Integrated solid waste management based on the 3Rapproach

Abstract Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) based on the 3R approach (reduce, reuse, and recycle) is aimed at optimizing the management of solid waste from all the waste-generating sectors (municipal, construction and demolition, industrial, urban agriculture, and healthcare facilities) and involving all the stakeholders (waste genera- tors, service providers, regulators, government, and com- munity/neighborhoods). This article discusses the concept of solid waste management (SWM). Initially, SWM was aimed at reducing the risks to public health, and later the environmental aspect also became an important focus of SWM. Recently, another dimension is becoming a critical factor for SWM, i.e., resource conservation and resource recovery. Hence, the 3R approach is becoming a guiding factor for SWM. On the one hand, 3R helps to minimize the amount of waste from generation to disposal, thus man- aging the waste more effectively and minimizing the public health and environmental risks associated with it. On the other hand, resource recovery is maximized at all stages of SWM. Lately, the new concept of ISWM has been intro- duced to streamline all the stages of waste management, i.e., source separation, collection and transportation, transfer stations and material recovery, treatment and resource recovery, and fi nal disposal. It was originally targeted at municipal solid waste management (MSWM), but now the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is pro- moting this concept to cover all waste generating sectors to optimize the level of material and resource recovery for recycling as well as to improve the effi ciency of waste man- agement services. The ISWM concept is being transformed into ISWM systems to replace conventional SWM systems. This article further discusses the implementation process for ISWM. The process includes a baseline study on the characterization and quantifi cation of waste for all waste generating sectors within a city, assessment of current waste management systems and practices, target setting for ISWM, identifi cation of issues of concern and suggestions from stakeholders, development of a draft ISWM plan, preparation of an implementation strategy, and establish- ment of a monitoring and feedback system. UNEP is assist- ing member countries and their cities to develop an ISWM plan covering all the waste generating sectors within a spe- cifi c geographical or administrative area such as a city or municipality. This umbrella approach is useful to generate suffi cient volumes of recycling materials required to make recycling industries feasible. This is also helpful for effi cient reallocation of resources for SWM such as collection vehicles, transfer stations, treatment plants, and disposal sites. UNEP is assisting cities to develop and implement ISWM based on the 3R approach. These experiences could be useful for other countries to develop and implement ISWM to achieve improved public health, better environ- mental protection, and resource conservation and resource recovery. Key words Solid waste · 3R approach · Waste manage- ment · Assessment and planning Introduction Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) and 3R (reduce, reuse, and recycle) have become common termi- nologies for policy makers and practitioners in the fi eld of solid waste management. However, in many countries ISMW is taken as being synonymous with traditional municipal solid waste management (MSWM). In some countries, ISWM is understood to be an integrated approach for managing municipal waste to optimize the effi ciency of services and to achieve the objectives of the 3R approach. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2010) 12:30–40 © Springer 2010 DOI 10.1007/s10163-009-0274-0 Mushtaq Ahmed Memon Integrated solid waste management based on the 3R approach M.A. Memon International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), Division of Technology Industry and Technology, United Nations Environment Programme, 2-110 Ryokuchi Koen, Tsurumi-ku, Osaka 538-0036, Japan Tel. +81-6-6915-4523; Fax +81-6-6915-0304 e-mail: mushtaq.memon@unep.org This article was written in a personal capacity and the author’s views do not necessarily refl ect the offi cial position of his organization and/ or any other organization/individual. Received: February 25, 2008 / Accepted: December 10, 2009 ORIGINAL ARTICLE 31 This article discusses the concept of ISWM and argues that ISWM may go beyond municipal waste management alone and may cover all the waste generating sectors to optimize the effi ciency of the services at each stage of waste management and to increase the amount of recoverable materials and energy to make it attractive for the private sector. Stages of the ISWM chain include source separation, collection and transportation, transfer stations and material recovery, treatment and resource recovery, and fi nal dis- posal. Waste management services include the technology and human resources to facilitate the fl ow of waste and recovery at each stage. Furthermore, it is suggested that 3R is inherently integrated within ISWM. This article also highlights the process of developing and implementing ISWM in cities/towns. This process includes establishing baseline waste data and assessment of current waste management systems, target setting, identifi cation of stakeholders’ issues of concern for ISWM, and develop- ment of an ISWM plan with its implementation strategy. Evolving concept ISWM is an evolving concept. Initially ISWM was devel- oped to increase the effi ciency of the MSWM chain, i.e., source separation, collection and transportation, transfer stations, treatment, and fi nal disposal.1 Later, ISWM became an umbrella management system to coordinate all waste types from all waste sources (residential, commercial, industrial, healthcare, construction and demolition, and agriculture) within a geographic or administrative bound- ary such as a city. Furthermore, ISWM became a process to achieve 3R, aiming to minimize the quantity of waste requiring disposal and to maximize recovery of material and energy from waste. Thus, ISWM is a system based on the 3R approach at the city/town level covering all waste generating sectors and all stages of the waste management chain, including segregation at source for reuse and recy- cling, collection and transportation, sorting for material recovery, treatment and resource recovery, and fi nal disposal. Background ISWM started evolving right from the beginning. Histori- cally, solid waste was considered as the waste produced by humans and animals, consuming resources to support life.1 Later, with industrial activities, the scope of solid waste was broadened to include the wastes generated by industry. Later, it was also realized that catastrophic events such as earthquakes, fl oods, and fi re also generate debris. This debris, the result of natural disasters or the outcome of construction and demolition activity, is also considered to be solid waste that needs to be removed. The management of solid waste was not a major issue when the population was small and the land available for the assimilation of wastes was large.1 Furthermore, the impact of waste on public health was not yet fully realized. However, after the outbreak of the worst public health impacts, especially in Europe, the removal of waste became one of the top priorities for public health. This was not only applicable to biodegradable wastes, which produce disease-related vectors, but was also applicable to nonbiodegradable wastes, which were accu- mulating and resulting in urban fl ooding and were affecting sanitary conditions. The initial success of maintaining public health by remov- ing waste from cities and dumping it outside did not last for long because open dumps and open burning started having its own impact on public health and on the natural environ- ment. Leachate from dumps started seeping into water resources and into agricultural fi elds, resulting in contami- nation of water and food. Local air pollution from burning of waste increased the incidence of various diseases. This led the public and governments to give serious thought to the proper management of solid waste so that it would not affect public health and the natural environ- ment directly or indirectly. Solid waste management (SWM) became a priority public service for local govern- ments. At this time, SWM services were mainly considered for municipal solid waste (MSW); thus, MSWM was a common term with varying defi nitions in different parts of the world. Hester and Harrison indicate that depending on the country, the defi nition of MSW can include some or all household wastes, including hazardous wastes; bulky wastes; street sweepings and litter; parks and garden wastes; and wastes from institutions, commercial establish- ments, and offi ces.2 Industrial waste management became the responsibility of waste generators (industries) as well as national gover- nments. In countries with increased decentralization such as Japan and China, local governments were also responsible for regulating and monitoring industrial waste management. Since then, new types of waste have emerged, such as wastes from healthcare services, wastes from discarded electronic equipment including computers (e-waste), waste from end-of-life vehicles (ELV), wastes from urban agricul- ture, and huge waste quantities from construction and demolition activities and from catastrophic events such as urban fl oods and earthquakes. Responses to managing waste Waste management is one of the costliest public services. Conventional responses to collection, transportation, treat- ment, and disposal of waste in an environmental friendly way became a burden due to the rapid increase in waste generation levels as a result of urbanization and economic growth. Developing countries are in the worst situation because most modern waste collection, treatment, and dis- posal equipment is imported and the revenue base to support waste management is very small. Table 1 and Fig. 1 show the expenditures on MSWM by selected countries and cities. The fi nancial burden started to become critical 32 with an increase in energy and land prices. The waste col- lection rates in many developing countries were affected badly due to rapid increases in the cost. It became very diffi cult to fi nd land near a town for landfi lling, and trans- portation costs and environmental impacts became major constraints to constructing landfi lls at a distant location. Hence the most vital response was to reduce the amount of waste. Reduced quantities of waste would decrease the burden on collection services as well as on treatment and fi nal disposal facilities. Various strategies, including techno- logical and policy based, were introduced to reduce the amount of waste at the point of generation. Cleaner produc- tion (CP) is being introduced to minimize the waste genera- tion by industry, while awareness-raising campaigns and waste collection fees were introduced to motivate residents, institutions, commercial entities, and others to limit their waste generation levels. Current state of waste generation Local, national, and international efforts were made to raise the awareness of waste generators to reduce the amount of waste generation. There were substantial gains, especially for controlling the levels of industrial waste gen- eration. However, municipal waste was still on the rise, and it is estimated that in 2004 the total amount of MSW generated globally reached 1.84 billion tonnes, a 7% increase over 2003.4,11 It is further estimated that between 2004 and 2008, global generation of municipal waste will rise by 31.1%, roughly a 7% increase annually. New emerg- ing waste streams, especially with hazardous waste compo- nents, are also arising. The Secretariat for the Basel Con- vention (SBC) estimated that about 318 and 338 million tonnes of hazardous and other waste was generated in 2000 and 2001, respectively,5 based on incomplete reports from the parties to the Convention. Healthcare waste is classifi ed as a subcategory of hazardous waste in many countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that in most low-income countries, total healthcare waste per person per year is anywhere from 0.5 to 3 kg.6 There is no comprehensive estimate about global industrial waste gen- eration. The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America (US EPA) estimates that Ameri- can industrial facilities generate and dispose of approxi- mately 7.6 billion tonnes of nonhazardous industrial solid waste each year.7 Waste from agriculture and rural areas includes both biomass agricultural residues and hazardous wastes such as spent pesticides. The European Union (EU) estimated that its 25 member states produce 700 million tonnes of agricultural waste annually.8 Table 1. Expenditures on municipal solid waste management (MSWM) (from MacFarlane3) City, country Year Per capita expenditure on MSWM (US$) Per capita GNP (US$) Percentage of GNP spent on MSWM New York, USA 1991 106 22 240 0.48 Toronto, Canada 1991 67 20 440 0.33 Strasburg, France 1995 63 24 990 0.25 London, UK 1991 46 16 550 0.28 Kula Lumpur, Malaysia 1994 15.25 4000 0.38 Budapest, Hungary 1995 13.80 4130 0.33 Sao Paulo, Brazil 1989 13.32 2540 0.52 Buenos Aries, Argentina 1989 10.15 2160 0.47 Tallinn, Estonia 1995 8.11 3080 0.26 Bogota, Columbia 1994 7.75 1620 0.48 Caracas, Venezuela 1989 6.67 2450 0.27 Riga, Latvia 1995 6 2420 0.25 Manila, Philippines 1995 4 (estimated) 1070 0.37 Bucharest, Romania 1995 2.37 1450 0.16 Hanoi, Vietnam 1994 2 (predicted) 250 0.80 Madras, India 1995 1.77 350 0.45 Lahore, Pakistan 1985 1.77 390 0.45 Dhaka, Bangladesh 1995 1.46 270 0.54 Accra, Ghana 1994 0.66 390 0.17 GNP, gross national product Fig. 1. Examples of national expenditure levels on municipal solid waste management. (From [10]) 33 Current state of waste management in developing countries The World Bank estimates that in developing countries, it is common for municipalities to spend 20%–50% of their available budget on SWM, and still 30%–60% of all urban solid waste is uncollected and less than 50% of the popula- tion is served. In most developing countries, open dumping with open burning is the norm.9 In low-income countries, collection alone uses up 80%–90% of the MSWM budget. In middle-income countries, collection costs 50%–80% of the total budget. In high-income countries, collection accounts for less than 10% of the budget, which allows large funds to be allocated to waste treatment facilities. Upfront community participation in these advanced countries reduces the collection cost and facilitates waste recycling and recovery. Despite various efforts and community-based initiatives, the overall situation of waste management remains challenging, as shown in Table 2. Concept of integrated solid waste management based on 3R The scenario discussed in the preceding section refl ects the challenges of conventional integrated waste management, which was sector specifi c and had little emphasis on resource recovery for reuse and recycling. The major challenge was that most of the funds were being consumed by collection of waste and it was almost impossible for many countries to support proper treatment and disposal without external funding. The international agencies realized that improvements in waste management could not be achieved through a piecemeal approach. An integrated approach was required to reduce the increasing amount of waste that requires proper collection, treatment, and disposal. However, efforts to minimize waste through awareness-raising and policy could result in substantial reductions in volumes of waste. In addition to that, it was also realized that waste contains precious resources that could be recovered in terms of materials for recycling as well as in terms of energy to be used as a substitute for fossil fuels. This realization com- pletes the concept of 3R to reduce the fi nal amount of waste as well as to divert most of the waste for reuse and resource recovery. The reduced amounts of waste could substantially decrease the costs for waste management. Resource aug- mentation by converting waste into material or energy could broaden the revenue base to support expenditures for SWM. Initially, this 3R approach was promoted in each waste sector individually, mainly due to the institutional frame- work in most countries where local government is respon- sible for municipal waste and construction and demolition waste, and national government is responsible for industrial waste and agricultural waste. However, it was realized that by integrating various sectors under the ISWM concept of umbrella management, there would be various gains. First, the available resources for waste collection, material recov- ery, treatment and resource recovery, and disposal could be used effi ciently with better scheduling and higher resource- use effi ciency. Second, there would be substantial amounts of recovered materials and energy available to facilitate the establishment of industries that could use these resources for production. Third, there would be savings in waste man- agement costs as the overall amount of fi nal waste that requires disposal would be reduced considerably through diversion of waste for material and resource recovery. Fourth, there would be active coordination among various stakeholders that could lead them to work on other devel- opment projects such as water and sanitation. Fifth, the outcome of ISWM in terms of cleaner and safer neighbor- hoods would lead to improved quality of life, better eco- nomic activity, and higher property values. Last, but not least, governments can build trust among the public as ISWM brings tangible outcomes in terms of public health, jobs and economic gains from recycling industry, cleanli- ness, and active interactions among stakeholders. Hence, the ISWM concept can optimize the gains of 3R on one hand, and improve the waste management system on the other hand. Figure 2 captures the ISWM concept based on the 3R approach. Implementing ISWM An ISWM system based on the 3R approach can be opti- mally designed and implemented at the town/city level due to the basic role of local government in providing waste collection and management services. However, the regional/provincial and national governments have to Table 2. Waste management practices Region Sanitary landfi ll (%) Incineration (%) Open dumps (%) Recycling (%) Open burning (%) Others (%) Africa 29.3 1.4 47.0 3.9 9.2 8.4 Asia 30.9 4.7 50.0 8.5 1.7 4.5 Europe 27.6 13.8 33.0 10.7 11.8 4.4 North America 91.1 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 Latin America 60.5 2.0 34.0 3.2 5.5 2.0 34 play very important roles, especially in terms of enacting appropriate policies and regulations as well as strengthen- ing the institutions to create an enabling environment for ISWM. Traditionally, many cities in developing countries did not have a dedicated waste management plan and waste man- agement had a low priority for most local and national governments. In many cities, waste management was con- sidered as the collection of garbage and the dumping of that garbage outside the city. Even for waste collection, a sys- tematic approach was not adopted as the operational plan and the number of collection trucks was not designed based on waste generation rates. There is a clear difference in the new ISWM approach that requires a logical system based on reliable baseline data to cover collection as well as all the other stages of the waste management chain. Hence the designing and implementation of ISWM for a gi