MALAYSIA DEVELOPING A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT · EPU Economic Planning Unit JKKK Jawatankuasa...

SS AABBAAHH MMAAJJUU JJAAYYAA

M A L A Y S I A D E V E L O P I N G A S O L I D

WA S T E M A N A G E M E N TM O D E L F O R P E N A N G

M A L A Y S I A D E V E L O P I N G A S O L I D

WA S T E M A N A G E M E N TM O D E L F O R P E N A N G

SS AABBAAHH MMAAJJUU JJAAYYAA

Published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Malaysia.

© UNDP. All rights reserved.

First published February 2008.

ISBN 983-3904-08-2

United Nations Development ProgrammeWisma UN, Block C, Kompleks Pejabat Damansara,Jalan Dungun, Damansara Heights, 50490 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.www.undp.org.my

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of UNDP.

The contents may be freely reproduced for non-commercial purposes with attribution to thecopyright holders.Pictures are courtesy of Khor H.T, SERI, Penang.Maps are not authoritative on boundaries.

Design: Thumb-Print Studio Sdn Bhd.

Preventing and managing waste is at the heart of sustainable development. Waste implies unnecessary

depletion of natural resources, unnecessary costs, and environmental damage. Sustainable waste

management is about using resources more efficiently.

Solid waste management is a major challenge for Malaysia to address in the light of Vision 2020 which lays

out the direction for Malaysia to become a fully developed nation by 2020. The National Vision Policy (NVP),

developed to meet the challenges posed by Vision 2020, incorporates key strategies of the New Economic

Policy (NEP) and the National Development Policy (NDP). A key thrust of the NVP is pursuing environmentally

sustainable development to reinforce long-term growth, which presents a challenge to established policies

and practices in the rapidly expanding area of solid waste management.

Measures are being taken to meet this challenge. Malaysia is on the verge of significant change following

the passing of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007, the main tenets of which

underpin the institutionalisation of strategies and procedures for solid waste management. This legislation

brings management of solid waste directly under the Federal Government’s jurisdiction, allocates

responsibilities to newly established agencies, redefines the role of local authorities, and aims to improve the

collection, recycling and disposal of solid waste throughout Peninsular Malaysia. The changes to the

administrative structure are substantial and the infrastructural improvements will be extensive, but to be

effective, both require major changes in established disposal practices and in public attitudes and behaviour.

In recent years, disposal of solid waste throughout the State of Penang has been proceeding at a level

of efficiency at least comparable with that in other states of Malaysia. The collection system is largely

privatized and operated by contractors on behalf of the two local authorities responsible for waste disposal.

Collection coverage reportedly approaches 90% of households on Penang Island and 70% of households

in Seberang Perai on the mainland.

There have been several serious issues, however. Apart from a voluntary and unsystematic process of

extracting a proportion of recyclable items from the main waste flow, all waste is simply disposed of in

landfills. Nor is there a developed culture of waste minimization. Landfill capacity is severely limited and

expansion of efficient, sanitary landfills, extremely problematic. Other difficulties relate to existing, short-term

contractual arrangements; absence of support for recycling mechanisms at the community level; and limited

land availability for transfer stations and landfill sites.

Consequently, with so many limitations, the Penang waste management system was seen to be in need

of modernisation that would bring the system into environmental compliance and build the infrastructure

necessary to maintain a more effective and sustainable operation.

The Penang Solid Waste Management Project was launched at the beginning of 2006, to help the state

implement a structured system of waste management that integrates sustainable and environmentally

friendly methods of handling and disposing of solid waste. The study developed a model for dealing with

the scale of solid waste forecast over the period 2005 to 2020 that addresses issues of public awareness

iii

F o r e w o r d

iv

and education, stakeholder consultation, capacity building, solid waste treatment

technologies, institutional organization and implementation of a pilot project. It is suggested

that the strategies recommended and the institutional structure proposed for Penang could

be replicated by other states in Malaysia.

The timely passing of the 2007 legislation and its implementation at the beginning of

2008 mean that, although some time may elapse while organizational, administrative and

physical facilities and infrastructure are put in place, the basic strategic directives and

regulatory provisions have been introduced that will enable the implementation of the Solid

Waste Management Model developed for Penang. The system in operation prior to the new

solid waste management framework, where waste was transported by any means to any

number of destinations, and recycling was voluntary and largely determined by market

forces, can now be replaced. Instead, waste will be collected by licensed operators and

sent to designated facilities to be recycled or to be treated and disposed of by approved

technologies.

This volume is the sixth in a series of periodic publications that report on UNDP

Malaysia’s work in its energy and environment practice area. The large range of projects

being undertaken in this portfolio is designed to support Malaysia’s efforts to achieve the

Millennium Development Goal 7 of ensuring environmental sustainability.

The commissioned research was jointly funded by EPU and UNDP over a two-year

period, 2006–2007. UNDP also gratefully acknowledges the participation of the Penang

State Government; Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP) and Seberang Perai Municipal

Council (MPSP); the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and a number of private

and public sector stakeholders.

Richard Leete PhD

Resident Representative

United Nations Development Programme

Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei Darussalam

C o n t e n t s

Foreword

Boxes, Tables, Figures and Map

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Participants

The Global Issue of Solid Waste ManagementWhat is Solid Waste Management?Uncoordinated Disposal of Solid Waste is a ProblemThe Importance of Local Conditions

The National Issue of Solid Waste ManagementGovernment Policy and Planning for Solid Waste ManagementProgress to DateDealing with the Challenges of Solid Waste Management

Developing a Solid Waste Management Model forPenang

Identifying the Main Elements of a ModelPopulation GrowthSolid Waste Generation and CollectionSolid Waste Composition and Recycling‘Other Waste’ FractionsSolid Waste Management Costs

Integrating the Institutional FrameworkGovernanceKey Legislation

Choosing the Best Option for Solid WasteManagement

Determining Priorities in Solid Waste ManagementBusiness as Usual OptionComposting OptionRefuse-derived Fuel (RDF) OptionIncineration Option

Coordinating Stakeholder StrategiesStakeholder Consultation and Cooperation

iii

vi

vii

viii

1

4

17

22

25

32

C o n t e n t s

Adopting Incentive StrategiesOptimizing Participation by Relating Costs Directly to Services Provided

Implementing the Penang Solid Waste ManagementModel

Implementation of the Penang SWM Model Will Occur in StagesStage 1: Initial phaseStage 2: Expansion phaseStage 3: Replication and refinement phase

Actioning a Pilot ProjectBenefits of a Pilot ProjectImplementing the Pilot Project

Lessons Learnt

Issues and Challenges

Sources of Information

Previous Reports in this UNDP Series

35

37

41

43

44

45

46

vii

B o x e sBox 1 Summary of the position in Malaysia

Box 2 The Penang Solid Waste Management Project

Box 3 Stakeholders in Penang Island’s SWM and recycling network

Box 4 The Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007

Box 5 Stakeholder attitudes and behaviour

T a b l e sTable 1 Population and average annual growth rates for Penang and Malaysia

Table 2 Composition by weight of recycled items for MPSP

Table 3 Composition of municipal solid waste for MPPP and MPSP

Table 4 Estimates of other waste fractions in Penang

Table 5 Summary of MPPP solid waste management costs

Table 6 Fiscal gap for MPPP and MPSP solid waste management

Table 7 Capital and operating costs for each option of SWM in Penang

Table 8 Targets for municipal solid waste in Penang

F i g u r e sFigure 1 Mean monthly household income per capita in Malaysia, 1985, 1990, 1999 and 2004

Figure 1 Methodology for developing the SWM model

Figure 2 Population of Penang, 2000–2020

Figure 3 Solid waste management costs incurred by MPPP and MPSP

Figure 4 Solid waste management framework to 2007

Figure 5 Solid waste management framework from 2008

Figure 6 The waste hierarchy options

Figure 7 Business as usual option

Figure 8 Composting option

Figure 9 Refuse-derived fuel option

Figure 10 Incineration option

M a pMap 1 States and state capitals of Peninsular Malaysia

Map 2 Solid waste collection service areas on Penang Island

Map 3 Solid waste collection zones in Seberang Perai

B o x e s , Ta b l e s , F i g u r e s a n d M a p

viii

A b b r e v i a t i o n s a n d A c r o n y m s

BAU Business as usual

CBO Community based organisation

DLG Department of Local Government

DoE Department of Environment

DTCP Department of Town and Country Planning

EPU Economic Planning Unit

JKKK Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan KeselamatanKampung(Village Development and SecurityCommittee)

JPPK Jabatan Perkhidmatan Perbandaran dan Kesihatan(Department of Urban Services and Health)

MHLG Ministry of Housing and Local Government

MPPP Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang(Penang Island Municipal Council)

MPSP Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai(Seberang Perai Municipal Council)

MRF Material recovery facility

MSW Municipal solid waste

NCLG National Council for Local Government

NDP National Development Policy

NSP National Strategic Plan for Sold WasteManagement

NEP New Economic Policy

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NSC National Steering Committee

NSP National Strategic Plan (for Solid WasteManagement)

NVP National Vision Policy

PE PE Research Sdn Bhd

PPPUE Public-private-partnership urban environment

RDF Refuse-derived fuel

RM Ringgit Malaysia

SERI Socio-Economic and Environmental ResearchInstitute

SWM Solid waste management

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UPEN Unit Perancang Ekonomi Negeri (State Economic Planning Unit)

ix

I n s t i t u t i o n a l P a r t i c i p a n t sExecuting Agency Economic Planning Unit

Prime Minister’s Department

Implementing Agency Economic Planning UnitPulau Pinang

U N D P / U P E N T e a mNational Project Director Dato’ Abu Hasan Shaari

Director EPU Pulau Pinang

Mrs Hafidzah HassanDeputy Director EPU Pulau Pinang

Programme Manager Dr Chung Tsung Ping, UNDP

Project Coordinator Ms Siti Suzilah FaharuddinProject Coordinator, UNDP

R e p o r t T e a mDr Chung Tsung Ping Programme Manager, UNDP

Ms Siti Suzilah Faharuddin Project Coordinator, UNDP

Professor Warwick Neville University of Auckland, Consultant

S t a k e h o l d e r sSocial Services Section, Economic Planning Unit

National Solid Waste Management Department, Ministry of Housing and Local Government

Urban Services Department, MPPP

Health and Urban Services Department, MPSP

Department of Environment, Pulau Pinang

Housing and Local Government Department, Pulau Pinang

NGOs in Penang

CBOs in Penang

P a r t i c i p a n t s

W h a t i s s o l i d w a s t em a n a g e m e n t ?For as long as people have been living insettled communities, the accumulation anddumping of rubbish, or garbage, has beena significant issue. The disposal of itemsthat are spoilt, degraded, expended orsimply no longer of use to the owner hasbecome an increasingly important issue aslarge, modern societies generate far morerubbish than historically much smaller andless densely concentrated populations.Commonly known as ‘solid waste’ – todistinguish it from waste that is liquid or canbe disposed off through pipes – this type of refuse requires systematic managementto minimize undesirable impacts on peopleand their environment.

Early solid waste management consistedof digging pits near either temporary orpermanent dwellings and burying therefuse. While this phenomenon engages

the interests of archaeologists and othersattempting to determine the kinds of livesthat people lived, growing populations andincreasingly urban lifestyles made thispractice unsustainable. Householders thatdid not have anywhere to bury their rubbish would throw it into the streets or watercourses, encouraging rodents,contaminating water and jeopardisingpeople’s health. Consequently, authoritieswere impelled to introduce measures for thecollection and disposal of solid waste, and it is the systematic structuring andinstitutionalization of solid waste manage-ment that is the focus of this study.

Many human activities generate solidwastes. Large quantities are produced byagriculture and mining, but these wastesgenerally have less impact on the majorityof people and are not included in this study.The rubbish impacting most conspicuouslyand negatively on people’s lives and on the

1

T h e G l o b a l I s s u e o f S o l i d W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t

2

crowded urban environment in which manylive, is commonly termed ‘municipal solidwaste’. This waste originates from houses,streets, shops, offices, factories, hospitalsand other institutions, and its collection anddisposal is the responsibility of municipal orother government authorities.

U n c o o r d i n a t e d d i s p o s a l o fs o l i d w a s t e i s a p r o b l e mIf solid wastes are not managed properly,many risks and hazards for human welfarecan result, although the relative importanceof each depends on local conditions. Forexample:• uncollected wastes block drains, cause

floods, create insanitary conditions, andare an aesthetic nuisance;

• discarded cans and tyres encourage thebreeding of flies, mosquitoes and othervectors that spread disease;

• uncollected or inappropriately dumped ordecomposing waste attracts rodents thatcause damage and spread disease, andaerosols and dust spread fungi andpathogens;

• open burning of waste causes airpollution including the release of toxinssuch as dioxin;

• hazardous wastes such as broken glass,razor blades, hypodermic needles,healthcare wastes, aerosol cans andpotentially explosive chemical and otherindustrial containers pose risks of injuryand poisoning;

• polluted water (leachate) flowing fromwaste dumps and disposal sites cancause serious pollution of groundwaterand waterways;

• waste inefficiently disposed of is an

aesthetic nuisance because of itsunsightliness and unpleasant aroma;

• liquids and fumes escaping from chemicalwastes or as reactions from mixingdifferent types of waste can have seriousand even fatal effects;

• landfill gas (especially methane) fromdecomposing waste can be explosive,and constitutes a serious greenhouse gas;

• former disposal sites provide a dangerous,unstable foundation for large buildings.

T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f l o c a lc o n d i t i o n sThe nature and composition of solidwaste varies significantly between moreand less developed countries and this hasimplications for handling and disposal.Domestic waste in industrialized countrieshas a high content of packaging comprisingpaper, plastic, glass and metal, so that thewaste has a low density that makes it

M A L A Y S I A D E V E L O P I N G A S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T M O D E L F O R P E N A N G

relatively easy to handle. The large amountof paper and the use of pre-processed foodin particular, result in low proportions ofmoisture in the waste. In many developingcountries, food waste in particular has ahigh water content, and casual disposal ofsand and other building materials results invery dense waste which is much moredifficult to handle. Containers, vehicles andsystems that operate well with low-densitywastes in industrialized countries may notbe suitable or reliable in countries wherewastes are usually heavier.

Frequency of collection of wastebecomes a critical issue in developingcountries, especially those in the humidtropics where high temperatures andaccelerated decomposition of organicwaste is a major issue. Daily collection ofwaste not only requires a larger work forcethan in countries with a weekly collectionsystem, but also has a significant impact onequipment and its maintenance.

Access to waste collection pointsvaries greatly. Collection of waste fromsites or premises located in inaccessiblestreets and alleys can be problematic, andthis is accentuated in localities like villagesand squatter settlements with narrow orunformed roads and poorly developedcollection systems.

Public awareness and attitudes towaste disposal also vary greatly. Theremay be reluctance or even oppositionamong the populace to: carrying waste to acollection site; sharing waste containers;segregating various types of waste forrecycling; and siting of waste collection,treatment and disposal centres. Even more fundamentally, lack of supportthrough appropriate government policies,regulations, and funding, and a reluctanceto involve NGOs and the private sector, maycontribute to public apathy.

3

T H E G L O B A L I S S U E O F S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T

G o v e r n m e n t p o l i c y a n dp l a n n i n g f o r s o l i d w a s t em a n a g e m e n tIn the fifteen years since the 1992 WorldSummit in Rio de Janeiro there has been agreater understanding of the position andfunction of solid waste management in theecological, economic and social frameworkwithin countries. Preventing and managingwaste is at the heart of sustainabledevelopment. Waste means unnecessarydepletion of natural resources, unnecessarycosts, and environmental damage.Sustainable waste management is aboutusing resources more efficiently.

Solid waste management is a majorchallenge for Malaysia to address in thelight of Vision 2020 which lays out thedirection for Malaysia to become a fullydeveloped nation by 2020. The NationalVision Policy (NVP), developed to meet thechallenges posed by Vision 2020,incorporates key strategies of the NewEconomic Policy (NEP) and the NationalDevelopment Policy (NDP). A key thrust ofthe NVP is pursuing environmentallysustainable development to reinforce long-term growth, which strengthens Malaysia’scommitment to the Rio Declaration.

In order to address these issues,Malaysia has developed a National StrategicPlan for Solid Waste Management thatforms the basis for solid waste policy andpractice in Peninsular Malaysia until 2020,and provides a foundation for developmentin the ensuing years. Completed in 2003,the Plan was formally adopted bygovernment in 2005. The Ninth MalaysiaPlan explicitly supports the NationalStrategic Plan (NSP) strategies including theadoption of sustainable waste management

through reduction, reuse and recyclingwhich are to be given priority together with the use of appropriate technologies,facilities, equipment and service standards.The Ninth Malaysia Plan also announced theestablishment of a new entity, the SolidWaste Management Department, under theMinistry of Housing and Local Government,to undertake policy formulation, planning,and management—including financialmanagement—of solid waste.

The NSP is an attempt to move the somewhat inadequate managementsystem currently in place towards one thatis better, taking due consideration ofeconomic development and the needs andresponsibilities of the various stakeholderswithin society. In order to achieve this, thePlan addresses the current situation in all functional aspects of solid wastemanagement – storage, collection, transfer,treatment and disposal, and outlines thebasis for addressing the relevant issues andproposing solutions. An Action Plan,outlined within the NSP, provides the basisfor future action to achieve the visions of theNational Vision Policy.

4

T h e N a t i o n a l I s s u e o f S o l i d W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t

5

T H E N A T I O N A L I S S U E O F S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T

The National Strategic Plan:• provides a strategic framework related to

the overall management of solid waste in Malaysia including the scope of privatization and implementationstrategies, taking into account currentobstacles or shortfalls in implementingthe privatization policy;

• recommends an effective managementplan that identifies the roles of each of the stakeholders, and actions that are required to be taken to meet theobjectives of national development policy.

The principles of the strategy encompass:• a strategic plan and phased action plan

for solid waste management in PeninsularMalaysia until 2020;

• federalization of the solid wastemanagement function;

• privatization of the solid wastemanagement service;

• sustainable waste management throughreduction, reuse and recycling, and theuse of appropriate technologies, facilitiesand equipment to provide a sustainableand comprehensive solid wastemanagement service;

• adopting service standards to achieve aclean Malaysia;

• federal/state/local government cooperation;• a social framework comprising:

~ increasing public awareness; ~ increasing the government’s under-

standing of effective solid wastemanagement and public perception;

~ building partnerships between allstakeholders including the public;

~ social equity, with charges appropriateto the level of service and the abilityand willingness to pay;

~ development of the national technicaland managerial capability in solidwaste management.

Importantly, the NSP reflects the existingconcessions granted for waste collection bythe Federal Government to threecompanies, with specific reference to thethree designated geographical regions ofPeninsular Malaysia (Northern, Central andSouthern Regions) and the requirement to progressively extend service coverage to rural areas during the period of the concession. The companies haveundertaken extensive work over severalyears to compile detailed master plans for waste treatment, disposal, and wasterecovery. The government and con-cessionaires will use the National StrategicPlan as a framework for revisiting the termsof reference for privatization, and the master plans of the concessionaires toenable early progress to be made.

P r o g r e s s t o d a t eAs noted earlier, solid waste consists of aheterogeneous mixture of materials,including paper, glass, metal, organicmaterial and plastic, in varying quantities. Itis estimated that currently 17,000 tonnes ofsolid waste is generated in PeninsularMalaysia every day, and this will increase tomore than 30,000 tonnes per day by 2020as a consequence of a growing populationand increasing per capita generation.

However, not all solid waste generated iscollected. In Peninsular Malaysia it wasestimated that, in 1998, only about 75% ofsolid waste was being collected by theconcessionaires, local authorities and theircontractors. Equipment for collection ofsolid waste is diverse and much of it is oldand inefficient. Because of the age andcondition of the present fleet of vehicles,collection efficiency is poor and results inuncollected waste that is both unsightly anda threat to human health.

Modern lifestyles have led to more acutewaste problems. Convenience productsgenerally require more packaging andimprovident habits associated with greateraffluence lead to greater quantities ofwaste, as demonstrated by discardedwrappings and containers. Modern-daywaste contains a high proportion of non-degradable materials such as plastics andchemicals.

At present, approximately 95–97% ofwaste collected is taken to landfill sites fordisposal, with only a negligible proportion ofthe waste being subject to intermediatetreatment. The remaining waste is sent fortreatment at small incineration plants;diverted to recyclers and reprocessors; ordumped illegally. This means that about

13,000 tonnes of solid waste are disposedof daily at landfill sites throughoutPeninsular Malaysia.

D e a l i n g w i t h t h ec h a l l e n g e s o f s o l i d w a s t em a n a g e m e n tIn 2007, Solid Waste Management (SWM)is being managed, directly or indirectly at allthree levels of government: federal, stateand local authority; but there is a lack ofcapacity and focus in the administrationand management of SWM at all levels.State governments, through local

6


• national policy and programme formulation;

• legislation;

• funding of facilities and equipment;

• research and development;

• human resources and development;

• public awareness and education;

• coordination and consultation with stakeholders;

• setting of national standards and service levels;

• monitoring and enforcement;

• regulatory agency for privatization;

• economic policies.

R o l e o f t h e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t

authorities, have the jurisdiction to play amuch larger role in SWM than the FederalGovernment; but ultimately it is the localauthorities that are directly responsible formanagement of SWM services. Theseinclude solid waste collection, treatmentand disposal; public health andenvironmental cleanliness; landscaping;planning; and other responsibilities such aslicensing and enforcement of by-laws.

Other authorities involved in SWM playmore of an indirect role. The Department ofEnvironment, for example, is the authorityresponsible for the enforcement ofstandards for discharges and emissionsinto the environment. The Ministry of Health,through the Rural Environmental SanitationProgramme, promotes and supports theimplementation of SWM in rural areas thatare currently not serviced. The EconomicPlanning Unit of the Prime Minister’sDepartment is the agency directly involvedin the privatization of solid wastemanagement throughout the country.

In addition to these authorities, otherstakeholders that have a major role in solidwaste management include wastegenerators (such as the public, industriesand businesses), the concessionaires,manufacturers and waste recyclers/

reprocessors. Waste generators constitutethe most important group of stakeholders

7


• state-level policy and programme formulation;• consultation and coordination with Federal Government;• promotion and coordination of local authority cooperation;• allocation of land and facilities;• approval of inter-state movement of waste and location of facilities;• assisting, monitoring and auditing local authorities;• financial and other assistance for local authorities;• formation of coordinating SWM Committee.

R o l e o f t h e S t a t e G o v e r n m e n t

• assist state government in formulation of policies;• enforce SWM legislation at the local level;• monitor, audit and enforce concessionaire service levels;• incorporate local requirements in operational plans;• raise public awareness and promote education on waste minimization

and recycling;• provide advice on planning, siting and operating local facilities;• enforce laws on illegal dumping, littering and open burning;• collect tariffs and make payments as appropriate;• collect, collate and disseminate appropriate data and information.

R o l e o f L o c a l A u t h o r i t i e s

as they include householders (the payingpublic), industries and businesses. Atpresent, participation of waste generators in SWM is insignificant as there is nodefined role or opportunity for them toparticipate, whether in planning, operationor management.

Manufacturers currently play aninsignificant role in sustainable wastemanagement practices, as there are noclearly defined policies or incentives forwaste reduction, recycling of products, orrecovery and reuse of materials. However,with the pressure for firms to meet the requirements of ISO 14000, especially for those involved in the export ofmanufactured products, more attention isbeing paid to such matters.

Some participants are involved inrecycling and reprocessing of waste

materials such as paper, plastics, glass,ferrous metals, aluminium and othermaterials. Although there are no specificpolicies or incentives for recycling, many ofthese operators undertake such activitiesbecause of the financial returns for suchinvestments.

The role of the public, other wastegenerators and public interest groups inSWM is currently insignificant. Publicawareness in recycling and waste reductionis at a very early stage. The discriminatedumping of waste is still rampant, especiallyin smaller townships, squatter areas andmany rural localities.

8


• cooperate and assist government and local authorities inimplementation of policies;

• continuously improve expertise and efficiency;• promote and develop expertise and efficiency of sub-contractors;• adopt a long-term business vision for adequate levels of equipment,

facilities and service levels;• self-regulate and minimize the need for local authority intervention;• promote public education and awareness;• promote waste minimization and reduction strategies;• collect, collate and disseminate useful data;• undertake or support R&D initiatives.

R o l e o f S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r s

9


• Environmental awareness is low in Malaysia. The current recycling initiative, the NationalRecycling Programme, undertaken by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government,contributes to a greater awareness of the need to preserve resources, but the publicresponse is disappointing, and more extensive public education and awareness is required.

• Overall institutional and organizational arrangements for SWM at the federal, state, andlocal authority levels have generally been weak and lack the resources for effectiveplanning and management of waste. Such shortcomings are also evident in the day-to-daymanagement of solid waste by states and local authorities: data on solid waste are oftenlacking and there is little forward planning.

• Service areas for solid waste collection are generally confined to urban and township areaswith only limited collection in adjoining rural areas. Despite rural to urban migration, by2020, 28% of the population is still expected to be living in rural areas. Areas outside localauthorities do not receive any collection, but are subject to the Guidelines issued by theMinistry of Health under the Rural Environmental Sanitation Programme. Currently, 66% of rural households are self-reliant and undertake their own waste disposal by burial inproximity to their dwellings or in communal bins serviced periodically by contractor.Consequently, unofficial dumping and development of many small dumpsites iswidespread.

• Malaysia is on the verge of significant change following legislation in 2007 that bringsmanagement of solid waste directly under the Federal Government’s jurisdiction, allocatesresponsibilities to newly established agencies, redefines the role of local authorities,and aims to improve the collection, recycling and disposal of solid waste throughoutPeninsular Malaysia. The changes to the administrative structure are substantial and theinfrastructural improvements will be extensive, but this also implies that they will take time to implement, and that existing practices and procedures will not be superseded for some time.

Box 1 Summary of the position in Malaysia

10

S o l i d W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t i n P e n a n g

T h e S t a t e o f P e n a n gPenang (Pulau Pinang) is one of elevenstates in Peninsular Malaysia. The statecomprises two segments: Penang Island(about 28% of the state’s total land area of1,053 km2) which is connected by bridge to

the larger segment, Seberang Perai, a fewkilometres away on the mainland. PenangIsland is predominantly urban, with apopulation of 678,500 in 2005, includingthe capital of the state, Georgetown.Seberang Perai has several towns but is

KELANTAN

PAHANG

TERENGGANU

MELAKA

SINGAPORE

THAILAND

NEGERI SEMBILAN

Straits of Malacca

South China Sea

SELANGOR

PULAUPINANG

PERLIS

Kangar

Georgetown

Alor Setar

Ipoh

Kuala Lumpur

PutrajayaSeremban

Kuantan

Kuala Terengganu

Kota Bahru

Johor Bahru

JOHOR

PERAK

KEDAH

State Capital

North-South Highway

East-Cost Highway

Map 1 States and state capitals of Peninsular Malaysia

• Pulau Pinang is theofficial name of thestate.

• Penang is used in thisvolume as a simplername for the state as a whole.

• Penang Island is thepart of the state on the island under thejurisdiction of the Majlis PerbandaranPulau Pinang (MPPP) or Penang IslandMunicipal Council.

• Seberang Perai is thepart of the state on themainland under thejurisdiction of the MajlisPerbandaran SeberangPerai (MPSP) orSeberang PeraiMunicipal Council.

D o n ’ t b e c o n f u s e db y t h e n a m e s

11

S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T I N P E N A N G

predominantly rural with a much lessdensely distributed population numberingabout 790,300. The state’s total populationof approximately 1.5 million has grownsteadily over the last 50 years but at asignificantly slower rate than in most otherparts of the country, especially in recentyears (Table 1). Penang is the only statewhere the number of Chinese exceedsBumiputera, and the state also has asignificant Indian population.

Penang is among the most globalizedand cosmopolitan of states in Malaysia and,along with Selangor and Johor, consistentlyrecords high economic growth rates. In thefirst decade of the twenty-first century thehistoric functions of trading centre, entrepôtand agriculture are greatly diminished,despite an important container terminal inButterworth, and manufacturing is now theforemost economic activity. The highlyindustrialized southern part of PenangIsland accommodates the modern factoriesof such well-known high-tech electronicsfirms as: Dell, Intel, AMD, Altera, Motorola,Agilent, Hitachi, Osram, Plexus, BoschSeagate and others. Georgetown itselfretains a fair proportion of its historicbuildings and shophouse districts, but the

island especially is characterised by high-tech factories, modern office towers, andhigh-rise condominiums and apartmentblocks.

T h e s o l i d w a s t e s y s t e m i nP e n a n g

Source: Leete, 2007, pp. 52–54.

1957 1957–1980 1980 1980–2005 2005

Locality Number Growth Rate Number Growth Rate Number

(000) (%) (000) (%) (000)

Penang 572.0 2.2 954.6 1.7 1,468.8

Peninsular M’sia 6,278.8 2.4 11,426.6 2.4 20,799.8

Malaysia 7,382.5 2.5 13,745.2 2.5 26,127.7

Table 1 Population and average annual growth rates for Penang and Malaysia

The Project, formally entitled Structuring and Institutionalizing Solid WasteManagement in Penang, is jointly funded by the United NationsDevelopment Programme and the Economic Planning Unit. Thecommissioned research has been carried out by the Socio-Economic and Environmental Research Institute (SERI) and PE Research Sdn Bhd(PE). The project has a duration of 24 months from January 2006 toDecember 2007.

The Objectives of this Solid Waste Management (SWM) Project are to:• establish a structured and institutionalized SWM model in Penang;• establish a workable and functioning solid waste management

institutional structure in Penang that can be replicated by other states in Malaysia;

• identify alternatives to mass collection and disposal through aqualitative research method;

• initiate capacity building and promote knowledge management withregard to the processes of creating and implementing an integratedSWM model based on the Penang experience.

Box 2 The Penang Solid Waste Management Project

12

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s o l i dw a s t e m a n a g e m e n tAs previously noted, all three levels ofadministration — federal, state, and localauthority — have significant roles in solidwaste management, but it is the localauthorities that implement strategies andpolicies and provide the management andoperational services. There are two localauthorities in Penang: the Municipal Councilof Penang Island (Majlis Perbandaran PulauPinang (MPPP)) and the Municipal Councilof Seberang Perai (Majlis PerbandaranSeberang Perai (MPSP)), and these twocouncils cover the entire state. The Penangstate government, to which both localcouncils are accountable, is responsible forany SWM system that is implemented. Thestate government takes an active interest inrecycling of wastes and works closely withNGOs and the private sector on theseissues. On matters such as infrastructureand technology investments the FederalGovernment makes the decisions,particularly when federal funds are involved.All levels of government are required tofollow the laws and circulars issued by theMinistry of Finance on financial matters.

The scale of solid waste managementthat must be undertaken by the responsibleauthorities depends primarily on the sizeand growth of the population and the rate at which households generate waste.The current situation for Penang Island(administered by MPPP) and for SeberangPerai (administered by MPSP) issummarized in the following sections.

S o l i d w a s t e g e n e r a t i o na n d c o l l e c t i o n o n P e n a n gI s l a n dThe population of Penang Island is growingsteadily, and is notable for the high-densitylifestyle of households: 80% of housingunits are in apartment blocks andcondominiums, posing different issues fromthose in low-density and rural areas. Fromvarious local waste composition studies, it was estimated that in 2005, about 963 tonnes of waste per day are generatedin Penang Island. This estimate includesmunicipal waste from households,commercial sources (wet markets, hawkerstalls, hypermarkets), non-hazardousindustry, and institutional sources such ashospitals, schools and universities, butexcludes construction and demolitionmaterials, and garden waste. Of the wastecollected, 56.7% is recyclable, 32.5% isorganic, and 10.8% is non-recyclable.

Garbage collection services are providedby the MPPP to 95% of the population onPenang Island. The remaining 5% arelocated in inaccessible premises on smallislands, and in remote localities that areuneconomic to service. Since the early1980s the MPPP’s solid waste collectionhas been outsourced. From 1993, fourcontractors have covered 80% of theIsland, with the MPPP providing coverageof the remainder. In addition, somepremises, such as those of industries andhotels, have their own garbage contractorswhose collection and disposal records aremonitored. For the purpose of official solidwaste collection, the Island is divided intoseven zones as shown in Map 2.


The current practice for waste collection isas follows:• household waste is collected from landed

properties three times per week (Air Itamhas a daily collection);

• waste from shops, commercial premisesand high rise residential premises iscollected daily;

• institutional waste is collected daily.The MPPP has made it mandatory for allwaste collected on the Island to be sent tothe Batu Maung Transfer Station operatedby a private contractor, barged across tothe mainland and disposed of at the PulauBurong landfill. Currently the transfer stationhandles 600–700 tonnes of organic,domestic and industrial waste per day. Thebarges are designed to drain the leachatefrom the waste containers into the hull toavoid marine pollution and this, togetherwith leachate from the transfer station, istransported to a sanitary landfill facility alsoon the mainland.

The only approved municipal solid wastelandfill in the state has a total area of 66 hectares with an operational area of 33 hectares, and is located at PulauBurong. This is a semi-aerobic landfill(known as the Fukuoka type) established in2003. Because of its location near the sea,constant monitoring is carried out to detectany marine pollution. There is also a 20-hectare ‘landfill’ disposal site (essentially adumping ground) at Jelutong that receivesmainly construction and demolitionmaterial, and garden and other bulky waste.

In Penang, SWM practices involve onlyrecycling and sanitary landfill. Of these twomeasures, it is only recycling that achieveswaste minimization and resource recovery;landfill is the least favoured option in terms

of environmental impact and efficient use ofresources. In addition, Pulau Burong landfillsite will reach its design capacity within 3–4years if the amount of solid waste beingdisposed of is not substantially reduced.Even if the option for expansion of thepresent landfill were undertaken, it wouldnot last more than a further 10 years. Sincefinding another landfill site would be difficult

13


Georgetown

Jelutong Landfill

Batu MaungTransfer Station

Zone X

Zone Air Itam A Zone Air Itam B

Zone Y Council

North Zone South Zone

Map 2 Solid waste collection service areas on Penang Island

Source: Project Final Report, 2007 Figure 2.2.

14


in land-scarce Penang, it is imperative thata viable alternative system be identified andadopted to substantially reduce landfilldisposal.

R e c y c l i n g a c t i v i t i e s o nP e n a n g I s l a n dPenang has a long history of recyclingpreceding the Federal Government

initiatives in 1993. Currently, the voluntarywaste recycling and safe disposalprogramme includes:• waste recycling of inorganic general waste;• safe disposal of hazardous waste;• composting of organic waste;• recycling and safe disposal of e-waste

(electrical and electronic waste).The MPPP has formed alliances withnumerous partners and stakeholders to

Participants RolesContractors

cleansing contractors cleaning roads and drains; some recyclingwaste collectors collection of household, commercial and industrial waste;

some recyclingtransfer station marine transfer of waste to Pulau Burongdisposal operating landfill; scavengers recover useful materials

Community-Based OrganizationsNGOs collect from members and the public; sell for recyclingresidents’ associations collect from members and the public; sell for recycling

Institutionsagencies advice, education and consultancyreligious institutions collect from members and the public; sell for recyclingeducational institutions collect from students; sell for recyclinghospitals safe disposal; collect from staff/the public; sell for recyclinghotels collect and sell for recyclingfactories collect waste from staff; sell with scrap for recyclingsupermarkets/ collect own waste; sell for recycling; collection points department stores including special bins for e-waste

Recycling Businessesagents/vendors/buyers currently about 77 agencies and recycling specialistsrecycling, resource recovery separation, crushing, stripping, disassembling, balingprocessors specialist factories producing raw materials

Box 3 Stakeholders in Penang Island’s SWM and recycling network

Source: Project Final Report, 2007, Table 2.3.

15


develop a recycling programme thatreaches many communities, and permitspeople to choose whichever vendor theyprefer to handle the collection ofrecyclables. This arrangement frees theMPPP of operational concerns and allows itto concentrate on education and thepromotion of recycling. In addition, thevoluntary Penang Environmental WorkingGroup is actively involved in planning andimplementing programmes with the MPPP.

Penang Island recorded a recycling rateof 8.3% in 2003, much higher than inpreceding years, and this leapt up further to15.6% in 2004; estimates that includeditinerant waste buyers raised this figureeven higher to about 20%. This issignificantly higher than the nationalaverage of 3–5%. However, this level wasnot maintained in 2005 when the continuingincrease in population and less efficientcollection caused the recorded recyclingrate to fall to 12.5%. There is considerableuncertainty over the true trend: much of thevariation is attributed to problems of datacollection and the reluctance of recyclingbusinesses to supply accurate informationto the MPPP.

S o l i d w a s t e g e n e r a t i o na n d c o l l e c t i o n i n S e b e r a n gP e r a iOver the last two decades, Seberang Peraihas experienced substantial populationgrowth mainly in coastal and urban areas inthe northern and central regions, and closeto the Perak border in the southern region,along Federal Route 1. Not only isSeberang Perai less urban than PenangIsland, but housing units are also notably

different with only 31% comprisingapartments and condominiums. Thesesettlement patterns pose a somewhatdifferent challenge for MPSP in wastecollection and recycling from that of MPPPon the Island.

In Seberang Perai, MPSP has divided the collection areas into three main zones: northern, central and southern,corresponding to the three administrativedistricts. These zones are further dividedinto 12 sub-zones. As in the case of PenangIsland, wastes in Seberang Perai are beingcollected by sub-contractors. Part of thewaste collection and disposal contracts isoutsourced to private contractors. Waste iscollected on alternate days. The solid wastecollection service is estimated to reachabout 70% of Seberang Perai.

Seberang PeraiUtara

Seberang PeraiTengah

Seberang PeraiSelatan

Pulau BurongSanitary Landfill

Ampang JajarTransfer Station

Butterworth

Map 3Solid waste collection zones inSeberang Perai

Source: Project Final Report, 2007, Figure 2.3.

The Ampang Jajar Transfer Station wasoriginally a landfill, but was converted to atransfer station after it reached capacity in2001. All collected waste from the northernand central zones is transported to theAmpang Jajar Transfer Station to becompacted before being sent on to thePulau Burong landfill for final disposal.Trucks transport solid waste from thesouthern zone direct to the landfill. Currentlythe transfer station handles 400-450 tonnesof solid waste per day. The contractor at thelandfill site has about 40 registeredscavengers (‘waste pickers’) who, for a fee,are permitted to work on site and sellrecyclable materials direct to the recyclersat the landfill. The Pulau Burong SanitaryLandfill has two leachate treatment ponds,with one treatment plant currently in useand another to be constructed soon. Thetreated leachate water is used as dustcontrol and for washing down, and is notdischarged into the sea.

R e c y c l i n g a c t i v i t i e s i nS e b e r a n g P e r a iMPSP implemented its recyclingprogramme in 2000 following a directivefrom the Ministry of Housing and LocalGovernment. The main objective of thisprogramme is to divert 30% of waste fromthe landfill. MPSP has organised variousactivities to promote recycling, including:• building recycling centres, sponsored

mainly by the Ministry, in its capacity asthe local authority and coordinator of therecycling programme;

• organizing recycling carnivals at various shopping complexes, exhibitions,quizzes, demonstrations and talks,

to promote recycling;• building 14 community collection centres

funded by the Ministry; a further 17 havebeen financed privately by NGOs.

Seberang Perai recorded a recycling rate of5.4% in 2003, and this increased hugely to17.5% in 2004, and to 18.8% in 2005. Thisrapid increase from a very low base prior to2003 is partly due to improved recordingbut, most recently, is probably attributablein part to collection by some of the agentsbeyond the MPSP boundary. Whatever theexplanation, like Penang Island, this is asignificantly higher rate than the nationalaverage of 3-5%.

MPSP has also formed alliances withpartners and stakeholders similar toPenang Island (Box 3) although on a moremodest scale appropriate to the quitedifferent communities that it is serving forcollection and recycling of waste. Thissituation also implies that a significantlydifferent approach is required for suchprocesses as stakeholder consultation.

16


17

I d e n t i f y i n g t h e m a i ne l e m e n t s o f a m o d e lAlthough these provisions for the collectionand disposal of solid waste in Penang inthe middle of the first decade of thetwenty-first century are as comprehensiveas any in the country, they fall far short ofwhat is required in terms of best practicegiven their voluntary nature, restrictedcoverage, and limited amount of recycling.A primary objective of the project is todevelop a solid waste management modelfor the fifteen year period, 2005–2020, thatcan be incorporated in the institutionalstructure of the state, and that has theversatility to be adopted by other states ofMalaysia. Three elements are requiredorder to achieve this aim: • establish base population numbers and

estimate future population growth;• estimate the solid waste flow which

depends on the rate of waste generation,any waste diversion, and collectionservice coverage;

• determine cost for this amount of waste.

P o p u l a t i o n g r o w t hBased on its recent record of modestgrowth it is estimated that during the studyperiod, 2005–2020, the population ofPenang Island will grow by about 1.5% perannum, and that of Seberang Perai by1.6% per annum, increasing the state’spopulation numbers from 1.3 million in 2000 to 1.9 million in 2020. Averagehousehold size is expected to decline from4.68 persons per household in 2000 to4.23 persons in 2020 which could affectgeneration of solid waste per household.By 2020, households are expected to

reach 215,000 on Penang Island and231,000 in Seberang Perai.

D e v e l o p i n g a S o l i d W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t M o d e l i n P e n a n g


Step 1: Population

Step 2: Solid Waste

Step 3: Costs

Solid Wastegenerationprojection

InvestmentCosts

Operational andManagent

costs

Total Solid WasteManagement

costs

Solid Wastediversion

rate

Service areacoverage

Solid Wastegeneration

rate

Base yearpopulation

Populationgrowth rate

Populationprojection

+ +

Figure 1 Methodology for developing the SWM model


Popu

latio

n(’0

00)

2000

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020

17501500

1250

750500

250

1000

0

Penang Island Penang StateSeberang Perai

1.3 million 1.9 million

Figure 2 Population of Penang, 2000–2020

S o l i d w a s t e g e n e r a t i o na n d c o l l e c t i o nUtilizing data from Penang and from otherstudies, the Study Team estimated that, forthe purpose of developing the model,residential waste generation rates were atabout 1kg per capita per day, and set a2005 baseline rate of 1.02kg per capita perday. This amounts to 657 tonnes per dayfor Penang Island and 668 tonnes per day for Seberang Perai. By 2020, theaverage amount generated for PenangIsland is expected to be 982 tonnes per dayand 1,114 tonnes per day for SeberangPerai. In 2005, industrial, commercial andinstitutional sources were estimated to haveproduced 1,400 tonnes per day on PenangIsland, and about 1,500 tonnes per day inSeberang Perai.

Coverage for collection is estimated to beabout 95% for Penang Island and 70% forSeberang Perai. While services are offeredover a greater area, some small businessesare unwilling to pay the set amounts orprefer to make their own arrangements fordisposal; on Penang Island, the central hillyareas are not served by MPPP’s wastecollection services; and in Seberang Perai,significant amounts of solid and organiclivestock wastes are found in waterways.

S o l i d w a s t e c o m p o s i t i o na n d r e c y c l i n gOver the last decade, recycling has becomecommon in Penang, as it has throughoutmuch of Peninsular Malaysia. More than 100 agencies in the state have reported thatthey are active in recycling. However, there is no systematic institutional system for the collection of data, and because

transactions are not transparent and manyparticipants are unwilling to divulge therequisite information, accurate estimates ofamounts and costs are difficult to make.Consequently most information on recyclingcomes from the two local governments.Records from the MPSP indicate that thebulk (88%) of the recycled items, based onweight, comprise paper products, withmetal products and plastics next.

‘ O t h e r w a s t e ’ f r a c t i o n sConsiderable amounts of waste wereunaccounted for and several specific itemsnot included in the statistics on the


18

1 Mainly (>80%) various types of steel, but also aluminium, copper and zinc.Source: Project Final Report, 2007, Table 3.2.

Unit Paper and Plastics Glass Metals1 Total

cardboard

Tonnes 84,823.2 2,486.2 170.2 8,552.9 96,032.5

Percent 88.3 2.6 0.2 8.9 100.0

Table 2 Composition by weight of recycled items for MPSP, 2005


Category MPPP MPSP

tonnes percent tonnes percent

Food 206.2 33 605.8 51Yard or garden 59.9 10 149.0 12Paper 176.2 28 54.1 5Plastics 89.9 15 208.1 17Textile / rubber 19.0 3 38.5 3Metal 29.1 5 43.4 4Hazardous 1.9 0 2.7 0Other 37,7 6 98.4 8Total 619.9 100 1,200.0 100

Table 3 Composition of municipal solid waste for MPPP and MPSP, 2003

19

D E V E L O P I N G A S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T M O D E L I N P E N A N G

composition of municipal solid waste forthe two local authorities. These ‘otherwaste’ fractions were not trivial amounts in 2005 and likely to become much moresignificant by 2020 for such items as used tyres, household hazardous waste; discarded computers; used cellularphones; construction and demolitionwaste; and sludge.

S o l i d w a s t e m a n a g e m e n tc o s t sDetermining the amounts that localgovernments actually spend on solid wastemanagement is problematic owing toincomplete records and the difficulty ofcorrelating expenditure with the amount ofwaste collected, transported, treated anddisposed of by official services. Thisdifficulty arises because of the nature ofaccounting at the local level, the hiddencosts resulting from Federal Governmentpayment of capital expenditure, and theeffective subsidy by the state government in not charging full cost for the landallocated to waste management activities.

The National Strategic Plan for SolidWaste Management made an estimate oflong-term average costs, with a 2005starting year, that amounted to aboutRM225 per tonne of waste, coveringcollection, transport, treatment anddisposal. About half of this amount is capitalexpenditure and the other half is operatingexpenses. Subsequent price hikes in thecost of oil are likely to raise operationalcosts further.

The relatively stable costs recorded bythe MPPP from 1999 to 2005 (Figure 3)suggest that the local authority may have

achieved economies of scale in provision ofservices. However, the cost per tonne is stillrising for the MPSP. This could haveresulted because economies of scale havenot yet been achieved or because serviceshave not reached optimal efficiency.However, the significant increases in costscould also be attributable to new activities


Other waste 2005 2020 2015 2020

Other waste 2005 2020 2015 2020Used tyres 24,670 33,382 45,173 61,127Household hazardous 50,395 55,237 60,073 64,819waste

Used computers 4,321 11,207 22,539 44,977Used cellular phones 26 59 75 93Construction and 949,990 1,041,271 1,132,434 1,221,912demolition waste

Sludge 345,792 379,018 412,201 444,770

Table 4 Estimates of other waste fractions in Penang, 2005–2020 (tonnes per year)


140

120

100

Year1991 1995 20052000

80

60

40

20

0

RM/to

ne

MPPP MPSP

Figure 3Solid waste management costs incurred by MPPP and MPSP(RM per tonne)

such as haulage and landfilling, items thatdid not attract such high costs in the past.

Cost of SWM is a major item in a localauthority’s budget as illustrated by theexample of MPPP. Between 2000 and2002, SWM costs increased by 87% orRM13.4 million due mainly to the transfer ofsolid waste to the mainland, tipping fees,and the purchase of vehicles. Between2004 and 2006 the Council’s owncollection costs and the transfer costsincreased by another RM4.6 million orabout 18%. As a proportion of the MPPP’s

total revenue, SWM costs rose from 10% in2000 to 20% in 2006.

A comparison of the data in Table 5 withthe National Strategic Plan for Solid WasteManagement long-term average costestimates indicates a very large fiscal gapfor solid waste management in Penangtotalling RM2.267 billion, in present valueterms, over the study period: RM1.026billion for the MPPP, and RM1.24 billion forthe MPSP. This implies that MPPP will haveto allocate an additional RM1.026 billionbetween 2006 and 2020, and Seberang

20


SWM Item

Collection (contractors)Collection (Council)Land rental 1

Transfer costsTipping feeJelutong LandfillVehicle purchase 2

Total cost% of MPPP revenue

Table 5 Summary of MPPP solid waste management costs, 2000–2006 (RM million)

2000

10.21.2

–––

3.6–

15.010.2

2001

10.71.10.13.31.14.02.0

22.315.6

2002

10.91.11.30.27.96.31.5

–28.118.5

2003

11.11.20.27.96.62.4

–29.418.5

2004

11.11.10.27.96.62.4

–29.419.9

2005

13.04.00.27.97.12.4

–34.619.8

2006

13.04.50.29.66.92.4

–36.620.0

1 For transfer station.2 Additional vehicle maintenance costs ranged between 0.01 and 0.06 million per annum.Source: Project Final Report, 2007, Table 3.12.

21

D E V E L O P I N G A S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T M O D E L I N P E N A N G

Perai, RM1.241 billion, to cover the costs ofsolid waste management. Based on 2006population numbers, this would meanabout RM1,500 per person or overRM6,000 per household over the 15-yearperiod on top of current waste disposalcharges which are paid as part ofhomeowners’ local authority property taxes.

Although the national policy provides forthe Federal Government to pay capitalcosts, and state and local governmentsare responsible for operating costs, inpractice the more developed states areexpected to pay their own costs. This wasstill the case in Penang in 2007, where thetwo local governments were paying forhaulage and landfill activities without anycapital expenditure subsidy from theFederal Government.

Local authority Current Long-term Total municipal expenditure average cost solid waste (tonnes)(RM/tonne) (RM/tonne)

MPPP 98 250 6,756,492MPSP 129 250 10,263,034Total 17,019,525

Local authority Current cost Estimated expenditure Fiscal gap(RM million) (RM million) (RM million)

MPPP 661 1,687 1,026MPSP 1,323 2,563 1,241Total 1,984 4,251 2,267

Table 6 Fiscal gap for MPPP and MPSP solid waste management, 2006–2020


22

G o v e r n a n c eInstitutionally, SWM has been theresponsibility of local government in termsof operations, with the FederalGovernment providing policy direction andfunding, and setting technical standardsand guidelines. The National Strategic Planfor Solid Waste Management, formulated in2003, has defined the main strategy andoverall management plan for the sector.Although the responsibility for SWM lieswith local governments, they generally lackthe financial and technical capacity tomanage this complex task. SWMmonitoring and reporting are also ratherweak as there is no systematic procedurefor reporting to such authorities as theMinistry of Housing and Local Governmentand therefore no basis for planning beyondthe local level. Limited types of informationare therefore obtained from commissionedstudies or from the concession firms.

The governance and regulations forhomogeneous waste are clear as this is theresponsibility of the Department of theEnvironment and the waste is generated byan identifiable sector. However, the issuebecomes somewhat confused when thestream is mixed, as in the municipal waste sector, where the responsibilities fall between the Department of theEnvironment, the Ministry of Housing andLocal Government, and the localauthorities themselves. Lacking anintegrated framework and appeal body,agencies plan and deliver servicesaccording to their own objectives andmandates, and the lack of coordinationresults in an inability to resolve issuesbeyond their immediate jurisdiction.Handling and disposal of household

hazardous waste in the municipal solidwaste stream is a notable example.

To some degree an integrating functionis provided by the Economic Planning Unit(EPU) of the Prime Minister’s Departmentthrough its overseeing financial role. TheEPU produces medium and long-termdevelopment policies and budgetallocations for the national five-year plansand ensures that developments conform tothe current outline perspective plan. In2006, a Cabinet Committee on Solid WasteManagement and Environment was formedunder the chairmanship of the deputyprime minister, and includes federalministers and state chief ministers. TheCommittee’s initial decision was toestablish a sanitary landfill policy and close unsafe landfills.

K e y l e g i s l a t i o nUntil 2007, provisions for dealing with solidwaste were partly dealt with under theLocal Government Act where localauthorities were delegated with theresponsibility for ‘managing nuisance’ likelyto be injurious to health or property, andpublic cleansing, supplemented by theStreet, Drainage and Building Act whichrequired properties to be kept clean andwaste construction material removed, andthe Town and Country Planning Act. Withthe passing of the Solid Waste and PublicCleansing Management Act in July 2007,the Federal Government has assumedexecutive authority for all matters relating tothe management of solid waste and publiccleansing throughout Peninsular Malaysia.In addition, in a second Act also passed in2007, a corporation is to be set up to

I n t e g r a t i n g t h e I n s t i t u t i o n a l F r a m e w o r k

23

I N T E G R A T I N G T H E I N S T I T U T I O N A L F R A M E W O R K

administer and enforce the solid waste andpublic cleansing laws. The three earlierlaws were updated to accommodate thesechanges in jurisdiction.

The new SWM Act has defined solid

waste to include ‘any scrap material orother unwanted surplus substance orrejected products arising from theapplication of any process; or anysubstance required to be disposed of as

The Act, which had been in preparation for several years, was passed by the Malaysian Parliament in July 2007.

Under the Act, house owners will continue paying annual property taxes to their local authorities, and collection and disposalpayments by local governments will be directed to the new Solid Waste Management Corporation to pay for the services ofconcessionaires and their contractors. The Federal Government will continue to make up any shortfall as well as funding capitalinvestments in transfer stations, landfills and incinerators.

The Act is comprehensive in coverage, including the collection and disposal of solid waste from commercial centres, public sites,construction sites, households, industrial zones, and institutions such as schools and universities. However, the Act does notstipulate any special requirements for disposal of hazardous waste generated by households and other non-industrial sources.

The main impact of the legislation is to bring solid waste management directly under Federal Government jurisdiction and toprivatize the handling of solid waste by contracting three concessionaires, each operating in one of the three regions that coverthe peninsula. The newly created National Solid Waste Management Department will oversee these operations, draft policy,determine strategy, and implement action plans. Under a second Act, also passed in 2007, the Solid Waste and Public CleansingManagement Corporation will take over the role of local authorities, supervise the operations of the concessionaires, and carryout enforcement. The Corporation has a RM1 billion setting-up resource allocation and a staff of over 2,000 people. A Tribunalfor Solid Waste Management Service is to be set up to deal with complaints and disputes.

All companies and other groups collecting, transporting, storing, recycling and disposing of solid waste are required to belicensed and to dispose of waste only at approved facilities. There is uncertainty as to how this will affect some charitablegroups such as NGOs and CBOs that collect and sell recyclable waste to generate funds for groups such as the elderly, thedisabled and orphans.

The existing concessionaires already have considerable experience and the requisite master plans are already drawn up. Inaddition to collection and disposal of solid waste, the concessionaires are responsible for cleaning up roads, public places,public toilets, drains, markets, hawker centres, and beaches.

While the Act does not stipulate ‘mandatory waste separation at source’ or provision for ‘user pays’ funding, it anticipates theintroduction of both of these requirements in future. There are also provisions for the Minister to require manufacturers tooperate a ‘product take-back’ system, or to implement the ‘extended producer responsibility’ concept, but the intention is toensure that the basic system is in place and running efficiently first.

Box 4 The Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007

24


being broken, worn out, contaminated orotherwise spoiled; or any material that… isrequired by the authority to be disposed of,but does not include scheduled wastes,…sewage,… or radioactive waste’. The legalinstruments for dealing with hazardouswaste come within the EnvironmentalQuality Act and include substances thatalter the quality of the environment or arepotentially hazardous to health includingobjectionable odours, noise, radioactivity,and other physical, chemical or biologicalchanges to the environment. However,there is no clear basis for coordinationoperationally in dealing with hazardouswaste substances that are mixed in withmunicipal waste.

Hazardous waste is comprehensivelyregulated from generation to disposal.Hazardous wastes are listed in a schedule(now including e-wastes) and scheduledwaste management activities are governedby the Scheduled Waste Regulations andOrder, 2005. The order classifies the varioustypes of prescribed premises from whichsuch activities may be carried out. Anintegrated hazardous waste treatment anddisposal facility has been operated byKualiti Alam at Bukit Nanas since 1995, andis licensed by the Department ofEnvironment to design, finance, construct,operate, and maintain the scheduled wastetreatment system.

The key differences between the SWMsystem to 2007 and the SWM system from2008 following the new legislation areillustrated in Figures 4 and 5. In the earliersystem, solid waste could be collected byany collector, transported by any firm orvehicle, treated by any other party, anddisposed of in any location. From 2008,

each stage of the solid waste lifecycle willbe licensed. From the point at which solidwaste becomes a controlled item, its travelpath, mode of transport, collecting andtransporting agency, and place of disposalwill all be predetermined.


Solid Waste can be collected by any collector and transported anywhere without control

Other facilitiese.g. RDF

Collector 1

Industries

Commercials

Households

RecyclingIndustries

Landfill 2

Landfill 1

Collector 2

Collector 3

Figure 4 Solid waste management framework to 2007


Solid Waste Management with defined schemes

Other facilitiese.g. RDF

Licencees only

Industries

Commercials

Households

RecyclingIndustries

Landfill 2

Landfill 1

Collector 2

Collector 1

Collector 3

Figure 5 Solid waste management framework from 2008

25

C h o o s i n g t h e B e s t O p t i o n f o r S o l i d W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t

D e t e r m i n i n g p r i o r i t i e s i ns o l i d w a s t e m a n a g e m e n tAgenda 21 of the United NationsConference on Environment andDevelopment in Rio de Janeiro in 1992emphasized that reducing wastes andmaximizing environmentally sound wastereuse and recycling should be the prioritiesin waste management since these not onlypromote environmentally sound practicessuch as resource recovery, but also reducethe amount of solid waste directed to landfillsites, and minimize landfill emissions ofmethane. While a hierarchy of options ofthis sort is widely favoured, in practice thedecision on which option to adopt in anyparticular instance depends on cost,access to technology, availability of qualifiedpersonnel, and similar practical issues.

Solid waste management deals with thegeneration of waste, collection, anddisposal, and the issues with each of thesemay vary depending on the types of wasteand the locality. The Penang Solid WasteManagement Project considered fouroptions. The strategy that is eventuallyadopted could comprise a combination ofmore than one of these alternatives.

B u s i n e s s a s u s u a l o p t i o nBusiness as usual (BAU) reflects the currentpractice of waste management in Penang.Old newspapers and other recyclable itemsare removed from the waste streams andprivate contractors or concessionairesappointed by the municipal councils thencollect the balance. Any other recyclablesleft in the waste are removed by privateagents and NGOs which play an importantrole in collecting recyclable items.

Consequently, waste arriving at the transferstations is largely free of recyclable materialexcept for heavily soiled or damaged itemswith no market value.

Vehicles transport the waste to one ofthree weigh bridges in the state where it isweighed and the information recorded andused as the basis for charging; some is at a fixed monthly rate, other waste ischarged according to whether it is domesticor industrial.

This scenario assumes that the nationalrecycling target of 20% of solid waste isreached by 2020, up from just 8% in 2005.In 2005, the total waste generated inPenang was 0.99 million tonnes (about1,864 tonnes per day), and this is expectedto reach 1.54 million tonnes in 2020. About10% of the collected municipal solid wasteby weight is ‘lost’ as garbage iscompressed in the collection trucks andleachate escapes. The waste is thentransported to the Pulau Burong Landfill.

mostfavouredoption

prevention

minimization

reuse

recycle

energy recovery

disposal

leastfavouredoption

Figure 6 The waste hierarchy options

The critical issues of this alternative are:• existing landfill capacity in the state is

extremely limited;• once capacity is reached, an existing

facility either has to be expanded or analternative site found;

• either way this represents considerableexpense if the landfill site is to bedeveloped according to best practice;

• using landfill to dispose of virtually all solidwaste is an extremely inefficient methodof dealing with the problem.

C o m p o s t i n g o p t i o nComposting is the controlled decom-position of organic matter by microorganisms into a stable humus material.During composting, biodegradable organicmaterials are broken down to simpler formsby naturally occurring micro organisms(mainly bacteria and fungi) underpredominantly aerobic conditions. The solidwastes of many developing countries aresuitable for composting as they tend tocontain a much higher proportion of organicmaterial than developed countries.Composting systems can be operated atvarious scales: backyard, neighbourhoodand large-scale centralized facilities.

The composting strategy relies heavily on biodegradable or compostable wastesuch as wet waste, especially uncooked or waste food and garden waste.Composting in an integrated solid waste facility involves the biologicaldecomposition of the wet or organic wasteportion of the solid waste. To be successful,this strategy requires the separation of allbiodegradable waste at source: byhouseholds, and by food outlets such as

coffee shops, food stalls and restaurants. After separation, the high organic

content waste will be directly transferred toa composting plant of which there would befive – two on the island and three on themainland. The outputs of composting,which are largely determined by the qualityand type of input material, would becompost, soil conditioners, fertilizers, and agrowing medium for landscaping andgardening activities. There is also the optionof using the finished product as covermaterial at the landfill site, both in theoperational phase and as cover for theprogressive restoration of the site.

In Penang, food waste has beenestimated at between 35 and 45% of totalwaste, and the inclusion of other organicfractions raises this proportion even higher.In an integrated facility, the transfer stationand the composting plant would belocated together as a single unit, greatlyreducing transportation costs, The mostrealistic scenario for Penang is to compost

26


Generation Collection TransferStation

SanitaryLandfill

OldNewspaper

etc

• Private Sector• NGOs

• RM42/tonne (Ampang Jajar)• RM800K/month (Batu Maung)

• RM27 Domestic Waste• RM32 Industrial Waste

Weighing Bridge– Waste from Island and Ampang Jajar

Weighing Bridge– Waste from Sebarang Perai Tengah and Selatan

Figure 7 Business as usual option


27

C H O O S I N G T H E B E S T O P T I O N F O R S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T

20% of the organic fraction of themunicipal solid waste.

To make composting a feasible option forPenang, detailed attention needs to begiven to siting of facilities, quality of theinput stream, level of technology,achievement of a substantial scale, andadequate market development. Experiencesuggests that the issue of establishingmarkets is likely to be the most seriousbarrier to a successful compostingoperation.

This scenario envisages that the currentrecycling rates would be increased byseparating recyclables and organic waste atsource, which currently is not donecomprehensively. The recyclables wouldcontinue to be sorted and collected by theappointed agents. The remaining wastewould be sent to the transfer station. In2005, of the 13.5 million tonnes ofmunicipal solid waste collected annually,42% was organic waste, 43% wasrecyclable and 15% was non-recyclable.

The benefits of composting are manifold.They include:• production of a valuable soil amendment

or mulch;• removal of compostable materials, a major

component, from the waste stream;• flexibility for implementation at different

levels from small backyard operations tolarge-scale centralized facilities;

• relatively low capital and operating costs;• low-level technology requirements.

Critical issues for composting include:• the capital costs of land acquisition, and

construction and maintenance ofcomposting plant;

• the operational costs of collection of

biodegradable waste;• the implications of increased frequency of

collection; • the challenge of achieving a high

participation rate;• the difficulties of establishing markets and

marketing effectively;• maintaining quality despite inexperienced

staff and variable feedstock quality; • the nuisance potential of odours and

vermin.According to UNEP, many centralizedmechanical solid waste composting plantsin Asian cities are not functioning effectivelyor have been closed down due to lack of amarket for the compost, and poorstandards of operation and maintenance ofthe facilities. However, compostingtechnologies are well developed andcomposting is a viable option for solidwaste management in Malaysia, since local climatic conditions are particularlyfavourable for biological decompositionprocesses.

Generation Collection TransferStation

IntegratedFacility

CompostingPlant

SanitaryLandfill

OldNewspaper Recycling

Wet Waste /Food /

Garden Waste

Figure 8 Composting option


28


R e f u s e - d e r i v e d f u e l ( R D F )o p t i o nRDF is based on a process that selects thehigh calorific fraction of municipal solidwaste and converts it into a form that allowsthe generation of energy from the wasteproduct. The key aspect of the processinvolves the separation of the non-combustibles from the high calorificcombustibles, mainly dry residues of paper,plastics, and textiles, in the waste. Thisproduct can be palletized or processed insome other form for ease of storage andtransportation. RDF can serve as asubstitute for fossil fuel in high demandenergy processes. Sound solid wastemanagement can adopt this process as acomplement to other processes such ascomposting.

RDF producers accept mixed solidwastes from which any remainingrecyclable or non-combustible componentis then removed. Usually a material recoveryfacility (MRF) is used to recover these non-combustible and recyclable items such asglass, plastic and metallic materials. Theremaining material is then dried, shreddedand processed into a uniform material to beused as fuel. Dry stabilisation may be usedto dry materials through a compostingprocess that produces a material of highercalorific value. Waste separation at sourcefurther enhances and expedites theoperation of this system, but under thecurrent voluntary arrangement, this is oflimited benefit. Unwanted residues wouldbe sent to the Pulau Burong sanitary landfill.

The RDF product may be in shredded,cubed or pellet form according to themarket’s feedstock demands, and istypically used as a co-incineration fuel for

cement kilns, steelworks and ironindustries. RDF can be used for co-combustion in coal-fired boilers, or by co-gasification with coal or biomass. If usedlocally, the energy generated could bebought by Tenaga Nasional Berhad and fedinto the national electricity grid. Estimatesindicate that less than 20% of the wastefrom utilising the RDF will remain as aresidual requiring landfill disposal.

If RDF were to be adopted in Penang itwould be used as a technique tocomplement composting. The criticalissues for the RDF alternative are:• waste separation at source;• removal of toxic items and substances

such as batteries;• maintenance of quality and price to meet

market expectations;• the need for secure product markets;• high electricity consumption in processing• reliability and air pollution problems in

processing plants;

Generation

Collection TransferStation RDF

MRF +Composting+ Residual

SanitaryLandfill

Waste toEnergy

PaperIndustries

• Steel• Iron• Cement

• National Grid

Paper / CardWet Waste(Food)

20%

Figure 9 Refuse-derived fuel option


29


• inferior quality compared to most other fuels;

• incompatibility with high rates of recyclingof materials such as paper and plasticswhich provide much of the high calorificvalue for RDF.

Although Federal Government policyconsiders this alternative a viable option, atpresent there is no commercial entityoperating in Malaysia to create a market forrefuse-derived fuel. Given that the viability ofany such operation would depend heavilyon the quality of RDF and that nocommercial arrangements dealing witheither the use or pricing of such a producthave been set in place to proceed with sucha project, this appears not to be apracticable option in the immediate future.

I n c i n e r a t i o n o p t i o nIncineration, or thermal treatment, involvescombustion of solid waste at hightemperatures. Incineration converts wastematerials into heat, gaseous emissions andresidual ash. Incineration processes areamong the most expensive solid wastemanagement options and the plants requirea skilled workforce for their operation andmaintenance.

Incineration is an option for combustingwaste and can be undertaken with orwithout energy recovery. Under theproposal, slightly less than half of themunicipal solid waste would be incineratedand the remainder would be sent to thelandfill without incineration. Wet waste,primarily food waste, would need to beseparated out and pre-dried beforetreatment in an enclosed furnace at anextremely high temperature. Energy

recovery would provide a significant benefitin each case.

There are three main thermal processingsystems: combustion, pyrolysis, and gasi-fication. The need to screen and sort thefeedstock would be dependent on whichof these thermal treatment is adopted.

The combustion system requires solidwaste to be burnt with ‘excess air’ (relativeto the stoichiometric or ideal fuel/oxygenratio) that will ensure that combustion isrelatively clean and no combustible residueremains, all having been transformed to hotgases, water vapour and ash, with energyrecovered by heat exchange. Largecapacity stoker systems that combust solidwaste with no pre-processing arecommonly referred to as mass-burnincinerators. Those designed to burnprocessed solid waste, or refuse-derivedfuel (RDF), are known as RDF-firedincinerators.

The pyrolysis system thermallydecomposes solid waste at very hightemperatures in the absence of oxygen.The process produces a mixture ofcombustible gases, liquid, and solidresidues. Despite widespread industrial

uses, the pyrolysis of solid waste has notbeen very successful due to the inherentcomplexity of the system and the difficultyof producing a consistent feedstock frommunicipal solid waste. The combination oftechnological difficulties and high costmakes the pyrolysis system an unattractiveoption for a developing country.

The gasification system involves thecombustion of the solid waste with lessthan the stoichiometric amount of air togenerate a combustible fuel gas. Thismethod is more expensive than thecombustible system, but it holds thegreatest potential for future developmentbecause its air emissions are considerablylower than for an excess-air combustionsystem.

If there is a serious shortage of land forlandfills, incineration is likely to be afavoured option for cities like Singapore,Tokyo and Taipei. Singapore operates threeplants incinerating about 90% of themunicipal solid waste collected daily.However, there is a major concern over thegreenhouse and other gases released byincineration. In the United States thisdisquiet has reached such proportions thatpublic pressure in many states and localauthority areas has resulted in the decisionto ban or strictly regulate the operation ofincinerators. Consequently, use ofincinerators has been on the decline overthe last decade or more.

Advantages of incineration are:• the original volume of the combustible

solid waste can be reduced by 85-95%through incineration;

• the process provides for the recovery ofenergy in the form of heat;

• incineration is an efficient way to reducedemand for landfill space in a heavilypopulated area;

• the technologies employed in mass-burnand RDF-fired incinerators are welldeveloped.

The critical issues for this option are:• high capital and operating costs make

this the most costly option;• skilled staff are required to operate the

complex incineration plants;• a significant amount of the energy

generated is consumed by the use of theair pollution control equipment needed toclean up the flue gases;

• there are concerns about the healtheffects of hazardous components of thegaseous and particulate emissions;

• the safe disposal of the ash as the endproduct must be dealt with;

• a stable supply of combustible waste of at least 50,000 tonnes per year is neededto make incineration viable;

30


Generation Collection TransferStation Incinerator

SanitaryLandfill

Wet Waste(Food)

• Island• Mainland

15 to 20%residual toPulau BurongLandfill

Figure 10 Incineration option


31


• the large fraction of solid waste notsuitable for incineration that would still go directly to the landfill.

E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e o p t i o n sf o r d i s p o s i n g o f m u n i c i p a ls o l i d w a s t eAfter reviewing all the options, their cost,and the selection criteria laid down by theEPU and the National Strategic Plan (NSP)for Solid Waste Management, the StudyTeam recommended the adoption of thecomposting alternative. The priorities of theEPU are to determine a least cost solution,and ensure that the life of existing landfillfacilities is extended for as long as possible.

The NSP promotes the waste hierarchyin which waste reduction assumes thegreatest importance followed by reuse andrecycling. Application of treatment

technologies such as composting followsrecycling, and this is followed byincineration (with some energy recovery)and finally dumping any remaining residualsin landfill. Composting fulfils the lowest costrequirement and is also compatible with thereduction, reuse, recycle requirements.

Alternative Capital Operational Total expenditure expenditure

Business as usual (BAU) 957.53 160.39 1,117.93Composting 848.06 184.20 1,032.27Refuse-derived fuel-11 947.31 238.53 1,185.84Refuse-derived fuel-M1 1,088.88 207.98 1,296.85Refuse-derived fuel-21 1,188.12 223.13 1 ,411.25Incineration 1,321.49 1,063.18 2,384.67

Table 7 Capital and operating costs for each option of SWM in Penang, (RM per tonne)

1 Three possible versions of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) were considered.Source: Project Final Report, 2007, Table 5.2.

S t a k e h o l d e r c o n s u l t a t i o na n d c o o p e r a t i o nFor the purposes of this project, astakeholder was deemed to be any person,group or institution with involvement orinterest in SWM activities, plans andprogrammes. As participants in thisprocess in one role or another, theinvolvement of stakeholders is essential ifSWM objectives are to be achieved.

An earlier UNDP-Penang Public-Private-Partnership Urban Environment (PPPUE)project provided useful experience indetermining appropriate consultationmethods and then developing informedstrategies for achieving a vision of whatmight be achieved by SWM efforts inPenang. The intention of the current projectis to fully engage all concernedstakeholders in environmental issues withintheir own localities. They need to be awareof the detrimental impacts of poor wastemanagement practices on the environmentin which they live. The biggest challenge isto change the behaviour of the numerousactual or potential stakeholders in the SWMsystem so as to encourage maximisation ofwaste reduction, minimize disposal andoptimise waste material recovery.

The development of this proposed newsolid waste management institutionalarrangement demands that variousstakeholders all play their complementaryroles proficiently, particularly where thisinvolves their direct involvement andparticipation. Residents, businesses,institutions and governments must takeresponsibility for reducing, reusing, andrecycling the solid waste that theygenerate and in this way assist inminimizing landfill waste.

Consultative sessions in the form ofindividual and group interviews wereconducted on both Penang Island and inSeberang Perai. A wide range of groupswas consulted including owners andoccupants, managers, officials, andoperators of: high-rise dwellings; terraceand semi-detached houses; kampungs;hospitals; hotels; factories and small andmedium-sized enterprises; hawker centres;restaurants; wet markets; developer andcontractor enterprises.

From these interviews and consultationsthe Study Team identified three distinct targetgroups on the basis of their attitudes (insome instances coloured by theircircumstances and location) towards gettingrecycling adopted: willing adopters, potentialadopters, and reluctant adopters (Box 5).

Other stakeholders that must beincluded in the consultation processinclude community-based organizations(CBOs) and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), private recyclingbusinesses, and local authorities.

CBOs and NGOs often serve as solidwaste collecting centres in the community.Their methods and motives vary: somehave permanent collection centres to storerecyclables whilst others have recyclingdays for their members to bring or collectrecyclables for sale to recycling agents.Most are raising funds for communityprojects of some sort. These operationscould be supported and improved by: • providing communal bins for different

categories of waste at convenient sites; • collecting wet waste daily; • increasing participation rates by providing

incentives;

C o o r d i n a t i n g S t a k e h o l d e r s S t r a t e g i e s

32

33

• encouraging NGOs to clarify theirobjectives for recycling so that memberscan offer informed support;

• involving NGOs as allies of the localauthorities in the designing ofprogrammes;

• identifying, recruiting and training localchampions among member organizations

that are passionate in environmentalprotection programmes to run recyclingactivities.

Private sector participation in the recyclingbusiness extends from small-time itinerantcollectors to big businesses, but all areintegral to, and crucial components of

• willing adopters are those that would require little persuasion to get recycling adopted; they comprise the groups from wetmarkets, hotels, hospitals, and schools. Their feedback suggested that:– a better infrastructure is required (possibly as simple as extra receptacles) especially for food waste which is very bulky; – government needs to put the proper mechanisms in place; – a need for more public education and awareness campaigns; – organic waste needs to be collected daily; – incentives for separating waste would encourage the practice; – management needs to be supportive; – most of these groups need separate bins as sharing between private households/wet markets/hospitals/schools is

unhealthy.

• potential adopters are groups that generate a lot of waste which they want to dispose of but will require significant effort topersuade to establish a viable recycling programme. Notable features:– this group comprises mainly those from high-rise dwellings, where there is a convenient point source with high volume of

waste but a low participation rate under the existing system;– many high-rise dwellings require proper provision of facilities for waste collection, and the proposal was made that it

should be mandatory for developers to set aside space for collection of recycling materials and composting waste; – high-rise dwellings with rubbish chutes pose a serious problem because people are lazy when it comes to carrying their

waste downstairs, and this makes waste separation at source almost impossible.

• reluctant adopters comprise groups that are difficult to deal with and often dispersed; they would require considerable effortand substantial cost to get recycling adopted. The Study Team concluded that the following actions would be required ifwaste separation and recycling are to have any chance of success in this instance:– implementation of legislation requiring active participation;– introduction of mandatory programmes of waste separation and recycling;– development of a proper supporting infrastructure;– introduction of economic incentives;– introduction of appropriate mechanisms for dealing with different premises such as houses and high-rise dwellings;– a need for campaigns to educate, raise awareness, and change attitudes and behaviour.

Box 5 Stakeholder attitudes and behaviour

C O O R D I N A T I N G S T A K E H O L D E R S S T R A T E G I E S

Penang’s recycling network. This economicactivity can be regarded both as a model ofresource conservation and as an exampleof efficient materials utilization. Privatesector participation could be extended ifsome of the following were put in place: • establishing more drop-off recycling

provision in shopping complexes; • providing incentives for private companies

that are practising recycling and installingenvironmental protection equipment;

• encouraging firms to collect and purchasebulky items such as furniture andobsolete equipment;

• providing a mechanism to monitor highlyvolatile market prices of recyclable items;

• initiating government intervention toprovide subsidies when recyclable pricesdrop sharply;

• reducing undercutting practices so thatrecycling businesses remain sustainable;

• introducing tax incentives for purchasesof recyclables processing equipment;

• providing soft loans to businessesinvolved in recycling and materialrecovery.

Local authorities play a crucial role inensuring that mechanisms for wasteminimization are in place and runningsmoothly at all levels of stakeholderoperation. They provide legislative andadministrative functions as well as essentialservices to all participants. Strategies thatmight be adopted to enhance their rolefurther in SWM include:• setting up waste minimization units to

oversee the SWM programmes;• setting up and maintaining an up-to-date

website for recycling and wasteminimization to promote community

participation and activities;• developing a comprehensive plan and

programmes for public awareness andeducation;

• providing infrastructure support forrecycling including: collection centres,separation and collection of householdhazardous waste;

• increasing the number of householdhazardous waste collection pointsthroughout Penang and setting up ahousehold hazardous waste collectiondepot for items such as paint, oil, acids,aerosol cans and the like;

• extending the e-waste collectionprogramme to household electronic andelectrical appliances such as refrigerators,washing machines, television sets,toasters, electric ovens, radios and thelike, in collaboration with private recyclingbusinesses;

• setting up a mechanism for the collectionof bulky furniture;

• selecting appropriate technologies formaterial and resource recovery andcomposting at the municipal level;

• making it mandatory for recyclingbusinesses to register with the localauthorities so that their activities can bemonitored and regulated efficiently;

• making it mandatory that registeredagents and businesses submit monthlydata returns on the recyclables collected.

34


35

O p t i m i z i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o nb y r e l a t i n g c o s t s d i r e c t l yt o s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e dHistorically, most local authorities inMalaysia have funded solid waste servicesfrom property taxes irrespective of thequantity or toxicity of the waste beingcollected. Growing population numbersand consumption have resulted inincreasingly large proportions of localauthority revenues being devoted toSMW, whereas generators of solid wasteeffectively behave as if the services werefree and the disposal of solid wastecompletely benign. No matter whatdemands they make on these services,the producers of the waste incur noadditional cost and gain no benefit fromproducing less. This results inunnecessarily large amounts of discarded

solid waste with excessive environmentaland financial costs.

A key component is the adoption ofstable, long-term funding mechanisms thatprovide sufficient revenue for local and stateprogrammes while providing incentives forgreater waste reduction and diversion. They facilitate implementation and supportthe provision of SWM services that areefficient, environmentally and economicallysustainable, and fair.

To date, recycling in Penang has largelybeen achieved as a result of unregulatedmarket forces: aluminium and paper haveachieved significant levels (while other itemshave not) because they have a resale valuegreater than the cost of collection. In thesecircumstances, private entrepreneurs areunlikely to undertake significant capitalinvestment to systematically expand the

A d o p t i n g I n c e n t i v e S t r a t e g i e s

scale and breadth of their waste recoveryactivities. Consequently, most recycling ofother materials is carried out in an informalmanner by the staff of waste collectors whosort the waste as they haul it away, tocomplement their incomes.

This situation is exacerbated by the factthat the supply of recyclables is left mainlyto the good will of the generators of thewaste. Existing waste diversion activitiesrely almost exclusively on the goodwill,generosity, and dedication of hundreds ofcitizens, NGOs, charity organizations andbusinesses. But such voluntary efforts canonly achieve limited results, and it isdifficult to compete against the provision ofkerbside collection services that appear tobe free and demand no effort to separateout reusable or recyclable items. To a largeextent, these factors explain why recyclingrates in Penang have not risen aboveabout 10–15% and are even lower in therest of Malaysia.

A key recommendation of the project istherefore that participation in recyclingprogrammes should be made mandatory. Aphased-in approach targeting specifiedtypes of waste and selected wastegenerators is more likely to be successfulthan an attempt to target all waste and allgenerators. Where products are not

discarded or replaced frequently it may bemore effective to require retailers andmanufacturers to implement take-backsystems as part of an extended producerresponsibility programme. Tyres, batteries,electronic waste and cell phones would bein this latter category.

A comprehensive waste separation andrecycling programme needs to beaccompanied by an appropriate monitoringand data collection system not only todetermine the economic benefits of theprogramme, but to provide an informedbasis for future planning. Introduction ofuser pays charges creates an incentive forhouseholds and enterprises to reduce theirproduction of waste, but the main purposewould simply be to recover the cost ofproviding collection and treatment services.

36


37

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h eP e n a n g S W M m o d e l w i l lo c c u r i n s t a g e sThe proposal for institutionalising andstructuring SWM in Penang within the newframework was approved by the project’sNational Steering Committee in December2006. At the national level, during 2007,parliament passed the Solid Waste andPublic Cleansing Management Act, themain tenets of which underpin theinstitutionalisation of strategies andprocedures for solid waste management.This development has enhanced theefficacy of the project proposals, and thefindings provide the Federal Governmentwith information at the local level that canassist and facilitate in the implementation ofthe new regulations.

The timely introduction of the legislationmeans that, while a significant period islikely to elapse while organizational,administrative and physical facilities andinfrastructure are put in place, the basicstrategic directives and regulatoryprovisions have been introduced forimplementation of the SWM modeldeveloped for Penang. This means that thesystem in operation prior to the new SWMframework, where waste was transportedby any means to any number ofdestinations, and recycling was voluntaryand largely determined by market forces,can now be superseded. Waste will becollected by licensed operators and sent todesignated facilities to be recycled or to betreated and disposed of by approvedtechnologies (Figures 4 and 5).

S t a g e 1 : I n i t i a l p h a s eIn Stage 1, the informal system of recyclingand waste management would be replacedby a mandatory system implemented andenforced at the local authority level. Theentire industry will be licensed, servicestandards will be defined and the industryregulated according to the principles laiddown in the Act. This means that SWM isfederalised in the sense that the federalministry will set the standards, introducekey performance indicators, specify thenature of the service, and determine levelsof payment. With institutionalization, all solidwaste would follow a predeterminedchannel for collection, transportation,recycling or treatment and disposal ofresidue. It is anticipated that the 12–15% ofsolid waste that is already removed from thewaste stream will increase significantly sothat 85–88% no longer goes for disposal in the landfill without any further reductionor treatment.

Treatment procedures would also beintroduced during this stage, as soon as theinfrastructural requirements could beconstructed. A materials recovery facility(MRF) will be needed at an early stage toreplace the transfer station at Batu Maungwhich is the site on Penang Island of thesecond bridge crossing from the mainlandthat is about to be constructed. An MRFwould enhance the capacity for therecovery of recyclable materials and willhave to be constructed soon at analternative site. It is also intended that thecomposting of food, green and other typesof organic waste should also commence

I m p l e m e n t i n g t h e P e n a n g S o l i d W a s t eM a n a g e m e n t M o d e l

during this first stage. However, this majorstep forward depends not only on theconstruction of composting facilities butalso on the successful separation of organicwaste from the remainder of the waste flow.

The role of local authorities changesunder the new SWM Act. During the firstyear, contracts with waste collectors will benovated to the three federally contractedconcessionaires (Alam Flora, SouthernWaste Management and E-Idaman), andthe status quo on existing contractpayments, where they exist, will behonoured. These concessionaires, whohave already been operating over the threeregions into which the peninsula is dividedfor waste management purposes, will nowhave a concession agreement with theNational Solid Waste Department instead oflocal authorities. The Public Waste andPublic Cleansing Corporation will take overthe supervisory and monitoring role of thelocal authorities and carry out enforcement.

The main role of local governments willbe promoting the implementation of thenew recycling-composting strategy. Thiswill involve development of action plans thatidentify target groups and institute socialprogrammes to raise public awareness,encourage reduction in waste generation,increase recycling, and activate effectivewaste separation at source. These activitiesare essentially a continuation of the strategyalready being followed by the two localauthorities in Penang.

The transition process will be expeditedwhen the National Solid Waste Department,through the concessionaires, achieves itsintention of issuing two free bins to eachhousehold, for recycling and organicwastes. The Director General of the

Department is also reported as saying thatinformation on solid waste management willbe disseminated for up to two years, at theend of which time it is intended that theAct’s provisions for mandatory sorting atsource will be implemented. He stated thatimmediate introduction of this requirementthroughout Peninsular Malaysia isconsidered unreasonable. In fact, manystates and local authorities do no have solidwaste management systems that are asadvanced as that of Penang.

By the end of Stage 1, which is expectedto last for up to two years, it is envisagedthat the new SWM system will be in placeand the major problems of implementationresolved. While somewhat dependent onFederal Government action in setting up the new organizational and physicalinfrastructures, it is to be expected thatinstitutional coordination will have beenachieved for the handling of householdhazardous wastes, market basedinstruments arranged to manage thevarious fractions of municipal waste, andpayment systems agreed. By this time also,

38


39

I M P L E M E N T I N G T H E P E N A N G S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T M O D E L

public awareness of the new regime and itsrequirements should be much morewidespread, and the ‘willing’ category ofadopters recruited to active participation inthe ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ enterprise.

This first stage will confront allparticipants with a steep learning curve asthey attempt to implement the new SWMframework. It will require a high level ofcooperation between the local authorities,the state government, and the new SWMCorporation in parallel with a programme ofeducation and increasing awarenessamong the public at large. The stategovernment is envisaged to play animportant role in determining the strategicdirection for managing SWM, introducingthe new technologies, and resiting therequisite infrastructure to achieve theframework’s objectives.

S t a g e 2 : E x p a n s i o n p h a s eWith the basic elements of the new SWMsystem in place and the administrative andphysical infrastructure required by the Actbecoming more comprehensively available,this stage would be looking to involve moregroups, notably the ‘potential adopters’, as participants in the programme. If the mandatory requirement for wasteseparation has, in fact, been implementedby this time, incorporating a much largersection of the public in actively pursuingthe reduce/reuse/recycle principles will begreatly facilitated. Product take-back,which has been adopted in some moreindustrialized countries for waste such asbatteries, electrical appliances, tyres andconstruction materials, is being consideredbut may take longer to introduce.

Incentives for product take-back are morelikely to take the form of facilitation, as withallowing the importation of the necessaryequipment tax free, rather than asmonetary incentives.

With respect to the treatmenttechnologies, the refuse-derived fuel (RDF)option could be introduced during thisphase. With the MRF technologyintroduced at Stage 1 enhancing theseparation at source process, the RDFoption could operate on top of theseparation/compost strategy to achievehigher levels of recycling and recovery, andreduce further the residue being directed tothe landfill.

Stage 2 expansion is likely to takesomething between two and five years tocomplete. Any remaining organizational andinfrastructural requirements not completedin Stage 1 should be achieved early in thisphase and by the end of Stage 2 it is to beexpected that at least 15% of the solidwaste will have been removed by collectionfor recycling, a further 15% by processingat a material recovery facility (MRF), andanother approximately 20% by compostingtreatment, leaving about 50% for disposal ina landfill site. Formal procedures fordisposing of household hazardous waste,and of construction and demolitionmaterials, will also be put in place duringthis period.

If data collection systems have not beenset up earlier they would be a priority inthis stage of the implementation of thesolid waste framework. Accurate andcomprehensive data are essential in orderto enable the analysis of requirements andenable effective planning for expansionand improvement during this and the

following stage of the project. This wouldenable the refinement of the Study Team’sestimates (summarized in Table 8) on thebasis of actual experience of the SWMframework’s operation.

S t a g e 3 : R e p l i c a t i o n a n dr e f i n e m e n t p h a s eThe efficacy of the new SWM model havingbeen demonstrated, greater involvement ofthe public and further development of socialnetworks is to be expected. Guidebooksand manuals describing standard operatingprocedures will be readily available, andpublic awareness campaigns will still becontinuing. Well-established proceduresand the mandatory waste separationrequirements would provide strong leverageto ensure widespread participation by alleconomic and social sectors including the‘reluctant adopters’ group.

Fine tuning of the system is likely to benecessary to ensure that the system issustainable by being cost effective:contracts must be delivering efficientservices and reasonable returns to thecontractors; and waste processingprocedures and technologies must beproviding effective solutions acceptable tothe public. At some point, after sustainededucation and awareness efforts have beenwidely promoted, user pays and polluter

penalties will need to be introduced, andother instruments applied to influencebehaviour and ensure compliance in theinterests of the wider society.

40



Target Year Amounted Percent Percent Percent Percent

generated recycled composted converted landfilled

(tonnes/day) to RDF

2010 1,454 13 8 5 742015 1,580 17 17 5 612020 1,705 22 25 5 482025 1,855 26 34 5 35

Table 8 Targets for municipal solid waste in Penang

41

B e n e f i t s o f a p i l o t p r o j e c tTo facilitate gaining a head start on thesteep learning curve that implementation ofthe SWM framework presents, the StudyTeam proposed a pilot project in Stage 1.The objective of the pilot project would beto develop prototype systems, to study thebehaviour of groups, and to learn lessons tobe passed on to facilitate Stages 2 and 3.The pilot project would work within the newlegislation and the plans already in place atthe federal, state and local governmentlevels. These key lessons would reduce thecost and smooth the path of the SWMframework’s implementation.

Malaysia will implement the SolidWaste and Public Cleansing ManagementAct 2007, on 1 January 2008. With thenew Act, all waste operators, recyclers,and organizations engaged in any activitythat involves controlled solid waste will berequired to obtain a licence. A pilotproject would assist in finding ways toimplement the Act in ways that invite theleast resistance from the public, the firmsand the institutions that have to operatewithin its jurisdiction.

At the state level, Penang needs to findan alternative to the Batu Maung TransferStation which has to be replaced becauseof the second bridge’s construction.Currently the state government, whoseresponsibility it is, is considering using theJelutong landfill site to build a materialrecovery facility to compost organic wasteand reduce the amount of solid waste beingtransported to Pulau Burong landfill.

A pilot project that follows up the mainstudy described here, can help to find themost effective way to carry out wasteseparation at source (especially at

household level), determine ways toimprove recycling and reduce the amountof solid waste that needs treatment anddisposal. The local authorities will adapttheir roles from being directly responsiblefor managing solid waste to partnering theFederal Government in monitoring,evaluating and enforcing the Act. They will,however, continue promoting sourceseparation, recycling, and the broaderissues of public awareness and education.

I m p l e m e n t i n g t h e p i l o tp r o j e c tThe main objectives of the pilot project will be:• to study the potential for implementing

mandatory waste separation in selectedresidential and commercial areas inPenang;

• to undertake at a pilot level thecomposting of the organic solid wastefraction so as to reduce the solid wasteflow to the landfill;

• to use various methods for segregating,transporting and managing householdhazardous substances beyond thehousehold level.

The pilot project would consist of threecomponents and be implemented inselected areas of the state, as follows:• introduce households to a 2-bin system,

one for organic food waste and the otherfor the rest of the solid waste;

• establish a system for collectinghousehold hazardous waste;

• develop a programme to raise awarenessand build capacity to ensure householdsunderstand and participate in the solid

A c t i o n i n g a P i l o t P r o j e c t

waste separation and recycling activities.The sites for implementation of the pilotproject will be high-rise apartments; landedproperties on Penang Hill; and a wet marketin Seberang Perai, to test separation ofwaste at source and participation incommunity composting. The followingmatters are expected to be addressed:• introduction of waste recycling awareness

training;• development of a community composting

system where organic waste is depositedand composting activities can beundertaken at a nearby site;

• design of economic incentives toinfluence behaviour.

These measures will provide data, testsystems, and provide demonstration sitesthat can be used throughout Penang toexplain and encourage participation.

The pilot project will be undertaken underthe auspices of the federal Solid WasteManagement Corporation, the Penangstate government, Penang local authorities(MPPP and MPSP), and local communitiesincluding residents and market asso-ciations, with the assistance of a localconsultant for twelve months.

42


43

• Ensuring as far as possible, that allappropriate data and information areaccessible and able to be used for theproject is a primary consideration.Unavailability of the requisite informationbecause records are withheld or areotherwise not available, poses seriousproblems and may necessitate adoptingassumptions that are difficult to validate.

• Continuing issues in raising awarenessand achieving public cooperation indealing with the various aspects of solidwaste management have shown thatcapacity building still requires immensetime and effort. Even when progress hasbeen made on some issues, continuousfollow up and encouragement is requiredto consolidate achievements.

• Gaining stakeholder confidence andcooperation is essential if strategies beingput in place are to succeed. Carrying outthe tasks specified in the projectdocument required the active cooperationof all stakeholders. In addition to theefforts of the Study Team, this wasachieved through the participation andsupport of the relevant federal and stategovernment agencies and both localauthorities.

• Ensuring efficient communication withstakeholders is essential, particularly withthose such as the state government andlocal authorities that have their ownstatutory obligations, strategies andregulations. This is especially important inorder to ensure that a project’s objectivesand recommendations accord withbroader strategies and plans at all levels.

• Understanding and empathizing with localcircumstances and conditions is essentialsince implementation of strategies andplans is heavily dependent on localpolitical, financial and other socio-economic resources and requirements.Solid waste management is a globalproblem that requires a local solution.

• Recruiting local expertise to work on aproject such as this is highly desirable butcan prove to be difficult because qualified,experienced people are frequently notavailable.

L e s s o n s L e a r n t

44

• Implementing the SWM framework inPenang under the provisions of the 2007Act will require active cooperationbetween all levels of government,especially where responsibilities haveshifted between local authorities and thenew federal agencies that have beencreated.

• As long as participation in the wastemanagement system and in wasteseparation remains voluntary under thenew Act and there is a virtual absence ofdirect incentives, major effort will berequired through awareness campaignsand education measures to encouragehouseholds, businesses and institutionsto improve their performance in wastereduction, reuse and recycling.

• The issue of mixed waste in the municipalwaste stream makes its sustainablemanagement problematic. Under the newAct, there is provision for compulsorywaste separation at source, but until this provision is implemented effectivemanagement of scheduled (that is, mainlyhazardous) wastes will be difficult to carryout effectively in the best interests of the public.

• Despite the new legislation, the difficultiesenvisaged by the Study Team in dealingwith other waste fractions such asdiscarded tyres, electronic products andconstruction waste seem certain topersist because responsibility is uncertainand appears either to fall betweenagencies, or to suffer from weakenforcement provisions.

• Capacity building is required to improve sold waste management. Moreexperienced staff are required at all levelsof government to overcome skillsshortages and skills deficits in organizinglocal communities, promoting recyclingand composting, consulting the public,managing contractors and serviceproviders, monitoring performance, anddeveloping key performance indicators.

I S S U E S A N D C H A L L E N G E S

45

S O U R C E S O F I N F O R M A T I O N

Goh, L (2007) Serious About Managing Solid Waste, The Star Online, October 25.http://thestar.com.my

Government of Malaysia (2007) Solid Waste and Public Cleansing ManagementCorporation Bill 2007, D.R. 25/2007.

Government of Malaysia (2007) Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Bill 2007,D.R. 26/2007.

Leete, R (2007) Malaysia: from Kampung to Twin Towers: 50 Years of Economic and SocialDevelopment, Oxford Fajar, Shah Alam, Malaysia.

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit (2001) Eighth Malaysia Plan 2001–2005, Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia.

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit (2006) Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006–2010, Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia.

Malaysia Local Government Department, Ministry of Housing and Local Government(2003) National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management, Volume 1: Draft Strategic Plan,unpublished.

Nadzri Yahaya (2007) Solid Waste Management, presentation to UNDP Conference on Climate Change Preparedness, Deputy Director General, National Solid Waste Department, Kuala Lumpur.http://www.undp.org.my/uploads/files/c_Solid_Waste_Management_MHLG.pdf

SKAT (2007) Sanitation Connection: Introduction to Solid Waste Management.http://www.sanicon.net/titles/topicintro.php3?topicId=4

Tan Cheng Li (2007) Cautious Act, The Star Online, July 10. http://thestar.com.my

UNDP (2005) Structuring and Institutionalising Solid Waste Management in Penang, ProjectDocument, unpublished.

UNDP (2007) Structuring and Institutionalising Solid Waste Management in Penang,Final Report, October, unpublished.

UNEP (2005) Solid Waste Management, Volume 1. United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Nairobi.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Municipal Solid Waste.http://www.epa.gov/msw/facts.htm

Waste Management Association of Malaysia. http://www.wmam.org

World Bank (2004) Toolkit: Social Assessment and Public Participation in Municipal SolidWaste Management. http://www.worldbank.org/urban/uswm/socialassesstoolkit.pdf

46

E a r l i e r R e p o r t s i n S e r i e s1 Malaysia’s Peat Swamp Forests: Conservation and Sustainable Use,

Kuala Lumpur, 2006.

2 Achieving Industrial Energy Efficiency in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 2006.

3 Protecting the Ozone Layer: Malaysia Implementing the MontrealProtocol, Kuala Lumpur, 2007.

4 Malaysia Generating Renewable Energy from Palm Oil Wastes,Kuala Lumpur, 2007.

5 Community Forestry and Sustainable Forest Management in Sabah,Kuala Lumpur, 2008.

Copies of this current report, as well as earlier reports in this series, can be obtainedby writing to:

Chung Tsung PingAssistant Resident Representative (Programme)Wisma UN, Block C,Kompleks Pejabat Damansara,Jalan Dungun, Damansara Heights,50490 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

P R E V I O U S R E P O R T S I N T H I S U N D P S E R I E S

United Nations Development ProgrammeWisma UN, Block C, Kompleks Pejabat Damansara Jalan Dungun, Damansara Heights, 50490 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Tel: 03 2095 9122 Fax: 03 2095 2870 www.undp.org.my

MALAYSIA DEVELOPING A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT · EPU Economic Planning Unit JKKK Jawatankuasa...

Documents

Transcript of MALAYSIA DEVELOPING A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT · EPU Economic Planning Unit JKKK Jawatankuasa...