Urban Waste Agriculture

8/6/2019 Urban Waste Agriculture

1/73

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development

Secretariat for Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Rural Urban ConnectionThe Challenge in Wasting Waste

REUSE OF URBAN WASTE FOR AGRICULTURE:AN INVESTMENT PROGRAM FOR PROGRESSIVE ACTION

Phase 1 Report

May, 98

Michael R. SanioDavid BurackSadaf Siddiqui

1420 King Street, 3rd Floor, Alexandria, VA, USA 22314Tel: (703) 684-2893, Fax: (703) 836-4875

Email: [email protected], Website: www.wenet.org


2/73

PREFACE

This report covers Phase 1 of a cooperative waste recycling initiative of the World Bank, theUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the private sector, and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs). The program focuses on the beneficial agricultural uses of municipalorganic waste.

This initiative arose from a successful meeting, Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Rural -Urban Connection, held at the World Bank, Washington, D.C., September 23-24, 1996. Themeeting was co-chaired by Maurice F. Strong, Senior Advisor to the President - World Bank andHenry J. Hatch, President World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development. Co-sponsors included UNDP, World Bank, WHO, FAO, Rodale Institute, private sector and othernon-governmental organizations.

The meeting discussed problems of accumulating waste in cities and the potential for making

organic materials available to increase agriculture productivity. Beyond specific use of waste foragriculture, the meeting also discussed recycling all wastes in contrast to conventional linearend-of-pipe solutions.

Participants agreed upon the need to advance waste recycling. In particular, developingtheoretical frameworks and methodologies, adopting cutting-edge technologies, and undertakingdemonstration projects were suggested. It became clear that developing a successful wasterecycling initiative would require significant cooperation and support through UNDP, WorldBank, international aid agencies, NGOs and the private sector.

This report presents the rationale for such a program by addressing the two-fold problem ofincreased waste in urban centers and reduced soil fertility and productivity. The report covers

key issues in advancing this program. It also describes an approach to undertaking threedemonstration waste recycling projects and creating as many as 17 additional waste recyclingprojects in a subsequent phase.

The World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development (WEPSD) acted as secretariatfor the 1996 meeting as well as subsequent activities. WEPSD generated this report,commissioned by the UNDP Sustainable Energy and Environment Division. Many groups havecontributed to the program, but several organizations supported it from its inception. TheUNDP provided management oversight as well as support for two of the reports authors. TheWorld Bank's Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network contributedmanagement oversight, expertise, office space and support services. The Swedish Consultant

Trust Fund provided the time of two specialists. Other private sector companies contributedexpertise, time and materials. Most notably, CH2M HILL offered the time of the programmanager, who helped write this report. The Mott Foundation also provided support through agenerous grant to WEPSD. None of these organizations has officially adopted this draft reportand therefore should not be held accountable for its findings, conclusions, or recommendations.

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development i


3/73

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the leadership of Anders Wijkman formerly UNDP,Peter Matlon - UNDP, Douglas Forno, Carl Bartone, and Joan Martin-Brown World Bank, forsupporting this phase of the project.

In drafting this report we would like to acknowledge the valuable insight and contribution from,Ed Falkman - WMI, Phil Hall CH2M Hill, Dan Hoornweg World Bank, Sheela Nair formerly Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Patrick Nicholson N-ViroInc., Don Roberts WEPSD, and William Tolle Montgomery Watson.

In addition, we would like to acknowledge the support of Anders Bystrm Rondeco, KevinDeBell Water Environment Federation, Gunilla Eitrem - Consultant, Brad Inman, Dee Muir-Brown, Laura Shear CH2M Hill, Jac Smit Urban Agriculture Network, June Taylor -Consultant, Surendra Thakral Montgomery Watson, and Annika Trnqvist - Consultant.

We thank the co-chairs of the Council of Convenors, Maurice F. Strong and Henry J. Hatch, andthe members for their vision in supporting this complex, yet fundamentally important initiative.Members of the Council of Convenors included Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, ChristinaAmoako-Nuama, Alicia Barcena, Amigo Bob Cantisano, Julia Carabias, Ed Falkman, DouglasForno, John Haberern, Phil Hall, Samir Kawar, Caio Koch-Weser, Wilfried Kreisel, RobertMarini, Alex McCalla, Aldo Hector Mennella, Roberta Miller, Sankie Mthembi-Nkondo, WallyN'Dow, Sheela Nair, Gunter Pauli, Abdoulaye Sawodogo, Ismail Serageldin, Faton Sow, MurliTolaney, Jack Whelan, and Ann Whyte.

Michael R. SanioDavid Burack

Sadaf Siddiqui

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development ii


4/73

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE........................................................................................................................................i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................iiTABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................1

GLOSSARY OF TERMS................................................................................................................4

1.0 REUSE OF URBAN WASTE FOR AGRICULTURE............................................................5

1.1 CURRENT SITUATION..................................................................................................... ...........51.1.1 Food Security, Soil Fertility and Farming Practices....................................................................................51.1.2 Waste Disposal .............................................................................................................................................61.1.3 Health Issues..................................................................................................................................................7

1.2 CLOSING THE ORGANIC LOOP...............................................................................................7

1.3 QUALITY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES..........................................................................11

1.4 AGRICULTURAL PERSPECTIVE......................................................................................... ...12Rural Economic Considerations..........................................................................................................................13

1.5 URBAN PERSPECTIVE..................................................................................................... .........141.5.1 Conversion Technologies............................................................................................................................15

2.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR WASTE RECYCLING.................................................................18

2.1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS................................................................................................182.1.1 Identifying Demonstration Projects............................................................................................................202.1.2 Pre-investment Feasibility Studies..............................................................................................................202.1.3 Demonstration Project Selection Criteria...................................................................................................21

3.0 IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................................22

3.1 SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES FOR PHASE 2..........................................................................25

3.2 Organizational Structure...............................................................................................................263.2.1 Consultative Group for Recycling Waste...................................................................................................273.2.2 Technical Advisory Group .........................................................................................................................283.2.3 Secretariat....................................................................................................................................................28

3.3 Resources........................................................................................................................................293.3.1 Phase 2 Budget ...........................................................................................................................................293.3.2 Feasibility Study Cost.................................................................................................................................293.3.3 Implementation Costs..................................................................................................................................313.3.4 .....................................................................................................................................................................32

Program Management Costs................................................................................................................................333.3.5 Phase 3 Budget Years 3, 4 and 5.................................................................................................................33

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................34

4.1 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................34

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................35

5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................36

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development iii


5/73

6.0 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................40

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF REUSE AND FIELD STUDIES .......................................... ......40Senegal..................................................................................................................................................................40Israel......................................................................................................................................................................40Tunisia..................................................................................................................................................................41Egypt.....................................................................................................................................................................41

India......................................................................................................................................................................42United States.........................................................................................................................................................42

APPENDIX B: QUALITY STANDARDS....................................................................................... ..44

APPENDIX C: EXISTING CONVERSION FACILITIES..............................................................46Excel Industries....................................................................................................................................................46N-Viro...................................................................................................................................................................46Bedminster............................................................................................................................................................47Rondeco System...................................................................................................................................................47

..............................................................................................................................................................49

APPENDIX D: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS..............50Waste Management Criteria.................................................................................................................................50

Urban-Agriculture Linkage..................................................................................................................................50Appropriate Institutional Setting..........................................................................................................................50Geographic Diversity, Scale and Location..........................................................................................................50

APPENDIX E: OPPORTUNITY COUNTRIES...............................................................................51South Africa..........................................................................................................................................................51Kenya....................................................................................................................................................................51Peru.......................................................................................................................................................................51Ghana....................................................................................................................................................................52India......................................................................................................................................................................52

APPENDIX F: RECYCLING WASTE INTEREST GROUP.........................................................54

APPENDIX G: POLICY GUIDELINES AND ROLES OF THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS .......56Policy Guidelines and Role of Federal and Municipal Governments.................................................................56

Multilateral/Bilateral Agencies............................................................................................................................57The Private Sector................................................................................................................................................58Public Health and Regulatory Agencies..............................................................................................................58 Non-Governmental Organizations ......................................................................................................................58

APPENDIX H: RECYCLING WASTE FOR AGRICULTURE WEB SITE................................59

APPENDIX I: TABLE 2 - PRE-INVESTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY - SCOPE OF WORK 50

APPENDIX J: COUNCIL OF CONVENORS.............................................................................. ....51

PREFACE........................................................................................................................................i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................1

GLOSSARY OF TERMS................................................................................................................4

1.0 REUSE OF URBAN WASTE FOR AGRICULTURE............................................................5

1.1 CURRENT SITUATION..................................................................................................... ...........51.1.1 Food Security, Soil Fertility and Farming Practices....................................................................................51.1.2 Waste Disposal .............................................................................................................................................61.1.3 Health Issues..................................................................................................................................................7

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development iv


6/73

1.2 CLOSING THE ORGANIC LOOP...............................................................................................7

1.3 QUALITY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES..........................................................................11

1.4 AGRICULTURAL PERSPECTIVE......................................................................................... ...12Rural Economic Considerations..........................................................................................................................13

1.5 URBAN PERSPECTIVE..................................................................................................... .........141.5.1 Conversion Technologies............................................................................................................................15

2.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR WASTE RECYCLING.................................................................18

2.1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS................................................................................................182.1.1 Identifying Demonstration Projects............................................................................................................202.1.2 Pre-investment Feasibility Studies..............................................................................................................202.1.3 Demonstration Project Selection Criteria...................................................................................................21

3.0 IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................................22

3.1 SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES FOR PHASE 2..........................................................................25

3.2 Organizational Structure...............................................................................................................263.2.1 Consultative Group for Recycling Waste...................................................................................................27

3.2.2 Technical Advisory Group .........................................................................................................................283.2.3 Secretariat....................................................................................................................................................28

3.3 Resources........................................................................................................................................293.3.1 Phase 2 Budget ...........................................................................................................................................293.3.2 Feasibility Study Cost.................................................................................................................................293.3.3 Implementation Costs..................................................................................................................................313.3.4 .....................................................................................................................................................................32Program Management Costs................................................................................................................................333.3.5 Phase 3 Budget Years 3, 4 and 5.................................................................................................................33

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................34

4.1 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................34

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................35

5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................36

6.0 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................40

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF REUSE AND FIELD STUDIES .......................................... ......40Senegal..................................................................................................................................................................40Israel......................................................................................................................................................................40Tunisia..................................................................................................................................................................41Egypt.....................................................................................................................................................................41India......................................................................................................................................................................42United States.........................................................................................................................................................42

APPENDIX B: QUALITY STANDARDS....................................................................................... ..44

APPENDIX C: EXISTING CONVERSION FACILITIES..............................................................46Excel Industries....................................................................................................................................................46N-Viro...................................................................................................................................................................46Bedminster............................................................................................................................................................47Rondeco System...................................................................................................................................................47

..............................................................................................................................................................49

APPENDIX D: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS..............50Waste Management Criteria.................................................................................................................................50

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development v


7/73

Urban-Agriculture Linkage..................................................................................................................................50Appropriate Institutional Setting..........................................................................................................................50Geographic Diversity, Scale and Location..........................................................................................................50

APPENDIX E: OPPORTUNITY COUNTRIES...............................................................................51South Africa..........................................................................................................................................................51Kenya....................................................................................................................................................................51

Peru.......................................................................................................................................................................51Ghana....................................................................................................................................................................52India......................................................................................................................................................................52

APPENDIX F: RECYCLING WASTE INTEREST GROUP.........................................................54

APPENDIX G: POLICY GUIDELINES AND ROLES OF THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS .......56Policy Guidelines and Role of Federal and Municipal Governments.................................................................56Multilateral/Bilateral Agencies............................................................................................................................57The Private Sector................................................................................................................................................58Public Health and Regulatory Agencies..............................................................................................................58 Non-Governmental Organizations ......................................................................................................................58

APPENDIX H: RECYCLING WASTE FOR AGRICULTURE WEB SITE................................59

APPENDIX I: TABLE 2 - PRE-INVESTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY - SCOPE OF WORK 50APPENDIX J: COUNCIL OF CONVENORS.............................................................................. ....51

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development vi


8/73

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development 1


9/73

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mankind requires enough food, water and land to survive. Yet, the worlds urban populationcontinues to expand. The depletion of our natural resources, an inability to manage waste, andresulting illness and death are universal problems. In the short term, they threaten economiesand lifestyles. In the long term, they threaten humanity.

One pragmatic approach to these challenges is recycling, the use of urban waste to promoteagriculture. Fortifying soil with waste and reusing wastewater, through accepted standards andguidelines, can help sustain the land and alleviate pressures upon urban waste managementsystems.

This report covers Phase 1 of a proposed three-phase, cooperative, waste recycling program inpartnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, privatesector and non-government organizations. Phase 1 was managed by the World Engineering

Partnership for Sustainable Development in its capacity as secretariat for the programRecycling Waste for Agriculture: The Rural - Urban Connection.

The argument for waste recycling is compelling. Food supplies must double by 2025 if they areto provide adequate food for those now in poverty and to keep pace with expected populationgrowth. It is projected that within 30 years, the world's population will increase by three billionpeople. Almost all (95 per cent) of this growth will occur in developing countries.

By the year 2025, urban waste will more than quadruple. Organic matter forms the bulk of themunicipal waste; 36 per cent of the waste flow in OECD member states is food or garden waste.Organic matter in developing countries is even more important accounting for 50 to 75 per centof the total waste stream. Lack of proper treatment for these waste streams is one of the most

serious health issues confronting the world today.

Previously, additional land and irrigation could substantially increase agricultural production.Future growth must increasingly come from other sources of improved yield, because arableland and fresh water are in shorter supply. The challenge is to increase food production by morethan two per cent each year to meet growing demand. But this comes at a time when soildegradation has eroded the fertility of 26 per cent of the worlds agricultural land and whensalinity is making fresh water increasingly scarce.

There is a missing link between the urban and rural sectors. Both sides address their problemsseparately. Cities produce large volumes of organic residues, while farms consume great

quantities of chemicals and/or humus to produce food and fiber. The urban sector dumps wastein landfills, incinerators, streams, or the ocean, while the rural sector depends upon importedfertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.

Both sides infrastructures are based on these patterns, and reinforced in public policy. A closedcircle of organic production (agriculture), consumption (human and industrial activities) andreuse (rather than disposal) could connect the two sectors.



10/73

Some good examples exist where urban waste has been safely and effectively collected, treatedand re-used for agriculture in a comprehensive and integrated manner. However, most projectsare occurring in isolation, in an uncoordinated manner preventing rapid knowledge transfer.There is no obvious focal point for coordination and collaboration with others; opportunities togather and share information on successful projects are rare. As a result, fewer communitiesconsider waste recycling in addressing waste management issues, ultimately maintaining a once-through process with undesirable results.

In a complementary study, supported by the Swedish Consultant Trust Funds, entitled"Recycling Urban Waste for Agriculture - Creating the Linkages" Eitrem and Tornqvistsurveyed over 70 individuals from 20 different organizations including: the World Bank, UNDP,IFAD, IDB, NGOs, research institutions and the private sector. The report demonstrates that asignificant amount of experience currently exists and that there are many "best practice" casestudies that can be modeled and replicated. Further, the report highlights "success criteria" foreffective organic waste to agriculture systems based on a thorough review of 10 programscurrently underway in cities in Asia, Middle East, Africa and Latin America. In order to meetthe needs of farmers, a local champion, involvement of local government and private sector

participation are critical for success. Further, the report clearly demonstrates the practical need,the opportunities and the enthusiasm for further encouraging such a program.

It is clear that what is needed is a focal point and advocate for recycling waste for agriculture.Such an advocate would identify and pursue the development of demonstration projects byinitiating pre-investment feasibility studies and subsequent implementation. The presentprogram aims to play this role. The organization would then manage the next phase, duringwhich additional recycling projects would be added.

One approach to accelerate the use of waste for agriculture is for the World Bank and UNDP tosupport country level efforts. In particular, to facilitate public/private partnerships and toencourage local efforts to develop proposals to undertake projects through an open, objective,quality-based competition. Successful and creditworthy recycling projects will become full-scale demonstrations for urban organic waste to agriculture systems. A survey of interestedmanagers and technical staff at the World Bank and UNDP, as well as other stakeholders,revealed a large number of project opportunities.

It has been estimated that the cost of full-scale implementation of urban organic waste toagriculture systems could be as little as $5 to $6 million for a city of 1 million people. The costestimate is incremental to the costs for a conventional landfill or municipal wastewater treatmentfacility. The costs could be much higher depending on what infrastructure exists and thetechnologies chosen. In the near term, this program represents an immediate investmentopportunity of $15 to $20 million needed to launch activities in three pilot cities. Over the

longer term, for the 300 cities of 1 million or more, investments of about $1.5 billion may berequired.

This report provides the rational for further developing this initiative to Phase 2. In Phase 2, theinitial three projects will require financial support for the pre-investment studies and possibly forfull implementation. A budget of $2 million should be established for Phase 2 and administeredby a multidisciplinary group. During Phase 2, the initiative will deliver three pre-investment



11/73

feasibility studies, provide a focal point for waste-to-agriculture activities, and manage aninformation clearinghouse to serve UNDP, the World Bank and other interested parties.

To simplify the process, we recommend that initial financial support, coordination and advocacybe provided by the World Bank and UNDP.



12/73

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Biosolids: Nutrient-rich organic material resulting from the biological andphysical treatment of wastewater to levels acceptable for reuse.

Bio-Mineral: A combination of organic residuals and mineral residuals produced through chemical exothermic reactions generatingdestructive and stabilizing pH, heat and drying using alkalineprocesses.

Compost: Conditioners and biofertlizers converted from organic residuesusing destructive heat, ammonia and consequent drying generatedby biological (microbial) activities.

Mineral Byproducts: Mineral residuals used in bio-mineral processes such as coal ash,calcium carbonate fines, cement kiln dusts, lime kiln dusts, woodash, flu gas desulferization and fluidized bed materials.

Municipal SolidWaste:

Usually non-hazardous materials collected at landfills includingsuch materials as paper and paper board, metals, plastics, rubber,textiles, wood, food scraps, yard trimmings and miscellaneousinorganics.

Sludge: Residuals of wastewater treatment facilities that have not beendisinfected or stabilized.



13/73

1.0 REUSE OF URBAN WASTE FOR AGRICULTURE

1.1 CURRENT SITUATION

1.1.1 Food Security, Soil Fertility and Farming Practices

Widespread malnutrition, poverty, the destruction of the worlds forests and hillsides, andfurther degradation and erosion of soil are legacies of a burgeoning world population andenvironmental neglect. There are 840 million malnourished people in the developing countriesalone who do not consume adequate calories to lead a healthy and productive life; 75,000 mostof them children - die each day from malnutrition-related causes.

According to the World Bank, demand for food supplies could double over the next 30 years to

keep pace with population growth. Many regions already compete for water and arable land,and are challenged by soil degradation due to erosion, leaching, and poor cultivation practices.

Many soils suffer from a deficiency of phosphorus that must be compensated for. Phosphorus isa critical element in the photosynthesis process and all biological systems. The total stocks in theworld are limited and much of it unavailable and deposited at the bottom of the oceans as aresult of present waste management systems. Furthermore, some mineral sources of phosphorusfrom waste contain undesirable levels of heavy metals.

In addition, the current use of inorganic fertilizers is not satisfactory. In developed countries alarge portion of readily soluble commercial fertilizer ends up in groundwater, rivers, lakes, andseas. Some drinking water in the United States and in many European countries contains tracesof fertilizer runoff and pesticide residues. In developing countries, although there are instancesof excesses and/or imbalances in inorganic use, such as the irrigated areas in China and the Indo-Gangetic plains in India, the basic factor contributing to land degradation is the depletion of soilorganic matter. Unless management practices provide for nutrient replenishment, soilproductivity, yield stability, and efficiency of inorganic fertilizer will be low.

A recent study found that inorganic fertilizer is often applied more liberally than necessary forplant growth. In the United States, between 1991 and 1995, close to 56 per cent more fertilizerwas applied to land than was accepted by crops. In China, only a quarter of the fertilizer wasabsorbed by harvested grain. Essentially, a large share of the fertilizer is lost, resulting in waterpollution and ecosystem degradation.

Previously, the expansion of land and irrigation increased agricultural production. Now,meeting the world's escalating demand for food will depend primarily on heighteningefficiencies in sustainable agricultural productivity, distribution, and marketing systems essentially, making the most of natural resources.



14/73

1.1.2 Waste Disposal

Today, the sheer volumes of waste, its ecological and health hazards, and the costs associatedwith urban waste systems require more cost effective strategies. The rapidly growing populationof urban centers around the world strains existing sewage systems. Developing nations facedisease and death caused by improper disposal of sewage and solid waste. Meanwhile,communities face new disposal problems, such as industrial and toxic waste pollution.

Population growth makes waste management an increasingly pressing concern. In 1995, 325cities had populations greater than one million; by 2015, the number will grow to 543. Almostall of these mega-cities will be in developing nations. Carl Bartone of the World Bank in his1995 presentation "Recycling Urban Waste" to the Urban Agriculture Seminar, estimated thatone million people produce some 100,000 to 200,000 m3/day of wastewater; 70,000 to 140,000dry tons/day of sludge; and 400,000 to 800,000 tons/day of municipal solid waste.

Currently, one billion people lack access to adequate supply of safe water and 1.7 billion peopledo not have safe means of sanitation. Most waste is directly discharged without treatment,

contaminating water supplies. In developing countries, less than 10 per cent of urban wastes aretreated, and only a small portion of that percentage meets acceptable standards.

Urban areas have complex waste disposal challenges. Treating sewage, urban garbage, andgarden waste requires water, pipes, pumps, electricity, transport, landfill sites, treatment plants,equipment, and labor. Most waste disposal systems include landfills, incinerators and wastewatertreatment facilities. In most cities, urban waste systems often mix human, industrial, and foodwaste, complicating waste management. In addition, many cities combine drains from stormwater with sanitary sewer. As a result, sewage treatment facilities are overwhelmed by flowsfollowing rainstorms. Money and solutions are limited to meet present demand for urbanservices, leaving these wastes to cause increasing pollution and environmental degradation,especially in the developing world. Finally, a major problem in developing countries is thatnational infrastructures often cannot support the needs of modern treatment plants, such aselectricity and land. Solutions appropriate to developing country realities are necessary.

Landfills for solid waste in many countries are near capacity. In addition, some leak toxicsubstances into groundwater and generate large quantities of methane into the atmosphere.Landfills with no liners or deficient liners often leak materials that are not toxic but do degradegroundwater quality. Existing designs of sewage systems are expensive to build and operate,and consume large quantities of water. In developed countries, flush toilets account for 20 to 40 per cent of the domestic water use in sewered cities. By rethinking current practices formanaging both municipal solid wastes and waste water, opportunities exist to improve livingconditions in cities, while at the same time making available organic material for agriculture and

improving the environment.



15/73

1.1.3 Health Issues

Health risks associated with the improper management of municipal waste affect both residentsand waste handlers. Uncollected waste on the streets encourages the breeding of flies,mosquitoes, and other insects, and attracts rodents and stray animals that may spread disease.

Collecting waste presents other health threats. Dust particles from waste heaps can containheavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic; all harmful to humans. Drinkingwater can be polluted via leachate from waste dumps, causing diarrhea, gastroenteritis, cholera,typhoid fever, and dysentery.

Pathogens often contaminate urban organic waste. Primary pathogens include bacteria, viruses,protozoa and helminthes (i.e., parasitic intestinal worms). Secondary pathogens grow duringbiological decomposition, and include fungi and acid-producing bacteria that can cause primaryinfections and respiratory diseases in people with weak immune systems.

One of the most important health issues with regard to wastewater treatment is the contamination

of drinking water by discharges of untreated sewage. This can cause widespread disease amongthose least able to seek medical care. Heavy metals in sewage are a problem when solids areapplied to agricultural land, but if the solids are not removed at all and discharges are untreated,the health of entire populations are threatened. Thus, adequate sewage treatment provides good,clean solids for agricultural use and safe discharges to protect drinking water.

Finally, industrial pollution is a distinct urban problem. Often, untreated industrial wastes areallowed to flow into sanitary sewers. The presence of higher concentrations of metals likecadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, nickel, can create health problems, and are difficultto dispose in traditional applications, such as landfilling, land application or incineration.

1.2 CLOSING THE ORGANIC LOOP

Municipal engineers traditionally have focused on landfills, dumps, and incinerators to solvesolid waste problems. Agriculturists, meanwhile, continue to use inorganic fertilizers and freshwater to meet their soil nutrient and irrigation needs.

Organic wastes generated in urban centers compostable municipal solid waste, wastewater,and biosolids can, when properly collected and processed, be used to feed depleted soils.More than half of a typical urban landfill consists of soiled paper, degradable sludge, yardwastes, and food wastes. By separating waste, such as green food and yard garbage from othertrash, (newspapers, aluminum, and plastic), and properly processing the organic mix, rich

compost can be created to improve soil fertility and biological activity, both essential forsustaining soil productivity. Likewise, wastewater can also be safely applied to land when heavymetals and other toxins are either removed or prevented from entering the system.

Modern existing systems built in the US, Canada, Europe and elsewhere are designed to safelymanage urban wastes. Currently every community is doing something with their collectedwastes, it may be receiving no treatment, partial treatment or full treatment. Most of the existingsystems were not specifically designed at the outset to produce a product safe for agriculture



16/73

reuse. The proposed approach will add treatment processes on both the solids and liquids sides.The goal is to improve handling of valuable organic materials from both municipal solid wastesand wastewater to ensure it is safe and maximize its use for agricultural purposes. Innovative,appropriate technologies exist that can be used to provide cost effective treatment andstabilization.

Figure 1 shows in a very concise, general and stylistic manner the risks of current practices indeveloping countries. Figure 2 and the adjoining text describes the benefits of integrating solidand liquid organic wastes in a closed loop for agricultural reuse.

As illustrated in Figure 1, municipal waste management and agricultural production are typicallyseparate and independent activities. These systems are single-use, open, and over the long runwasteful and unsustainable. If poorly operated and managed, they can be harmful to groundwater, rivers, soil and the atmosphere. Straight-line, independent, single-use systems, commonto urban communities and shared by nearby rural areas can contribute to environmentalproblems.

In cities with poorly designed and operated facilities these systems may result in: A loss of 30 to 50 per cent of urban organic material in landfills;

Many landfills approaching capacity;

Disposal costs which can run as much as $30 to $50/ton; and

Higher costs for cleaning contaminated groundwater, treating related illnesses,and controlling emissions that contribute to global warming.

In rural agricultural communities, the current approach causes:

Decreased soil fertility and reduced crop yields;

Loss of topsoil;

Increased demand for agrochemicals to increase yield, manage pests, and control; and

Increased pollution problems from farm runoff and excessive agrochemical use.



17/73

Figure 1: Independent, Once-Through Systems

* Sewage and solid waste are ordinarily collected, treated, and transported separately. They are shown togetherhere in order to simplify the diagram

By comparison, Figure 2 illustrates a different approach. By purposefully developing a linked,closed system an ongoing sustainable loop of natural resources can be recycled from cities toproductive and safe use on the farm for food production. Recycle systems are closed with mostadverse environmental impacts ameliorated, if not eliminated.

Closed-loop systems can be designed to address many of the problems faced by open systems.In cities, integrated, sustainable waste disposal and recycling systems provide:

Smaller landfills and lower solid waste and waste water disposal costs;

Reduced methane emissions;

Reduced health care and water processing costs from decreased groundwatercontamination and spread of disease; and

"Biominerals" that are safe for land application.

Figure 2: Linked, Closed and Sustainable System



18/73

* Sewage and solid waste are ordinarily collected, treated, and transported separately. They are shown togetherhere in order to simplify the diagram



19/73

On farms and in the agriculture areas, integrated systems:

Reduce the cost of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides;

Improve soil fertility, as well as increased crop yield and value;

Decrease contamination of groundwater and surface water from farm runoff; and

Improve irrigation efficiency through increases in water retention and improvedwater use.

Closing the loop by returning nutrients, in particular phosphorus and nitrogen, in organic matterfrom cities to farm soils can help alleviate many urban and rural problems. Urban organicwastes will not displace industrial agro-chemical use entirely, but they will reduce excessivereliance. Recycling organic matter will also ease the pressure on costly waste disposal facilities.

There are several examples and field studies addressing environmental challenges anddemonstrating the benefits of reusing solid waste and biosolids for agriculture. Projects inEgypt, India and Israel are noteworthy. The Cairo Sludge Disposal Study was developed to

show the beneficial effects of biosolids on the yields and quality of field and fruit crops and theirsignificant nitrogen fertilizer replacement value. The Ganga Action Plan in India wasimplemented to rid the Ganga River of municipal and industrial waste, while at the same timemaking available treated wastewater and sludge for agricultural use. Irrigation systems in Israeluse recycled wastewater for irrigation, demonstrating the importance of partnerships betweenfarmers and municipalities. For more details and other case studies, please refer to Appendix A.

1.3 QUALITY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Existing technical knowledge and long-term field practices in the United States and othercountries such as China, Egypt and Israel indicate that sludge can be used safely, providedappropriate measures are taken to prevent disease transmission and the excessive accumulationof potentially toxic elements in soil. But most developing countries lack regulations andguidelines for the use of such organics for agriculture.

In order to avoid disease, it is essential to put in place standards and management practices toreduce the level of pathogens. Land use restrictions are also required. According to a U.S. National Research Council Report, Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food CropProduction, treated municipal wastewater and sludge can be used safely on food crops ifexisting federal regulations and guidelines are followed. The US approach is described in moredetail in Appendix B. Similar guidelines can be adopted internationally. Worldwideexperiences have shown that sludge treatment such as lagoon storage, air drying, composting and

other stabilization technologies combined with management practices minimize pathogenproblems.

The US approach has defined two classes of organic materials depending on final productcharacteristics. Both classes take pathogens, metals and vectors into consideration. Productsfrom both classes are considered safe. The significant difference between the two classes are thecharacteristics of the final product and whether they are considered products for further use orwastes.



20/73

Products meeting Exceptional Quality (EQS) standard are considered productsand are not regulated as wastes by the USEPA.

Non EQS products are considered wastes and require compliance with strict siteregulations and management practices, cradle to grave, with subsequent legal liabilityand risks.

In Santiago, Chile, for instance, uncontrolled irrigation of vegetables with raw sewage wasimplicated as a major cause of typhoid fever. As a result, a pilot project was supported by theWorld Bank to provide wastewater treatment for the main vegetable irrigation areas surroundingSantiago. This project addressed many of the problems that can be solved by applyingsuccessful standards and management practices.

1.4 AGRICULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

Enriching soil is an important component to sustain farmland. Urban organics, including

biosolids, compost, and biominerals should be viewed as a supplement to chemical fertilizers.Compost not only helps reduce waste but also builds soil. It contains pores that allow the humusto shelter nutrients and provide extensive surface area to which nutrients can bond. Humus trapsthree to five times more nutrients, water, and air than soil matter does, therefore keepingnutrients from being leached or eroded. In addition, biosolids have very good characteristics forsoil improvement since they are good sources of nitrogen and other nutrients and of organicmatter.

Organic matter is bulkier, less uniform, requires relatively large application rates, and is difficultto store and apply. Expensive, specialized equipment must often be supplied by the organic

producer as a service in order to market the product.

With the exception of the organic farming community (a very small segment of globalagriculture), there is little recognition in modern agriculture (or even in traditional agriculture insome developing countries) of the value of organic matter for enhancing soil productivity andprotecting against erosion by wind and water. This is exacerbated by the poor recognition bysome technical assistance agencies of the value of building soil organic matter content byorganics recycling. While returning crop residues to the soil is routinely advocated, agriculturalagencies have taken weaker stands on the benefits of using other organic materials.

Until very recently, the agrochemical industry has not encouraged the complementary use of

organics in agriculture and has fought it effectively in many instances. This opposition takesmany forms: effective lobbying of policy makers; financial support of research, developmentand education in national institutions that excludes support for work on organics; and a lack ofcooperation at the field level in the integration of organics with use of agrochemicals.

Rural acceptance of urban organics as fertilizer is an ongoing challenge. The WaterEnvironment Federation points out that one of the agricultural communitys major objections tousing biosolids is that it will cause disease. In addition, farmers are becoming more dependent



21/73

upon chemical fertilizers and required application equipment. According to Terry Logan ofOhio State University, the use of animal manure, sewage sludge and nightsoil as soilenhancements has declined in the last 50 years. The attendant odor is an issue between nearbyurban and rural communities; often where the greatest opportunities for recycling occur. Urbanorganic materials, meanwhile, are generally viewed as being contaminated by industrialchemicals. There is growing concern of the potential risks of pathogens in animal and urbanorganic wastes.

Change is now underway. Most progressive actors, including fertilizer companies, arebeginning to recognize and agree on the key role of organic matter, in improving soil conditionsand agricultural productivity. They are now, slowly becoming advocates.

Rural Economic Considerations

Economic barriers exist to waste recycling. However, the value of urban waste to farms can besignificant. Sludge is valuable to arid countries in the Middle East and North Africa, where the

availability of traditional animal manure is declining, the cost of fertilizers is increasing, andthere is a need to expand agriculture into the outlying desert areas to feed a rapidly growingpopulation. For these reasons, farmers there are willing to pay for any form of organic material.

The amount of organic material generated by a city of 1 million people and its nutritional valueis significant. For a million people, The World Bank estimates that there are sufficient nutrientsto flood irrigate 4,500 ha of arid land or fertilize 2,500 ha of fishponds annually. In terms ofnutrient composition, the sludge has the potential to provide 4,500 tons of nitrogen, 2,250 tonsof potassium and 2,250 tons of phosphorous.

Studies show that the market demand for sludge will depend on the marginal productivity ofsludge, the cost of alternative sources of nutrients or soil amendments, and regulatory and

permitting costs. The marginal productivity of sludge varies with the soil and type of crop.Crop yields show greater increases on sludge applications for soils that are poor in nutrients andlow in organic matter.

One crucial factor in the agricultural communitys willingness to pay for organic fertilizers is itsunderstanding and awareness of the benefits of using them to enrich the soil. In order to definethe potential acceptance, and therefore the market for compost and biosolids, the following localrural factors should be examined:

Availability and quality of compost, biosolids, or biominerals;

Condition and fertility of soils;

Government policies towards import of chemical fertilizers;

Cost/application comparison of inputs including urban organics, animal manure andagro-chemicals;

Seasonal variations in waste stream, especially organic waste;

Cropping patterns, rainfall, and irrigation; and

Prices and markets for crops.



22/73

The availability of low-cost commercial fertilizers will generally be a limiting factor on farmers'willingness-to-pay for organic nutrients. According to the National Research Council (NRC),

the nitrogen content of sludge usually ranges between one and four per cent, and has anapproximate value of $6 to $24 per dry ton, given 1994 prices for commercial bulk nitrogenfertilizers. Other nutrients in sludge, such as phosphorus, also contribute to its value. From D.S.Taylor and M. Northouse, Metrogro, the sewage sludge agricultural use program in Wisconsin,estimates an average fertilizer value of $15 per dry ton.

Farmers will also be concerned about the mix of nutrients in the sludge relative to the crop'sneeds. While sewage sludge could supply all crop nitrogen requirements, application rates arenot as easily controlled as with commercial products. In most instances, supplemental fertilizermay still be needed to meet the crop's needs.

Increasing the organic content of soil has other important benefits. According to a 1984 EPA

report, studies using eight dry tons per acre of biosolids applied to sandy irrigated soils nearYuma, Arizona, showed that only about one-fourth as much chemical fertilizer was needed afterthe first year of application. By the third year of biosolids application, no supplementalchemical fertilizer was required. For soils that are low in organic matter, biosolids provide benefits that are not available from chemical fertilization. The biosolid's organic matterenhances the soil's rooting media, provides for better water retention, improves air exchangearound plant roots, and increases the ability of the soil to hold nutrients in a plant-available state.

Beyond the supply of important nutrients, the Yuma field trials showed that biosolids reduce theneed for pesticides and herbicides. Though the fields that were previously weed-free containedmore weeds, the plants became more vigorous and better able to compete with weeds and

withstand damage from insect pests. These changes decreased expenditures for fertilizer,herbicides, and pesticides by approximately $170 on each acre of the 12,000-acre farm. Totalsavings were about $2 million annually.

Finally, other economic considerations for the farmer include the cost of applying biosolids andthe additional monitoring, record keeping, and management required by federal, state, and localregulations.

1.5 URBAN PERSPECTIVE

Closing the organic loop can save money for the urban centers by providing alternatives tolandfills, dumping, and incinerators. This is one way to meet the current demand for urbanservices, in turn cutting costs by reducing pollution, environmental degradation and disease,especially in the developing world.

Waste management is capital and labor-intensive, consuming as much as 20 to 50 per cent ofmunicipal operational budgets. The high costs generally result in cities failing to meet minimumacceptable standards. Both capital and operational cost savings can be realized by effectively



23/73

managing waste that would otherwise wind up in rivers, lakes, or landfills, and using treatedwastewater and sludge for irrigation and aquaculture.

The major cost components of conventional wastewater systems include collection, treatment,wastewater discharge, and disposal of sludge. Direct-cost factors include the characteristics ofthe wastewater, type of treatment, size of facility, location and type of sludge treatment, anddisposal or reuse method. The expense of performing these functions includes capital forbuilding the facility, and annual operation and maintenance costs.

New bio-mineral and compost technologies are designed without digesters (i.e., vessels in whichsubstances are decomposed), thus greatly reducing up-stream capital and operating costs whileincreasing the market value of sludge products by conserving organic nitrogen. The Januaryissue of Worldwatch states: Indeed, using a digester to recycle sewage is akin to firing up anincinerator to recycle newspapers.

According to the NRC report, biosolids and sludge transportation can be a significant cost ofland application. Transportation prices depend primarily on the quantity of water in the sludge

and the distance transported. Thickening, dewatering, conditioning and drying, can reducesludge volume, therefore reducing transportation costs. A 1981 study discussed this trade-off,and found that the major costs depend upon the distance the sludge is transported, the mode oftransportation, and the cost of reducing sludge volume.

1.5.1 Conversion Technologies



24/73

Conversion is perhaps the most important issue facing biosolids reuse in the developing world.Some proven technologies from the developed world may not be effective or affordable in thedeveloping regions of the world. Composting and use of alkaline byproducts with biosolids isbroad, as they combine many different processing techniques into one category. The menu ofoptions needs careful assessment with regard to applicability in developing countries. A matrixof areas and options is necessary.

Several suppliers of composting and biomineral technologies are available. Informationcollected and provided in Appendix C is indicative and is in no way exhaustive; the study teamis looking for additional information on technologies provided by others currently operating indeveloping countries.

Composting takes place in a number of processing systems including static pile, aerated static

pile and in-vessel systems. Static pile systems are basic and require minimal capital; aeratedstatic piles require at least twice the capital; in-vessel systems, meanwhile, require ten to twentytimes the capital. Due to the relative complexity of the equipment used for in-vessel systems,the reliability can be poor. Including co-composting of solid waste along with biosolids is aneven greater challenge. Solid waste co-composting systems can be complicated due to rawmaterials source separation. In most cases, source separation is labor intensive. Trampmaterials, including glass and plastics are hard to separate from the final product. As a result,the quality of the final product can vary.

According to a 1998 USDA report entitled, Agricultural Uses of Municipal Animal, andIndustrial Byproducts, good management of biosolids consists of pathogen destruction andorganic matter stabilization. For composting, biological (microbial) activities generate

destructive heat, ammonia, and consequent drying. On the other hand, purely chemicalexothermic reactions generate the destructive heat, drying and pH that occur with alkalinestabilization processes.

The USDA study also points out that blending alkaline byproducts has been successfully used asan alternative to composting. Alkaline byproducts such as cement kiln dust, lime kiln dust, andcoal combustion ash contain a large amount of free lime and can be mixed with dewateredbiosolids at a rate of 25 to 50 per cent (wet weight basis). These mixtures have a pH of 12 orgreater. The fine particle size and low moisture content contribute significantly to successfulstabilization of raw primary, waste-activated, or digested biosolids. Total solids range from 18to 40 per cent (wet weight dewatered biosolids basis). The product is a soil-like, granular

material that can be processed further to assure thorough destruction of pathogens and organicmatter stabilization and to increase solids content to 65 per cent by weight.



25/73

Agriculture has not been the primary market for co-composted materials, traditionally, mostclean compost is used as mulch for horticulture. The actual composting process may takeseveral months to produce a final product that can be used for agriculture. The biggest issue isthe degradation of the organics to meet appropriate carbon/nitrogen ratios. If the compost hasnot matured long enough and the carbon content is high, the carbon in the compost competes fornitrogen in soil. No farmer will use a product that competes for nitrogen in his or her fields.

By recycling organics from wastewater in addition to solid wastes, initial capital investmentswill need to increase. Initial capital investment costs to build a conventional wastewater facilityis $5 to $6 million for a throughput of a million-gallon/day or $500 million for a city of onemillion people. The incremental costs for modifying a wastewater plant or a sanitary landfill toenable effective agriculture reuse is a small percentage of the total costs.

Most existing composting systems that are up and running produce reasonable quality compostof 100 to 300 tons per day. These facilities are suitable for communities of 200,000 to 300,000people and can produce 300 t/d of compost, are usually co-located with a landfill and an initialcapital investment cost $2 to $3 million excluding land costs. In many cases the product is givenaway, but it can be sold for between $30 and $100 per ton.

For a city of one million people, capital investment costs for a simple integrated waste toagriculture system for solid wastes producing 800 1000 t/d of product may be as little as $5 to$6 million. For more sophisticated systems investment costs can be much higher.

The investment opportunity is significant. Looking at solid wastes only, for the 300 citiesglobally, with more than one million people, investments of about $1.5 billion could be required.

By the year 2025, there will be almost 600 cities of over one million, increasing the investmentrequired to as much as $3 billion. These costs could drop as recycling urban wastes foragriculture becomes widely accepted and as technology improves.



26/73

2.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR WASTE RECYCLING

2.1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

In 1997, a World Survey of Mayors conducted by the University of Delaware identified wastecollection and waste disposal a severe problem. Of the 151 cities surveyed from seven worldregions, 41 per cent of the mayors classified the problem of insufficient solid waste disposalbeing severe and over 30 per cent of them classified insufficient solid waste collection asbeing severe. Although problems were reported most frequently in cities in Africa and CentralAmerica, waste disposal was identified as being very severe in some Asian-Pacific cities as well.Half of all respondents from these regions agreed that waste problems are among the top threeobstacles their cities must overcome.

In their report, "Recycling Urban Waste for Agriculture - Creating the Linkages", Eitrem and

Tornqvist identified projects currently underway, success criteria for future projects and three potential projects which could be developed into models for replication. The three modelprojects proposed were for Stanza Bopape in South Africa, Accra in Ghana and Chennai inIndia. The work was based on a detailed survey of over 70 individuals from 20 organizationsincluding the World Bank, UNDP, International Fund for Agricultural Development, InterAmerican Development Bank, bilateral institutions, and the private sector.

Table 1 on the following page extracted from the Eitrem and Tornqvist report summarizesexperience in 10 projects currently operating in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and LatinAmerica. The table provides the city, stakeholders, and success criteria for each of the projects.For success, it is essential that projects are pulled by meeting the needs of the agricultural sector

and are pushed with support from local authorities and other stakeholders. This will involveeffective communications and partnerships with farmers, local authorities, private sector andNGOs.

Clearly, there are numerous opportunities for communities to undertake waste recycling projectsfor both solid wastes and wastewater. Technology exists that can address these issues in cost-effective ways. Most notably, these projects can make significant contributions to society byrecognizing organic wastes as a resource, increasing food production, reducing pollution, andimproving the environment and public health. However, waste recycling, a seemingly pragmaticapproach, requires a boost.

One such boost is the implementation of demonstration waste recycling projects that can be usedas models for future initiatives. It is recommended that three projects be identified and started assoon as possible. These demonstrations can provide credible information over the next one totwo years on the economics, crop yield, major policy issues and problems related to wasterecycling. The initial projects could be followed by the full-scale implementation of 17additional projects designed to benefit from the lessons learned during the initial pilots.



27/73

Table 1: Success Criteria and Stakeholder Participation for Urban Waste to Ag Projects

Region Location Stakeholders Success CriteriaAsia Jakarta, Indonesia Private sector, local

government, NGOsLocal participation,interdisciplinary approach,agriculture link

Petchaburi Province,Thailand

Government, localgovernment, NGOs,Farmers Associations.

Appropriate technology,research and training,awareness, market forproduct

Colombo, Sri Lanka Local authority, WorldBank/MEIP - Colombo,

private sector

Clear participation of farmleaders, demand for organic

compost

Middle East Cairo, Egypt Private sector, WorldBank, Local government,NGO

Appropriate technology,demand for compost,replication potential,effective marketing

Africa Nakiwa Parish,Uganda

Municipality, NGO Local participation,appropriate technology,defined market, link toagriculture

Kano, Nigeria Local government,farmers

Appropriate technology,willingness to pay, marketfor waste, link to agriculture

Ouahigouya, BurkinaFaso

Local government, NGOsupported byDIAKONIA, farmers

Appropriate technology,quality waste, strong link toagriculture, farmersparticipation

Tohoue, Benin NGO, Local government,private sector

Defined market, link toagriculture, localparticipation

Thies, Senegal Rodale, UNDP/LIFE,private sector

Defined local market,quality control

Latin America Olinda, Brazil NGO, Local government Local participation, costrecovery, resource recovery

Source: Eitrem and Tornqvist



28/73

2.1.1 Identifying Demonstration Projects

It is recommended that the demonstrations be chosen through an open competitive projectselection process. The request for proposals should in particular encourage public/privatepartnerships.

All submitted proposals should follow a predetermined format and provide the criticalinformation necessary to determine the required investment for implementation. They shouldinclude, at a minimum, economics, financing, local partners, a description of the presentfacilities for urban waste management, as well as present conditions and challenges of nearbyrural agriculture. This would be followed by a summary of the anticipated facilities andprocedures needed to improve waste management systems and to recycle treated waste productsfor agriculture. An estimate should be made of the anticipated costs and the qualitative as wellas quantitative benefits. Proposals should also include a discussion of the barriers to broadadoption and how these might be addressed when replicating the experience in other cities andregions.

2.1.2 Pre-investment Feasibility Studies

Once a limited number of demonstration project proposals are selected, feasibility studies needto be conducted. The projects will require the creation of locally driven public-private partnerships able to create enabling market conditions and public support in addition todesigning, constructing and maintaining the improved facilities.

The pre-investment feasibility studies would be designed to identify:

Engineering, technology, construction and/or operating companies that would attempt tostructure a public-private sector operation that is creditworthy and financially sustainable;

Individual farmers or agricultural cooperatives (or the potential to create suchcooperatives) who would commit to utilize the recycled products;

Non-governmental stakeholders who will commit to support the project forenvironmental or health reasons, e.g., save the rivers, estuaries, beaches, etc.;

Preliminary estimates of the cost of the completed project and a detailed cost proposalfor the full scale pilot project;

Project elements, time frames, and schedules for full implementation of thedemonstration project;

Financial support offered by commercial banks, national development banks, ormultilateral financial institutions for the long term operation of the project;

Organizational structure of the partners, background and experience, curricula vitae of key personnel who will manage the project, and the financial stability of the firms ororganizations involved; and

Discussion of replication potential and identification of barriers and means of alleviatingthem.



29/73

2.1.3 Demonstration Project Selection Criteria

The final selection of demonstration projects should be based on the quality of the proposal, thecredibility and experience of those submitting it and the merits of the specific project. A"performance-based rather than a cost-based selection process, is recommended.

Criteria for the selection of demonstration projects, discussed in greater detail in Appendix D,include:

Projects that will produce early success in all aspects of recycling urban waste toagriculture;

Projects that are replicable and can deliver convincing results in a 1-2 year timeframe;

Target regions that are currently struggling with critical waste problems and/orfood security issues;

Municipalities having populations of approximately 500,000 to 1,000,000;

Geographic diversity; and

The presence of an active World Bank recycling project with a link to agriculture.

To assist in the identification of candidate regions for demonstration projects, a survey byEitrem and Tornqvist of more than 70 people was conducted including a review of availableliterature and interviews. The survey included:

World Bank staff in the environment, infrastructure, and rural development networks inAfrica, Latin America, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe;

Research institutions;

NGOs, such as The Urban Agriculture Network, the National Wildlife Federation,International Fertilizer Research Institute, and Integrated Waste Management Consulting;and

The private sector, including Bedminster, CH2M Hill, Montgomery-Watson, N-Viro,Rondeco, Waste Management International, and others.

A number of potential projects were identified from interviews and literature reviewed duringthis survey. They were roughly ranked and the most promising projects are briefly described inAppendix E.

In addition, examples of ongoing projects throughout the world, and existing case studies wereexamined. These projects are discussed in Appendix A.



30/73

3.0 IMPLEMENTATION

Broadly, this report proposes a program that would be supported by a small secretariat to actinitially as a coordinating body and focal point for executing three pilot demonstration projects.In a subsequent phase the secretariat will be used to coordinate an additional series of up to 17projects and to disseminate information on best practices.

Based on a user survey, it is anticipated that one to two dozen projects exist that could pass thefeasibility tests usually employed during project identification and appraisal. Figure 3 projects atotal of 20 projects, beginning in Phase 2 with the launch of three pre-investment feasibilitystudies in 1998. In order to launch the effort, initial studies will be carefully chosen to deliverand document detailed near term replicable results over the one to two year time horizon.

Based on a two to three year development period for most projects from identificationthrough feasibility study, design and implementation it is estimated that the first three

projects can be fully implemented and show sustainable impact on crop production during 2001 2003, with additional projects coming on line in successive years.

With support from UNDP, the World Bank has taken the lead in highlighting the need for afocused effort in addressing this issue. Given the significant leadership and involvement of theWorld Bank, they make a logical institutional anchor for continued effort.

Until a Consultative Group for Recycling Waste is formed and to ensure the proposed programactivities are incorporated into active projects, an interest group in waste recycling is beingformed at the World Bank. The intention is for the interest group to cover several sectors (theRural Development Network partnered with the Infrastructure Network). Until the InterestGroup is fully active, the effort will operate under the umbrella of the official World Bank

Waste Management Thematic Group. The Group's purpose is to identify waste recyclingprojects and obtain internal and external support for the projects. In turn, the group will serve asa support and resource group for others interested in advancing the practice of waste recycling.See Appendix F for the mandate and membership of the Waste Management Thematic Group.

A step toward implementation is the selection of demonstration projects initiated through aRequest for Proposals. Proposals submitted would be pre-screened based on the criteria set outabove to select three projects for which in-depth pre-investment feasibility studies would beconducted. The pre-investment feasibility studies will provide sufficient detail to enableproponents to make go/no go decisions, revise the project proposals as necessary, and attractfunding by the World Bank, other donors and/or the private sector.

The Consultative Group and its advisors, with support of the Secretariat, will develop thescreening criteria and determine the three projects to be funded. In turn, the Consultative Groupfor Recycling Waste and its Secretariat will manage the request for proposals and selection ofdemonstration projects. The proposals will be submitted jointly by local authorities inpartnership with the private sector, NGOs and CBOs to the Consultative Group. The request for proposal, preparation of proposals, and decisions to fund three specific studies could beaccomplished in 6 to 9 months.



31/73

The pre-investment feasibility studies for the demonstration projects, funded by the Secretariat,will be conducted by the partnership created by the private sector/local authority teamsubmitting the winning proposals. The estimated time to complete the envisioned pre-investment studies is one year.

Based on the results of the completed pre-investment feasibility study, the demonstrationprojects will be ready for subsequent investment by the World Bank and/or private sector.Estimated time to complete the project design and full implementation is 2 to 3 years.

Figure 3: Six-Year Program for the Implementation of 20 Projects



32/73



33/73

3.1 SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES FOR PHASE 2

The following outlines the key objectives for the next two years for Phase 2 of the proposedprogram:

1. Identify a Champion and a Program Manager dedicated to leading the initiativeforward over the next five years. The Champion and Project Manager will be differentindividuals working cooperatively as a team. The Champion will likely emerge, from adonor institution, based on his/her belief in the program, and willingness to commit timeand resources to ensure its success. The Champion must have the clear endorsement bythe major partners and have the credibility, visibility, financing and freedom to operateeffectively. The individual must be a dynamic leader who can motivate and work with abroad range of stakeholders.

2. Establish a Consultative Group for Recycling Waste to supercede the existingCouncil of Convenors (currently co-chaired by Maurice Strong and Hank Hatch). Define

priorities, key tasks and a work program.3. Develop the process to solicit and deliver the initial three demonstration projects.The projects selected should deliver credible and replicable results in the next two yearsinvolving the major global players and address the most pressing food security andenvironmental problems in their respective regions.

4. Develop policy guidelines based on the experience gained from the demonstration projects for government decision-makers and financial institutions to facilitatereplication, innovation and catalyze the use of urban waste for agriculture.

5. Provide support to UNDP, bilateral trust funds, foundations, non-governmentalorganizations and private sector firms and World Bank Task Managers interested in

pursuing waste recycling projects.6. Develop a Web site as a primary communications vehicle and informationclearinghouse and a global information network to facilitate widespread acceptance andfull-scale adoption for follow-on activities. Identify a forum manager expert on wastefor agriculture to manage the Web site and moderate discussion.

7. Organize regional workshops meeting local and World Bank needs as a vehiclefor highlighting the core training needs and issues and developing opportunities for bankstaff.



34/73

3.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

A simple structure driven by function is envisioned that is cost effective, small and efficient.Much of what is envisioned already exists and has been operating in some form over the lastseveral years supported by UNDP, World Bank, private sector and WEPSD.

This program should be administered and implemented by three institutional components (seeFigure 4), made up of representatives of international financial institutions, the private sector,and non-governmental organizations:

A voluntary Consultative Group for Recycling Waste Group

A voluntary Technical Advisory Group

A funded Secretariat

Together, these groups will facilitate the implementation of 20 waste recycling projects threedemonstration projects and 17 additional projects - over a five-year period.

Figure 4: Organization Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Rural-Urban Connection



35/73

S e c r e t a r i a t

T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r

T e c h n i c a l R e p r e s e n t a

P r o j e c t A R e s e a r c h

P r o g r a m M a n a g

D a y - t o - d a y P r o g r a m

C o n s u l t a t i v e G r o u p f o r R e c yP u b l i c / P r i v a t e S e c t o r M e m b e r s I

U N D P , I F C , F A O , W H O , A g r i c u l t u

a n d N o n g o v e r n m e n t a l O r g a

3.2.1 Consultative Group for Recycling Waste

Prior to the 1996 World Bank Conference on Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Urban-

Rural Connection, a Council of Convenors was formed to provide broad direction and approvethe plan for holding the conference. The Council of Convenors, co-chaired by Maurice Strong,Senior Advisor to the President of the World Bank, and Henry Hatch, President of the WorldEngineering Partnership for Sustainable Development, included representatives from the UNDP,World Bank, FAO, WHO, agriculture, engineering, government, private sector and several otherstakeholder groups. See Appendix J for a list of the current members of the Council ofConvenors.

It is recommended that the existing Council of Convenors be superseded by a ConsultativeGroup for Recycling Waste with no more than 12 members. It would consist of sponsoringmembers representing the broad and diverse interests of all stakeholders. Beyond thoseproviding financial support, the Consultative Group would include representatives of important

constituencies such as farmers groups and local authorities. Key tasks of the Consultative Groupas the primary decision-making body, are to set strategic direction, provide the financialresources, and evaluate and monitor progress of the program.

In order to complement and support the activities by other organizations, the Consultative Groupfor Recycling Waste would work in close collaboration with existing interest groups andthematic groups in the World Bank, as well as corresponding groups in the UNDP.



36/73

3.2.2 Technical Advisory Group

The Consultative Group for Recycling Waste and the Secretariat will receive technical advicefrom its constituent organizations, through experts from a voluntary Technical Advisory Group.The Group will provide ongoing technical assistance to projects being implemented, conduct

evaluations of projects and advise the Consultative Group.

3.2.3 Secretariat

The Secr

Urban Waste Agriculture

Documents

Transcript of Urban Waste Agriculture