991).
Inpractice,however,theoperationoflabelingprogramsismoredifficultthaninitiallyanticipated.Problemsincludethe
difficultyinassessingtheentirelifecycleoftheproductinacomprehensiveway;becomingselffinanced;orestablishing
productcategories.Despitethesedifficulties,labelingofconsumer
productshasgrownamongcountriesandmaypotentiallyserveasaneffectivetoolforenvironmentalprotection.Todate,no
studiesquantifytheeffectofenvironmentallabelsonproductsalesorthesubsequentenvironmentalimpact.However,a
qualitativestudyoftheGermanlabelingprogramconductedbyEnvironmentalDataServices,Inc.,in1988concludedthat
theenvironmentallabelfosteredenvironmentalawarenessamongconsumers,expandedconsumerschoiceof
environmentallyfriendlierproducts,stimulatedthedevelopmentofproductswithlesserenvironmentalimpact,andthus
reducedwaste,pollution,anddomesticwastequantities(OECD,1991).
4.4 WASTE EXCHANGES

Wasteexchangesprovideanotherpracticalwayforbusinessesandindustriestodivertwastefromdisposaltoabeneficial
use.Morethan50wasteexchangesexistinmajorcentersacrossNorthAmericasuchasNewYork,Chicago,andToronto
andinmostcasesareprovidedasafreeservicetoindustries.Wastelistsarepublishedthreetofourtimesayear,someare
updatedmonthly,andmostexchangeshavewebsitesontheInternetwithlinkstootherexchanges.Throughwaste
exchanges,companiessavethousandsofdollarsinavoideddisposalcostsorinobtainingrawmaterialsatreducedprices.
AccordingtoDr.BobLaughlin,formerdirectoroftheoldestwasteexchangeinNorthAmerica,theCanadianWaste
MaterialsExchange,materialslistedontheexchangehavea20percentchanceofbecomingdivertedforusefulpurposes.Itis
alsoclearthatInternetexposureishelpingtoincreasetheexchangerates(Buggeln,1998).
WasteexchangesandindustryresponsetoprojectedwastequantitiessuggestthatEastAsiancountriesmaybenefitfrom
workingcooperativelyinestablishingsecondarymaterialsmarketsandfrominstitutingconsistentproductandpackaging
designstandards.
4.5 PULP AND PAPER

Perhapsthenextmostimportantareaforstrengthenedpartnershipsbetweenbusinessandgovernmentisinthepulpand
paperindustry.BusinessesareundoubtedlyawareofthehugepotentialAsianmarket.Thepulpandpaperindustryshould
notbeexpectedtoreducethegrowthoftheirproductsvoluntarily;indeed,theseindustrieshaveanaturaldesiretoexpand
theirmarkets.Tomeettheneedsofbusiness,Asiangovernmentsshouldaimforjudicioususeoflegislationandmarket
reformstoreduceresourceconsumptionandwastegenerationrates,withoutimpingingoneconomicgrowth.Paperisa
goodplacetostart.
CountriessuchasChina,Indonesia,andthePhilippinesarewellpositionedtoadoptmoreprogressivetaxmeasures
becausetheirgovernmentrevenuebasesarestillrelativelynew.Forexample,intheUnitedStates,(acountrythathasa
moreestablishedtaxregimethatismoredifficulttomodify),everytaxdollarthatisshiftedfromincomeandinvestmentand
placedtowardresourceuseandpollutiongenerationenablestheeconomytogainanadditional45to80centsbeyondthe
revenuereplacedintheformofadditionalworkandinvestmentandinenvironmentaldamageaverted(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
(AndersonandSmith,1997)
000006d6e74725247422058595a2007ce00020009000600310000616373704d53465400000000494543207352474
20000000000000000000000000000f6d6000100000000d32d4850202000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000116370727400000150000000336465736
3000001840000006c77747074000001f000000014626b707400000204000000147258595a0000021800000014675
8595a0000022c000000146258595a0000024000000014646d6e640000025400000070646d6464000002c40000008
8767565640000034c0000008676696577000003d4000000246c756d69000003f8000000146d6561730000040c000
0002474656368000004300000000c725452430000043c0000080c675452430000043c0000080c625452430000043c
0000080c7465787400000000436f70797269676874202863292031393938204865776c6574742d5061636b617264
20436f6d70616e790000646573630000000000000012735247422049454336313936362d322e3100000000000000
0000000012735247422049454336313936362d322e31000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000
UrbanregionsinAsiashouldbegintoview
theirurbanoreasanopportunity,asmuchas
thedisposalliabilityitnowrepresents.For
example,theBeijingorJakartaregionsin2025will
producemorepaperandmetalthantheworlds
largestmanufacturingfacilities.Robust,fair,and
longtermpartnershipsshouldbesoughtwith
receptiveresourcemanufacturerstoincorporate
thesematerials.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH

IMPACTS OF IMPROPER SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
Impropersolidwastemanagementcausesalltypesofpollution:air,soil,andwater.Indiscriminatedumpingofwastes
contaminatessurfaceandgroundwatersupplies.Inurbanareas,solidwasteclogsdrains,creatingstagnantwaterforinsect
breedingandfloodsduringrainyseasons.Uncontrolledburningofwastesandimproperincinerationcontributes
significantlytourbanairpollution.Greenhousegasesaregeneratedfromthedecompositionoforganicwastesinlandfills,
anduntreatedleachatepollutessurroundingsoilandwaterbodies.Thesenegativeenvironmentalimpactsareonlyaresultof
solidwastedisposal;theydonotincludethesubstantialenvironmentaldegradationresultingfromtheextractionand
processingofmaterialsatthebeginningoftheproductlifecycle.Infact,asmuchas95percentofanitemsenvironmental
impactoccursbeforeitisdiscardedasMSW.
Healthandsafetyissuesalsoarisefromimpropersolidwastemanagement.Humanfecalmatteriscommonlyfoundin
municipalwaste.Insectandrodentvectorsareattractedtothewasteandcanspreaddiseasessuchascholeraanddengue
fever.Usingwaterpollutedbysolidwasteforbathing,foodirrigation,anddrinkingwatercanalsoexposeindividualsto
diseaseorganismsandothercontaminants.TheU.S.
PublicHealthServiceidentified22humandiseasesthatarelinkedtoimpropersolidwastemanagement(Hanks,1967.Cited
inTchobanoglousetal.,1993).Wasteworkersandpickersindevelopingcountriesareseldomprotectedfromdirectcontact
andinjury;andthecodisposalofhazardousandmedicalwasteswithmunicipalwastesposesserioushealththreat.Exhaust
fumesfromwastecollectionvehicles,duststemmingfromdisposalpractices,andopenburningofwastealsocontributeto
overallhealthproblems.
People know that poor sanitationaffects their health,and nowhere is this link more apparent than inlowincome
countries.Perhapssurprisingly,lowincomecountriesarealsothemostwillingtopayforenvironmentalimprovements.
EnvironicsInternationalLtd.surveyed24countries,askingwhetherrespondentsbelievedthattheirhealthwasaffectedby
environmentalproblems.(SeeFigure14.)India,China,andSouthKorearankedamongthetopfivecountriesthatindicated
theirhealthwasaffectedagreatdealorafairamount,witharesponseof94,93,and88percent,respectively.(OtherAsian
countrieswerenotincludedinthesurvey).Figure14showsthatthesesamecountriesalsoshowedthehighestpositive
responsetothequestionofwhethertheywouldagreetocontributepartoftheirincomeiftheywerecertainthemoney
wouldbeusedtopreventenvironmentalpollution.
6.0 INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Integratedsolidwastemanagement(ISWM)isdefinedbyTchobanoglousetal.(1993)astheselectionandapplicationof
appropriate techniques, technologies, and management programs to achieve specific waste management objectives and
goals.UnderstandingtheinterrelationshipsamongvariouswasteactivitiesmakesitpossibletocreateanISWMplanwhere
individual components complement one another. The UNEP International Environmental Technology Centre (1996)
describestheimportanceofviewingsolidwastemanagementfromanintegratedapproach:
Someproblemscanbesolvedmoreeasilyincombinationwithotheraspectsofthewastesystemthanindividually;
Adjustmentstooneareaofthewastesystemcandisruptexistingpracticesinanotherarea,unlessthechangesaremadeina
coordinatedmanner;
Integrationallowsforcapacityorresourcestobecompletelyused;economiesofscaleforequipmentormanagement
infrastructurecanoftenonlybeachievedwhenallofthewasteinaregionismanagedaspartofasinglesystem;
Public,private,andinformalsectorscanbeincludedinthewastemanagementplan;
AnISWMplanhelpsidentifyandselectlowcostalternatives;
Somewasteactivitiescannothandleanycharges,somewillalwaysbenetexpenses,whileothersmayshowaprofit.Without
anISWMplan,somerevenueproducingactivitiesareskimmedoffandtreatedasprofitable,whileactivitiesrelatedto
maintenanceofpublichealthandsafetydonotreceiveadequatefundingandaremanagedinsufficiently.
Waste hierarchies are usually established to identify key elements of an ISWM plan. The general waste hierarchy
acceptedbyindustrializedcountriesiscomprisedofthefollowingorder:
reduce
reuse
recycle
recoverwastetransformationthroughphysical,biological,orchemicalprocesses(e.g.,composting,incineration)
landfilling
Figure 15: Comparison Of Typical Solid Waste Management

Practices
Activity
Source
reduction
Collection
Recycling
Composting
Incineration
Landfilling
Costs
Low income Middle income High income

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Lowtechnology 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. 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).
Despiteprogressinafewcountries,fundamentalenvironmental,financial,institutionalandsocialproblemsstillexist
withinallcomponentsofthewastesystemsinlowandmiddleincomecountriesofAsia.Recognizingthateachcountry,
region,andmunicipalityhasitsownuniquesitespecificsituations,generalobservationsaredelineatedinFigure15.
Common to all countries is an increasing awareness about the linkages between waste generation and resource
consumption visavis sustainable development; greater involvement of the business community in recycling; and the
increasingawarenessofthevalueofsourceseparationandmarketabilityofgoodqualitycompost.Incinerationismainly
usedforvolumereductionanditshighcostswillcontinuetoinhibititsuse.Sitingforlandfillsisdifficult,whichoftencauses
sitestobeestablishedininferiorlocations.Inaddition,increasingattentionisfocusedonreducinggreenhousegasemissions
fromwaste.
6.1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS

MacFarlane(1998)highlightsarelationshipbetweenpercapitasolidwastemanagementcostsandpercapitaGNP.As
showninFigure16,citiesinbothdevelopingandindustrializedcountriesgenerallydonotspendmorethan0.5percentof
theirpercapitaGNPonurbanwasteservices.The
0.5percentGNPvaluecanbeusedbylowandmiddleincomecountriesasageneralguidelinetopreparewastemanagement
budgetsandforplanning.Thesecosts,however,areonlyaboutonethirdoftheoveralltotal.Additionalcostsarepaidby
businessesandresidents,exclusiveofmunicipaltaxesandfees,Hoornweg(1992).
InJapan,municipalgovernmentsareresponsibleforsolidwastemanagementservicesandspentabout2,280billionyen
in1993ongeneralwasteservices,accountingforapproximately5percentofgeneralmunicipalbudgets.Thebreakdownof
the countrys waste expenditures is shown in Figure 17. Approximately 45 percent of the total budget is spent on
intermediatetreatmentfacilities,namely,incinerationplants,comparedtoonly4percentallocatedtowardscollectionand6
percentforfinaldisposal.
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 So 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)
Figure 17: Japanese Expenditures for Solid Waste Management Services

(1993)
Construction and repair
expenses
Intermediate Final treatment
disposal Facilities plants Others
Research
Collection Intermediate Final Purchase Consignment Others

and treatment disposal of 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
Operation and maintenance expenses
(JapanWasteManagementAssociation,1996)
Compared tohighincomecountries,municipalitiesinlowandmiddleincomecountriesallocatethemajorityoftheir
solidwastemanagementbudgettocollectionandtransportationservices.Finaldisposalcostsareminimalbecausedisposal
isusuallyaccomplishedthroughopendumping.InMalaysia,about70percentoftheMSWbudgetisspentonthewaste
collection(Sinha,1993).TheCityofAhmedabad,India,spendsabout86percentofitssolidwastebudgetoncollection,13
percentontransportation,andonly1percentonfinaldisposal(JainandPant,1994).Typically,90percentofIndonesiansolid
waste management budgets is allocated for activities related to collection: street sweeping, transportation, and vehicle
operationandmaintenance.Ifasanitarylandfillisusedforfinaldisposal,collectioncostsdecrease toabout80percent
(CointreauLevineetal.,1994).
PercapitaandpertonwastemanagementexpensesofmunicipalgovernmentshaveincreasedeveryyearinJapan,as
shown in Figure 18. According to a 1992 Japanese survey of about 3,250 municipalities, 35 percent of the respondents
imposedchargesforgeneralwaste managementservicesand636municipalgovernmentshaveadoptedafeestructure,
wherebythechargesincreaseinrelationtotheamountofwastedisposed.Revenuesfromwastefeescoveronly4percentof
thetotalmanagementexpenses.
Figure 18: Japans Solid Waste Management Expenses

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Expenses per capita (yen/capita/year) 8,554 8,898 9,419 10,257 11,112
Expenses per disposal amount (yen/ton/year) 24,253 24,165 24,583
25,949 28,107
199
1
12,7
95
31,9
24
199
2
14,8
18
37,5
91
1993
18,27
2
46,28
0
Inlowandmiddleincomecountries,somemunicipalitiesattempttodirectlychargeresidentsandcommercialenterprises
forwasteservices.Wastefeesareoftenregulatedbythelocalgovernmentandofficiallycollectedthroughavarietyofforms,
suchasageneralhouseholdsanitationfee,environmentfee,orincludedinthewaterandelectricitybill.Householdand
commercialwasteservicefeesvarybetweencitiesandcountries,asshowninFigure19.Certaincitiescollectfeesbasedon
theamountofwastegenerated.Othersonlychargeaflatratepermonthoryear.Bycontrast,somecitiesdonotcollectany
feesatall;theycompletelysubsidizesolidwasteservicesthroughgeneralfunds.Evenwhenwastefeesortaxesareimposed
bythelocalgovernment,wastemanagersoftencomplainthatfeesareinadequatetocoverthecostsofwasteservices,thefee
collectionsystemisinefficientorunsupervisedandsubjectto
illegalpractices,orthatcollectedmoneyisnottransferreddirectlytothewastemanagementdepartment,orthatmoneyis
usedforpurposesotherthansolidwastemanagement.
AllresidentialareasinJakartaarerequiredto payforprimarywastecollection,evenifwastesare notadequatelyor

regularlycollected.Thewastecollectionfeesareconfiguredbaseduponthecommunitysaffluenceaswellasthedesired
qualityofservice.Thesystemplacespoorerresidentsatadisadvantagebecausethequalityoftheirprimarycollectionservice
suffersfromthesmallrevenuesgenerated.Localgovernmentsalsocollectretributionfeestocoverthecostsoftransportation
andfinaldisposal.Althoughregulationsareinplacetomandatetheamountstobepaidbyvariouswastegeneratingsources,
theretributionfeesactuallycollectedareverylow.InJakarta,only1percentofthewastefeesistransferredtotheCleansing
Agency.Tomakeupthedifferenceinmissingfees,thecityusesitsgeneralfundtopayforthisstageofwastemanagement.
TheCleansingAgencytriestocollectdoortodoor,butthesystemisseriouslyflawedbecause:
Figure 19: Solid Waste Management Fees for

Various Cities and Countries
City, Country Household and Commercial Fees
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia1 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, Vietnam2 US $0.55/person/year Dhaka,
Bangladesh3 Less than US $0.63/person/year, residents pay a
Conservancy Tax for solid waste management Vientiane, Lao4
US $12 to 216/household/year US $360 to 960/nongovernmental commercial organization/year Chennai (Madras),
India5 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,
India5 Proposed system where homeowner has to pay a fixed
amount of Rs 15 to 20 per month for collection services. Beijing,
China6 US $3 to 7.20/household/year Shanghai, China6 Residents
do not pay any direct waste fees. Hong Kong6 Private and
commercial establishments do not pay any direct waste fees.
Jakarta, Indonesia6 US $1.80 to 9.60/household/year Denpasar,
Indonesia6 US $6/household/year Yangon, Myanmar7 Waste
disposal tax is paid. Thailand8 Public Health Act (1992)
empowers local authorities to set up solid waste collection fees
for households, commercial enterprises, markets, and industr y
according to fees announced in the Act.
WorldBank,1998c2URENCO,19953WorldBank,1998a4UNDP/WorldBankWaterand
SanitationProgram,19985EnvironmentalResourceManagement(ERM)India,1998
6Johannessen,19987Tinetal.,19958PublicHealthAct(1992)B.E.2535,Thailand
1
collectorsarefewandparttime
collectorslackincentive
moneypassesthroughthehandsofatleastsixagencies
CleansingAgencydoesnotautomaticallykeeptherevenues(Porter,1996)
Eveniffeesareimposedonthepublicforwastemanagementservices,theyareusuallypricedonthebasisofdirectcosts
for limitedactivities, such ascollectionandlandfill operations.Fullcost accounting attemptstocover externalitiesand
includesallwastemanagementcoststhatareoftenonlypartiallyaccountedfor,oraltogetherignored,suchas:
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 $92
per tonne in 1991. The figure below shows a corresponding decrease in the waste generation rates as the
residents attempted to avoid disposal fees. Illegal tipping was not a cause of the reduction; rather, a greater
awareness and corresponding change in business practices were the main reasons quantities decreased.
The City of Date-shi, Japan reported a similar decrease of municipal waste quantities once disposal fees
were introduced. The purpose of the new system was to gain financial resources to build new disposal
facilities. Initially the authorities met with public opposition, but are now receiving cooperation from the
local residents who have succeeded in reducing their waste quantities.
Guelph municipal solid waste generation rates and landfill tipping fees
ffd8ffe000104a4649460001020100c800c80000ffe20c584943435f50524f46494c4500010100000c48
4c696e6f021000006d6e74725247422058595a2007ce00020009000600310000616373704d5346540
000000049454320735247420000000000000000000000000000f6d6000100000000d32d4850202000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000001163707274000001500000003364657363000001840000006c77747074000001f0000
00014626b707400000204000000147258595a00000218000000146758595a0000022c000000146258
595a0000024000000014646d6e640000025400000070646d6464000002c4000000887675656400000
34c0000008676696577000003d4000000246c756d69000003f8000000146d6561730000040c000000
2474656368000004300000000c725452430000043c0000080c675452430000043c0000080c6254524
30000043c0000080c7465787400000000436f70797269676874202863292031393938204865776c65
74742d5061636b61726420436f6d70616e79000064657363000000000000001273524742204945433
6313936362d322e31000000000000000000000012735247422049454336313936362d322e31000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991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WasteGenerationRate
(Can$/tonne)
(kg/capita/day)
(CityofGuelph,1991)
disposalsiteselectionstudiesandprocedures
publichearings,approvals,andpermits
designwork
capitalcosts
operatingcosts
developmentofinfrastructuretosupportdisposalfacilities(e.g.,accessroads)
socialcosts(e.g.,decliningrealestatevalues,trafficcongestion)
closureandpostclosurecosts
environmentalcosts(e.g.,airandwaterpollution,noise)(ResourceIntegrationSystemsLimitedetal.,1992)
7.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMON VALUES

Inordertohelpsolidwastemanagementpractitioners,afewcommonvalues,orstrategies,canbeproposed.Thereisa
strikingdegreeofsimilarityinmunicipalwastemanagementneedsandconstraintsacrossAsia.
1Developingwastedisposalfacilitiessuchaslandfillsandincineratorsoftengeneratestremendousconcernbothwarranted
andreactionary.However,itispossibletoreduceoppositiontonewfacilitiesbyinvolvingthecommunityandfollowinga
technicallysoundandtransparentsiteselectionprocess,and,whereverpossible,usinglocalconditionstoameliorate
potentialenvironmentalimpactsandcosts,e.g.,sitinglandfillsingeotechnicallysuperiorlocations.Wastedisposalfacilities,
whichoftenhaveausefullifeinexcessof25years,needtobewellintegratedwithinasoundmasterplanthatreflects
regionalrequirements,standardoperatingprocedures,andfinancingmechanisms.Soundtechnicaljustificationanda
transparentplanningprocessthatrespectsthegeneralpublicsvalidconcernsmaynoteliminatepublicopposition,butitis
thebestwaytominimizeit.
2Localgovernmentsshouldminimizeresidentialwastecollectionfrequencytoamaximumoftwiceperweek,whichis
adequatefromapublichealthperspective,butrequiressocialacceptance.Citizensshouldbeencouragedtoplacetheirwaste
incontainersthatenhancecollectionefficiency.
3Localgovernmentsshouldfocusprimarilyonresidentialwastecollection,especiallyfrompooranddenselypopulated
areas,andempowertheprivatesectortopickupwastefromnonresidentialsources.Commercial,institutional,and
industrialwastecollectioncanusuallybeselffinancing.Localgovernmentsshouldlicenseprivatehaulerstogenerate
revenuesandtoensurepropercollectionanddisposal.
4Wastecollectionanddisposalfeesshouldbebasedonwastegenerationrates.Directuserchargesandwastefeecollection
shouldbeginwiththebusinesscommunity.
5Anintegratedapproachtowardsolidwastemanagementneedstobefollowed.Municipalwastemanagersshouldoptfor
theleasttechnicallycomplexandmostcosteffectivesolution(e.g.,limitedmechanizationandincineration).Wastediversion
shouldbemaximized.
6Alllevelsofgovernment,includingmultinationalagenciesandtransnationalcorporations,mustplayaroleinlongterm
programdevelopment,e.g.,extendedproductresponsibility,lifecycleanalysis,wasteexchanges,naturalresourcestax
regimes.
7Localgovernmentsmusthonestlyandrespectfullygaugethepublicswillingnessandabilitytoparticipateinthedesign
andimplementationofwastemanagementprograms.Throughgoodpartnerships,progressiveprogramscanbedeveloped
inacomplementarymanner.Theseprogramsincludecommunitybasedoperations,microenterprisedevelopment,waste
separationforincreasedrecyclingandcomposting,andreducedcollectionfrequency.
1Alllevelsofgovernmentshouldpromotethehierarchyofwastemanagement(i.e.,reduce,reuse,recycle,recover)and
encouragewasteseparationtomaximizeflexibilitytodealwithfuturechanges.Whereverappropriate,governmentsshould
viewsolidwasteasaresource,ratherthanjustalocalproblem.
2Althoughwastecollection,treatment,anddisposalcostsoftenplacealargeburdenonlocalgovernmentfinances,improper
disposalisfarmoreexpensiveinthelongrun,withcostsaccruingovermanyyears.
3Localgovernmentsareusuallyinthebestpositiontoassumekeyresponsibilityformunicipalsolidwastecollectionand
disposal.However,sustainablefinancingandsustainableserviceprovisionstillneedstobedefinedbyabroadersetof
stakeholders.Localgovernmentsneedtheassistanceofalllevelsofgovernmenttoprovidewastemanagementservices
efficiently.Regionalapproachestowastedisposal,e.g.,sharedlandfillsareespeciallyimportant.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References
Anderson,J.,andD.Smith,1997.Green,Greener,Greenest.TheWashingtonPost,Saturday,November22.
BeijingEnvironmentalSanitationAdministration,1996.OptionsforDomesticSolidWasteTreatmentinBeijing.Metropolitan
EnvironmentalImprovementProgram(MEIP),MEIPCityWorkingPaperSeries,
January.
Buggeln,R.,1998.IndustrialWasteExchanges:AnOverviewofTheirRole.TennesseeMaterialsUSA.
CEMPRENews,1997.Number36,October.SoPaulo,Brazil.
CityofGuelph,1991.Wet/DryRecyclingCentre,Guelph,Ontario,Canada(personalcommunication).
CocaColaCompany,1997.1996AnnualReport.Atlanta,Georgia,USA.
Cointreau,S.J.,1982.EnvironmentalManagementofUrbanSolidWastesinDevelopingCountries:AProjectGuide.Urban
DevelopmentTechnicalPaperNumber5,TheWorldBank,Washington,D.C.,USA.
CointreauLevine,S.,P.T.ArkoninConsultants,andOsanaInternationalInc.,1994.FinalReport:TechnicalAssistanceProject
onPrivateSectorParticipationinInfrastructurePublicServicesSolidWasteManagementSector,Indonesia.WorldBank,
Washington,D.C.,USA.
Collaborative Research in the Economics of Environment and Development (CREED), 1996. International Trade and
RecyclinginDevelopingCountries:TheCaseofWastePaperinIndia.November.
DalianEnvironmentandSanitationDepartment(DESMB),1990.CitedinEcologyandEnvironment,Inc.,1993.Liaoning
EnvironmentalProject:DalianSolidWasteManagementFacilityReport,Dalian,PeoplesRepublicofChina.Lancaster,
NewYork,USA,June.PreparedforLiaoningUrbanConstructionandRenewalProjectOffice,Shenyan,PeoplesRepublic
ofChina.
Davis,G.A.,Wilt,C.A.,andJ.N.Barkenbus,1997.ExtendedProductResponsibility: AToolforaSustainableEconomy.
Environment,Vol.39,No.7,September.
DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR),1995.UrbanEnvironmentandSolidWasteManagementStudy,
IBRO,EMB/DENR,Philippines.
Diaz,L.F.,Savage,G.M.,andL.L.Eggerth,1997.ManagingSolidWastesinDevelopingCountries.WastesManagement,
October.
Djuweng,S.,1997.TimberEstatesThreatenForests.TheJakartaPost,October10.
Ecology andEnvironment,Inc.,1993.Liaoning EnvironmentalProject:Dalian SolidWaste Management Facility Report,
Dalian,PeoplesRepublicofChina.Lancaster,NewYork,USA,June.PreparedforLiaoningUrbanConstructionand
RenewalProjectOffice,Shenyan,PeoplesRepublicofChina.
Environment Canada, 1998. State of the Environment Fact Sheet No. 951. Website. http:// www1.ec.gc.ca/cgi
bin/foliocgi.exe/osoeeng/query=*/doc/{t344}?
EnvironmentalProtectionDepartment,1996.EnvironmentHongKong1996:AReviewof1995.HongKong.
EnvironmentalResourcesManagement(ERM)India,1998.NewDelhi,India(personalcommunication).
Hanks,T.G.,1967.SolidWaste/DiseaseRelationships.U.S.DepartmentofHealth,Education,andWelfare,SolidWastes
Program,PublicationSW1c,Cincinnati,Ohio,USA.CitedinTchobanoglous,G.,Thiesen,H.,andS.Vigil.1993.Integrated
SolidWasteManagement:EngineeringPrinciplesandManagementIssues.McGrawHill,Inc.,NewYork,USA.
Hoornweg,D.,1992.APreferredWasteManagementSystemfortheCityofGuelph.MastersThesis,UniversityofGuelph,
Guelph,Ontario,Canada.
Huysman,M.andI.Baud,1993.SolidWasteRecovery,Reuse,andRecycling:FormalandInformalAspectsofProduction
andEmploymentinIndianCities.Conferencepaper,DepartmentofGeography,UniversityofAmsterdam.
InternationalEnvironmentReport,1997.Vol.20,No.4,pp.158159.
Jain,A.P.andG.B.Pant,1994.SolidWasteManagementinIndia.Conferencepaperpresentedatthe20th
WEDCConference,Colombo,SriLanka.
JapanWasteManagementAssociation,1996.WasteManagementinJapan1996.Tokyo,Japan.
Johannessen, L.M., 1998. Technical Report on Asia: The Emerging Approach to Landfilling of Municipal Solid Waste.
Transportation,WaterandUrbanDevelopmentDepartment,WorldBank,Washington,D.C.,USA.
Listyawan,B.,1996.ProspectsofRecyclingSystemsinIndonesia.RecyclinginAsia:PartnershipsforResponsiveSolidWaste
Management.UnitedNationsCentreforRegionalDevelopment(UNCRD),Nagoya,Japan.
MacFarlane,C.,1998.SolidWasteManagementConsultant,Markham,Canada(personalcommunication).
McDonaldsCorporation,1997.TheAnnual:McDonaldsCorporation1996AnnualReport.OakBrook,Illinois,USA.
McGee,T.G.andC.J.Griffiths,1993.GlobalUrbanization:TowardstheTwentyFirstCentury.PopulationDistributionand
Migration.DraftproceedingsoftheUnitedNationsExpertMeetingonPopulationDistributionandMigration,SantaCruz,
Bolivia,January1822(UnitedNations,NewYork,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. 951.
Website.http://www1.ec.gc.ca/cgibin/foliocgi.exe/osoeeng/query=*/doc/.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1991. Environmental Labeling in OECD Countries.
PublicationsService,Paris,France.
OrganisationforEconomicandCooperationandDevelopment(OECD),1995.OECDEnvironmentalData:Compendium
1995.PublicationsService,Paris,France.
Parikh, J. et al., 1991. Consumption Patterns: The Driving Force of Environmental Stress. Indira Gandhi Institute of
DevelopmentResearchDiscussionPaperNo.59,13,Bombay.CitedinHammondA.L.,NaturalResourceConsumption:
NorthandSouth.PaperinEthicsofConsumption:TheGoodLife,
Justice,andGlobalStewardship.Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Inc.,Lanham,Maryland,USA,1998.
Perla,M.,1997.CommunityCompostinginDevelopingCountries.Biocycle,June,pp.4851.
Planning,EnvironmentandLandsBureau,1998.HongKongSpecialAdministrationofthePeoples
RepublicofChina.Website.http://www.pelb.wpelb.gov.hk/waste/current.htm
PollutionControlDepartment,1998(personalcommunicationwithstaff,Bangkok,Thailand).
Porter,R.,1996.TheEconomicsofWaterandWaste:ACaseStudyofJakarta,Indonesia.AveburyAshgate
PublishingLtd.,England.
Powell,J.,1983.AComparisonoftheEnergySavingsfromtheUseofSecondaryMaterials.Conservation&Recycling6(1/2),
pp. 2732. Cited in van Beukering, P., 1994. An Economic Analysis of Different Types of Formal and Informal
Entrepreneurs,RecoveringUrbanSolidWasteinBangalore(India).Resources,ConservationandRecycling(12),pp.229
252.
PublicHealthAct(1992)B.E.2535andtheRegulationoftheMinistryofPublicHealth(1985)B.E.2528,Thailand.
RechargeableBatteryRecyclinginCanada(RBRC),1997.ChargeUptoRecycle!ComestoCanada.Pressrelease.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. 951. Website. http:// www1.ec.gc.ca/cgi
bin/foliocgi.exe/osoeeng/query=*/doc/{t344}?
ResourceIntegrationSystemsLimitedandVHBResearch&ConsultingInc.,1992.WasteMinimizationMeasuresforaWaste
ReductionAdvisoryCommittee3RsStrategy:FinalReport.Canada,May.
Selvam,P.,1996.AReviewofIndianExperiencesinCompostingofMunicipalSolidWastesandaCaseStudyonPrivate
Sector on Private Sector Participation. Conference of Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The RuralUrban Connection,
Washington,D.C.,USA,September2324.
Sinha,K.,1993.PartnershipinSolidWasteCollection:MalaysianExperience.RegionalDevelopmentDialogue,Vol.14,No.3,
Autumn.
Sitarz,D.(ed).,1998.SustainableAmerica.PresidentsCouncilonSustainableDevelopment,Earthpress,USA.
Tchobanoglous, G., Thiesen, H., and S. Vigil. 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and
ManagementIssues.McGrawHill,Inc.,NewYork,USA.
Tin, A.M., Wise, D.L., Su, W., Reutergardh, L., and S. Lee, 1995. CostBenefit Analysis of the Municipal Solid Waste
CollectionSysteminYangon,Myanmar.Resources,ConservationandRecycling,14,pp.103131.
UnitedNations.RefuseCollectionVehiclesforDevelopingCountries.
UnitedNations,1995.WorldUrbanizationProspects:The1994Revision.DepartmentforEconomicandSocialInformation
andPolicyAnalysis,PopulationDivision,NewYork,USA.
UnitedNations,1997.1995DemographicYearbook.DepartmentforEconomicandSocialInformationandPolicyAnalysis,
StatisticsDivision,NewYork,USA.
UnitedNationsCentreforRegionalDevelopment(UNCRD),1989.CityProfiles.SupplementaldocumentattheInternational
ExpertGroupSeminaronPolicyResponsesTowardsImprovingSolidWasteManagementinAsianMetropolises.
UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP),1997.HumanDevelopmentReport.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,
USA.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 1998. (personal
communicationwithRegionalWaterandSanitationGroupforEastAsiaandthePacific,LaoPDRandCambodiaOffice).
DatabasedonactualsurveyconductedbytheInstituteofUrbanCentresforitsSolidWasteManagementProjectin1996
97.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), 1996.
InternationalSourceBookonEnvironmentallySoundTechnologiesforMunicipalSolidWasteManagement.Technical
PublicationSeries,No.6,Osaka/Shiga.
UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme(UNEP)InternationalEnvironmentalTechnologyCentre(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.
UnitedStatesBureauofMines,1993.MaterialsandtheEconomy.MineralsToday,15,April.CitedinHammond,A.L.in
Crocker,D.A.andT.Linden,1998.EthicsofConsumption:TheGoodLife,Justice,andGlobalStewardship.Rowman&
LittlefieldPublishers,Inc.,Lanham,Maryland,USA.
Urban Environment Company (URENCO), 1995. Solid Waste Management in Hanoi, Vietnam. Warmer Bulletin (44),
February.
WarmerBulletin,1996.InternationalNews:ChinaandIndia.(51),November,p.20.
Wei, J., Herbell, J., and S. Zhang, 1997. Solid Waste Disposal in China: Situation, Problems and Suggestions. Waste
ManagementandResearch(15),pp.573583.
WorldBank,1997a.FactFindingReport:SolidWasteManagement.ChongqingUrbanEnvironmentProject,Washington,
D.C.,USA,October20.
WorldBank,1997b.WorldDevelopmentReport1997:TheStateinaChangingWorld.Washington,D.C.,USA.
World Bank, 1997c. Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries. International Economics Department,
Washington,D.C.,USA,June25.
WorldBank,1998a.DraftReport:BangladeshSectoralAnalysis.Washington,D.C.,USA.
WorldBank,1998b.WasteImportsforRecycling.Forthcomingpaper.Washington,D.C.,USA.
WorldBank,1998c.(personalcommunicationwithstaffinMongolia).
WorldResourcesInstitute,1996.WorldResources:AGuidetotheGlobalEnvironment,TheUrbanEnvironment,199697.
OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,UnitedKingdom.
YunnanInstituteofEnvironmentalSciences,1996.YunnanEnvironmentalProject:EnvironmentalAssessmentReport,Final
Draft.February.
WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION REFERENCES

*indicatesreferenceisforwastegenerationrate
indicatesreferenceisforwastecompositionBangladesh:
Ahmed,M.F.,1992.MunicipalWasteManagementinBangladeshWithEmphasisonRecycling.PresentedattheRegional
WorkshopofUrbanWasteManagementinAsianCities,Dhaka,Bangladesh,April.CitedinWorldBank,1998.Sectoral
AnalysisinBangladesh,DraftReport.Washington,D.C.,January.
*WorldBank,1998.SectoralAnalysisinBangladesh,DraftReport.Washington,D.C.,USA.China:*BeijingEnvironmental
SanitationAdministration,1996.OptionsforDomesticSolidWasteTreatmentin
Beijing.MetropolitanEnvironmentalImprovementProgram,CityWorkingPaperSeries,January.
*ChineseResearchAcademyofEnvironmentalSciences,1995.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentforHubei
ProvinceUrbanEnvironmentalProject.TheCenterofEnvironmentalPlanningandAssessment,May.
*EcologyandEnvironment,Inc.,1993.LiaoningEnvironmentalProject:DalianSolidWasteManagement
FacilityReport,Dalian,PeoplesRepublicofChina.Lancaster,NewYork,USA,June.PreparedforLiaoning
UrbanConstructionandRenewalProjectOffice,Shenyan,PeoplesRepublicofChina.*Wei,JB.,Herbell,J
D.andS.Zhang,1997.SolidWasteDisposalinChina:Situation,Problems,andSuggestions.Waste
ManagementandResearch,15,pp.573583.*WorldBank,1996.GuangxiUrbanEnvironmentProject,Draft
FinalReport.Washington,D.C.,USA.
*WorldBank,1997.FactFindingReport,SolidWasteManagement.ChongqingUrbanEnvironmentProject,Washington,
D.C.,USA.
*Yunnan Institute of Environmental Sciences, 1996. Yunnan Environmental Project: Environmental Assessment Report,
FinalDraft.February.
HongKong:
EnvironmentalProtectionDepartment,1996.EnvironmentHongKong1996:A
Reviewof1995.HongKong.*Planning,EnvironmentandLandsBureau,Hong
KongSpecialAdministrationofthePeoplesRepublicofChina.Website.
http://www.pelb.wpelb.gov.hk/waste/current.htmIndia:*Environmental
ResourcesManagement(ERM)India,1995.StatusofSolidWasteDisposalinMetro
CitiesinIndia.NewDelhi,India,December.Indonesia:
*Listawayan,B.,1997.ProspectsofRecyclingSystemsinIndonesia.RecyclinginAsia:PartnershipsforResponsiveSolid
WasteManagement.UnitedNationsCentreforRegionalDevelopment(UNCRD),Nagoya,Japan.
*United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 1993. Community
InvolvementinPrimaryCollectionofSolidWasteInFourIndonesianCities.RegionalWaterandSanitationGroupforEast
AsiaandthePacific,December.
Japan:*JapanWasteManagementAssociation,1996.WasteManagementin
Japan1996.TokyoMetropolitanWasteManagementOffice,Tokyo,Japan.
OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD),1995.
OECDEnvironmentalData:Compendium1995.Korea,Republicof:
*Ogawa,H.,1989.WorldHealthOrganizationassignment/mission
reports.LaoPDR:
*UNDP/WorldBankWaterandSanitationProgram,1998(personalcommunicationwithRegionalWaterandSanitation
GroupforEastAsiaandthePacific, LaoPDR andCambodiaOffice). Databasedonactualsurveyconductedbythe
InstituteofUrbanCentresforitsSolidWasteManagementProjectin199697.
Malaysia:
*MinistryofHousingandLocalGovernmentMalaysia,1990.TechnicalGuidelineonSanitaryLandfill.CitedinHani,L.M.
andF.H.Othman,1992.CollectionandDisposalProblemsofSolidWasteinMajorCitiesofDevelopingCountries:ACase
StudyinMalaysia.JournalofResourceManagementand
Technology,Vol.20,No.3,September.
*Ogawa,H.,1989.WorldHealthOrganizationassignment/missionreports.
*UnitedNationsCentreforRegionalDevelopment(UNCRD),1989.CityProfiles.Supplementaldocument
attheInternationalExpertGroupSeminaronPolicyResponsesTowardsImprovingSolidWasteManagementinAsian
Metropolises.
Mongolia:
*GovernmentofMongolia,CityGovernmentofUlaanbaatarandtheWorldBank,1995.UrbanServices
ProjectUlaanbaatar,FeasibilityStudy.MainReport,Volume1,December.Myanmar:*CleaningDepartment,
YangonCityDevelopmentCommittee,unpublisheddepartmentaldata,1993.
CitedinTin,A.M.,Wise,D.L.,Su,W.H.,Reutergardh,L.,andS.K.Lee,1995.CostBenefitAnalysisofthe
MunicipalSolidWasteCollectionSysteminYangon,Myanmar.Resources,ConservationandRecycling,14,pp.
103131.
Nepal:
*ConsolidatedManagementServicesNepalLtd.,1997.SolidWasteManagementintheKathmanduValley.
WarmerBulletin53,March.Philippines:*UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP),1997.Capacity
BuildingforLocalGovernmentUnits
onEnvironmentalManagement(LocalGEM),EMB/DENR.*Departmentof
EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR),1995.UrbanEnvironmentandSolid
WasteManagementStudy,IBRO,EMB/DENR,Philippines.*JapanInternational
CooperationAgency(JICA),1997.StudyonSolidWasteManagementforMetro
ManilaintheRepublicofthePhilippines.Singapore:Hon,L.F.,1991.SolidWasteManagementinSingapore.
PresentedattheInternationalConferenceon
SolidandHazardousWasteManagement,Singapore,June2730.*SingaporeMinistryoftheEnvironment,1996.
Website.http://ww.gov.sg:80/env/function/solid.htmlSriLanka:*MetropolitanColomboSolidWasteManagement
Study,1993.GalleSolidWasteManagementStudy,
1994.KandySolidWasteManagementStudy,1994(personal
communicationwithWorldBankstaffinSriLanka,March1998).
Thailand:*PollutionControlDepartment,1998.Thailand(personal
communicationwithstaff).Vietnam:
*KampsaxInternationalA/S,1998.HalongCityWaterSupplyandSanitationProject,Annex6:EvaluationofThree
SolidWasteCollectionPilotProjects.PreparedfortheMinistryofForeignAffairs:DanidaandSocialistRepublicof
Vietnam,January.
ANNEX 1: SOLID WASTE DATA
Wastedata,includingbothgenerationratesandcomposition,shouldbeconsideredwithadegreeofcautionduetoglobal
inconsistenciesindefinitionsofcommontermsandmethodologies.Thereliabilityofthedataisquestionabledueto:
undefinedwordsorphrases
unitsomitted
inconsistentunitsused
datesnotindicated
studymethodologiesnotdiscussed
estimatesmadewithoutanybasis
incompletedata
inconsistentvalues
sourcesofinformationnotreferenced
In most low and middle income countries, the reliability of solid waste data is further reduced by large seasonal
variations(e.g.,seasonalrainsanduncontainerizedwaste),incompletewastecollectionanddisposal(e.g.,significantlevelof
wasteisdisposeddirectlybythegeneratorbyburningorthrowinginwaterwaysandlowlyingareas),andalackofweigh
scalesatlandfillsitestorecordwastequantities.
Itisrarelymentionedatwhatstagethewastegenerationratesandcompositionweredetermined,andwhethertheywere
estimated or physically measured. The most accurate method measures the waste at the source before any recycling,
composting,burning,oropendumpingtakesplace.However,thegenerationrateandcompositionarecommonlycalculated
usingthewastequantitiesarrivingatthefinaldisposalsite.Thiswayofmeasuringdoesnotaccuratelyrepresentthewaste
streambecause waste canbe divertedpriortofinaldisposal,especiallyinlowandmiddleincomecountrieswherethe
informalsectorremovesalargeamountofrecyclablewasteduringcollection,transfer,andtransportation.Aswell,inmost
lowandmiddleincomecountries,wastecollectionefficiencyislowandformalservicesdonotextendtoallcommunities,
therebyreducingthequantitiesofwastedeliveredtodisposalsites.Measuringwastequantitiesarrivingforfinaldisposalis
mostpracticalformunicipalpurposes,andlargevariationscanbeobservediftheeconomicsituationchanges,yetgrowing
waste quantities associated with increasing GNP are not necessarily a true reflection of increased waste; they may be
attributabletochangesintherelativescavengingvalueofthematerials.
Wastecompositionindicatesthecomponentsofthewastestreamgivenasapercentageofthetotalmassorvolume.The
componentcategoriesusedwithinthisreportare:
compostables(includesfood,yard,andwoodwastes)
paper
plastic
glass
metal
others(includesceramics,textiles,leather,rubber,bones,inerts,ashes,coconuthusks,
bulkywastes,householdgoods)Otherswastesshouldbedifferentiatedintotwo
categories:otherresidueandotherconsumerproducts.Otherresidueismadeup
ofash,inerts,dirt,andsweepingsandisasignificantcomponentofthewaste
stream in low and middle income countries. Other consumer
products consists of bulky wastes, household appliances,
electronics, and multimaterial packaging (e.g., tetrapaks and
blisterpackaging).Thiswastestreamismuchmoresignificantin
highincomecountriesanddiffersfromotherresidueinthatthe
volumesaremuchhigherperkilogramofwasteandaregenerally
combustable.
Itisimportanttocitewhetherthepercentagesaregivenona
dry orwet basis because thecomponentpercentageswilldiffer
markedly depending on the moisture content. Rarely is it
indicatedwithinawastestudywhetherthepercentageisonawet
ordrybasis,and/orbasedonvolumeormass.Itisassumedthat
the composition was determined on a wet basis because most
countries have financial restrictions and a lack of physical
resourcestoremovemoisturefromthewaste.Probablybothmass
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
equipmentandcanbeestimated.Highincomecountriesprobably
usedmassasabasissincetheyhavegreaterfundingresourcesand
supporttocompleteamoreaccuratewastecharacterization.
AnothermajorinconsistencyamongthevariouswastestudiesistheuseofU.S.imperialunitsversusmetricunits.
FrequentlytheU.S.imperialtonandthemetrictonneareinterchangedforoneanotherwhenreportingwastequantities.
Dataarealsodenotedbytheletterttodenotetheunit,causingthetruevaluetobeunknown.Withinthisreport,allofthe
unitsaremetric,unlessclearlynoted.
Table 1: Solid Waste Moisture

Contents and Densities
City, Country Moisture content (%)
Density (kg/m3)
Low income countries 350-550 Yangon,
Myanmar1 n/a 400 Chongqing, China2 42.5 550
Qujing, China3 30.0 554 Dalian, China4 49.7 400
Middle income countries 200-350 Bangkok,
Thailand5 49.1 350 Chonburi Municipality,
Thailand5 56.3 210 Rayong Municipality,
Thailand5 46.7 240 Batangas, Philippines6 27.4
262 Metro Manila, Philippines6 45.0 n/a Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia7 n/a 270 High income
countries 150-300 Seoul, South Korea7 n/a 302
Yokohama, Japan8 45.0 n/a
Tinetal.,19952WorldBank,1997a3YunnanInstituteof
EnvironmentalSciences,19964EcologyandEnvironment,Inc.,
19935PollutionControlDepartment,19986Departmentof
EnvironmentandNaturalResources,19957UNCRD,19898Japan
WasteManagementAssociation,1997
1
Wastedensitiesandmoisturecontentsareneededtoconvertdatatoacommonframeofreferenceforcomparison(e.g.,
frommasstovolumeandfromwettodry). Table1 showssolidwastemoisturecontentsanddensitiesasreportedby
specificcities.Usuallythehigherthepercentageoforganicmatter,thehigherthemoisturecontentandthedensityofthe
waste stream. Thewastedensityoflowincomecountriessuch asChina,India,andMongoliaisfurtherinfluenced by
significantquantitiesofdiscardedcoalashresidue.Lowincomecountrieshaveawetwastedensitytypicallybetween350to
550kg/m3,middleincomecountriesrangefrom200to350kg/m3,andhighincomecountriesfrom150to300kg/m3.
ANNEX 2: WASTE GENERATION RATES

ANNEX 2
Waste Generation Rates for Selected Asian Cities

Country
Year
Urban
Total Waste
Population
Generation
Rate
(kg/cap/day)
2,752,000
1,436,000
1,436,000
1.2
0.74
0.33
3,302,400
1,062,640
473,880
1,436,000
0.42
603,120
(kg/day)
East and North East Asia

China
Chongqing (1)
Dalian (2)
1997
1993
Shanghai (2)**
Guilin (3)**
Qujing (4)
Beijing (5)
Huangshi (11)
Xiangfan (11)
Yichang (11)
Wuhan (6)
1993
1995
1995
1991
1993
1993
1993
1993
8,206,000
557,000
221,000
11,157,000
570,000
584,000
391,000
6,800,000
6,800,000
0.6
0.85
0.83
0.88
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.6
2.3
4,923,600
473,450
183,430
9,818,160
495,900
513,920
344,080
4,080,000
15,640,000
Hong Kong (7) Residential

Misc.
1994
6,200,000
6,200,000
1.17
0.26
7,254,000
1,612,000
6,200,000
3.9
24,180,000
1,745,000
959,000
854,000
8,022,000
1,202,000
3,300,000
2,153,000
1,448,000
2,575,000
1.73
1.21
1.07
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.16
1.46
2.27
3,018,850
1,160,390
913,780
12,033,000
1,442,400
3,960,000
2,497,480
2,114,080
5,845,250
Commercial
Japan
Sapporo (20)**
Sendai (20)**
Chiba (20)**
Tokyo (20)**
Kawasaki (20)**
Yokohama (20)**
Nagoya (20)**
Kyoto (20)**
Osaka (20)**
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Kobe (20)**
Hiroshima (20)**
Kita-kyushu (20)**
Fukuoka (20)**
Korea, Republic of Seoul (8)
Mongolia
1993
1993
1993
1993
1989
1,519,000
1,106,000
1,019,000
1,275,000
10,500,000
1.75
1.03
1.29
1.44
1.59
2,658,250
1,139,180
1,314,510
1,836,000
16,695,000
Ulaanbaatar (9)
1995
594,000
0.6
356,400
Jakarta (10)**
Bandung (10)**
Semarang (10)**
Surabaya (10)**
Yogyakarta (12)
Padang (12)
Ujung Pandang (12)
Lao PDR
1993
1993
1993
1993
1991
1991
1991
9,160,000
2,368,000
1,367,000
2,700,000
480,000
639,000
844,000
0.66
0.71
0.69
1.08
0.78
0.9
0.86
6,045,600
1,681,280
943,230
2,916,000
374,400
575,100
725,840
Vientiane (13)
1998
180,000
0.58
0.17
104,400
30,600
Khanthabouri (13)
1998
60,000
0.37
0.25
22,200
15,000
Tharher (13)
1998
30,000
0.38
0.08
11,400
2,400
South East Asia

Indonesia
Page 36
ANNEX 2
Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur (8)
Penang (8)
Bemban New Village (14)
Temoh New Village (14)
Kota Setar (15)
Pulau Pinang (15)
Ipoh (15)
Kelang (15)
Seremban (15)
Johor Bahru (15)
Kota Bharu (15)
Kuantan (15)
Melaka (15)
Petaling Jaya (15)
Myanmar
1989
1989
1989
1989
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
920,000
524,000
6,300
3,800
188,000
494,000
400,000
242,000
170,000
300,000
193,000
188,000
196,000
360,000
1.29
0.71
0.39
0.45
0.79
0.73
0.54
0.79
0.71
1
0.52
0.53
0.46
0.51
1,186,800
372,040
2,457
1,710
148,520
360,620
216,000
191,180
120,700
300,000
100,360
99,640
90,160
183,600
Yangon (16)**
Philippines
1993
2,513,000
0.45
1,130,850
Metro Manila (17)

Baguio (17)
Batangas (17)
Tacloban (17)
Iligan (17)
Cagayan de Oro (17)
Olongapo (17)
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
9,452,000
227,000
212,000
167,000
273,000
428,000
211,000
0.53
0.36
0.39
0.55
0.38
0.54
0.39
5,009,560
81,720
82,680
91,850
103,740
231,120
82,290
Singapore (18)
Thailand
1996
3,000,000
1.1
3,300,000
Bangkok (19)**
Chiangmai (19)**
Nakhonsawan (19)**
Udonthani (19)**
Nakhonratchasima (19)**
Rachaburi (19)**
Pattaya (19)**
Phuket (19)**
Songkhla (19)**
Vietnam
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
5,876,000
167,000
152,000
137,000
278,000
n/a
n/a
n/a
243,000
1
1.87
1.11
0.62
1.41
2.78
1.63
2.15
1.11
5,876,000
312,290
168,720
84,940
391,980
n/a
n/a
n/a
269,730
Halong (21)
1997
n/a
0.55
n/a
Rajshahi (22)
Barisal (22)
Khulna (22)
Dhaka (22)
Chittagong (22)
Sylhet (22)
India
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
2,213,000
466,000
1,609,000
5,966,000
2,619,000
255,000
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
1,106,500
186,400
804,500
2,983,000
1,309,500
102,000
Ahmedabad (23)
Bangalore (23)
Bhopal (23)
Bombay (23)
Calcutta (23)
Coimbatore (23)
Delhi (23)
Hyderabad (23)
Indore (23)
Jaipur (23)
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
2,677,000
4,130,000
1,063,000
12,288,000
9,643,000
816,000
8,412,000
4,099,000
1,092,000
1,458,000
0.59
0.48
0.51
0.44
0.38
0.43
0.48
0.38
0.32
0.4
1,579,430
1,982,400
542,130
5,406,720
3,664,340
350,880
4,037,760
1,557,620
349,440
583,200
South Asia
Bangladesh
Page 37
ANNEX 2
Kanpur (23)
Kochi (23)
Lucknow (23)
Ludhiana (23)
Madras (23)
Madurai (23)
Nagpur (23)
Patna (23)
Pune (23)
Surat (23)
Vadodara (23)
Varanasi (23)
Visakhapatnam (23)
Nepal
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1,874,000
670,000
1,619,000
1,043,000
4,753,000
941,000
1,625,000
917,000
2,244,000
1,499,000
1,031,000
1,031,000
752,000
0.64
0.52
0.62
0.38
0.66
0.39
0.27
0.36
0.31
0.6
0.39
0.4
0.4
1,199,360
348,400
1,003,780
396,340
3,136,980
366,990
438,750
330,120
695,640
899,400
402,090
412,400
300,800
Kathmandu Valley (24)

Sri Lanka
1994
690,000
0.5
345,000
Colombo (25)**
Kandy (25)**
1994
1994
615,000
104,000
0.98
0.58
602,700
60,320
Galle (25)**
1994
109,000
0.65
70,850
n/i means not indicated

n/a means not available
C&D means construction and demolition
**city population data are from United Nations, 1997.
(1) World Bank, 1997
(2) Ecology and Environment Inc., 1993
(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
(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)
(23) Environmental Resources Management (ERM) India, 1995
(24) Consolidated Management Services Nepal Ltd., 1997
Page 38
ANNEX 2
OECD Municipal Solid Waste Generation Rates

Country
Year
MSW Generation Rate1
Population2
kg/capita/day
USA
Australia
Canada
Finland
Iceland
Norway
The
1992
1992
1992
1990
1992
1992
1992
2
1.89
1.8
1.7
1.53
1.4
1.37
Total Waste
tonnes/day
263.1
18.1
29.6
5.1
0.3*
4.4
15.5
526,200
34,209
53,280
8,670
459
6,160
21,235
Netherlands
France
Denmark
Austria
Japan
Belgium
Switzerland
Turkey
Hungary
Sweden
Germany
Spain
Italy
Poland
Portugal
Mexico
Greece
1992
1992
1990
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1990
1990
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1.29
1.26
1.18
1.12
1.1
1.1
1.09
1.07
1.01
0.99
0.99
0.96
0.93
0.9
0.85
0.85
58.1
5.2
8.1
125.2
10.1
7
61.1
10.2
8.8
81.9
39.2
57.2
38.6
9.9
91.8
10.5
74,949
6,552
9,558
140,224
11,110
7,700
66,599
10,914
8,888
81,081
38,808
54,912
35,898
8,910
78,030
8,925
1OECD,
1995
Bank, 1997b
*United Nations, 1995
2World
Page 39
ANNEX 2
1993 OECD Municipal Solid Waste Composition (percentage)

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

Assumed
Annual Growth
Rate (%)
Country
China
Hong Kong
Japan
Korea, Dem.Peo.Rep.
Korea, Rep. of
Mongolia
Cambodia
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Myanmar*
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
Bangladesh
India
Nepal
Sri Lanka
1World
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
1995 Per
Capita GNP1
(1995 US $)
620
22,990
39,640
240
9,700
310
270
980
350
3,890
240
1,050
26,730
2,740
240
240
340
200
700
Predicted 2025
Per Capita GNP
(1995 US $)
1,505
30,987
53,429
435
17,570
562
489
2,379
850
9,442
583
2,549
36,028
6,651
583
435
616
362
1,268
Bank, 1997b
Page 41
ANNEX 2
Country
Current
GNP per
capita
19951
1995 Population
Total1
(millions)
Urban Waste Generation
Urban2 (% of
Total)
2025
Predicted
GNP per
capita
Total Waste
(tonnes/day)
Predicted Population
Total2
(millions)
Urban2 (% of
Total)
Predicted
MSW
(kg/cap/day)
Low Income Countries
Nepal
Bangladesh
Myanmar
Vietnam
Mongolia
India
Lao PDR
China
Sri Lanka
200
240
2402
240
310
340
350
620
700
21.5
119.8
46.5*
73.5
2.5
929.4
4.9
1,200.2
18.1
13.7
18.3
26.2
20.8
60.9
26.8
21.7
30.3
22.4
0.5
0.49
0.45
0.55
0.6
0.46
0.69
0.79
0.89
1,473
10,742
5,482
8,408
914
114,576
734
287,292
3,608
360
440
580
580
560
600
850
1,500
1,300
40.7
196.1
75.6
118.2
3.8
1,392.1
9.7
1,526.1
25
34.3
40
47.3
39
76.5
45.2
44.5
54.5
42.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
193.3
68.6
58.2
20.1
35.4
54.2
20
53.7
0.76
0.52
1.1
0.81
52,005
19,334
12,804
8,743
2,400
2,500
6,700
9,440
275.6
104.5
73.6
31.6
60.7
74.3
39.1
72.7
1
0.8
1.5
1.4
Middle Income Countries
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Malaysia
980
1,050
2,740
3,890
High Income Countries
(t
Korea,
Republic of
Hong Kong
Singapore
Japan
9,700
44.9
81.3
1.59
58,041
17,600
54.4
93.7
1.4
22,990
26,730
39,600
6.2
3
125.2
95
100
77.6
5.07
1.1
1.47
29,862
3,300
142,818
31,000
36,000
53,500
5.9
3.4
121.6
97.3
100
84.9
4.5
1.1
1.3
1World
Bank, 1997b
Nations,1995
*assumed GNP
Country waste generation rates are based on weighted averages from different cities within the country.
2United
Page 42
ANNEX 2 Composition of Urban Solid Waste in Asian Countries Low Income Countries
Components
Nepal
Banglades
h
Myanmar
Lao PDR
India
1995 Urban
Population (in
millions) Year
2.9
1994
21.9
1992 Dom
12.2
1993 Dom,
1.1
1998
249.1
1995
Com
Dom,
IC&I
MSW
Type
MSW
of Waste
Compostables
Paper
Plastic
Glass
Metal
Others
80
7
2.5
3
0.5
7
84.37
5.68
1.74
3.19
3.19
1.83
80
4
2
0
0
14
54.3
3.3
7.8
8.5
3.8
22.5
Sri
Lanka
4.1
199394 Dom,
Com
41.8
5.7
3.9
2.1
1.9
44.6
76.4
10.6
5.7
1.3
1.3
4.7
NepalbasedonKathmanduValley.
BangladeshbasedonDhaka.
MyanmarbasedonYangon.
LaoPDRbasedonVientianeandKhanthabouri.
ChinabasedonQujing,Guilin,Dalian,Wuhan,Beijing,Huangshi,Xiangfan,andYichang.
Indiabasedon23metrocities.
SriLankabasedonColombo,Kandy,andGalle.
Middle Income Countries

Components
1995 Urban
Population
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Malaysia
Curren
t
Est. 2025
128
296.7
68.4
37.2
11.6
10.8
1993
1995
1995-96
1990
2025
Type of Waste
MSW
n/i
n/i
n/i
MSW
Compostables
Paper
Plastic
Glass
Metal
Others
70.2
10.9
8.7
1.7
1.8
6.2
41.6
19.5
13.8
2.5
4.8
17.9
48.6
14.6
13.9
5.1
3.6
14.2
43.2
23.7
11.2
3.2
4.2
14.5
Year
IndonesiabasedonJakarta,Bandung,andSurabaya.
57.5
14.9
10.9
2.4
3.1
11.1
50
20
9
3
5
13
China
Curre
nt
363.
7
1991
-95
Dom
,
Com
,
MS
W
655
35.8
3.7
3.8
2
0.3
54.3
41.0
4.6
3.8
2.1
1.0
47.5
Est.
1,525.
70
2025
MSW
60
15
6
3
4
12
PhilippinesbasedonMetroManila,Batangas,Olongapo,andBaguio.
ThailandbasedonBangkok,andtheMunicipalitiesofChonburi,Rayong,Songkhla,andChiangmai.
Malaysiabasedon11municipalities.
High Income Countries

Components
1995 Urban
Population Year
Singapor
e
3 1990
MSW
Type of Waste
Compostables
Paper Plastic
Glass Metal
Others
Japan
97.2
1993 n/i
Hong Kong
Current
5.9 1995
106.1
Dom
Est.
2025
112.3
2025
MSW
44.4
28.3
11.8 4.1
4.8 6.6
26 46 9 7
8 12
37.2 21.6
15.7 3.9
3.9 17.6
27.8
36.0
9.4 6.7
7.7
12.2
33 34
10 7
5 11
Singaporebasedontheentirecountry.JapanbasedonMetropolitanTokyo.HongKongbasedontheentirecountry.
Page 43

What A Waste Asia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What A Waste Asia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WhataWaste:

3.0 Consumer Societies ............................................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Extended product responsibility ..................................................................................................12

4.5 Pulp and Paper ...............................................................................................................................14

1. Introduction: Solid Waste Management in Asia

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

2.1 WASTE GENERATION RATES

Figure 1: Sources and Types of Solid Wastes

Figure 2: Waste Composition of Low, Middle, and High Income Countries

Figure 3: Current Urban Municipal Solid

Low Income 490 27.8 0.64 Nepal 200 13.7 0.50

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

2.2 WASTE COMPOSITION

Figure 4: Direct and Indirect Per Capita

Figure 5: Waste Composition Among Different Types of

2.3 WASTE TRENDS

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

Figure 7: 2025 Urban Per Capita Municipal Solid

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

3.0 CONSUMER SOCIETIES

Figure 9: Global Paper Consumption Rates (1995)

Country Per capita

Hong Kong 220

United Kingdom 170

South Korea 128

Figure 10: 1996 Per Capita CocaCola Consumption and Market

China 1,234 5 India 953 3 United States

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

4.2 EXTENDED PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY

Figure 12: CEMPRE - Business Involvement in Municipal Solid Waste

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL LABELING

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

4.4 WASTE EXCHANGES

4.5 PULP AND PAPER

Figure 13: Results of Survey

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

6.0 INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Figure 15: Comparison Of Typical Solid Waste Management

Low income Middle income High income

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

6.1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS

Figure 16: Municipal Urban Waste Services Expenditures

Figure 17: Japanese Expenditures for Solid Waste Management Services

Collection Intermediate Final Purchase Consignment Others

828,712 108,300 26,274 18,672

619,482 85,545 190,419 39,474 18,646 281,327 66,494

Operation and maintenance expenses

Figure 18: Japans Solid Waste Management Expenses

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

AllresidentialareasinJakartaarerequiredto payforprimarywastecollection,evenifwastesare notadequatelyor

Figure 19: Solid Waste Management Fees for

Figure 20: Reducing Waste Quantities Through User Fees

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

7.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMON VALUES

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION REFERENCES

WHAT A WASTE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

ANNEX 1: SOLID WASTE DATA

Table 1: Solid Waste Moisture