3R practice in the East and South East Asia: Identification of Gaps at Country Level
Enormous challenges in developing a 3R (reduce, reuse and recycle) society in Asia is revealed by the extraordinary emerging consumption statistics from the region as it rapidly industrializes, especially in China and India. Unfortunately, this growth is also accompanied by a corresponding rise in solid waste generation and degradation of natural resources. As estimated by the World Bank in 2004, urban authorities in Asia spend 50-70 % of their revenues on waste management and the effect of neglecting the environment costs an average of five percent of the GDP. For instance, a recent fact sheet on China’s Environmental Health Project predicts that Beijing alone will produce domestic e-waste at an alarming 115,000 tons comprising of 3.6 million of old televisions, fridges, washing machines, computers and air-conditioners, and 2.3 billion mobile phones. It is also expected to exceed 158,000 tons by 2012. China is also expected to account for 24 % of the world steel production thus leading to a massive growth of the secondary sectors. These developments have in many forms, compelled the industries and responsible parties to sideline environmental issues.
India on the other hand is equally playing hard. A data captured through Market Supply Method for 2004-2005 reveals an estimated market size of personal computers at 15.4 million, television sets at 11.7 million, refrigerators at 4.8 million and washing machines at 1.7 million. The study also estimates a 25% growth rate of computers and 15-20% of other items annually. Accordingly, with respect to the obsolescence rate and e-waste inventory, domestic e-waste in India is estimated to be around 146,000 tons and expected to exceed 1.6 million tons by 2012.
Sadly, for both China and India, these figures do not include those e-wastes that are shipped (often illegally) from developed countries. The current pace of urbanization, the consumerist society and its waste generation will lead us to a point of no return, let alone global sustainability and poverty reduction. Figure 1 shows the Ecological Footprint per person of the Asia-Pacific region. It has risen by more than 130 % since 1961, now requiring 1.3 global hectares of biologically productive area per person. This emerging consumer society has brought forward an enormous challenge of managing modern waste and developing a 3R society to the municipal authorities troubled with issues in waste management and sanitation. Figure 2 shows a projection of municipal waste generation until 2050. By studying these figures, it is evident that only 3R could play a major role in terms of managing the waste and conserving natural resources.
Figure 1: Asia-Pacific’s Ecological Footprint, 1961–2001 (WWF, 2005)
Figure 2: Future predictions for global waste generation levels
Although some governments have recently formulated and incorporated 3R measures and cleaner production options to tackle the waste crisis, most of them have been implemented only in the national capital cities. In rural and peri-urban areas, urban municipal wastes generate a steady income despite the risks involved in treating and down cycling them to other consumer products. Looking back in time, Asian societies, especially in the villages, have been leading a 3R-oriented lifestyle. Traditional know-how’s to resource conservations have been passed on from father to son. These techniques now remain useless when confronted with an urban waste (See Figure 3). These sudden shifts in the culture have brought along various challenges and chaos in solid waste management. It is also a clear implication of the fact that the business-as-usual scenario cannot continue in Asian countries as long as the current waste disposal and treatment prevails.
Figure 3: Urban residuals or Shifting cultures?
These compounding wastes grimly remind all stakeholders to adopt and implement 3R initiatives at both ends, upstream production and downstream consumption. Executable and feasible technology frameworks should be developed. Prior to that, studies should be conducted to assess the gaps and prevailing treatment situations.
This article attempts to give a broader picture of the ongoing 3R implementation in some Asian countries (including key players like China and India). Wastes from three major sources (urban municipal waste, medical waste and e-waste) have been considered. It was observed that in most of the studied countries, informal activities highly dominate due to lack of funding, government initiation, lapse in policy and public ignorance on waste management issues. Weak activities (for livelihood purposes) adopting primitive technologies and operating in a haphazard manner at the micro and meso scale are common. Unlike those in developed countries, some of these optimized processing/ treatment technologies are nonexistent and in most cases insignificant due to the level of technology and the maintenance budget involved. In some countries, waste compositions alone determine the need for such technologies. Furthermore, judging at the prevailing technology barriers in the developing countries, it still remains unclear whether technology leapfrogging could enhance the 3R initiatives in the developing countries.
3R Initiation in Asia
Junichiro Koizumi, the former Prime Minister of Japan proposed the 3R Initiative in the G8 Summit held at Sea Island in 2004. The 3R Initiative was formally endorsed by the G8 leaders on the same occasion. As follow-up activity, The Ministerial Conference to launch the 3R concept was held in Tokyo from 28-30 April 2005. The launch was considered as the first step in changing global consumption and production patterns and building a sound-material-cycle society. Since then, there have been significant developments and awareness on 3R initiatives in most of the Asian countries. Many NGOs, CBOs and the private sector have been actively working in these countries to promote the 3Rs in various forms. Interestingly, some private sector companies such as Tetra Pak (a global food packaging company) have set good examples by recycling used cartons (milk and juice) in some countries. They are also known to have promoted other recycling activities involving schools and community members (See Box 1).
3R Endeavors in Managing Municipal Waste:
Managing municipal waste in urban centers could be a challenging job at hand especially when the waste streams are heterogeneous with no or little collection fee. There are significant differences in the generation and composition of municipal waste due to varying geo-climatic conditions and living styles. At times, waste generation patterns differ even within the same municipalities. Table 1 presents the waste composition, especially the recyclable content, in the municipal solid waste of some Asian countries. The waste components are, in most cases, discarded or dumped without any treatment or recycling. Such practices have prompted some private sectors and NGOs to initiate recycling and proper waste management strategies. For instance, Waste Concern, an NGO in Dhaka (Bangladesh) has been actively involved in promoting 3R initiatives and good practices in Bangladesh (See Box 2).
Table 1: Municipal Solid Waste Composition in some Asian countries
Country / Waste composition (%)Org. waste / Paper/ Cardboard / Plastic / Glass / Metal / Others
Bangladesh / 71 / 9 / 5 / 1.5 / 13.5
China, PR (a) / 65 / 9 / 13 / 2 / 1 / 10
China, PR (b) / 41 / 5 / 4 / 2 / 1 / 47
India / 45 / 7 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 40
Japan / 17 / 40 / 20 / 10 / 6 / 7
Korea / 31 / 27 / 6 / 6 / 7 / 23
Malaysia / 45 / 7 / 24 / 3 / 6 / 15
Philippines / 41 / 19 / 14 / 3 / 5 / 18
Singapore / 44 / 28 / 12 / 4 / 5 / 7
Thailand / 48 / 15 / 14 / 5 / 4 / 14
Vietnam (Hanoi) / 49 / 2 / 16 / 7 / 6 / 20
(a) People using Coal, (b) People using Gas
Chart 1 gives a broader perspective of the implementation status of different waste treatment technologies in the studied countries.
Chart1: Status of 3R Technologies employed for MSW
Technology applications for thermal recovery (direct combustion of waste to recover heat) and fuel recovery (RDF and PDF production from waste) are not observed in most of the Asian countries. These technologies are found to have been best applied only in the developed Asian countries. It was noticed that in China and Thailand, these technologies do exist but with an uncertainty in their efficiency both in terms of cost and environmental factors. Material recovery and sorting in MSW remains largely unexplored in many Asian countries. Although some pilot models have proved successful in developed countries, many details are yet to be determined in terms of implementation necessitating further research. In the developing countries, a chain of informal recyclers, from waste scavengers to the waste dealers, perform the task of material recovery and sorting. It is justifiable to state that their livelihood could be in stake provided such technologies are operational and commercially successful, which practically is not likely to happen at least in the coming years. But, pondering upon the health risks and the resource conservation, these providing technologies or at least some formal registration and support from the governments is vital. It is undeniable that major focus should be paid to the 3R technologies associated with MSW sorting, pulverization and composting. Composting has proven to be one of the best affordable solutions for developing countries to manage their municipal waste. Bangladesh has set an ideal example in successfully setting up decentralized composting systems through out the country. Similar formal approaches are also seen in China, India and Thailand; but they still lack the fundamental support to make it strong and successful.
3R Endeavors in Managing Electronic Waste:
According to Financial Express (2005), about 80 % of the Electronic waste or E-waste generated in the US is exported to India, China and Pakistan. The recent ban on importing E-waste to China has diverted much of it to Bangladesh and other neighboring countries due to cheap labor and recycling businesses. In Delhi alone, there are about 25,000 workers employed at scrap-yards, where 10,000 to 20,000 tons of E-wastes are handled every year, with obsolete personal computers accounting for 25%. In China, similar to the practice of ship breaking, the e-waste imports are generally made possible by certain intermediaries. These wastes are shipped to Hong Kong in containers labeled “for recycling”, and then smuggled to several recycling towns in China. Neighboring countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh are also not spared by this overflowing e-waste. It is a crisis not only of quantity but also of toxic ingredients such as lead, beryllium, mercury, cadmium, and brominated flame retardants that pose both occupational and environmental health threats. But, to date, industry, government and consumers have only taken small steps to deal with this looming problem. Especially in developing countries, electronic waste is the highly sought-after item for scavengers and local recyclers. Chart 2 explains the prevailing status of e-waste recycling and technology employed in some Asian Countries.
Chart2: Status and Technology Gaps in 3R implementation – (E-waste)
Most of the developing Asian countries are in a budding stage when it comes to implementing 3R technologies related to electronic waste. The whole market is driven by chains of informal recyclers. Manual dismantling of electronic components are the most common method of recovering valuable materials. To recover copper and other metals, they burn the electrical components (including electrical wires) releasing deadly cocktails of toxins. The other accrued electronic and electric waste are dismantled and sorted manually to recover fractions of printed circuit boards, cathode ray tubes, cables, plastics, metals, condensers and other materials like batteries (Table 2). Like in any other developing country e-waste management is a major issue in Cambodia too. However, the economic status of the country attracts more of importing/ dumping issues rather than locally originated e-wastes. Cambodia is starved of electricity supplies and hence people in rural areas thrive on storage batteries as means of electricity source. In this context, Lead Acid Batteries play an important role in powering the economy. Various measures have been taken at the local and national level for the appropriate treatment of used lead acid batteries. As the name implies, these batteries consists of hazardous materials that often result as wastes demanding environmentally safe recycling and disposal. Used Lead Acid Batteries (ULAB) are common in Cambodia and are either imported from neighboring countries as whole units or are assembled within the country.
Table 2: E-waste recycling in Chennai, India
Computer component / Recovered component / Mechanism employedMonitor / Cathode ray tube,
circuit board, copper,
plastics / Dismantling using screw drivers
(the broken CRTs are dumped)
Hard disk / China steel, aluminum, actuator (magnet), platter, circuit board / Broken using hammer
Circuit board / Capacitor, condenser, copper, gold, chipped board / Gold recovery - acid treatment,
Copper recovery - heating,
Crushing of boards by custom-made crushers
Printer / Motor, plastics / Dismantling using screw drivers
Cables and wires / Copper, aluminum / Burning or stripping
Source: Toxics link
This growing concern over e-waste (domestic and imported) in the developing Asian countries has alarmed many NGOs to initiate their own campaigns to the safe handling and reduction of e-waste. Their current effort in managing e-waste could be further enhanced if the policy makers and the industries join their hands on implementing cleaner production mechanism and Extended Producer Responsibility.
Source: PCD-2004
3R Endeavors in Managing Medical Waste:
As mentioned in a World Bank report in 2000, waste management, even in government hospitals, is less than satisfactory. Uncontrolled burning, reuse of disposable items, unintentional injuries from improperly discarded sharps, are common and leads to life-threatening infections such as Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV. Even these days, in most of the developing countries, medical/ healthcare waste management and its potential threats still remain a subject not well defined and understood, both to the general public and policymakers. As a result, they are often disposed with the general waste streams and in some cases collected separately and burned in locally made or poorly maintained hospital waste incinerators. There exists a state of mystery as to who is responsible for managing such waste once it has reached the dumpsites or a municipal collection point. Proper source separation will prove very effective in answering such questions. This will greatly reduce the amount and the toxicity of the medical waste for treatment and disposal. For instance, any waste generated within a medical facility is considered as infectious due to a single bin collection and storage system. 3R initiatives could play a major role in reducing the amount of medical waste generated in the developing countries and in diverting them from reaching the municipal dumpsites. To enhance such initiatives and to solve the medical waste management dilemma, the current system direly needs a ‘Medical Waste Supervisor’ as suggested by Dr. Satoshi Imamura, from Japan Medical Association during the Asia 3R conference in Tokyo. Such personnel could play a significant role in managing the medical waste and could bring a significant change in handling and safe disposal of medical waste in the developing countries.
In Thailand, medical wastes are collected separately and incinerated at designated incinerators. Discrepancies among different departments do exist in estimating the waste generation rate (0.11 – 0.65 kg/bed/day). According to the Department of Environmental Health, there are about 750 incinerators installed in various hospitals across the country. These incinerators, about 700 units, most of which are locally designed with a capacity of 50 kg/hr, two chambered type, and operated with excess air have been serving the purpose since 1995.
In Philippines, most of the government and private hospitals practice waste segregation and employ microwave units for treating the infectious waste. But due to lack of financial support most of these wastes often end up in municipal dumpsites. Based on a recent survey, in Metro Manila there are about 3,670 healthcare facilities and it is estimated that they generate around 47 tons of waste of which more than 55% are infectious (Table 3). Currently, there are twoprivately owned incineration facilities. The operating companies also provide collection, treatment, and disposal services to both private and public health care facilities in Metro Manila. Both of the incineration facilities do not have air pollution control equipments. Ash collected from the combustion process is disposed on-site in a cement vault. On the other hand, the company providing disinfection by means of microwaves has received formal complaints on odor problems from neighbors living near the site. Table 3 presents the medical waste generation in some Asian countries.
Table3. Estimated quantities of health care waste generated in Metro Manila
Type of Facility / Infectious Waste (kg/day) / Non-infectious Waste (kg/day) / Total (kg/day)Accredited Hospitals
Government / 5,971 / 6,850 / 12,821
Private / 3,996 / 4,584 / 8.580
Health Centers / 802 / 1,203 / 2,005
Medical Clinics / 2,580 / 3,870 / 6,450
Dental Clinics / 5,880 / 1,960 / 7,840
Veterinary Clinics / 372 / 93 / 465
Pharmaceutical Labs / 5,772 / 1,443 / 7,215
Blood Banks / 204 / 51 / 255
Funeral Parlors / 1,176 / 196 / 1,372
Medical Schools / 132 / 33 / 165
Research Institutions / 48 / 12 / 60
Total / 26,933 / 20,294 / 47,228
Source: ADB, 2004,
The major fraction (75-90%) of the waste generated by healthcare facilities are, in general non-risk and resembles residential and institutional wastes. The remaining fraction (10-25%) is hazardous and may pose a variety of health risks. Therefore, there is a need to promote the concept of source separation or recycling activities as a priority action. Hospital Lam Wah Ee, in Malaysia has successfully initiated a source separation and recycling activity from the waste collected within the facilities (See Box4). The volume of the medical waste generated in most of the countries is small (compared to municipal waste) to have an economically viable treatment plant. But, once such waste enters the municipal sewers or dumpsites, the consequences could be alarming.
Conclusion:
Considering the current pace of urbanization and waste generation, a regional approach should be developed in terms of waste color coding, source segregation, trans-boundary movement of these wastes for treatment. In terms of 3R implementation, there is a need to promote locally feasible formal practices and replication of success stories. Wherever possible, e-waste and medical waste should be in treated separately using best available and affordable technology. For the medical waste, there is a need to promote microwave and autoclave treatment technologies and to upgrade the existing incinerators. However a detailed technical review and a potential technology development need to be done. They are more to copy from the developed neighboring countries in terms of their policy frameworks and good practices rather than producing knock-out products to flood the market and then to the dumpsites. At least, it is good to see that these e-wastes are sorted out before reaching the municipal sewers and dumpsites.