waste management indicators- priority and challenges · waste management indicators-priority and...

Waste Management Indicators-Priority and Challenges

C. VisvanathanEnvironmental Engineering and Management ProgramAsian Institute of TechnologyThailand

Email: [email protected]://www.faculty.ait.ac.th/visu

Asia Resource Circulation Policy Research Workshop

12-14 December 2012

Bangkok

C .Visvanathan Waste Management Indicators 2

Contents

1. What, Why and How of Waste Management indicators?

2. Challenges in framing, measuring and interpreting the indicators

3. Different waste management priorities in Asia: Japan (recycling focus approach); Taiwan (waste reduction approach); Singapore (Waste to Energy recovery focus)

4. Important Issues & Concerns


What are Waste Management (WM) Indicators?

• Indicators measure “Performance” or “Track progress”

• Indicators (usually a quantifiable variable) are a valuable tool tomeasure the progress made in achieving a standard or a goal

• Waste Management Iindicators are the tools that measure progresson waste reduction and recycling performance, and resourceefficiency.

• Indicator are usually a Scoreboard for the progress monitoring. Forinstance; the total amount of per capita waste generation (kg orton/person/day or year) OR the recycling rate of the country(measured in %)


Recycling Rate as WM Indicator in Asia

• Taiwan’s overall recycling rate reached 45.49% in 2009

• Japan recycles over 70% of plasticsand over 80% of aluminum cans

• Domestic Waste recycling in Hong Kong was 35% in2009, as compared to 14% in 2004.

• Action Plan announced in 2011, Hong Kong targetsto raise the MSW recovery (for re-use or recycling)rate to 55% by 2015.

• Currently in Singapore recycles 11% of household plastics and 29% glass


Why Use WM Indicators?

• Indicators can work as a basis for assessment by providing informationon conditions and trends of waste management

• Indicators review existing targets for waste prevention, reuse, recycling,recovery and landfill diversion targets

• On the basis of such assessments, indicators (scores) not only showsthe current status but spells out future waste policy directions byproviding inputs to policy formulation processes

• Numeric value of the indicators makes it easier to interpret the situationand communicate the result to both experts and non-expert audience

• Indicators can then become benchmarking for comparisons betweendifferent countries, and also set a milestone or roadmap for nation’swaste management situation.


Examples of Common WM Indicators

• WM indicators should cover an extensive number of areas, but normallycovers three basic areas;

• Amount of municipal waste generated per capita

• Amount sent to landfill or to the incineration plant

• Recycling rate

Missing Point

• “Higher priority” areas such as “reduction and reusability criteria” areusually left out.

• General focus is still on recycling in order to ensure circular economy


Glancing through Typical WM Indicators

Indicator 1: Rate of waste recycling (RR)

Recycling Rate (%) = Total MSW Recycled

Total MSW Generated

Challenges 1: Sampling discrepancies

• To reach into a single score of “recycling rate” as an indicator requires accurateestimation of the proportion of weight of waste produced by component; weightof waste disposed or discarded, by component; weight of waste recycled by theformal and informal sectors

• Measurement of the weight of waste itself is often complicated and requires aspecialized survey. i.e. total waste versus the dry weight and wet weight basisgives different result for recycling rate

• Example- plastic rate if considered for wet weight of plastic is different than theactual recycling performed on dry weight basis. Plastic industries requiredcleaned, washed and dried plastic for recycling

X 100


Dry & Wet Weight Basis of Plastic Recycling

• Is the recovered waste weight equal to the actual weight of the dry weight waste recycled?

Dry Waste Plastic Wet Waste Plastic


Dirty Plastic and Clean Plastic

Plastic Drying Machine


Glancing through Typical Waste Management Indicators

Challenges 2: Data Availability and Accuracy

• Data can be unavailable, or scattered and time consuming to compilefor indicator purposes

• Some informal sector industries are reluctant to declare theiractivities and data collection from them could be difficult

• Data Collection Sources and processes may vary, need aninternational level, specialized research surveys



Indicator 2. Waste diversion rate

This indictors should include % Energy Recovery , and % Composting of organic waste along with the % Recycling, or % of waste landfilled

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Am

ount

Dis

posa

l (M

illio

n to

ns/y

r)

Landfill Recycled WTE Dump Compost Other

Disposal Options

Indicator 2. Wastediversion rate

Waste to Energy (%of energy recovery)is diverting wastegoing to the landfillsalong with materialrecycling



Challenges 3: Dealing with Data Challenge

• Lack of the record/data of total waste landfilled

• There could be unaccounted amount of waste that neither goes tolandfill nor recycled BUT disposed off illegally

• Need to consider indicative related policy implications, such as the costof landfill disposal Landfill Gate Fees (including levy), landfill taxes etc.that affects the waste diversion pathways.

• High Landfill costs artificially incentivize the use of preferred treatmentoptions up the waste management hierarchy such as recycling andwaste to energy than landfilling.

• Therefore, it is advisable to take into account of these indirect economicinstruments and their implications on choosing a preferred hierarchy ofwaste treatment options.


Interpreting WM Indicators

• A necessary step after framing and measuring the indicators is to:

• Interpret the collected and developed indicators,

• Transform this number into a meaningful information ,

• Use that information to make consistent comparisons of various recyclingefforts , and

• Improve decision-making processes.

• Example: What does 22% recycling rate means?

• Of MSW alone or other mixed waste streams as well?

• What about the disintegrated recycling rates of specific component ofrecyclable waste such as plastic, metals, paper, glass etc

• Does this account the waste that were sent to recycling units (both formaland informal) but a proportion of which was unfit for recycling and hencediscarded as waste?

• How much percentage goes to other forms of recovery (such ascomposting, energy recovery etc)


A Twisted Result….(in)Convenient Truth

• Indicators are tools for monitoring, But the interpretation of thescore/number needs careful attention:

• Although the scoreboard of the set indictors is a useful form ofinterpretation of the overall performance of waste management,however inaccurate data, inappropriate methodology of data collection,sampling and calculation can lead to incomplete information picture,

• Does the higher recycling rate mean it is the best waste managementstrategy to follow?

• A score of waste being disposed in landfills is not the indication of wastereduced at source. The waste at source may be the same or evenincreasing but only the pathways of thus generated waste diverted couldbe different.


Data Accuracy is Important

Windrow Composting & Plastic Pelletizing UnitsVietstar Joint Stock Company Address: Municipal Solid Waste Treatment Complex, Cu Chi District, Ho Chi Minh City, VietnamTechnology Provider: Lemna International, Inc., U.S.A.

National policies of Vietnam is favorable for FDI. It also has a strong policy on promotion of 3R and is set to achieve a recycling rate of 70% from the total municipal solid wastes by

the year 2015.

Plastic recycling facility is currently running

only at 50% capacity since the

plastic wastes contained in the

incoming MSW is only 5%

as against an estimated figure of 13%


Challenges for WM Indicators

Data Unavailability & Lack of Standard Methodology

1. Data Basic..Data Base. Indicators require a firm foundation of dataand information. The common problem in the indicator world remainsthe gaps in data availability, data collection and quality assurance

• A strong Waste Statistics database system has to be in place.

Ex: EU Waste Statistics http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Waste_statistics



2. Standardizing Recycling Measurements: Variation in thedefinition of indicators such as recycling rate differs from countryto country, so does the sampling, data collection complicates theinterpretation of the results.

• Therefore, there is a need to standardize recycling measurement-through a common guideline.

• Example-EPA’s Measuring Recycling AGuide for State and Local Governmentshttp://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/recmeas/docs/guide.pdf



Recycling measurement depends on:

1. How recycling is defined (some states give local governments partial credit towardachieving recycling goals for waste-to-energy)

2. What is counted in the recycling rate (some state laws put limits on whatmunicipalities can count, while others allow them to include everything fromautomobile hulks to chicken droppings)

3. How municipal solid waste (MSW) is defined (some jurisdictions count bio solidsor industrial wastes as MSW)

4. Whether a base year is used (some jurisdictions calculate a recycling rate basedon MSW generation during a specific "base year" rather than the current year)

5. How volume estimates are converted to tons (conversion factors can vary greatly).


Japan’s WM Indicator-Recycling Focus Indicators• Recycling in Japan was made legally mandatory during 1990s

• Most of the Japanese waste policies aim at material recycling:

• Fundamental Law for Establishing a Sound Material Cycle Society,promulgated in 2001- with timeline (baseline 2000) targets of waste generationreduction by 20%, recycling rate increase by 40%, and solid waste disposalreduction by 50%

Following are the supportive laws for material recycling in Japan

• Container and Packaging Recycling Law, 1995

• Automobile Recycling Law

• Food Recycling Law

• Home Appliance Recycling Law

• Construction Material Recycling Law

• Law on Promoting Green Purchasing

Such recycling policies have increased the recycling rate as

High as up to 80% in Osaki town of Kagoshima Prefecture in 2009


Source: MOEJ, 2012

1987

15.6% Reduction

16.1% Reduction

6000

5500

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

Total V

olume of M

unicipal Solid W

aste

Waste V

olume G

enerated Per P

erson Per D

ay

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

1000

900

(gram/man-day)(Ten thousand tons/year)

Total Volume of Municipal Solid Waste

Waste Volume Generated Per Person Per Day

FY

1985

FY

1986

FY

1987

FY

1988

FY

1989

FY

1990

FY

1991

FY

1992

FY

1993

FY

1994

FY

1995

FY

1996

FY

1997

FY

1998

FY

1999

FY

2000

FY

2001

FY

2002

FY

2003

FY

2004

FY

2005

FY

2006

FY

2007

FY

2008

FY

2009

3R Success in Japan- Changes in MSW Generations After Introducing 3Rs


Taiwan’s WM Indicators-ReductionFocus Indicators

• Taiwan has made a great deal of progress in reducingwaste and expanding recycling programs.

• Use of volume based fee to promote trash reduction:

• Per Bag Trash Collection Fee (2000): As of 2009, dailygarbage generation rate was 0.5 kg per capita, droppedfrom the highest record in 1998 (1.14 kg/c/d)

• Other waste reduction focused regulations are:

• Restriction on the Use of Plastic Shopping Bags andDisposable Tableware (July 2002): Yearly uses of plasticdisposable tableware are also reduced by 2 billion pieces, areduction of 86%.

• Restriction of Excessive Packaging (July 2006.07): Yearlyuses of plastic shopping bags are reduced by 2 billionpieces, a reduction of 58%.


3R Success in Taipei – Waste Reduction at Source

Source: Houng, 2010

Taipei didn’t anticipate waste generation in future and build 5 incinerators & now cannot work at design capacity

Introduction of policy

Year

Dai

ly G

arba

ge G

ener

atio

n pe

r C

apita

(k

g/pe

rson

-day

)

Dai

ly G

arba

ge D

ispo

sal Q

uant

ity

Dai

ly P

opul

atio

n S

erve

d

TonsThousand People


Singapore’s WM Indicators-Energy Recovery Focus Indicators

• In 2010, Singapore recycled 58% of the waste generated, about 40% ofthe waste went to waste-to-energy plants for incineration, and theremaining 2% of remaining waste were landfilled (NEA, 2011).

• Singapore currently has four government-owned and operatedincineration plants for non-recyclable and incinerable waste; TuasIncineration Plant, Senoko Waste-to-Energy Plant, Tuas SouthIncineration Plant and Keppel Segghers Waste-to-Energy Plant.

• 962 million kWh of heat is generated from waste, which provides 2-3% ofSingapore’s total electricity.


Factors Affecting the WM Indicator Setting

• Indicator at what level?: international, national or municipal level indicators(representing the real conditions at a municipality level)

• Users of the Indictors also influence the indicators setting andinterpretation of those indicators. Example- Meaning of the indicator to thePolicy makers versus the Recycling industry.

• No. of indictors: practically hundreds of indicators are not possible. Set ofindicators has to be chosen carefully to measure the actual performanceof each of the components of an integrated waste management-programincluding collection, transport, storage, conditioning and treatmentincluding recycling and final deposition of any remaining wastes

• Indicators should follow waste management hierarchy: The indicatorsshould cover the entire waste management chain with the priorities set inthe order of waste management hierarchy, i.e. indicators for wastereduction at the source, and proportion of reusability


WM Indicators Should Follow Hierarchy

• If D is increased, C decreases but does this reduces A or not?

• How to Set the Priority Indicators?

Waste Generation

Segregation

Disposal

Recycling

A

B

C

D


THANK YOU…

waste management indicators- priority and challenges · waste management indicators-priority and...

Documents