Solid Waste Management Strategy For METAP Mashreq and Maghreb Countries
DRAFTPage 1
Table ES1: KEY ELMENTS OF THE EXISTING MSWM IN THE REGION
Country / Legal Framework / Institutional Framework / User Charges / Cost recovery Mechanism / Used FacilitiesEnvironment / SW / National Level / Municipal level / Collection / Treat-ment / Indirect / Direct / Open Dump / Sanitary Landfill / Comp-osting / Incineration
Algeria / Law 83 of 1983 / Decree 84-378 / N/A / YES / YES / NO / NO / NO / YES / NO / NO / NO
Egypt / Law 4/94 / NO / NO / YES / YES / NO / NO / YES / YES / NO / YES / NO
Jordan / Law 1995 / YES / NO / YES / YES / YES / NO / NO / YES / NO / YES / NO
Lebanon / Draft / NO / NO / YES / YES / NO / YES / NO / YES / YES / YES / NO
Morocco / Draft / In process / NO / YES / NO / NO / NO / NO / YES / NO / YES / NO
Syria / Draft / NO / NO / YES / YES / NO / NO / NO / YES / NO / YES / NO
Tunisia / YES / Law 96-41 / YES / YES / YES / YES / NO / TBD / YES / YES / YES / NO
West Bank & Gaza / Law 1999 / NO / NO / YES / YES / NO / NO / NO / YES / YES / NO / NO
Table 1: Estimated Waste Generation Data
Lebanon / Syria / Jordan / West Bank/ Gaza / Egypt / Tunisia / Algeria / Morocco / Region(1)Estimated Solid Waste Generation 1998 (million tonnes)(2) / 1,4 / 3,4 / 1,3 / 0.9 / 14,5 / 1,8 / 5,2 / 6,0 / 34,5
Projected Solid Waste Generation 2010 (tonnes)(3) / 1,8 / 5,7 / 2,0 / 1,7 / 20,1 / 2,3 / 7,4 / 8,8 / 49,8
Percent Increase In Waste Generation / 28 / 69 / 57 / 83 / 39 / 26 / 41 / 47 / 44
Estimated Annual Per Capita Waste Generation, 1998 (kilograms)(4) / 337 / 203 / 284 / 321 / 219 / 193 / 173 / 206 / 242
Projected Annual Per Capita Waste Generation, 2010 (kilograms)(4) / 363 / 243 / 349 / 362 / 247 / 211 / 192 / 246 / 277
Percent Increase In Per Capita Waste Generation / 8 / 20 / 23 / 13 / 13 / 9 / 11 / 19 / 15
Notes:1.Regional estimates of “Percent Increase In Waste Generation”, and “Per Capita Waste Generation” for 1998, 2010 and percent increase in per capita waste generation are calculated as the mean of the national values.
2.All data based on estimates provided by local officials, except Syria and Jordan for which data are based on independent analysis.
3.All data based on independent analysis.
4.Population estimates used to calculate these data is taken from or based on The World Factbook available at
March 2000
Solid Waste Management Strategy For METAP Arab Countries
DRAFTPage 2
Table 2:Generalised Solid Waste Composition
Range Of CompositionCountries Outside
Typical Of RegionTypical Range
(Percent)
Paper/Paperboard11 – 14Lebanon (17 percent)
Glass2 – 7Lebanon (9 percent)
Plastics7 – 10Jordan (16 percent)
Metal2 – 6
Putrescible55 - 70
Fabric/Textiles3 - 5
Unspecified2 – 5Egypt (13 percent)
TOTAL100
Source: Country estimates and independent analyses
March 2000
-Solid Waste Management Strategy For METAP Mashreq and Maghreb Countries
DRAFT Page- 1 -
Table 3:Estimated Current Annual Solid Waste Management Expenditures: 1998(1)
Lebanon(2) / Syria(3) / Jordan(3) / West Bank/ Gaza(3) / Egypt(4) / Tunisia(5) / Algeria(6) / Morocco(7) / RegionTotal Estimated Solid Waste Management Expenditures ($US million) / 69 / 30–39 / 22-26 / 9-16 / 32-37 / 33-50 / No data / 97-128 / 292-365
National Average Per Capita Expenditure ($US) / 16.82 / 1.80 – 2.33 / 4.93 – 5.95 / 2.70 - 5.40 / 0.49 - 0.56 / 3.58 - 4.83 / No data / 3.23 – 4.26 / 4.79 – 5.73
National Average Expenditure As Percentage Of Per Capita GDP / 0.37 / 0.04 – 0.05 / 0.37 – 0.45 / 0.23 - 0.46 / 0.04 - 0.05 / 0.17 - 0.23 / No data / 0.27 – 0.35 / 0.22 – 0.29
National Average Expenditure Per Tonne Of Waste Generated ($US)(8) / 50 / 9 – 11 / 17 – 20 / 8 – 17 / 2 – 3 / 19 – 25 / No data / 16 – 21 / 17 – 21
Notes:1. All figures in this table reflect annual operating, labour and maintenance costs only. Expenditures are expressed as a range in most cases reflecting the uncertainty associated with the available data. All data is subject to verification; see text for discussion of numbers.
2. Data from "Public Expenditure Review Report In The Waste Management Sector", World Bank, unpublished
3. Data based on figures provided by country officials and independent analysis
4. Data based on estimated cleansing tax receipts and figures provided by local officials.
5. Data based figures provided by country officials.
6. No data available on which to develop estimates.
7. Data based on independent analysis.
8. These data mask deep disparities within countries. Actual waste management expenditures per tonne of waste generated in major cities may be 50 percent or more than the national average; expenditures in the rural areas of some countries may be much less than the national average and in some countries are $0.
Table 4: Institutional Delineation Of SWM Roles And Responsibilities
Level /Role/Responsibility
/ TasksNational Government / Policy/planning / Establish policy objectives and monitoring indicators to measure progress towards objectives
Establish SWM legal framework to achieve objectives that incorporates “polluter pays” principle, encourages regionalized SWM service delivery, incorporates cost recovery and encourages private sector participation
Implement national plan to achieve objectives
Periodically review/amend policy objectives and plan
Licensing/permitting / Develop standards and norms for the sitting, design and operation of SWM facilities to ensure protection of human health and the environment
Implement system for issuing SWM facility licenses/permits that incorporates environmental impact assessment, public input and legal obligation of operators to monitor and meet standards and norms, and report deficiencies
Monitoring / Establish/implement framework for monitoring progress of overall SWM system, and reporting progress
Establish/implement framework for verifying SWM facility compliance
Enforcement / Undertake compliance/enforcement actions necessary to maintain established standards and norms
Education / Create national SWM public education/awareness program in support of policy/program objectives
Financing/Cost Recovery / Create financing mechanism whereby sub-national entities can capitalize SWM improvements
Work with sub-national entities (public and private)to establish a cost recovery structure that incorporates capital depreciation/ amortization on life cycle basis, ensures funds for future SWM capital investment and autonomy of sub-national entities to make capital investments
Administration / Provide SWM operational mandate to municipalities and “polluter pay” entities; provide regulatory mandate to ministry responsible for environment.
Municipal/
Regional / Operations / Identify required SWM facilities/systems and schedule for implementation
Identify private sector roles
Implement facilities/systems, contracting with private sector as necessary
Monitoring / Monitor facility/system performance, including private sector compliance with contract requirements
Enforcement / Undertake compliance/enforcement actions necessary to control litter and to ensure private sector contractual obligations are maintained
Education / Create SWM public awareness/education program in support of local operations
Financing/Cost Recovery / Establish cost recovery mechanisms that includes capital depreciation/amortization on life cycle basis and accumulates funds for future SWM capital investments
Administration / Consider/establish regionalized service delivery under local municipal control
Private Sector / Financing/Cost Recovery / Contribute to financing/cost-recovery in accordance with application of “polluter pays” principle
Operations / Provide SWM services under contract or concession (applies only to SWM service providers)
Administration / Participate in administration of entities created to implement private sector responsibilities under “polluter pay” principle
Table 5: Key Capacity Development Needs
Policy And Institutional /Planning
/ Operations / Finance And Cost RecoveryNational Action / Develop capacity to identify /implement legal and institutional options for service delivery / Develop capacity to design and administer national SWM planning process / Develop capacity to determine environmental impacts of SWM facilities and equipment / Develop capacity to select/implement full cost, “polluter pay” and “user pay” financing and cost recovery structures
Objective / Establish national SWM leadership credibility / Establish national SWM planning process / Establish facility siting, design and operating criteria / Establish full cost accounting, “polluter pay”, “user pay” and other investment, financing and cost recovery frameworks
Municipal/ Regional Action / Develop capacity to select and implement local SWM institutional service delivery options / Develop capacity to identify and formulate local SWM priorities consistent with national SWM goals / Develop capacity to select, operate and administer SWM facilities and equipment / Develop capacity to establish full-cost SWM financial accounting and management system
Objective / Effective local SWM regulatory and administrative structure / SWM plans that respond to local priorities in the context of national policy / Selection of appropriate facilities and technology / Ensure financial sustainability of SWM systems
Notes:1. Actions identified in bolditalics are priority items on which action should be taken on the short-term.
Table 6: Public Awareness And Community Participation Needs
Policy And Institutional /Planning
/ Operations / Finance And Cost RecoveryNational Action / Establish broad-based public awareness or community participation process in support of establishing national SWM goals and methods for achieving goals / Require community input as part of SWM system design/facility sitting
Incorporate SWM into design of communities/neighborhoods
Link SWM to economic development / Create SWM awareness and education templates for application at local level
Establish SWM inputs (e.g. recycling, composting) to broader economic activities / Establish public awareness/ community participation process in support of applying “polluter pay” and “user pay” principles in solid waste management financing
Objective / Establish enhanced SWM as national priority / Establish basis for community input to design of enhanced SWM systems / Achieve high levels of community participation in enhanced SWM operations / Establish “polluter pay” and “user pay” frameworks in the context of SWM full-cost accounting
Municipal/Regional Action / Include community input to establish local goals and methods consistent with national policy / Establish transparent SWM system development and facility sitting process Consult community on all aspects of facility sitting and operations associated with enhanced SWM systems / Communicate benefits of new SWM systems/facilities
Explain how residents should participate in new SWM systems
Ensure compliance with regulatory provisions / Reform local SWM financing and cost recovery full cost accounting based on “polluter pay” and “user pay” principles
Objective / Obtain local support for local actions consistent with national policy / Address reactionary “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) response / Achieve high levels of community participation in local SWM operations / Achieve financially sustainable SWM financing and cost recovery
Notes:1. Actions identified in bolditalics are priority items on which action should be taken on the short-term.
Table 7: SWM Technology Options
Technology
/ Range Of CostPer Tonne ($US)1 / Cost Recovery Options / Pre-Requisites To Technology Implementation / Key Advantages/Disadvantages
Waste Minimization / $0 – 652 / “Polluter pay” obligation; allocation from user fees on waste disposal facilities; cost recovery allocation from householders / Policy framework prioritizing waste minimization and materials reutilization; application of user fees and “polluter pay” / Advantages: Minimizes waste generation; minimizes negative social, environmental and financial impacts of waste.
Disadvantages: Impact of approach generally modest to date, but is growing.
Waste Collection / $20 – 40 / User pay fees; householder cost recovery allocation / Community awareness and acceptance of collection system / Advantages: Convenient approach to removing waste from communities
Disadvantages: Typically most expensive SWM component.
Transfer / $5 – 15 / User pay fees; householder cost recovery allocation / Suitable transfer station location relative to disposal site; suitable transfer vehicles / Advantages: Reduces net cost of waste transportation; provides opportunity to recover recyclable/compostable materials
Disadvantages: Roads must accommodate large vehicles
Recycling / $0 – 402 / Market value of recovered materials; user-pay fees at recycling facilities; user-pay surcharge at waste disposal sites; deposits on specified recyclable products; import, manufacturer and/or sales levies/charges; other “polluter pay” mechanism; allocation from householder cost recovery / Policy framework prioritizing waste minimization and materials reutilization; application of user fees; application of “polluter pay” principle; financially accessible markets; achieve minimum recyclable material quality / Advantages: Contributes to jobs and economic development, particularly at micro enterprise level; reduces amount of waste requiring disposal
Disadvantages: Some recycling activities can cause significant negative environmental and health impacts if improperly undertaken
Composting / $0 – 402 / Market value of recovered materials; user pay fees at composting site; user-pay surchargeat waste disposal sites; allocation from householder cost recovery / Policy framework prioritizing waste minimization and materials reutilization; application of user fees; application of “polluter pay” principle; financially accessible markets; achievement of compost quality sufficient for intended application / Advantages: Contributes to jobs and economic development; reduces amount of waste requiring disposal; enhances agricultural productivity
Disadvantages: Can cause significant negative environmental and health impacts if improperly undertaken
Incineration / $40 – 90 / User-pay fee at incineration site; allocation from householder cost recovery; sale of energy / Inclusion of pollution control in facility design/construction/operation; low cost of fuel; guarantee of minimum quantities of waste delivered per day; community acceptance / Advantages: Reduces volume of waste requiring disposal by 75-90%; can be designed to allow recovery of energy; most appropriate technology for some hazardous wastes.
Disadvantages: High moisture content of regional wastes may result in high operating costs; high maintenance levels required; ash is considered hazardous waste; highly capital intensive technology; high potential to pollute if pollution control equipment fails; technology inflexible to change over time; often high public resistance to technology.
Sanitary Landfill / $10 – 25 / User pay at landfill site; allocation from householder cost recovery / Inclusion of pollution control in facility design/construction/operation; community acceptance / Advantages: Commonly utilized, low cost technology; flexible to change over time; can often be applied to upgrade existing dump sites; may allow recovery of energy (methane); suitable for some hazardous wastes.
Disadvantages: Requires large land area; requires high level of waste pre-processing or engineering to eliminate potential to pollute surface/ shallow sub-surface water; requires greenhouse gas emission control. Often high public resistance to technology
Notes:1. Data presented in this column are specific to countries with per capita GNP levels that international agencies classify as “middle income” countries. This classification includes all countries/territories in the region. Actual cost will be influenced by site-specific factors including scale of operation, technology selection and level of policy support. Range of cost represents net cost including operation, maintenance and capital debtservicing and after revenue from sale of recovered materials, compost and energy, as appropriate. 2. Recycling and composting have potential togenerate netincome, but are shown at a cost of $0; these systems may have a net cost associated with them. Waste minimization actions may also generate netrevenue as a result of more efficient work andproduction system
April 2000
Solid Waste Management Strategy For METAP Mashreq and Maghreb Countries
DRAFTPage A-1
Annex 1
Basis Of Cost Estimates
Table A.1 identifies the basis of the cost estimate for the implementation of the strategy set out in this document.
The table identifies the varies types of investment included in this strategy document. The table also identifies that the investment priority will be the urban population of the region, estimated in 1998 to be 86 million people. The remaining columns of the table should be interpreted as follows:
- Percent of Priority Population Equivalent Currently Served This column estimates the extent to which current waste management systems adequately address each investment item. In some cases, this represents priority population served directly by an investment item (e.g. landfills); in other cases the “priority population equivalent” measure provides a basis of estimating the overall magnitude of a problem that may not be directly linked to current priority population (e.g. correction of current problems). The estimates in this column indicate that:
(i)there are no past or current problems associated with approximately 10 percent of the waste in the region.
(ii)approximately 5 percent of the priority population are presently served by landfills (in Beirut and Tunis)
(iii)approximately 5 percent of the priority population is served with ICI recycling; this is a general estimate based on discussions with officials in the region.
(iv)approximately 10 percent of the priority population is served with operational centralized composting/recycling; these facilities are primarily located in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria and may or may not be fully effective at present.
(v)Approximately 75 percent of waste generated by priority populations in the region are collected.
- Additional Percent Of Population Equivalent To Be Served Through Strategy This column address the percentage of priority urban population that will benefit from the investments proposed through this strategy. As indicated, the strategy targets action on the full range of outstanding needs to address “past/current problems”, “landfill” and “collection/transportation” with respect to the priority urban population.
Lower levels of “ICI recycling” and “composting/recycling” are targetted; both of these components are subject to technical, economic and managerial feasibility to be determined through planning. If planning analysis identifies that implementation of these activities is judged to not be desirable within the timeframe of this strategy, greater demands will be placed on landfills with a corresponding need to transfer the outstanding investment estimate to the landfill line.
- Legal, institutional, planning and capacity development are estimated at 14 percent of the installed/commissioned facility and equipment investments, equivalent to 12 percent of the full strategy investment cost.
April 2000
Solid Waste Management Strategy For METAP Mashreq and Maghreb Countries
DRAFTPage A-1
Table A.1
Basis Of Strategy Budget Estimate
Investment Item / Priority Urban Population / Percent Of Priority Population Equivalent Currently Served / Additional Percent Of Priority Population Equivalent To Be Served Through Strategy / Investment Unit Cost ($ million/100,000 people) / Investment Requirement ($ million)Correct Past/Current Problems / 86 million / 10 / 90 / Lump Sum / 200 – 250
Facility/Equipment Investments
Landfill
ICI Recycling
Composting/ Recycling
Collection/ Transportation / 86 million / 5
5
10
75 / 95
65
45
25 / 1.5 – 1.8
0.15
0.8 – 1.0
1.7 – 2.0 / 1,225 – 1,471
84
310 – 387
366 – 430
Legal, Institutional, Planning, Capacity Development / 86 million / Not Applicable / Not Applicable / 14% of installed/ commissioned facility and equipment cost / 306 – 367
TOTAL / 2,491 – 2,989
2,500 –3,000
Note: See text in Annex 1 for interpretation of table.
ICI: Institution, Commerce, and Industrial.
March 2000