Waste from Food final - Food and Agriculture Organization · 2009-12-28 · recycling useful...

FAO/AGST Regular Programme Activity

Waste from foodReview of Developing and

Transitional Countries

Nigel Smith & Mansoor Ali

Water, Engineering and Development CentreUniversity of Loughborough

LoughboroughEngland

June 2002

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome, Italy

Executive summary • i

Executive summary

IntroductionPoor solid waste management is one ofthe greatest environmental and publichealth problems currently faced bydeveloping and transitional countries.The problems are so severe that theyhave reached a crisis point in manytowns and cities. The failures oftraditional systems of solid wastemanagement have led to a growinginterest in approaches that are moreappropriate to the local context. Thereis a need for better understanding ofthe issues faced in managing solidwaste in developing and transitionalcountries.

One of the biggest sources of solidwaste is the system of food production,distribution and consumption. Theseactivities range from agriculture tocooking and include all activities in thechain. Waste is generated at everystage and can vary considerably incomposition, how it is generated andby whom, creating very differentchallenges for its management. Forexample, the quantity and type ofwaste produced from food marketscreates different challenges for urbanmanagers compared to household foodwaste.

The range of activities within foodsupply and distribution systems meansthat approaches for the management ofdomestic waste can only resolve part ofthe problem. Different strategies mayneed to be developed for managingwaste from food production,

processing, markets and other stages ofthe chain. By gaining a betterunderstanding of the nature of wastegenerated in each stage of the foodsupply and distribution system, it ishoped that more appropriate andeffective approaches can beimplemented for the management ofwaste from food as part of integratedsolid waste management strategies.

This paper presents a review, based onexisting literature, of the managementof waste from food in developing andtransitional countries. An initialconclusion that can be drawn from theliterature is that there is a general lackof information and understandingabout the management of wasteproduced within food supply anddistribution systems.

Principles of solid waste managementThe lessons learned from tackling solidwaste management problems ingeneral provide a useful basis on whichto build an understanding of the issuesassociated with managing waste fromfood. The starting point in developingsustainable and effective strategies formanaging solid waste is to consider thegeneration of waste in the context ofthe wider cycle of production andconsumption. By viewing waste in thiswider context it is apparent that what isconsidered ‘waste’ in one situation maybe a useful and economic resource inanother, thus creating additionaloptions for its management. This isespecially so in the context of food

supply and distribution systems wherethere is a natural cycle and flow ofmaterial through the system. Forexample, it is common for farmers toconvert agricultural waste to a soilconditioner which is applied to theirland.

The Waste Hierarchy outlines anumber of options for managing wastein this wider context namely Reduce,Reuse, Recycle, Recover energy, Safedisposal. These options form the basisfor the concept of Integrated SolidWaste Management and are also centralto the framework of action on solidwaste management endorsed inChapter 21 of Agenda 21 (UN, 1992).Integrated Solid Waste Management(ISWM) provides an integrated, holisticapproach to tackling solid wastemanagement problems that aims toavoid many of the failings of previoustechnology driven approaches(Klundert and Anschütz, 2001). Itbuilds on the Waste Hierarchy bystressing the need to respond to theinterest of different stakeholders andidentifies several dimensions whichmust be considered when developingan appropriate solid wastemanagement system, namely: social,technical, financial, environmental,institutional, political, economical andlivelihoods.

Decision makers in developing andtransitional countries face manychallenges in improving solid wastemanagement including scarce financialresources, widespread poverty and alack of information about solid wastesituations at local level. This meansthat in the context of developing andtransitional countries ISWM is likely tobe characterised by a need for:

• Greater and systematic involvementof the public and other stakeholdersin developing locally appropriatesolutions.

• Greater integration of the informalsector within formal solid wastemanagement systems.

• Avoidance of imported, costly, high-tech solutions with a preference formore labour intensive approachesusing lower level technologies andmechanisation.

• Setting up robust financial streamsto meet the costs of the solid wastemanagement system.

• Emphasis on extending servicecoverage to reach the large urbanpoor population.

These principles can inform thedevelopment of locally appropriatesolutions to the problems of managingwaste from food supply anddistribution systems. Nonetheless,what constitutes sound practice mustbe judged against the specific settingwhere it will be used. Furthermore,sound practices must meet theobjectives of sustainability and providea locally appropriate balance of equity,efficiency and effectiveness.Particularly important in this regard indeveloping and transition countries isthe adequate recognition of the impactthat solid waste management practicescan have on the livelihoods of themany poor people who rely on wastefor their survival. Consequently,understanding the local context andthe existing solid waste managementsituation is an essential first step indeveloping appropriate wastemanagement solutions.

Managing waste from foodThe system of food supply anddistribution, from field to kitchen is amajor source of solid waste and greatlyadds to the problems of solid wastemanagement facing urban managers. Itis apparent from the evidencereviewed in this paper that the

Waste from food • ii

Executive summary • iii

management of waste from food indeveloping and transitional countries isfrequently inadequate andunsustainable.

Problems of waste management are notlimited to domestic food waste butspan all parts of the food supply anddistribution system: from intensivelivestock farming, food processingplants and abattoirs to markets andother parts of the food distributionsystem. For example in Quito Ecuador,animal remnants from abattoirs arecommonly mixed with water anddumped in local rivers (Benitez et al.,1999) while in Jakarta Indonesia fruitand vegetable market wastes fromformal markets are mostly dumped inmunicipal sites around the city(UNESCO, 2000). The challengescreated by these different wasteproblems demand solutions which aretailored to fit the constraints andopportunities of the local situation.

At a practical level, there are a greatvariety of potential practices andtechnologies for managing waste fromfood. This review has identifiedvarious examples of successful soundpractices in the management of wastefrom different parts of food supply anddistribution systems. Examples includeboth traditional and more recentpractices such as:

•Farmers collecting local market wasteto use as feed or to apply to theirlands in Mexico City, Mexico (Losadaet al., 2000).

•The anaerobic digestion ofhousehold, animal or food processingwaste to produce biogas and a soilconditioner throughout China andIndia (Woods and Hall, 1994).

•The processing of poultry carcassesand abattoir waste into high qualitycompost and fertiliser in Thiés,

Senegal (World Bank, 1997).

•Systems of low external inputagriculture in which farm wastes aresystematically reused as part ofintegrated biosystems in CaucaValley, Colombia (Chará et al., 2000).

•The use of sugar cane bagasse forproducing biofuel in the sugar caneindustry in many parts of the world.

•Collection and processing ofindustrial swill for pig feed in Cuba(Peréz, 1997).

•Strategies to prevent the unnecessarymixing of solid and liquid waste inpig farms, food processing plants andabattoirs to reduce the difficulty ofhandling and treating both thewastewaters and the solid wastefraction (Schiere and Hoek, 2000).

Despite these examples, practices forsystematically increasing waste reusehave so far only been adopted on arelatively limited scale compared to theextent of the solid waste problems, andmany previous initiatives have provedunsustainable such as the municipalcomposting schemes introduced intomany Indian cities during the 1980’s(Lardinois and Marchand, 1999) andnumerous large source separationinitiatives (Lardinois and Klundert,1994).

Implications for decision makersA number of conclusions can be drawnfrom this review which can informefforts to improve the management ofwaste from food. These issues areinterrelated and are best considered inthe context of an integrated approachto solid waste management.

1. Reuse and recycling of waste shouldbe a priority for managing waste fromfood, supported by targeted wastereduction.

The greatest opportunities forimproving the management of wastefrom food are by increasing theproportion of waste that is reused andrecycled, particularly organic waste.This is primarily due to the highproportion of organic material in wastefrom food and the numerous potentialusers for organic wastes.

Examples highlighted in this paperhave illustrated that when developed ina manor appropriate to the localconditions, such approaches candramatically reduce the quantity ofwaste that enters the formal solid wastemanagement system and providemoderately priced alternatives to thedisposal of waste in landfills.

Approaches which treat waste as aresource and seek to reuse it are notonly effective waste managementstrategies, but can also have importantsocial and environmental benefits. Forexample, practices for recovering andrecycling useful material from wasteare often labour intensive and canprovide income earning opportunitiesfor many of the poorest in society.Furthermore, recycling the organicmaterial in waste from food cancontribute to improving local soils andthereby help to meet the growingdemands for food and reduce theburden on the local environment.

In contrast to reuse and recyclingschemes, waste reduction measures areappropriate to more selected situationswithin food supply and distributionsystems. They are often costly anddifficult to implement on a wide scale,requiring concerted effort over manyyears. As a result, they are mostappropriate to large individual wastegenerators or those producing wasteswhich are harmful or difficult tomanage. In such cases waste reductionefforts can be targeted where they willhave the greatest impact.

2. Waste management practices andtechnologies must be tailored toreflect the local conditions,especiallyfor the collection,reuse and recyclingof waste.

To improve the management of wastefrom food and, in particular, to realisethe opportunities from greaterrecycling, decision makers will need toensure that waste managementinterventions are tailored to the localcircumstances and are responsive tothe needs of waste generators, wasteusers and other key stakeholders. Pastexperiences have shown that wastemanagement practices adoptedunquestioningly from elsewhere areunlikely to deliver the expectedbenefits.

For the recycling of organic waste thiswill require the development ofschemes which can deliver waste of anacceptable quality that is affordable toa far larger proportion of potential localusers, from poor local farmers tocommercial compost manufacturers.Without this, there will be little demandfor waste and recycling will not be aviable waste management option.

From a waste management perspectiveit is also vital to understand thecontribution that different groups ofusers can make in terms of the likelypotential quantity of organic wasteused. For example, low costagricultural users may frequentlyrepresent the greatest potential users oforganic waste while other morespecialist and niche users, such ascommercial enterprises making highquality organic fertiliser from abattoirwaste, will consume more limitedquantities and types of waste.

In addition, waste managementpractices must also reflect the differentphysical characteristics of waste fromvarious parts of the food supply anddistribution system, such as abattoir or

Waste from food • iv

Executive summary • v

market wastes, which create differentdemands on equipment compared tomixed municipal wastes.

3. Stakeholder participation needs to bemore systematic and more extensive,including potential waste users aswell as waste generators and othersstakeholders.

It is now widely acknowledge thatpublic services and infrastructureshould be responsive to the demandsof the people being served. This ismost likely to happen if these groupsof primary stakeholders, and especiallythe poor, are able to participateeffectively in the decision makingprocesses.

This is particularly important in relationto efforts to extend the reuse andrecycling of organic waste fromdifferent parts of the food supply anddistribution system. There is morelikelihood that waste will be managedin a way that promotes a moresustained and reliable demand forwaste if the needs of potential wasteusers, such as local farmers, are givengreater prominence in thedevelopment of waste managementpractices. Without a reliable andsustained demand for waste, recyclinginitiatives will have little value as wastemanagement options.

Key groups of stakeholders should notonly be able to participate in individualdecisions about appropriate serviceslevels or the selection of individualpractices, but in a more routine andsystematic way in the development andmonitoring of the waste managementsystem. More systematic participationwill contribute to the ongoingimprovement of waste managementpractices in a demand responsive way.

4. Improving the management of wastefrom food requires a combination ofboth smaller, decentralised waste

management solutions and larger,area-wide approaches.

Increasing the proportion of waste thatis reused or recycled is central to theoverall improvement of themanagement of waste from food.Where possible, it is normallypreferable to reuse waste close towhere it is generated, implying adecentralised approach to wastemanagement. This is especially truefor organic waste because of the cost oftransporting relatively dense waste anydistance, the need to limit the level ofcontamination and the organizationalbenefits of smaller, simpler schemesinvolving the coordination of theactivities of fewer people. Localauthorities can stimulate and supportthe development of decentralisedpractices through awareness building,technical and financial support,capacity building and the creation ofan enabling regulatory and institutionalenvironment.

In practice, however, there are manysituations where it is not practical toadopt decentralised approaches torecycling due to a lack of local demandfor the type of waste produced,insufficient resources and space for therecycling activities or where it is overlycostly to collect waste with fewcontaminants. Examples of suchsituations include domestic food wastefrom many residential areas and wastefrom large food processing plants andabattoirs in urban areas.

As a result, alternative large scale wastemanagement practices will inevitablyneed to be used in establishing thewidespread reuse and recycling oforganic waste from food. Incomparison to decentralisedapproaches, large scale practicesinvolve more area-wide systems ofrecycling, with waste being usedfurther from where it is generated andthe more active involvement of the

formal waste management system tofacilitate the collection andredistribution of waste between a largenumber of sources. Examples of suchpractices include large centralcomposting plants and municipalsource separation and collectionschemes, centralised swill collectionand treatment programmes, large scalemunicipal anaerobic digesters, andfarmers using decomposed waste frommunicipal dumps to apply to their land.

Both decentralised and large scaleapproaches will therefore have a roleto play in improving the managementof waste from food.

5. The links between wastemanagement, the livelihoods of thepoor and the social impacts ofproposed solid waste managementinterventions must be understoodalongside conventional financial,technical and environmentalconsideration.

Finally, it is important that problems ofwaste management and their solutionsare not seen as isolated issues, but intheir wider social context. Waste playsan important role in the livelihoods ofmany of the poorest and most vulnerablepeople in developing and transitionalcountries. Many towns and cities havea large informal waste sector whichrelies on waste as a key resource andsource of income, while formal solidwaste management systems are oftenmajor public sector employers. Theincome from these waste based activitiescan be vital to the survival of many poorhouseholds.If decision makers are to avoidunintentionally damaging people’slivelihoods, they must strive to limit thenegative impacts of interventions onthe livelihood activities of those relyingon waste. Decision makers need to beconscious of the major bearing thatparticular technologies and practicesused in the formal waste management

system can have on the ability of thosein the informal waste sector to accesswaste and their opportunities togenerate an income from it. Inaddition, decision makers must alsoconsider the employment opportunitieswithin the formal waste managementsystem. Waste management practicesthat favour more labour intensivemethods over high levels ofmechanisation are likely to morebeneficial in a wider social context as aresult of the greater employmentopportunities they create.

Decision makers must thereforeconsider the wider social benefits ofdifferent options as well as theireffectiveness as waste managementsolutions.

Waste from food • vi

Executive summary • vii

ReferencesBenitez Washington, O.; Carrera, F.O.;

Torres Egas, H. and TorresMoncayo, M. (1999). La situacionactual y perspectivas de la ganadera periurbana de Quito.Organizacion de la NacionesUnidas para la agricultura y laalimentación (FAO), y Ministerio deAgricultura y ganader a, Quito,Ecuador. 102 pp.; Cited in Schiereand Hoek (2000).

Chará, Julián David; Pulido, Elkin Darioand Cuellar, Piedad (2000).Material flow in “Pozo Verde”Integrated Farm in Cauca ValleyProvince, Colombia. In: Foo, E.L.;Della Senta T. and Sakamota K.(2000). Material flow Analysis ofIntegrated Bio-Systems.

Klundert, Arnold van de and Anschütz,Justine (2001). IntegratedSustainable Waste Management –The concept – Tools for DecisionMakers. WASTE, Gouda, TheNetherlands.

Lardinois, Inge and Klundert, Arnoldvan de (1994). Organic Waste -Options for small-scale resourcerecovery. TOOL/WASTE, Gouda,The Netherlands.

Lardinois, Inge and Marchand, Rogier(1999). Technical and financialEvaluation of CompostingProgrammes in Asia; In:Bidlingmaier, W. et al., (1999).Orbit 99 - Organic Recovery &Biological Treatment, Part III, (pp.799-806).

Losada H.; Bennett R.; Vieyra J.;Soriano R.; Cortes J. and Billling S.(2000). Recycling of Organic Wastesin the East of Mexico City byagricultural and livestockproduction systems; In: Foo, E.L.;Della Senta T. and Sakamota K.

(2000). Material flow Analysis ofIntegrated Bio-Systems.

Peréz, Rena (1997). Feeding Pigs in theTropics. FAO Animal Prod. andHealth Paper 132. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Schiere, Hans and Hoek, Rein van der(2000). Livestock Keeping in UrbanAreas. FAO, Rome, Italy.

UN (1992). Agenda 21: Earth Summit- The United Nations Programme ofAction from Rio. UN, New York,USA.

UNESCO (2000). Reducing MegacityImpacts on the Coastal Environment– Alternative Livelihoods and WasteManagement in Jakarta and theSeribu Islands, Coastal Region andSmall Island Papers 6. UNESCO,Paris, France.

Woods, J. and Hall, D. O. (1994).Bioenergy for development –Technical and environmentaldimensions. FAO, Rome, Italy.

World Bank (1997). Urban Waste andRural Soil Management. AgricultureTechnology Note 17. Agricultureand Forestry Systems Division,World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

Contents • ix

Contents

Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part 1: Solid waste management – An introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 Why is solid waste management important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 Current challenges in solid waste management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.4 Key concepts in SWM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.5 Stakeholders in solid waste management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Part 2: Sound practices in solid waste management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.2 What is a sound practice? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.3 Analysing the local SWM system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.4 Institutional aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262.5 Private sector participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.6 Waste reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302.7 Collection & transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312.8 Reuse and recycling of waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.9 Energy recovery from waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422.10 Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442.11 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Part 3: Waste in food supply and distribution systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493.2 Key elements of food supply and distribution systems . . . . . . . . . 493.3 Waste from agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513.4 Waste from food processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573.5 Waste from abattoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633.6 Market waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663.7 Waste from canteens, kitchens and restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723.8 Household food related waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Part 4: Implications for decision makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794.2 Reuse and recycling of waste from food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804.3 Localising waste management practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

4.4 Greater and systematic participation of stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . 824.5 Combining decentralised and large scale approaches . . . . . . . . . . 854.6 Waste and livelihoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Appendix 1: Further resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

List of figuresFigure 1.1: Formal solid waste management in cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Figure 1.2: The waste cycle and waste management options . . . . . . . . . 9Figure 1.3: How levels of technology can influence sustainability . . . . . . 13

List of boxesBox 1.1: The informal waste sector and recycling in selected cities . . . 5Box 1.2: Social factors influence SWM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Box 1.3: Legislation can impede service improvements . . . . . . . . . . . 15Box 1.4: Conflict between livelihoods and the environment in

Karachi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Box 2.1: Win-Win in waste reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Box 2.2: The many uses of organic waste on cultivated land . . . . . . . 40Box 3.1: Reusing agricultural waste on an integrated farm . . . . . . . . . 52Box 3.2: The potential of animal waste as a source of fuel . . . . . . . . . 54Box 3.3: Improving the utilisation of agricultural waste . . . . . . . . . . . 55Box 3.4: Quito’s polluting abattoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Box 3.5: Profiting from abattoir wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Box 3.6: Peru’s Neighbourhood markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Box 3.7: Reusing market wastes in Mexico City’s largest market . . . . . 71Box 3.8: On-site composting of market waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Box 3.9: Swill collection and processing for pig feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Box 4.1: Different waste users’ have differing needs and capacity

for using waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Box 4.2 (a): Matching users’ needs to different

waste management options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Box 4.2 (b): Matching users’ needs to different

waste management options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Waste from food • x

Introduction • 1

Introduction

Poor solid waste management is one ofthe greatest environmental and publichealth problems developing andtransitional countries are currentlyfacing. The problems are so severe thatthey have reached crisis point in manytowns and cities. The failures oftraditional systems of solid wastemanagement have led to a growinginterest in integrated approaches thatare more appropriate to the localcontext. Accordingly, there is a needfor better understanding of the issuesfaced in waste management indeveloping and transitional countries.

One of the biggest sources of waste isthe system of food production,distribution and consumption. This isespecially so in developing andtransitional countries where themajority of waste is organic. Wastesfrom the different stages of the foodsupply process have substantialdifferences both in their physical natureas well as the issues and options foreffective management and treatment.For example, the quantity and nature ofwaste produced from food marketscreates very different challenges fortown or city managers when comparedhousehold food waste. By gaining abetter understanding of the nature ofwaste from each stage of the foodsupply and distribution process it ishoped that more appropriate andeffective approaches can beimplemented for its management aspart of integrated solid wastemanagement strategies.

This paper systematically reviews theissues and options for the managementof waste from each stage of the foodsupply and distribution process in thecontext of the wider wastemanagement system. Appropriatetreatment and management practicesare identified for waste from each stageof the process. This work is acombination of the expertise of UNFood and Agriculture Organization(FAO) in food supply and distributionsystems and the Water, Engineering andDevelopment Centre (WEDC) expertisein Solid Waste Management.

The target readers for this paper arecity manager’s, local practitioners,researchers and other professionalsconcerned with food supply anddistribution and solid wastemanagement. It is intended to facilitateinformed discussion and decisionsrelating to the co-ordination andlinkages between these two importantsystems within society.

This paper is presented in four parts:

Part 1 provides an introduction tomany of the major issues andconcepts relevant to solid wastemanagement (SWM) indeveloping and transitionalcountries.

Part 2 focuses on sound practices insolid waste management inthese countries.

Part 3 discusses the nature of foodsupply and distribution systems

(FSDS) and analyses the issuesof waste from key parts of thesystem.

Part 4 synthesises the key points raisedwith a specific reference to theimplications for city managersand other practitioners.

Waste from food • 2

Part 1: Solid waste management – An introduction • 3

Part 1

Solid wastemanagement – An introduction

1.1 IntroductionThis chapter aims to provide a conciseintroduction to Solid WasteManagement (SWM) and some of thekey concepts and issues which aremost relevant in developing andtransitional countries.

The chapter begins by addressing thequestion of: why is solid wastemanagement important? It then goeson to highlight some of the currentchallenges in SWM, especially indeveloping and transitional countries.The pen-ultimate section introducessome important concepts in SWM thatare useful in tackling these challenges.finally, the role of the differentstakeholders in SWM is discussed as anessential element in successful SWM.

1.2 Why is solid waste managementimportant?

The management of solid wastes is anessential but unglamorous publicservice, and one that is often neglected.As well as the obvious improvementsto the appearance and aesthetics of anarea, locally appropriate strategies toimprove the management of wastesbenefit wider developments initiatives.Improved solid waste management isimportant for the efficient operation ofother infrastructure. Waste is also animportant livelihood assets for poor aswaste collectors, recyclers or recipientof waste collection service in lowincome areas For the poor in many

urban areas, improved SWM could helpto reduce much the burden ofunsanitary conditions as well assupporting the livelihoods of some ofthe most vulnerable poor who rely onwaste for their survival.

However, by the same token, thefailure to adequately manage thecollection, treatment and disposal ofwastes adversely affects many aspectsof public and private life. Discarded orbadly managed solid waste can damagethe environment, people’s health andlifestyle. It also has importanteconomic, social and politicalimplications which are discussed inmore detail below.

By introducing the wide range oflinkages between SWM and otheraspects of life it is hoped that this willillustrate the complex nature of manySWM issues and why they areimportant.

1.2.1 HealthWhen left uncollected or dumped in anuncontrolled manor, solid wasterepresents a major public health risk.These wastes act as a breeding groundfor disease vectors such as rats, fliesand other insects that are responsiblefor the transmission of many commondiseases including faecal-oral diseases,plague and leptospirosis. Waste is alsoa source of the disease causingpathogens themselves. This isparticularly the case where sanitation ispoor and faecal matter can be a

significant component of ‘solid waste’(WELL, 1998). In some circumstancesraw solid waste can have almost ashigh a bacteria count as sewage sludge(Brunt et al., 1995, cited in Hart andPluimer, 1996).

It is an unfortunate fact that childrenare the most often at risk of infectionfrom playing near discarded waste.However, the health problems fromliving in unsanitary conditions, withinadequate basic service and poornutrition, can affect the entirehousehold. It is therefore notsurprising that health problems havebeen found to be the most commondisruption to the livelihoods of thepoor (Moser, 1998). Not only do boutsof ill health prevent people fromworking, but the unplanned cost ofgetting treatment and medicines maypush people further into poverty.

1.2.2 Infrastructure and serviceAs well as the direct health risks,unmanaged wastes creates furtherproblems through the disruption ofother infrastructure. This is often mostvisible in the piles of discarded wastethat can be found blocking drains andsewers in many towns and cities indeveloping and transitional countries.

Sewage from blocked sewers overflowsinto the streets and buildings creating amajor public health risk and greatlyadding to the squalor in many low-income areas, whilst floods from blockstorm drains severely disrupts people’slives, damaging their livelihoods andeven destroying their assets.

1.2.3 Environment and naturalresources

Leachate from uncontrolled dumpingalso poses a risk of contamination tonearby water sources used fordomestic, agricultural or industrialpurposes. Contaminants may bechemical or biological, organic or

inorganic, but once contaminated,rehabilitation of water sources is likelyto take years of concerted effort, atgreat expense, even if it is technicallypossible.

For waste that is collected, the choiceof disposal methods and siting of anynecessary facilities or landfills needscareful consideration if they are not tounduly damage the environment.Common practices for disposing ofsolid waste in low income countriesinclude uncontrolled dumping orburning of wastes as well as tippinginto rivers. In urban areas, burning ofwastes and dust contributes to the airpollution which is an important factorin respiratory infections in poor quality,high density low-income housing(Hardy et al., 1990).

As well as the environmental andhealth problems of most commonwastes, there are many hazardouswastes which create specific additionalrisks. Such wastes range from medicalwastes to toxic industrial waste orunwanted agricultural chemicals.However, the discussion of thesewastes is beyond the scope of thispaper and readers are referred to theextensive specialist literature in thisarea for further information.

1.2.4 SocialDue to the inequity in wastemanagement service the burden offailures in the system often fallsdisproportionately on the poor. Thiscontributes to the perpetuation ofpoverty and deprivation. Furthermore,these groups are often the least able toraise their concerns and influencedecisions on how the waste system isrun. There is often a need far greaterparticipation of all stakeholders, butespecially the poor, in the decisionmaking process concerning the leveland types of services which should beprovided.



In many cultures there may be furthersocial issues arising from the low statusof waste workers. This is particularlyso in South Asia where under the castesystem collecting and dealing withwaste is regarded as the compulsoryrole of certain very low status groupswho are heavily excluded frommainstream society. Not only does thiscontribute to the deprivation andvulnerability of these groups but it alsohas the added effect of acting as abarrier to community involvement inlocal SWM scheme. (Beall, 1997 1 & 2)In certain cultures there is a stigmaattached with the handling of waste.

1.2.5 EconomicPublic resources can play an importantrole in promoting development;through the direct provision ofemployment in the public sector, as astimulus to the local economy andthrough the benefits of infrastructureand services provided. From aneconomic perspective, SWM is one ofthe largest single areas of expenditurefor most local authorities and is often amajor public employer. MunicipalSWM typically accounts for between20-50 percent of municipalexpenditure. (Cointreau-Levine, 1995).

As well as those employed in theformal public SWM sector, indeveloping countries many differentgroups are reliant on the waste systemfor their livelihoods. This includesboth established formal enterprises,such as waste dealers and transporters,but also very large numbers of wastepickers, scavengers, informal tradersand others. (See Box 1.1).

From this it is clear that the strategiesused to improve SWM affect largesections of both the formal andinformal local economy. If SWMstrategies fail to recognize the widerange of activities and roles performedby the different stakeholders, they arelikely to be both unsustainable anddamaging to the livelihoods of manypeople. (See Section 1.5) Thus, thechoice of practices and technologiesfor SWM has impacts far beyond theireffectiveness in dealing with waste.Inefficiencies and failures in SWMsystems consume scarce resourceswhich would otherwise be available formore productive uses such aseducation or health.

In addition to the direct impact of SWMsystems, the failures in such systemsand the resulting unsanitary conditionscan hamper economic development itdeters new businesses or investmentcoming in to an area or discouragescustomers from using existing shops orfacilities. A good example of this is thefailure of many official food markets infavour of spontaneous markets, wherevery unsanitary conditions in officialmarkets are a major contributory factor

Many cities have a substantial informalwaste sector and systems of wasterecycling:• In Cairo an estimated 25 000 Zaballeen

collect, reuse and recycle both organicand non-organic waste.

• In Karachi more than 25 000 people areemployed by the informal sectorrecycling which reduces 25% of waste.

• In the UK management contractors ofdomestic waste facilities in many citiesseparate re-saleable items from thewaste for further sale.

Box 1.1 The informal waste sector andrecycling in selected cities

in their unpopularity. (See Section3.6).

1.2.6 PoliticalSWM is considered an essential publicgood. As such it is governments thatare ultimately responsible for ensuringits provision. In practice, it is almostinvariably local authorities that holdresponsibility for ensuring effectiveSWM. This is the case regardless ofwhether actual waste services areprovided by the public or privatesector. Thus, at a political level, wasteleft to rot on the streets and in otherpublic place is a very visible sign of thefailure of public services and theinability of the local authority toprovide adequate services to itscitizens. When combined with theother impacts of unmanaged waste,SWM frequently becomes a highlypolitical issue.

One area that invariably generatesconsiderable public interest andconcern is the siting of new landfillsites for the disposal of municipalwaste. Such public debates canbecome highly contentious andpolitical, and can delay thedevelopment of much needed newfacilities for many years.

1.3 Current challenges in solid wastemanagement

Solid waste management problems aregrowing in towns and cities indeveloping countries. In many casesthey have now reached crisis levels.Previous efforts to address theseproblems have frequently beentechnology based and often poorlyimplemented. As a result, they havefailed to improve the situation despiteabsorbing large quantities of publicexpenditure and donor funding.

In most cities and towns the current

SWM systems are, at best, only partiallyadequate while the pressures on thesystem continue to grow withincreasing urbanisation and changingconsumption habits. Typically, only anestimated 50 percent-70 percent of allsolid waste is collected and collectionservices are concentrated incommercial, tourist and higher incomeareas (Cointreau-Levine, 1995).However, in many cases the situation iseven worse, particularly in Africa andtransitional countries. figure 1.1 showsrecent estimates of the level of wastedisposed of through the formal SWMsystem in different regions.

All too frequently the overallinadequacy of the service and unevendistribution means that waste servicesin low income areas are whollyinadequate with far greater levels ofwaste left uncollected.

To date, final disposal methods forwaste have received less attention thancollection systems in developing andtransitional countries. Thus, evenwhere waste is collected, the vastmajority of it is dumped inuncontrolled sites or semi-controlledlandfills. Such sites offer little controlof pollution from the waste orleachates and are a serious risk to theenvironment and people who live orwork near by.

It is unsurprising then to discover thatSWM systems in many cities and townsin the developing world mustovercome numerous challenges if theyare to provide an effective, efficient andequitable service that can be sustainedover the long term. Those responsiblefor improving SWM systems often facea combination of constraints anddifficulties which are characteristic ofthe situation in many developing andtransition countries:

• Growing demands on the system



from a combination of rapid urbangrowth, often in unplanned informalsettlements with limitedinfrastructure, and changing patternsin waste generation with growingconsumerism and wealth.

• Scarce public resources are a majorconstraint on the provision SWMand all public services in mostdeveloping countries. Variousauthors emphasise the central roleof robust municipal finances ineffective service delivery (Wegelin &Borgman, 1995; Devas, 1999; Pugh,1997; Amis, 1999). Achieving this isoften reliant on having access toreliable and growing local taxrevenues combined with strongfinancial management. All too oftenone or both of these factors isabsent, leading to an almostperpetual state of crises in localauthority finances.

• Lack of information makes the taskof developing appropriate SWMsystems even more difficult. It is notuncommon to find an acute lack ofreliable information as to the scaleand nature of the problem in thelocal area. In many cases, althoughthe system can clearly be seen to befailing, it is not known how much or

what types of waste are generated,who the generators are or how thesethings change between areas andover time. There is also littleawareness within formal institutionsresponsible for SWM as to the scaleand type of activities of the informalwaste sector.

• Inappropriate equipment is oftentoo costly to maintain and operateor poorly suited to the demands ofthe local conditions. As a result,equipment is frequently in a poorstate of repair with large proportionsout of use at any one time. Thisproblem is aggravated by prolongedunder investment in maintenanceand weaknesses in institutionalcapacity.

• Widespread poverty and deprivationis a common feature of both urbanand rural areas. This has importantimplications on both people’s abilityand willingness to pay for SWMservices and also on their interactionwith the SWM system and attitudestowards recycling and reusingwaste.

• A sizable informal SWM sector isactively involved in waste collection,picking and trading of recyclables.

78%

19%

66%

3%

59%

8%

44%

4%

31%

2% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Recycled

Disposed

25%

Sour

ce: U

NCH

S (2

001)

Sta

te o

f the

Wor

ld’s

Citie

s 200

1.

% o

f So

lid W

aste

Gen

erat

edHIC

LACAsia-Pacific

Arab States

AfricaTransition

figure 1.1 Formal Solid Waste Management in Cities.

This market driven sector is partlythe result of the relative levels ofpoverty and failings in the formalSWM system. It is often animportant livelihood for many of thepoorest and most vulnerable insociety as the valuable materials inwaste are one of the few resourcesthey have access to. By its verynature the informal sector can bedifficult to accommodate within theformal SWM system, although doingso can greatly contribute to both theSWM system as well as thelivelihoods of the poor.

• Local institutional weaknesses limitthe extent to which improvements inSWM systems can be delivered.Recent trends in decentralisationhave often transferredresponsibilities to local authoritiesfrom central government withoutthe corresponding transfer ofresources. This has added to theproblems of already overstretchedand under resourced localauthorities. Resolving theseproblems demands a changed rolefor local authorities and the publicsector as they do not have thecapacity to provide adequateservices on their own.

This combination of challenges andconstraints which are encountered inmany developing and transitionalcountries means that approaches whichhave been applied successfullyelsewhere need to be adapted if theyare to be of use in tackling the growingSWM problems.

1.4 Key concepts in SWMThe following section introduces someof the key concepts to most commonlyencountered issues in SWM. To be ofuse in developing and transitionalcountries, these concepts must beadapted to the local context.

1.4.1 Waste hierarchyThe Waste Hierarchy is an importanttool in waste management and iswidely used to inform the analysis ofwaste management systems andprioritise improvements. It forms thebasis of the framework for action onSWM endorsed in Chapter 21 ofAgenda 21 from the so called EarthSummit in Rio de Janeiro, 1992 (UN,1992).

The hierarchy considers the life-cycleof waste, as described above, frominitial production through to finalrecovery or disposal. It argues thataction can be taken at each stage ofthis cycle to support sustainable andintegrated solid waste management.The underlying principle of thehierarchy is that preventing a problemoccurring is better than trying to dealwith it after it has happened. Thus, byplacing potential intervention in ahierarchy relative to the waste cycle, itimplies that the closer the interventionis to the beginning of the waste cyclethe higher priority should be attachedto it. This prioritisation is attractive intheory but is not always appropriate asSWM does not take place in acontextual vacuum.

The key principles of the hierarchy are:

1. Reduce or prevent the creation ofwaste by improving product andpackaging design, productionprocesses or consumption patterns.Attention should be given toreducing both the volume andharmfulness of wastes.



2. Re-use materials in their currentform, for example through repairand re-conditioning.

3. Recycle materials from waste for useas inputs into the production of newgoods, either directly as rawmaterials or indirectly, for examplethrough composting.

4. Recover energy from waste throughincineration, biogas generation, etc.

5. Sanitary disposal of waste to limit itsnegative effects on the environmentand public health.

In many ways this ranking ofinterventions represents apredominantly environmentalperspective on waste managementissues. In practice, there are also manysocial, economic and otherconsiderations, which are equallyimportant when developing SWMstrategies. This is particularly the casein developing countries where thereare scarce public resources and wastecan be a major source of livelihoods forlarge groups of urban poor.

From a wider developmentperspective, it is self evident that public

resources should be used where theycan deliver the greatest benefit. Thus,in the context of scarce publicresources, it is not always soundpractice to implement expensive SWMoption which would be indicated bythe Waste Hierarchy. It is arguablymore responsible to adopt a slightlylesser, but cheaper, SWM strategy anduse the extra resources to deliver otherpublic benefits, such as in education orhealth programmes.

The Waste Hierarchy is, therefore, mostuseful as a menu of wastemanagement options to be applied inparallel. Its principles provide a usefulguide when used alongside otherconsiderations. figure 1.2 illustrates therole of these waste managementoptions in relation to the life-cycle ofwaste.

1.4.2 The waste cycleAt its simplest, the solid waste cyclecan be seen as having several stageswhich represent the flow of waste from‘cradle to grave’; Generation,Collection, Transfer, Treatment andDisposal. However, for thedevelopment of sustainable andeffective strategies for managing solidwaste, it is helpful to consider thiswaste cycle in the context of the

ProductionProduction Consumption

& Use

Consumption

& UseWaste

Generation

Waste

Generation

Waste

Collection

& Transfer

Waste

Collection

& Transfer

Waste

Treatment

& Disposal

Waste

Treatment

& Disposal

Reduce

& Prevent

Reduce

& PreventRe-use

products

Re-use

productsRecycle

materials

Recycle

materialsRecover

Energy

Recover

EnergySanitary

Disposal

Sanitary

Disposal

Waste ManagementOptions

Flow of Materials

Re-circulation ofuseful ‘Wastes’

Unmanaged

dumping & burning

Unmanaged

dumping & burning

ProductionProduction Consumption

& Use

Consumption & Use

Waste

Generation

WasteGeneration

Waste

Collection

& Transfer

WasteCollection& Transfer

Waste

Treatment

& Disposal

WasteTreatment& Disposal

Reduce

& Prevent

Reduce & Prevent

Re-use

products

Re -useproducts

Recycle

materials

Recyclematerials

Recover

Energy

RecoverEnergy

Sanitary

Disposal

SanitaryDisposal

Unmanaged

dumping & burning

Unmanageddumping & burning

figure 1.2 The Waste Cycle and Waste Management Options.

overall process of production andconsumption (See figure 1.2). This isespecially so in the context of foodsupply and distribution systems wherethere is a natural cycle and flow ofmaterial through the system. By seeingwaste in this wider context it isapparent that what is considered‘waste’ in one situation may be a usefuland economic resource in another, thuscreating additional options for itsmanagement. For example, it iscommon in many agricultural systemsfor farmers to use agricultural waste asa soil conditioner.

Waste management systems vary fromplace to place but typically follow thestages outlined below, although not allwaste will pass through every stage inturn. Sound technologies andmanagement options for each of thefollowing stages are discussed in moredetail in Part 2.

Generation Materials are discarded byone user and enter the waste stream.Within FSDS generators may behouseholds, small food processingenterprises, large abattoirs, farmers andmany others. The type and mix ofwaste generated varies greatly betweendifferent waste producers and fromlocation to location.

Collection The waste is then collected,initially at the household / building orlane level or directly from generators.This is called Primary Collection. Thecollection systems are the mostpublicly visible element of the wastemanagement systems. It also has adirect impact on the level of sanitaryconditions in a neighbourhood and istherefore frequently an area ofconsiderable public concern. Somecollection of wastes from FSDS iscarried out by private enterprises, forexample by companies producing Meatand Bone Meal from abattoir waste,while many collection services are

operated by the public sector.

Depending on the capacity and rangeof the equipment used during PrimaryCollection, the waste may then betaken to a local transfer station where itis transferred to larger vehicles foronward transportation. This secondstages is often called SecondaryCollection. There may even be aTertiary Collection stage where waste istaken to a city or regional level transferstation before it is transported to amore remote site for final treatment ordisposal.

Transfer Other than waste that isdisposed of on-site, for examplecomposting of household organicwaste for use in the garden, waste mustbe transported for treatment ordisposed of off-site. In FSDS this isexemplified by shifting manure fromdairy farms to farmers growing cropsnearby, transporting fruit and vegetablewaste in markets to compostingfacilities, and similar. The use oftransfer stations can allow greaterefficiency in both the collection andtransportation of waste through the useof equipment and vehicles that aremore appropriate to the differentfunctions as well as better routing ofjourneys. In addition, transfer stationsoften provide important opportunitiesfor waste-pickers to get access to thewaste and separate out recyclables.They have the advantage of beingmore accessible and can be lesshazardous places for pickers to workcompared to municipal landfill sites.

Treatment and Disposal The finalstages of the waste managementsystem, treatment may be either analternative or a precursor to disposal.Treatment of wastes is an importantstep in recycling many wastes, such asin the heat treatment of commercialkitchen wastes before they are used aspig feed or composting of organic



household waste before it is used onland. In this context it can reduce thevolume of waste that must be disposedof. It is also important in themanagement of many hazardouswastes.

The safe disposal of waste is anessential, if frequently under resourced,final stage in the waste managementsystem. Landfills and dumps are themost prevalent means of disposal formunicipal waste throughout the world,although incineration is becomingincreasingly common in industrializedcountries where there is a shortage ofsuitable sites for landfill. However, inmany cases in developing countrieslandfills are poorly sited or managedand do not currently provide a sanitarymeans of disposal.

1.4.3 Integrated solid wastemanagement

Integrated Solid Waste Management(ISWM) promotes the development ofmore sustainable and effective SWMsystems. It does so by extending therange of issues considered in thedevelopment and operation of SWMsystems beyond the traditional areas oftechnology, the environment andfinancial considerations. This isconsistent with the wide range ofissues that both affect and are affectedby SWM as already discussed.

As its name implies, ISWM adopts amore integrated and holistic view ofwaste management solutions and theanalysis of issues. ISWM seeks toavoid many of the pitfalls and barrierswhich have led to previous failures ofSWM systems by taking into accountthe many non-technical or financialissues that affect their sustainability andeffectiveness.

ISWM has becoming increasinglypopular in recent years in industrialisedcountries. It would, however, be a

mistake to simply attempt to apply theideas and practices of ISWM as used inthe North directly to situations indeveloping and transitional countries.The concepts and practices of ISWM asdeveloped in the North must beadapted if they are to be of benefit inless developed countries because thereare material differences in the localconditions. Thus the focus here will beon understanding these core principals.

1.4.3.1The elements of ISWMISWM is closely linked to the ideas ofthe waste hierarchy and the wastecycle. It emphasises the need to seewaste in the context of the cycle ofproduction and consumption andincorporates the waste managementoptions identified in the WasteHierarchy.

ISWM builds on these two core ideasby stressing the need for two furtherelements if SWM systems are to besustainable, effective, equitable,efficient and replicable.

firstly, the demands and interests of thepeople affected by the SWM systemmust be recognised in its design andoperation. The different stakeholdersmay be users of the service, actors inthe waste system or those affected byparticular practices or facilities such aslandfills or transfer stations. Inpractice, this often means far greaterparticipation of stakeholders inidentifying appropriate service levelsand other aspects of SWM systems.

Secondly, it requires that the full rangeof issues related to solid waste and itsmanagement are considered. Many ofthese issues span several interrelateddimensions and are not easilyunderstood in isolation. As mentioned,these dimensions include not only thetraditional areas of technology, financeand environment, but also institutional,social, political, legal and wider

economic considerations. As pastexperience has shown, many of theproblems faced by existing SWMsystems cannot be resolved simply byimproving financial or technicalresources (Klundert and Anschütz,2001).

1.4.3.2 The dimensions of ISWMThe scope of the different dimensionsto be considered and the key questionin each area are:SocialThe social dimension of ISWM concernsthe broad range of social relationships,cultural norms and attitudes to waste andwaste management practices. Thesehave wide ranging impacts on the likelysuccess and sustainability of differentSWM strategies ranging from thewillingness of households and

businesses to support specific collectionor recycling systems to the acceptabilityof using composted waste in agriculture.(See Box 1.2).

SWM systems have a broad range ofstakeholders, ranging from the manyusers of the services through to thoseactively involved in different stages ofthe SWM system. Understanding theirattitudes and interrelationships is animportant step in designing locallyappropriate and sustainable SWMsystems.

Some important questions to considerare:

•What are people’s and organizations’attitudes to waste, its generation andits management?

•What roles do different social groupsplay in collecting and managingwaste?

•What are the cultural norms andsocial restrictions on the differentroles of men, women and children inmanaging household waste?

•What are the social relationshipsbetween different groups in thecommunity related to themanagement of waste?

•What are people’s attitudes to the re-use and recycling of wastes?

Technical There are many technicalaspects of SWM relating totechnologies, equipment and practices.At one level, these relate to thepractical effectiveness of the differentelements of the SWM system inmeeting the local requirements formanaging wastes. This involves anunderstanding of the suitability of thespecific technologies and practice tolocal conditions in terms of theoperational environment, quantities


Social factors influence SWM systems inmany ways:• In Cairo an estimated 25 000 Zaballeen

collect, reuse and recycle both organicand non-organic waste.

• Women are those primarily responsiblefor managing waste in the householdand so it is vital to understand theirattitudes if initiatives to improvecollection, recycling, composting etc.are to be supported.

• Low social status of those working withwaste may be a major barrier to gettinghouseholds to participate incommunity-based schemes, especiallytrue in South Asia as a result of thetraditional caste system.

• Community based schemes for house tohouse collection and recycling may besabotaged by municipal sweepers whoalready provide informal collectionservices as an important means ofsupporting themselves and theirfamilies.

Source: Beall (1997, 1 & 2)

Box 1.2 Social factors influence SWM.


and types of waste, frequency ofcollection, environmental benefits, etc.For existing SWM practices, technicalissues are frequently viewed in termsof specific performance indicatorscovering efficiency, coverage ofservice, volumes of waste collected,capacity of disposal facilities, etc.

At a more general level, but no lessimportant, the appropriateness ofparticular technologies and practicesmust also be judged in terms of thererelative use of capital, mechanisedequipment and labour given theirrespective availability and cost in thelocal situation. The choice oftechnologies is often a major factor inboth the efficiency and sustainability ofa SWM system. High tech, high costsolutions are rarely appropriate toSWM in developing countries wherespare parts and sufficient financialresources are not readily available.More appropriate levels of technologyoften make better use of labour andscarce financial resources as illustratedby the example of choices of collectionvehicles given in figure 1.3.

Some key questions include: Howmuch waste is collected, from whereand with what regularity? What

equipment and facilities are used? Doesthe equipment function properly underlocal conditions and usage? What is theaverage down time for the equipment?What is the capacity of the differentelement of the SWM system comparedto demand? What level of risks arewaste workers exposed to? What arethe environmental benefits of aparticular practice or technologycompared to cost? What is the coverageof the collection system in terms ofpopulation served, how regularly, whatareas are not served, where, and howbig are they? What proportion of wasteis collected or recycled through eitherformal or informal sector? Are thetechnologies and processesappropriate to the types and mix ofwaste? Are collection vehicles designedto operate with local road conditionsand capable of accessing informalsettlements? Are there reliable andeffective management practices inplace to limit the risk of pollution fromwaste disposal sites?

Environmental Environmentalconsiderations are perhaps those mostcommonly associated with SWM. Theeffectiveness and nature of the wastecollection systems have a visibleimpact on the local environment whilst

Compactor Trucks Open back trucks &human powered carts

Technologylevel

Relatively high levels of technology,requiring specialised knowledge andparts to operate and maintain.

Widely available technologies whichcan be maintained and operatedwithout specialist knowledge or parts.

Use ofFinancialResources

Capital intensive with comparativelyhigh operational cost due to high fuelcosts and the need for specialist partsand knowledge, especially where theseon not available locally.

Comparatively inexpensive equipmentto both acquire and operate due to thewidespread availability of materialsand skills needed to maintain andoperate them and lower fuel costs.

Use ofLabour

Uses comparatively little labour tooperate and maintain for the volume ofwaste and greater coverage possiblefrom each vehicle.

Labour intensive, requiring many moreoperators to cover an area withindividual vehicles having smallercapacity and/or limited range.

Most likelyto besustainablewhere….

… Labour is relative expensivecompared to capital and there is ahigher level of technologicaldevelopment.

… Labour is inexpensive,capital is scarce and there is alower level of technologicaldevelopment.

figure 1.3 How levels of technology can influence sustainability.

the quality of the disposal methodsaffects the wider environment as well.Accordingly, the impact of the variousSWM systems on both the local andwider environment should beunderstood. Unfortunately, it is still alltoo common that the trueenvironmental impact of currentpractices is either not understood orlargely ignored. This is particularly thecase for the final disposal of waste,which is given a much lower prioritythan waste collection in manydeveloping countries.

Specific considerations include:

•What are the current and desiredlevel of sanitary conditions indifferent neighbourhoods anddistricts?

•How regularly are streets cleaned?

•How much waste in regularly leftuncollected and where?

•What is the level of pollution fromlandfill sites and air pollution fromthe burning of rubbish?

•Are there some aspects of the localenvironment that are particularlysensitive to pollution from poor solidwaste management?

financial financial aspect of SWMinvolve budgeting, cost accounting,funding of investments and recurringcosts, cost recovery and other aspectsof financial monitoring and evaluation.

The initial investment and recurringcosts are heavily dependent on thechoice of technology and practiceschosen. Accordingly, financialconsiderations will be central to thedevelopment of appropriate SWMsystems.

External financial resources are

invariable limited for SWM over thelonger term and so mechanisms forimproving cost recovery often play animportant part in the sustainability anddevelopment of SWM systems. Thesemust involve an understanding of theaffordability and willingness to pay aswell as the practical mechanismsthrough which costs will be recovered.The most common mechanisms forfunding recurring costs are either localtaxation or user fees. The particularmechanisms chosen need to recognisethe equity issues they may create interms of access to services for the poor,and some cross-subsidisation may benecessary to address these concerns.

Institutional The institutional elementsof SWM relate to the distribution andco-ordination of responsibilities andfunctions between the different actorsin the system. These will involve boththe public and private sector and mustconsider the capacity of the differentactors to carry out their particular roles.An important part of this is theorganization, processes and ways ofworking that enable the SWM systemsto function effectively.

One of the greatest challenges at aninstitutional level is the effectivemanagement of the relationshipsbetween the public sector, the formalprivate sector and the informal privatesector. This is particularly important indeveloping countries where there is alarge informal sector which plays amajor role in the SWM system. Havinga clear understanding of the role ofdifferent actors and how they relate toone another is an essential element inthe development of an effective SWMsystem. (See Section 2.4).

A specific area of the institutionalcontext is the legal and regulatorycontext in which SWM systemsoperates. This influences both what itis possible to do as well as how well



services are delivered. Outdatedlegislation and inappropriateregulations can severely constrain theoptions available for developing asustainable SWM system. (See Box1.3).

By contrast, appropriate regulationscombined with adequate enforcementcan reduce the environmental andpublic health risks from SWM systems.Effective legal frameworks in whichcontracts are binding and enforceablecan greatly help to reduce the costs ofSWM services and increase efficiency.

Developing an understanding of thelimitations imposed from currentlegislation and regulation and the likelyopportunities and timescale forachieving amendments will facilitatethe development of an SWM systemcapable of operating effectively in thelocal context.

Important questions include: Whichinstitutions are responsible for thedifferent aspects of SWM and in whichlocations? Which institutions andenterprises provide actualcollection/disposal services? Whatmechanisms are there to provideaccountability of service providers toservices users? Do those responsiblehave the capacity to manage

equipment and key facilities, such aslandfill sites or composting centres? Arelocal institutions biased against orsupportive of the informal sector? Areinformal sector SWM enterprises andworkers recognised by local authority?Do informal sector activities overlap orconflict with existing or planned formalSWM? Does the local government havethe authority to award contracts forSWM services or to recognise informalsector enterprises? Are contractsbinding and enforceable? Are therecurrent regulations or standardsrelating to SWM? Are they sufficient inscope and detail? Are existingstandards appropriate to the availableresources and demands for SWM? Arethey adequately enforced? Whatresources are required forenforcement?

Economics and livelihoods SWMsystems have economic implicationboth within the sector and on a widerscale. As part of basic infrastructureand service, effective SWM cancontribute to the efficiency of the localeconomy. In most developingcountries the sector is also a source ofconsiderable economic activity andlivelihoods in its own right. Whenseeking to improve SWM systemsconsideration needs to be given toboth the need for efficiency but alsothe contribution that existing practicesmake to the livelihoods of many of thepoorest in society.

SWM systems are also influenced bywider economic conditions. Pooreconomic performance at a regional ornational level is likely to lead to greaterscarcity of public finances available forSWM and other services. At the otherextreme, increasing wealth is linked toincreased consumption and acorresponding increase in volume ofwaste generated and a change in itscomposition. SWM systems should bedeveloped with an understanding of

Restrictive LegislationIn Colombo, Sri Lanka local governmentordinance has officially prohibited themunicipality from spending publicfinances on the provision of services toinformal settlements for many years. Inresponse, the Colombo Municipal Counciland local NGOs and CBOs have had toadopt innovative arrangements forextending service coverage.

Source: Fernando et al. (2000)

Box 1.3 Legislation can impede serviceimprovements.

the wider economic context.

A further area which has a bearing onpotential SWM options is the extent towhich there is a demand in the localeconomy for recycled waste productsfrom paper, metal or glass to compostor bioenergy. The existence ordevelopment of markets for these‘waste products’ is an essential elementin the ongoing sustainability of effortsto divert greater proportions of wasteto productive uses.

Key questions include:

•What contribution does adequateSWM make to the functioning of thelocal economy?

•What role does the SWM system playin the livelihoods of differentstakeholders?

•How might these be affected by anypotential changes to the system?

•Is there a market for recycledmaterials?

Political Decisions relating to SWMsystems can be highly contentious localpolitical issues and often requirepolitical decisions and trade-offsbetween competing priorities. Thesemay range from the introduction of asystem of service charges, the siting ofa new landfill site or improvements inthe SWM system in one neighbourhoodrather than another. The effectivenessof local political systems and networks- formal or informal - in enablingdifferent groups to influence thesetypes of decisions is important if SWMsystems are to be equitable andresponsive to the demands of thedifferent parts of the community.

However, political interests can helpand hinder the development ofsustainable SWM systems. A typical

example is the use of vote-bankingrelationships between low-incomegroups and local politicians inexchange for improved services, asidentified by Beall (1997, 2) inFaisalabad, Pakistan.

1.4.3.3Tensions and trade-offs betweendimensionsReality does not neatly fall into theseparate dimensions outlined above.Tensions exist between the manycompeting objectives under thedifferent dimensions. One of the mostcommon trade-offs exists betweenlivelihoods, the environment andhealth in the informal waste sector.Many of the practices used by theseenterprises are both damaging to theenvironment and health yet theyprovide an important livelihood formany of the poorest and mostvulnerable people in society, as is thecase in Karachi. (See Box 1.4).

Tackling these situations is complex asthere are clearly strong social andeconomic pressures which drive thecurrent practices and any interventionsto improve the SWM system from anenvironmental perspective are unlikelyto be successful if they do not addressthe social and livelihood issues whichled to the development of the currentsituation in the first place.

Another common tension is betweenfinancial sustainability and the equityof the service. financial sustainabilitydemands effective long term costrecovery, which most often requiresthat the users of the system meet itscosts, either directly through users’ feesor indirectly through other taxes.However, by charging the necessaryfees or taxes for the services it maybecome unaffordable to the poorestand most vulnerable groups of thecommunity.

These and many other similar trade-offs



are encountered to varying degrees inalmost all SWM systems. Thus, themost appropriate SWM system is onewhich strikes a balance between thevarious local constraints. This needs tobe developed in an incremental way.

1.4.3.4ISWM in Developing countriesWith an awareness of the local contextin developing and transitionalcountries it is possible to see thatpractices and technologies appliedelsewhere must be adapted to localconditions. Differences are likely to bemost evident in five areas when ISWMis applied in the South compared to theNorth:

1. Greater and systematic involvementof the public and other stakeholdersin developing locally appropriatesolution.

2. Greater integration of informalsector within formal SWM system.

3. Avoidance of imported, costly, high-tech solution with a preference formore labour intensive approaches

using lower level technologies andmechanisation.

4. Setting up robust financial streamsto meet the costs of the SWMsystem.

5. Emphasis on extending servicecoverage to reach the large urbanpoor population.

A number of practical frameworks andproject guides have been developedcovering many of the detailedconsiderations in the implementationof integrated solid waste managementin developing and transitionalcountries. Notable amongst these arethose produced by the Urban WasteExpertise Programme (UWEP) led byWASTE of The Netherlands. For furtherinformation the readers isrecommended to refer to the series offive ‘Tools for Decision Makers’produced by UWEP/WASTE. (Klundertand Anschütz, 2001).

1.5 Stakeholders in solid wastemanagement

In any city or town there are manydifferent groups who are affected bythe SWM system or are actors in it.They may be service users, providersof SWM services, regulators, funders orthose affected by the siting andoperation of SWM facilities. Othergroups such as NGOs, CBOs or specialinterest groups may also have aninterest in the outcome and decisionsaffecting the SWM system.

Particular stakeholders or groups mayperform several different roles inrelation to the SWM system at any onetime. Local authorities are oftenservice providers as well as havingresponsibility for regulation. Residentsof particular neighbourhoods affectedby disposal facilities are also users ofthe system to some degree.

Livelihoods and environment in KarachiMany of Karachi’s informal waste workersare refugees with no legal status andprecarious livelihoods.Some of these groups work near to themunicipal landfill site where it is commonpractice to pay drivers to divert waste tothem rather than the landfill site. Thesewastes are then burnt to allow recovery ofvaluable metals from the waste for sale towaste dealers. This is an important sourceof income for those involved.However, the practice of open burning isparticularly damaging to the environmentand the residue is not contained in theformal landfill facilities.

Source: Ali (2001)

Box 1.4 Conflict between livelihoods and theenvironment in Karachi.

The range of stakeholder groups andtheir particular combination of interestsvary greatly from place to place andmust be assessed separately in eachsituation. Common tools such asStakeholder Analysis are helpful inprioritising the interests of differentgroups. Stakeholder analysis considersboth the importance of thestakeholders to the objectives of theproject or system and the influencethat they have over a successfuloutcome.

Common stakeholders in SWM include:

•Service users; lower and higherincome households, privatebusinesses, institutions, marketsusers, food processing plants,schools.

•Local authorities; with responsibilityfor SWM service provision.

•Public sector workers; who may alsoprovide additional informal services.

•Formal private sector; as serviceproviders, users of recycled materials,etc.

•Informal private sector; as primarycollectors and traders of recyclables.

•Central and regional government;through the creation of legal,regulatory and funding frameworksfor local authorities.

•NGO/CBO; as advocates forimproved services or as serviceproviders.

•External funding agencies; assuppliers of funding but often withconditions attached.

•Those living or working near to wastedisposal or treatment facilities.

•Users of waste; including localfarmers.

1.6 ConclusionsThis chapter began by discussing someof the wide range of reasons why SWMis important. It is clear that SWMaffects many areas beyond thetraditional focus of environment andhealth and is an important publicservice, although one that is frequentlygiven relatively low priority. The stateof SWM in many towns and cities indeveloping countries is poor, both interms of collection of waste as well assafe final disposal or treatment. Thereis a need for greater and more effectiveaction. However, the particularchallenges and constraints that exist inmany developing and transitionalcountries mean that, in general,technologies and practices that havebeen developed elsewhere must beadapted to suit the local context.

Some broad concepts are useful inunderstanding the solid wasteproblems in a particular context andcan help to develop locally appropriateSWM systems:

The waste hierarchy provides us with anumber of waste managementoptions from which to choose in thedelivery of more sustainablesolutions to the management ofwaste - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,Recover, Dispose.

The waste cycle allows us to considerwaste in the wider context of theprocess of production, consumptionand final disposal or treatment.

Integrated solid waste managementprovides an integrated, holisticapproach to tackling SWM problemsthat aims to avoid many of thefailings of previous technical or



autocratic approaches. It builds onboth the Waste Cycle and WasteHierarchy by stressing the need torespond to the interest of differentstakeholders, and identifies severaldimensions which must beconsidered when developing anappropriate SWM system, namely:Social, Technical, financial,Environmental, Institutional,Political, Economical & Livelihoods.

Having looked in general at the issuesand concepts relevant to SWM indeveloping and transition countriessubsequent chapters will look in moredetail at specific sound practices andhow these can be applied to themanagement of solid wastes from thefood supply and distribution system.

Part 2: Sound practices in solid waste management • 21

Part 2

Sound practices in solid wastemanagement

2.1 IntroductionPart 1 provided an overview of some ofthe key concepts in solid wastemanagement and many of the mostcommon issues at a sectoral level indeveloping and transitional countries.

This section focuses in more detail onthe appropriateness of specific SWMpractices in these countries, with anemphasis on the management of solidwaste from food supply anddistribution systems. Beginning with areview of the desirable characteristicsof SWM practices in general, there thenfollows a discussion of particularpractices grouped according to thewaste management options from theWaste Hierarchy and Waste Cycle(Section 1.4).

2.2 What is a sound practice?There are a wide variety of issues thateither affect or are affected by SWMsystems and practices. Because of this,SWM practices can only be consideredas sound practice where they aresuitable to the specific setting in whichthey will be used. Not only must theybe technically and financially feasible,they must also balance environmentaland social sensitivities while allowingfor institutional and politicalconstraints.The need for practices or technologiesto be judged by the individual contextin which they will be used means thatit is not possible to recommend

particular practices that would besuited to all, or even most situations.However, a number of generalprinciples can be identified which arehelpful in guiding the design,implementation and operation oflocally appropriate SWM systems. It isnot surprising that many of theprinciples which provide good practicein solid waste management are sharedwith other areas of development.These principles need to be consideredalongside the different dimensionsrelevant to Integrated SWM (Section1.4.3) such as social, technical,economic and others.

2.2.1 Sustainability, effectiveness,equity, efficiency andreplicability

These five inter-related concepts arevery relevant to solid wastemanagement and need to beconsidered together. Individually, eachrepresents a principle to be aspired to.When considered together, there willbe trade-offs and balances to be madebetween them in judging the suitabilityof particular practices or technologies.These principles are relevant at boththe overall sectoral level as well as forspecific SWM practices or projects:

Sustainability is the ability of the solidwaste management system to continueto operate over time, using theavailable resources and under theparticular local conditions andconstraints. In practice, this means thecontinued operation of equipment,

facilities and practices for wastecollection, treatment and disposal in amanner that does not deplete availableresources, damage the environment ordisrupt people’s livelihoods and socialnorms.

More generally, sustainability hasbecome a primary objective in almostevery area of development. Theobjectives of sustainability have beenrepeatedly endorsed by manyinternational agenda setting meetingsincluding the Rio Earth Summit(Agenda 21) and the Istanbul CitySummit (Habitat II Agenda).

Sustainability has environmental,social, financial, institutional andtechnical dimensions. However,tensions often exist between thesedifferent dimensions of sustainability.A common example is the tensionbetween environmental sustainabilityand the financial sustainability of theSWM system. Improving theenvironmental sustainability of an SWMsystem often involves increased costsfrom better collection and disposal ofwaste. However these increased costsmay reduce the financial sustainabilityof the system, especially where thereare very limited financial resources andlittle scope for generating greaterincome through higher user fees ortaxes. Sound practice must achieve abalance in meeting these competingobjectives which is appropriate to thelocal situation.

Effectiveness is the extent to which aparticular practice meets its objectives.The objectives for municipal SWMsystems are the collection and safedisposal or reuse of all wasteproduced. Accordingly, effectiveness isoften judged in terms of the proportionof waste collected and safely disposedof, the level of recyclable materialsrecovered and the coverage of thesystem.

The effectiveness of a SWM system islikely to vary both across differentelements of the systems as well asacross all population groups. Whilethe effectiveness of collection servicescan often be judged by the level ofwaste left uncollected, the coverageand the frequency of collections, theeffectiveness of disposal or treatmentpractices needs to be consideredagainst their impact on the widerenvironment. However, theeffectiveness of waste disposalpractices has often been a low priorityin many cities in developing countries.There is therefore a need for a morebalanced range of factors to beconsidered when judging theeffectiveness of SWM system, thatreflect the benefits of tackling solidwaste problems on a more completebasis rather than only the most visibleaspects.

Equity means all population groups,irrespective of income, are entitled to abasic waste management service. Thishas both moral and practicaldimensions. Although, in practice, thelevel of service provided is rarelyequitable with many low income areaspoorly served. The problems createdby poor SWM in many low-incomeareas not only damage the livelihoodsof those living in the immediate areabut also the wider community.Pollution and disease vectors spreadfar beyond the physical limits of theareas where waste is left uncollected ordumped.

Equity is also an important issue in thefunding of SWM systems. Carefulconsideration needs to be given to theequity of arrangements for the fundingof SWM services whilst recognising theneed for financial sustainability. Forexample, where fees for services areused these must be affordable to thepoor so as not to discriminate againstthem.



Efficiency can be seen as deliveringeither the greatest benefit fromavailable resources or minimising thelevel of resources required to provide achosen level of service. Improving theefficiency of SWM practices may enablecoverage to be extended or investmentin better disposal or treatment facilities.

In the context of SWM in developingand transitional countries it isimportant that efficiency is judged notonly on a financial basis but in abroader economic sense according tothe balance of financial, human andtechnical resources which are utilised.Where there is a great deal of underutilised labour but scarce financialresources, it may be inappropriate toadopt technology based practiceswhich limit the use of labour andchannel economic resources throughspecialist equipment supplies outsidethe local economy.

Furthermore, having suitableequipment is not sufficient to ensureefficiency in SWM practices. Thepractices themselves must also beappropriately designed and operated.For example, poor design of collectionroutes often means far greater distanceare travelled by collectors than isnecessary to collect the waste. Thus,although SWM practices may beeffective they can also be inefficient atthe same time. As resources arenormally finite, inefficiencies mayjeopardise the sustainability of SWMsystems or increase inequity in thesystem if only partial coverage isachieved.

A further important consideration is thepotential conflict between efficiencyand equity for different sections ofsociety. For example the introductionof new practices to improve theefficiency of the solid waste system canrestrict access to waste which wouldotherwise be a valuable asset for many

informal recyclers and scavengers andso jeopardises people’s livelihoods.These problems are notinsurmountable but are oftenoverlooked in SWM planning.

Replicability As with other basicservices, the objective with SWM is toprovide an adequate service to all. Inpractice, this means that SWM systemsshould aim to minimise the level ofpublic subsidy used and recover alarge proportion of initial and ongoingcosts. If this is achieved then publicresources can be used to extendcoverage and improve the level ofservice provided. SWM practices thatrequire high levels of public subsidyare not likely to be replicable andcannot easily be used to improvecoverage and address the problems ofinadequate SWM on a wider scale.

2.2.2 Sustainable livelihoodsAn increasing number of developmentagencies now place the promotion ofSustainable Livelihoods as a centralobjective in their programming. Thishas been operationalised in severaldifferent frameworks that incorporatemany principles of good practicewhich are also relevant to SWM(Carney et al., 1999).

In essence, sustainable livelihoodsapproaches are people centredframeworks which seek to maximisebenefits and sustainability by makinginterventions and policies moreconsistent with people’s ownlivelihoods. They adopt a model fordescribing poverty and livelihoodswhich focuses on the range of assetsand resources that people use to meettheir own objectives. People’s abilityto use and access these resources isviewed in a context of vulnerability.Equally important are the constraintsand opportunities created by thepolicies and institutions that affect theirlives.

Many of the challenges facing SWM indeveloping countries today cannot betackled through traditional technical orautocratic means. Instead, approachesare required that are more appropriateto the local context. Sustainablelivelihoods’ thinking provides one wayof developing a deeper understandingof the way in which people’slivelihoods are affected by particularSWM practices. With greaterunderstanding of these linkages, SWMsystems and practices can bedeveloped that are more consistentwith the lives of those affected and are,therefore, more likely to be effectiveand sustainable over the longer term.

Three principles from sustainablelivelihoods thinking are particularlyrelevant when tackling SWM problemsin developing and transitionalcountries:

People-centred and participatory Thismeans that people must be involved inanalysing their own strengths andpriorities, developing solutions to theproblems they face and monitoring theeffectiveness of actions taken toimplement these solutions. It alsorequires attention to be paid as to howpolicies and institutions affect thelivelihoods of the poor in practice andto influence these policies with theagenda of the poor as they perceive itthemselves. For SWM, this isparticularly relevant to the role ofinformal sector workers in SWMsystems, but it is also more generallyrelevant in ensuring that SWM servicesmeet the demands of all parts of thecommunity and other stakeholdergroups.

Build on strengths By focussing on thestrengths and asset that individuals andthe community already have it isargued that development strategies andactions should be more responsive topeople’s own objectives, and the

benefits more enduring. Thisperspective recognises people’spotential and seeks to build upon it.Accordingly, efforts to improve SWMsystems and introduce new practicesare most likely to be successful wherethey recognise existing activities ofindividuals and groups that contributeto SWM even if they are outside theformal sector. The focus on buildingon existing strengths and activities is incontrast to many traditional approachesto SWM system improvements, whichhave often ignored the existinginformal sector and sought to imposesolutions which do not recogniseexisting capabilities and so damagepeople’s livelihoods.

Recognise macro-micro linkagesSustainable Livelihoods thinkingstresses the importance ofunderstanding how macro-levelpolicies affect the livelihoods of peoplein practice. Similarly, the need to viewinsights from participatory analysis in awider policy and institutional context isalso emphasised. Operationally, thismeans understanding the real impact ofspecific SWM policy measures (laws,regulations, programmes and projects)on people’s ability to meet their ownlivelihood objectives, either as workersin the waste sector or users of wasteservices. It also requires the means ofusing insights from participatoryanalysis of SWM problems to informwider SWM policy and institutionaldecisions.



2.3 Analysing the local SWM systemHaving an adequate understanding ofthe local context and existing SWMactivity is a pre-requisite for thedevelopment of an appropriate SWMsystem based on informed decisions.All too often, decisions are made aboutinvestments and developments withoutsufficient understanding of the currentand future demands on the systemsand the local constraints which exist.

Analysis should come before action.This does not mean getting tied up inprolonged and costly studies, but justthat the scope and reliability of theinformation on which decisions aremade should be consistent with thelevel of investment and consequencesof the decisions. To support suchanalysis basic information is requiredon five different areas that will affectthe choice of appropriate practices andequipment:

Knowing your waste

•How much waste is being produced,by whom and of what type?

•How is the generation of wastedistributed physically over the area tobe served?

•How do these factors change byseason and over time?

Understanding your service users

•Who are the different generators ofwaste?

•What are their expectations anddemands of SWM system and howmuch are they able and willing to payfor different levels of service?

•What are their attitudes andbehaviours to waste and the SWMsystem?

Understanding the local area

•What are the physical characteristicsof the area in terms of geography,terrain, other infrastructure, access,etc.?

•Are there any aspects of thesurrounding environment that areespecially sensitive to pollution fromwaste or its disposal?

•How is the local area likely to changein the future?

Understanding the local social, politicaland economic context

•What is the size of the populationbeing served and level of economicdevelopment? How are theseexpected to change over time?

•What are the characteristics of thelocal political context in terms ofaccountability, representation,transparency and corruption?

•What are the social conditions, levelsof poverty and deprivation of thedifferent parts of the populationbeing served?

Understanding the current wastesystem

•Who is currently involved in whichaspects of the existing SWM system,from primary collection, recyclingand final disposal to regulation andfunding?

•How does the waste flow through thecurrent system? That is: how muchwaste, of what type and from where,is handled by the different actors?

•What are the interests of thesedifferent actors and what are theirinter-relationships?

2.4 Institutional aspectsAppropriate institutional arrangementsfor SWM will vary greatly dependingon the local political context, the sizeand level of development of the areasto be served as well as the capacity andresources of the public and privatesectors to perform different functions inthe SWM system. A number ofdesirable characteristic can, however,be identified as important in deliveringeffective, efficient, equitable andsustainable SWM:

Clarity of roles, responsibilities andjurisdiction of the different actorswithin the SWM system isfundamental to the provision ofadequate SWM. In many cases, thissimple but essential objective is farfrom the current reality in whichjurisdictions for different aspects ofSWM falls between variousgovernment departments, whilemany activities of the informal wastesector and NGOs are not recognisedby the formal SWM system.

Accountability is also a crucialingredient in effective, equitable andefficient SWM. Mechanisms shouldexist where service providers, eitherfrom the public or private sector,can be held accountable for thequality of service provided as wellas for their working practices.Accountability should be to both thegovernment agencies responsiblefor overseeing SWM as well asultimately to the service usersthemselves. Very often this is notthe case - neither are private serviceproviders nor local government heldaccountable for the level of wastecollected in an area or the affects ofthe methods used for final disposal.

Appropriate legislative and regulatoryframeworks, backed by adequateenforcement, are a vital tool inSWM. In many developing and

transitional countries extensivelegislation exists relating to wastemanagement and public health. Incontrast, however, enforcement isweak and inconsistent. This is due,in part, to overly complexregulations that are sometimescontradictory and which frequentlyrefer to ideal standards which arewidely inappropriate in the localcontext. As a result, regulationsmust strive to be effective yet simpleenough to understand and enforceand should avoid specifyingunobtainable standards which willjust be ignored. In his conceptualframework for SWM, Schübeler(1996) recommends that regulationsare ‘few in number, transparent,unambiguous, easily understoodand equitable’.

Performance monitoring and evaluationof service provision plays animportant role in improving theefficiency, effectiveness and equityof the SWM system. Monitoring andevaluation is equally importantregardless of whether services aredelivered by the public or privatesector. The information derivedfrom monitoring and evaluationshould enhance the planning anddelivery of future improvements andmake them more responsive to localconditions.

Adequate capacity, in terms ofresources, knowledge, skills,management systems and processes,is necessary for both public andprivate sector entities to performtheir respective functions. All tooften, idealised models forimproving SWM systems areimplemented without sufficientconsideration given to the capacityof different actors to performs theirallotted functions; Local governmentmay not have sufficient skilled orexperienced staff to implement and



oversee greater private sectorinvolvement; large private sectorbusinesses may lack the localknowledge to develop appropriatesolution; micro and small enterprisesmay lack the financial resources andorganizational capacity to expandtheir coverage and activities. Whenplanning improvements in SWMsystem, sufficient consideration andresources should be given todeveloping the necessary capacity ofdifferent actors based on anunderstanding of their particularstrengths and weaknesses.

2.5 Private sector participationA major issue in the provision of publicservices in both industrialised anddeveloping countries is the extent towhich the private sector should beinvolved in service delivery. This isespecially relevant to SWM indeveloping and transitional countries.Although private sector involvement isoften thought of in relations to theparticipation of large privatebusinesses, there is almost invariablyan established informal private sectoractive in aspects of primary collection,materials recovery and recycling indeveloping countries (Ali et al., 1998;Fernandez, 1997).

One of the main arguments for greaterprivate sector involvement is that it canreduce the cost of service provision.Central to achieving this while ensuringadequate levels of service are:

•Effective competition.

•Accountability of service providers.

•Appropriate monitoring of service bythe government.

However, the benefits of competitionneed not preclude the involvement of

public sector in service provision.There are many cases where mixedprivate/public sector systems havebeen introduced, for example inBangkok, where the public sectorprovides collection services in someareas whilst private contractors do so inothers (Cointreau-Levine, 1995).

Furthermore, some studies havesuggested that many of the advantages(without the risks) of privatisation canbe imported into public sectormanagement through the introductionof competition, consumer choice,decentralized management, and civilcontrol of bureaucracy (Batley, 1996).

As well as varying in scale, privatesector participation varies according tothe basis of the role of privateenterprises. Different forms of privatesector involvement according toCointreau-Levine (1995) include:

•Concessions for access to resourcesor waste streams.

•Contracting for the provision ofspecific services.

•Franchises to operate facilities.

•Open competition in the provision ofservices.

The role of government depends onboth the scale and form of privatesector involvement. However,regardless of the particular details ofthe local approach, the governmentmust retain ultimate accountability forprovision of SWM which is an essentialpublic service. Consequently, greaterprivate sector involvement does notmean the withdrawal by localgovernment from the SWM system.Government agencies must provideeffective monitoring and regulation ofprivate sector service providers andenterprise on behalf of citizen, if SWM

systems are to meet their needs.

The appropriateness of differentapproaches to private sectorparticipation must be viewed in thecontext of the capacity of the privatesector to provide efficient, effective,equitable and sustainable services inthe local context. The level ofinvestment required as well asknowledge and skills to operate locallyappropriate services and facilities areall important factors. Large privatesector enterprises differ significantlyfrom micro and small enterprises in thisregard.

2.5.1 Large private sector enterprises‘Conventional’ approaches toprivatisation have focussed onexpanding the role of large privatebusinesses in the provision of publicservices. Such approaches areassociated with models of privatisationdeveloped in industrialised countriesand often involve national orinternational businesses.

Privatisation of services in this way isoften seen as a way of accessingexternal funding, technical know howand investment. As such it issometimes regarded as a panacea byoverstretched and under fundedgovernment agencies (Cointreau-Levine, 1995). In reality it is not apanacea, but one option which mustbe considered against the local contextand alternatives for each aspect of theSWM system.

One of the main risks is that localgovernment institutions may not havethe resources, skills and experience tomanage privatisation policies andadequately monitor service providersor hold them accountable to theconditions of their contract. (Batley,1996) Without this, SWM systems areliable to fail.

A further risk with this type ofprivatisation is that large scale privatesector enterprises, such as national andinternational businesses, may favourtechnology based practices thatminimise the use of labour. Althoughappropriate to waste management inindustrialised nations, theseapproaches can be inappropriate to thelocal conditions in many developingand transitional countries.

Consequently, large scale privatisationof SWM services may not be the mostappropriate option given theinstitutional and legal context in manytowns and cities in developing andtransitional countries.

2.5.2 Micro and small enterprisesIn contrast to ‘conventional’ large scaleapproaches to privatisation, there isnow a growing recognition of the roleplayed by micro and small enterprises(MSE) in SWM systems.

Micro and small enterprises are part ofthe private sector and are typicallydefined as having from 1 to about 20workers. Individual entrepreneursform an important part of the MSEsector, while individual scavengers andwaste pickers are other importantgroups in SWM systems that sharemany of the same characteristics. Inaddition, local non-governmental andcommunity based organizationsometimes perform similar activitiesalthough their motivation is oftendifferent.

MSE are predominantly subsistencebased enterprises driven the failures ofthe formal SWM system and theprevalence of absolute poverty inmany town and cities in developingcountries (Medina, 1997). Many of thesmaller of these enterprises areunregistered, do not pay taxes and arepart of the informal sector. As theenterprises increase in size they are



increasingly likely to be registered, payunavoidable taxes and become moreformal in nature.

Within SWM systems, MSE are mostcommonly active in areas of wastecollection, reclamation and recyclingand can be found in almost every cityin developing countries. Such local,autonomous, private sectorparticipation has many social benefitsas a source of income for the poor aswell as providing a viable alternative tomore conventional approaches toformal public or private sectorinvolvement in these activities.

MSE have particular advantages overalternative SWM options:

•The use of locally and culturallyappropriate technologies andpractices allow for low cost operationand the delivery of services to areaswhere equipment and practices usedby large public or private sectororganizations would beinappropriate, especially in low-income areas (Ali et al., 1998).

•MSE practices tend to be labourrather than technology intensive andso provide more livelihoodopportunities for many of the poorestin society.

•Networks of itinerant buyers andwaste pickers provide a marketdriven system of separation andcollection of recyclables which is self-financing. This reduces the volumeof waste to be collected and disposedof by the formal waste sector.

There is now substantial evidence thatMSE can provide an effective,moderately priced and reliablealternative to conventional SWMsolutions (Scheinberg, 2001).However, at present there is insufficientfirm evidence of the costs of MSE to

allow detailed comparisons to be madewith the costs of more formal public orprivate sector alternatives.

Although there are many potentialadvantages associated with the MSEwaste sector, there are also a numberof issues:

•As MSE activity is motivated byincome generating opportunities theymay not necessarily provide servicesuniformly within an area. Forexample, the greater quantities ofvaluable recyclables in waste fromhigher income areas acts as anincentive for waste collectors andbuyers to focus on these areas ratherthan lower income ones.

•Many MSE working practices andconditions are poor and use pollutingor dangerous technologies. Thiscreates health risks to both the wasteworkers and the wider public.However, given the wider social andlivelihoods implication, soundpractice in this area may involveworking with such enterprises toimprove their working practices andreduce the risk to public health andthe environment rather thanprohibiting such activities altogether.

•Local government relationships withthe MSE waste sector can greatlyinfluence its potential as an effectiveand useful part of the SWM system.These relationships vary widely. Insome cities MSE suffer harassment orthe local authority has almost noawareness of the scale and scope ofMSE activities in the waste sector. Inother cases, there are various formsof formal recognition, registration andeven the incorporation of MSEactivities into the planning andoperation of the formal SWM system.Experiences from the Urban WasteExpertise Programme suggest that inmost cases there is some official

awareness of the local MSE wastesector although there are stillrelatively few examples where theiractivities are formally recognised inthe planning and development of theformal SWM system (Scheinberg,2001).

The challenge for decision makers is,therefore, to support the developmentof the MSE sector to expand itscoverage, improve its workingpractices and create less vulnerablelivelihoods for those that depend on it.Sound practices for supporting theparticipation of MSE in the SWMsystem fall into three incrementalstages (Scheinberg, 2001):

1. The first stage is the development ofa clear picture of the scale and typeof activities of the existing MSEsector in a particular area. It isimportant to understand the fullrange of services provided as well asthe materials that are regularlycollected and in what quantities.

2. The second stage is increasing therecognition of MSE by the localauthority. This may range fromincreasing their legitimacy underlocal ordinance, developingmechanisms for registration of theiractivities and, ultimately, to theinclusion of their activities inplanning for the local SWM system.

3. The final stages are the activesupport and promotion of MSE inthe waste sector. This may take theform of support for additionalinvestment in equipment, providingtechnical assistance and know-how,as well as encouraging thedevelopment of co-operatives andassociations to better represent theirinterests.

2.6 Waste reductionReducing the volume and harmfulnessof waste that must be collected anddisposed of is a logical response totackling the growing problems in solidwaste management. This is all themore so given the limited resourcesavailable for SWM.In principle, there are a number ofoptions for achieving this:

•Changing patterns of consumption.

•Changing production processes tocleaner production.

•Improving handling and storage ofgoods and perishables to reducewastage.

•Redesigning packaging to produceless plastic waste and other persistentor harmful materials.

In addition, measures to improve theease with which waste can be divertedto be recycled can also contribute toreducing the volume of waste to bedisposed of, such as labelling ofpackaging plastics and/or avoidingunnecessary mixing of organic wastewith water in food processing plants.

In practice at local level not all theoptions for reducing waste may bepractical or even possible. Initiatives toencourage industries to changepackaging or production processesfrequently require support fromnational agreements and legislation ifthey are not to place producers at acompetitive disadvantage. Similarly,localised campaigns to changeconsumption patterns may have littleeffect in the face of growing wealthand consumerism on a national scale.

Sound practices in waste reduction arelikely to be those that can deliverbenefits to both the waste generators aswell as reducing the volume of waste



generated. (See Box 2.1) Where thereare direct benefits to waste generators,they will be more inclined to supportthe initiatives allowing for greaterimpact from the resources invested.

As well as maximising the impact fromavailable resources, sound practicesshould also recognise their likely widerimpacts. Waste reduction measureswhich are introduced in isolation mayhave unforeseen and undesirableconsequences. For example, it may bedesirable to reduce the volume ofplastic food packaging waste. From aSWM perspective, however, doing sowithout introducing alternativepackaging would eliminate the publichealth benefits that such packaging hasdelivered. The negative impacts in thiscase may far outweigh the benefitsfrom reductions in the volume ofwaste.

2.7 Collection & transferCollection of waste from generators,and storage and transfer are essential

stages in integrated solid wastemanagement. Collection of waste isthe most visible aspect of SWMsystems. It is also almost invariably thelargest area of expenditure of SWM indeveloping countries, accounting foran estimated 70 percent-90 percent ofmunicipal (M)SWM expenditure(UNEP, 1996). In addition to its highvisibility, waste collection has directpublic health implications, especiallywhere there are significant levels ofhuman excreta mixed with the waste.Despite this, large areas of most townsand cities in developing countries areeither underserved or totally not servedby collection systems.Sound and practical waste collectionsystems should be reliable and regular;and collect waste with frequency andtiming that is appropriate to thosebeing served. The systems should beefficient in use of labour and financialresources. Given the pressure toextend coverage with limitedresources, system efficiency isespecially important in developingcountries. To achieve this requires theco-ordination of appropriate practicesand choice of collection vehicles, routedesign, collection schedules andmatching the level of service to thelocal requirements and resources. Afurther consideration is the extent towhich collection systems supportimproved practices in the treatmentand disposal of waste throughseparated collection. Where there isconsiderable variation in waste streamsbetween areas or as a result of physicalcharacteristics, then it may beappropriate to use a combination ofcollection systems - with each beingdesigned to reflect the particularconditions of the areas served.

2.7.1 Collection vehiclesVehicles must be appropriate to localconditions, that is to say they must besuitable for the type of waste to becollected, distances covered, access

Reducing Waste in Food MarketsPoor storage and handling of fresh produceadds to the quantity of waste from foodmarkets. In many cases produce isdamaged or perishes before it can be sold.Improving storage facilities at markets,combined with education on better foodhandling practices, can greatly reducewastage.Such initiatives assist the livelihoods ofthose involved in food distribution byreducing their losses whilst reducing thevolume of waste that must be collectedand disposed of. They are also likely to havewider benefits to food security and foodsafety.

Box 2.1 Win-Win in Waste Reduction.

and quality of roads, operators of thevehicle, unloading requirements andavailable financial and technicalresources.

Collection vehicles can range fromsmall vehicles such as hand, pedal oranimal powered carts through to noncompactor vans and trucks up to largespecialised compactor trucks. As wellas varying in size, vehicles varyaccording to whether they incorporateseparate compartments for segregationof different waste streams, such asrecyclables or organic material fromgeneral waste.

Sound practice indicates that collectionvehicles and other equipment shouldbe locally made and repairable, use theleast amount of technical complexitynecessary and minimise energyrequirements.

Small vehicles such as carts are animportant sound practice inneighbourhood level collectionssystems in many developing countries.In these settings, they represent asound balance in the use of availablelabour, capital and resources as theyare comparatively simple to construct,operate and maintain. They areparticularly well suited to small scalecollection in areas where access isdifficult, either due to the terrain ornarrow streets typical of many informalsettlements and low income areas. Toserve larger areas, small carts need beused in combination with largervehicles capable of transporting wastemore efficiently over greater distance.

Larger vehicles can range from simplevans with cages for waste, to boxtrucks and specialised compactortrucks. Non compactor trucks arepreferable to compactor trucks wherethe waste being collected is relativelydense and the limited benefits fromcompaction cannot justify the

considerable extra capital and runningcosts and complexity of the vehicles.Such vehicles have the addeddisadvantage when used with relative“wet” organic material of producingexcess leachate squeezed from thewaste. As such, compactor trucksrarely represent sound practice indeveloping countries, where there istypically a high organic content inwaste, despite often being perceived asdesirable and prestigious by manymunicipal decision makers.

Using a hybrid system of smaller andlarger vehicles is often appropriate inachieving the best coverage and use ofresources.

Vehicles required to collect waste frommarkets need higher specifications interms of resistance against corrosion.Market waste may also be heavier, ascompared to domestic waste, becauseof high moisture contents. The systemneeds to be reliable, as the organicwaste is putriscible, while foodpackaging waste may be lower indensity, not rapidly bio-degradable andcomparatively simple to recycle andreuse.

2.7.2 Collection routesAppropriate collection route designand operation is an essential factor forefficient collection systems. The designof suitable collection routes mustmatch the vehicles to be used and thevolume and distribution of waste to becollected. Routes are likely to need tobe reviewed periodically to reflectchanges in the development of the areaserved.

If collection routes are too long, orvehicles capacity too small, then thecollection vehicles will need to returnseveral times to transfer stations inorder to complete the collection. Thiswill lead to inefficiencies in time andcosts through having to travel



increased distances. Inefficiencies alsooccur where routes have not changedto reflect changing developments in anarea or increases in the volume ofwaste generated.

The volume and nature of waste fromsome parts of the food supply anddistribution system can warrant specialconsideration when determiningcollection routes. Many organic wastesfrom agriculture, markets and foodprocessing can be recycled if suitablymanaged and not mixed with otherwastes. This is also true for foodpackaging wastes. A furtherconsideration is that food relatedwastes can also be highlybiodegradable, for example from fishprocessing facilities. As a resultcollection frequency and route designfor waste from food must allow forwastes which are to be recycled - notto be mixed with other wastes and tobe collected and transported to theirdestination before the waste becomesunusable.

2.7.3 Collection pointsA key factor related to both collectionvehicles and routes is the selection ofpoints from which waste is collectedand the sizing and design of wastecontainers. Whether collection isbased on house to house collection,from designated street corners orcommunal collection, it is importantthat the chosen method is sufficientlyaccessible, convenient and acceptableto the services users. If it is not, thenintended waste containers andcollection points will not be used andcollection systems may not be able tofunction.

In many low income areas of cities indeveloping countries house to housecollection is not feasible due to acombination of resource constraints,practical difficulties in gaining accessthrough narrow lanes or over rough

terrain as well as a lack of political willin some cases. In such circumstancescommunal collection often representthe soundest balance of levels ofservices, coverage and cost.Communal collection, where waste istaken by individuals to communalcollection points, is common indeveloping countries. The mainpotential problems with communalcollection are that the collection pointsneed to be maintained and wastecollected regularly if they are not tobecome general dumping sites (UNEP,1996).

The choice of collection points for foodwaste needs to consider the likelyimpact on the surrounding area ofdegradable waste and a realisticassessment of the likely collectionfrequency. Organic waste from foodwhich is left uncovered for anysignificant time will quickly degradeand cause considerable nuisance bothin terms of odour and leachates as wellas attracting vectors and vermin. Thechoice of collection points for foodwaste must therefore be closely linkedwith choice of waste containers, routedesign and frequency appropriate tothe local area.

2.7.4 Separate collectionSeparated collection of sourceseparated recyclable materials can playan important role in efforts to increasethe level of waste that is reused. Suchapproaches reduce the level ofcontaminants in the recyclable fractionand so improve the value of the wasteand products derived from it, as well asreducing the costs of removingcontaminants during processing. Thisincreases the likely success of therecycling initiatives. Experience hasshown that it is far better to preventcontaminants entering the waste ratherthan trying to separate themafterwards, which often proves verycostly and is only partially effective

(Lardinois and Marchand, 1999).

It is common place for valuablerecyclables (e.g. plastics, glass, metals)to be bought directly from householdsor businesses by itinerant buyers or foradditional collection services to beprovided in exchange for access tovaluable materials in the waste. Suchactivities are frequently carried out bysmall informal enterprises andindividuals but also by public sectorworkers as a source of additionalincome.

Sound practices for collection ofseparated recyclable will often involvepromoting or supporting the extensionof such informal activities as theytypically provide lower costsalternatives to traditional collectionsystems. There are frequently strongreasons why the already overburdenedand under resourced municipal wastedepartment should not take on theaddition tasks of separated collectionand sale of recyclable materials wherethere are viable private sectoralternatives (UNEP, 1996).

The challenges with collection ofseparated organic material may bemore complex. Although it is commonpractice to remove non-organicmaterials of value (e.g. glass, plasticsor metals) from the waste stream, thesepractices do not by themselves ensurethat other potentially harmfulcontaminants do not get mixed withorganic wastes that could be recycled.Thus, additional measures to promoteseparation of organic waste may berequired if they are intended to bereused for composting, feed or otherpurposes. Such measures may bebased on source separation byhousehold or other waste generator orseparation during the collectionprocess. In practice large scale sourceseparation schemes have proveddifficult or costly to sustain where there

is little value to the users in separatingtheir wastes, and require continuouscampaigns to encourage the separationof desired material. Separation duringcollection by waste workers hasproved a more viable alternative insome settings, especially wherecollection workers are entitled to sellon some of the separated wastes.

The scale of the scheme may be animportant factor in sound practice inthe collection of separated organics.There are now an increasing number ofneighbourhood and community levelschemes for collection and reuse oforganic materials that demonstrate thepotential of smaller scale initiative toovercome some of the qualityproblems associated with largerschemes (Lardinois and Klundert,1994).

2.7.5 Transfer stationsThese are the places where waste istransferred from smaller collectionvehicles to larger ones to allow moreefficient transportation to treatment anddisposal facilities. The use of transferstations represents sound practicewhere primary collection vehicles arenot suited to transporting waste overlarger distance because they are eithertoo slow or too small. Larger vehiclesare able to carry greater volumes ofwaste and so reduce the fuel costs andtime of transportation. This combinedapproach is particularly relevant whenhand, pedal or animal drawn carts areused for primary collection.

A secondary transfer station may beappropriate where final disposal ortreatment facilities are at considerabledistance from where the waste isgenerated and the efficiency oftransporting the waste becomes moreimportant.

A transfer station also allows access tothe waste for pre-processing and



separation of recyclable materials.Such activities may be carried out bythe staff responsible for the transferstation or by waste pickers, either withor without the agreement of thoseoperating the site. Because of thesmaller scale, location and morecontrolled environment, transferstations offer safer and moreconvenient access waste than atmunicipal dumps.

There are several different designs fortransfer station but they should be:

•Appropriate to all vehicles which willbe using them.

•Sited so as to minimise their negativeimpact on the surrounding area.

•Allow access to the waste for pre-processing or separation ofrecyclables.

To be considered sound practice,transfer stations must be operated andadequately maintained as they willquickly deteriorate into uncontrolleddump sites if they are not.

2.8 Reuse and recycling of wasteOne of the areas of greatest differencein waste management betweendeveloping and transitional countriesand the highly industrialised nations isin people’s attitudes towards waste as aresource. In less affluent societieswaste is frequently regarded as avaluable resource and, as a result, thereare countless instances of ‘waste’ beingreused or recycled.The opportunities for reusing orrecycling waste depend on thecharacteristics of the specific wastestream and the demand for recycledmaterials. Separation and recycling ofmore valuable materials such as metals,paper, plastics and glass is common

place. Similarly, there are manyexamples of the use of organic wastesas animal feed or for application toland for cultivation. Much of thisrecycling is carried out by individualsand small enterprises in the informalsector. Under these conditions, wasteis an important resource and suchinformal recycling practices not onlyplay a vital role in the livelihoods ofmany of the poorest in society but alsoreduce the volume of waste to bedisposed of by the local authority.

In many cases, given the scale of thesolid waste problems and limitedpublic resources available, improvingthe level of waste reuse and recyclingis a logical response. In suchcircumstances, the objective andchallenges for the reuse or recycling orsolid waste are:

•Increasing the proportion of wastethat is reused or recycled.

•Improving existing practices in reuseand recycling in terms of managinghealth risks, limiting negative impactson the environment, improvinglivelihoods and other aspects.

•Building on existing recyclingpractices, especially in the informalsector and linking these to the formalwaste management system.

Sound practice in this area is greatlydependant on the type of waste andhow it will be used. The opportunitiesand challenges in diverting greaterquantities of non-organic materials aresubstantial different from those relatingto organic wastes. This is not simplydue to technical difference in theirhandling and processing but, moreimportantly, due to the inherent valueand demand for the different wastematerials themselves. While asignificant proportion of metals, glassand other materials are reclaimed and

recycled the proportion of organicmaterial which is reused is relativelysmall despite it representing by far themajority of the waste stream indeveloping and transitional countries.These differences create bothchallenges and opportunities.

2.8.1 Using organic wastePractices for reusing or recyclingorganic waste are particularlyimportant when considering how tomanage waste from the food supplyand distribution system. This is due tothe high organic content of the waste.Organic material represents between40 percent and 85 percent of waste indeveloping countries (Hoornweg &Thomas, 1999) and it is reasonable toassume that much of this organic wasteis associated with the supply,distribution and preparation of food.Accordingly, diverting greaterquantities of organic wastes representsperhaps the single greatest opportunityfor reducing the volume of municipalwaste needing to be disposed of.

Despite this potential, the history ofefforts to increase the level of organicwaste which is reused is littered withfailures. A typical example was theIndian government’s programme topromote large scale composting ofmunicipal solid waste in major citiesduring the 1970’s. Subsidies wereprovided to set-up 24 compostingplants and by 1975 around ten hadbeen started. All but one of theseplants subsequently closed down dueto a combination of technical andfinancial difficulties (Lardinois andMarchand, 1999).

One of the biggest challenges todiverting greater proportions of organicwaste is that the majority of organicwaste still enters the waste stream aspart of mixed waste. Efforts to usemixed wastes have all too frequentlyproved unsustainable due to technical

difficulties in making acceptable quality‘products’ from the waste and thefinancial problems that this creates inboth the costs of processing and thedemand for the ultimate waste‘products’.

The challenge is to develop sustainablepractices which allow organic waste tobe reused economically, making‘products’ for which there is a demandand using techniques which limit thenegative impacts on health and theenvironment.

Many lessons have been learnt fromprevious failures in this area and thereare now an ever increasing number ofsuccessful initiatives whichdemonstrate the viability of practicesand technologies for reusing organicwastes (Medina, 1997; Lardinois andKlundert, 1994). There are currentlynumerous different practices forreusing organic waste with schemes ofvarious sizes including both provenand emerging approaches. Thesepractices fall into four main categoriesaccording to how the wastes are used:

•As forage and feed for livestock andpoultry.

•For application to land for cultivation,either directly or after processing e.g.composting, vermiculture, anaerobicdigestion.

•As feedstock for other productionprocesses or activities, especiallyrelating to specific organic wastes andby-products e.g. rice husks asfeedstock for producing activatedcarbon for wastewater treatment.

•As feedstock for bio-energy or biogasproduction – see Section 2.9 below.

Public and waste workers healthconcerns are important throughoutSWM systems. However, they are of



particularly concern in the reuse oforganic waste especially where it isbeing used for the production of food.

2.8.2 Health issues in the use oforganic waste in foodproduction

Health risks are a primary concernwhere wastes are being used in theproduction of food. Those groupspotentially affected by such health risksinclude the end consumer, foodhandlers, those working with wastes aswell as the animals themselves.

The three main types of health riskfrom using waste in the production offood are:

Biological: from infections by disease-causing pathogenscontained in the waste.

Physical: injury from foreign objectsin the waste, such a glassor needles.

Chemical: ingestion or exposure toharmful chemicalcontaminants, such asheavy metals.

The potential health risks from using aparticular waste depend upon the levelof harmful contaminants andpathogens in the waste and the mannerin which the waste is used andhandled. Where waste is being used ortreated in residential areas there mayalso be additional public healthconsideration concerning its storage ortreatment, for example with thebreeding of vermin and flies aroundcomposting sites.

The level of contaminants is greatlyinfluenced by, inter alia, the source(s)of the waste, the method of collectionand the extent to which the originalproduce was exposed to potentiallyharmful chemicals in production and

processing. An additional factor is thelevel of human waste in the solid wastestream, which may be significantwhere sanitation is poor, such as in lowincome or informal settlements.

It is easiest to limit the health risks fromreusing wastes if contaminants areprevented from entering the wastestreams to be used rather than trying toremove contaminants after they arepresent. This means organic wastescollected through a reliable andcontrollable source separation scheme,which excludes most contaminants, ismore likely to be more suitable for usein food production than mixed waste.However, in many developingcountries organic kitchen wasterepresent such a large proportion ofhousehold waste that it is often felt thatsuch waste can be used without theneed for additional separationmeasures (UNEP, 1996). This may beappropriate at first, but will becomeless so as patterns of consumption andwaste production change, and a greaterproportion of non-organic materialenters the waste stream.

In practice, it is often preferable to usewaste from a single or limited numberof known sources that has beencollected in a controlled manor, withsome form of separation of the organicwastes either at source or during thecollection process.

Mixed municipal wastes from a widevariety of sources would ordinarilypose the greatest potential health risksfor reuse as it is difficult to know whatlevel of physical, chemical or biologicalcontaminants there are in the waste.Once contaminants have entered thewaste stream they are difficult andcostly to remove. Consequently, thepotential health risks from using mixedmunicipal waste in food productionmay be such that they negate anypotential benefits. As such given

current technologies andunderstanding, the use of mixedmunicipal wastes for food productioncannot be considered a sound practice.

2.8.3 Waste as forage or feedThe use of the organic fraction of solidwaste as feed or forage is widelypracticed at both a domestic andcommercial level throughout theworld. In many cases it is the onlywidespread and established use oforganic waste (Lardinois and Klundert,1994). Such practices includehousehold waste being used as feedfor domestically kept animals,restaurant and kitchen waste used aspig and poultry feed, fruit andvegetable market waste used as foragefor cattle as well as on-farm use of cropresidues. Other practices involve theprocessing of abattoir and fish wastefor use in commercial feed stuffs(Sánchez, 1998) and the use of poultrylitter as an additive for cattle feed.

Minimising potential health risks is oneof the most important considerationsfor the use of any waste as feed orforage. The suitability of usingdifferent wastes as feed depends on thenature of the waste, the type of animalsto which it is being fed and anytreatment process being used on thewaste.

As with the use of waste for foodproduction in general, fresh fruit andvegetable waste may be safely useddirectly whilst other wastes, particularlythose containing meat wastes orcontaminants, often require treatmentbefore they can be safely used as feed.Some wastes may not generally besuitable for use as feed despitecontaining a large organic fraction as isoften the case for mixed municipalwaste.

In reality, decisions concerning thefeeding of waste to animals are less

clear cut. Using waste as feed is oftenan important part of many people’slivelihood strategies. Hence, thepotential risks from using it must beweighed against the negative impactson livelihoods from not using it. Thussound practice should seek to:

•Minimize health risk to a levelconsistent with the broader livingconditions and health context.

•Promote practices which reducethese risks at source by using sourceseparated organic waste.

•Develop and enforce appropriateguidelines and standards for thetreatment and use of higher riskwastes.

Using waste for feed is only likely to beviable over the longer term where thewaste provides an economic andreliable source of nutrients and istherefore an attractive feed source tothose keeping animals. This is mostlikely to be the case wheretransportation and processing costs arelow, where there is a reliable andadequate supply and the waste is ofsufficiently reliable quality with fewcontaminants.

It is therefore not surprising that mostof the current examples of waste beingused as food are on farm re-use ofplant wastes, urban and peri-urbanfarmers using vegetable waste fromnearby markets and household wastebeing fed to yard animals. Where thereis more intensive farming of animalsthen the quantities of nutrients andfeed required may also contribute tothe attractiveness of using waste asfeed, for example in the use of canteenand restaurant waste as swill for pigsand poultry.

Given that SWM problems are greatestin urban areas, increasing the use of



organic waste in urban and peri-urbanagriculture is frequently cited as amajor win-win opportunity for bothSWM and food security and supply.Urban farmers should, therefore, be akey stakeholder group in tacklingwaste management in urban areas inmany developing and transitionalcountries. However, it is notable thaturban farmers are often poorlyrepresented as key stakeholders in thedevelopment of many municipal SWMstrategies.

The suitability of using waste fromindividual parts of the food supply anddistribution system is discussed in therelevant section below as well as themost appropriate treatments used fordifferent waste including rendering,ammonization, cooking and acidpreservation.

2.8.4 Application to land forcultivation

The application of organic waste toland is an age old practice and hasplayed an important role in thesustainability of many agriculturalsystems around the world. Manydifferent types of organic waste areapplied to land as soil conditioners andfertilisers.

Box 2.2 illustrates just a few of thegreat many practices in which organicsolid waste is used in the cultivation ofland. However, not all such activitiescan be considered sound practice. Asalready discussed, there are significantoccupational and public health risksfrom using untreated mixed municipalwaste for food production. Similarly,the direct application of raw abattoirwaste to fields can be expected to havecomparable health risks to the use ofuntreated human wastes. It has alsobeen found to inhibit the performanceof some crops. However, under certaincircumstance, for example with aridsoils, it may be appropriate to use

direct application of waste to the land(known as landspreading), if thehealth risks can be minimised, as theremay be additional benefits in terms ofgreater improvement in the soil andreduced processing costs. It is alsoimportant to consider the widerpotential livelihood implications oflandspreading of particular wastes, forexample with untreated abattoir wastewhich can impair the performance ofcrops.

The potential for recycling waste toland for cultivation depends on thewillingness of the farmer to accept andsupport the practice. This may beinfluenced by many outside factorsincluding not only the relative cost andbenefit of using waste compared toalternative fertilisers and soilamendments but also the attitude ofthe buyers of farm produce wastebeing used on the land. Farmers areunlikely to use waste if they fear thatthis will make their produce lessacceptable on the market.

As with other aspects of waste reuse,the objectives must be to promoteimproved and safer practices whilstencouraging the wider reuse of wastein this way, often in urban and peri-urban agriculture. Two practices inparticular have received muchattention as ways of safely increasingthe use of organic waste in agriculture,namely composting and anaerobicdigestion. However, neither of thesehas been able to dramatically increasethe level of organic waste reuse on awider scale. There is therefore also aneed to look at alternative, lower costmethods for diverting greater quantitiesof organic waste.

2.8.4.1CompostingComposting schemes have been triedwith mixed municipal wastes, source-separated organic waste as well asabattoir wastes. Initiatives to promote

composting have also ranged from theconstruction of very large scale,mechanised municipal plants toneighbourhood and household levelcomposting programmes.

Many of the large plants constructed indeveloping countries have not beensuccessful. They frequently relied onhigh levels of mechanisation andlocally inappropriate technologiesimported from industrialised countries.These plants were frequentlydeveloped without a clearunderstanding of the demand for thecompost produced, without adequatelocal technical expertise and resourcesand were financially unsustainable(Lardinois and Marchand, 2000).

As such, large centralised compostingscheme taking in mixed municipalwaste and relying on manual ormechanical separation cannot normallybe considered a sound practice inmany developing and transitionalcountries. Centralised schemes whichutilise source separated organic wasteand lower levels of mechanisation willstand a greater chance of success asthere is likely to be greater demand forthe better quality compost theyproduce and they should have lowerrunning cost. The use of mechanicalequipment has been estimated toincrease the cost per tonne by anaverage of three times compared tomanual processes. It has been foundthat composts made from organicwaste that has been separated frommixed domestic waste after collectiontends to contain between four and tentimes higher concentrations of toxiccontaminants than compost made fromsource separated organic material(Dulac, 2001). However, the difficultiesand additional costs of operating alarge scale source separation andcollection scheme for organic waste areconsiderable and may be beyond theresources and capacity of many local

authorities in developing andtransitional countries. They will alsoincrease the likely cost to the user ofthe compost produced.

In response to the failure of large,centralised schemes there has been agrowing interest in neighbourhood andhousehold composting programmes(Lardinois and Klundert, 1994; Hart andPluimers, 1996 and Dulac, 2001). Suchsmaller scale schemes are consideredto retain many of the advantages ofcomposting as a waste managementoption, but without the problemsencountered by centralised plants dueto:

•The use of locally appropriatetechnologies, typically with lowerlevels of mechanisation and morelabour intensive practices limit theoperating costs.

•Closer linkages between thegenerators of the waste and thecomposting schemes mean that it isoften easier to secure sourceseparated organic waste with fewer


• In Kano, Nigeria, the practice of usingcompost made from a combination ofmanure, household waste, streetsweepings and ash as a fertilizer hasbeen practiced by peri-urban farmersfor centuries (Lewcock, 1995).

• In Bangalore and Mumbai, India, severalprivate businesses produce compostfrom urban waste on a commercialscale (Lardinois and Marchand, 2000).

• In rural Gambia, animal stomach wastefrom small abattoirs is collected by localfarmers and spread on nearby fields(The Independent, Banjul 2002).

• In Calcutta, India, an estimate 20,000people farm on the city’s garbagedumps (Smit et al., 1996).

Box 2.2 The many uses of organic waste oncultivated land.


contaminants.

•The location of composting plants inneighbourhoods mean thattransportation cost will be lower forlocal users which will promotegreater demand.

However, it should be noted that onestudy of a small number of compostingschemes in Asia (Lardinois andMarchand, 1999) found that smallschemes had high costs per tonne ofcompost produced when all cost whereconsidered.

Regardless of the scale of thecomposting plant, an important aspectof successful schemes is a clearunderstanding of the likely demand forthe compost and support for thedevelopment of the market for theproduct. Furthermore, there needs tobe a reliable source of affordableorganic material which is not indemand for uses elsewhere, such as forfeed or forage.

finally, several studies have shown thatmost composting plants are notprofitable, whether large or small.Thus composting is most likely to beeconomically sustainable as a wastemanagement option, only when it iscompared to the full financial andenvironmental costs of alternativedisposal methods or artificial fertilisers.That is, where landfill is in controlledor sanitary landfills the greater cost ofcomposting may be marginal and morethan offset by the value of the compostto agriculture. Similarly, there is likelyto be greater demand for compostwhere the price of artificial fertilizersare not subsidised.

Composting remains an importantoption for increasing the proportion oforganic waste that is reused indeveloping and transitional countries,although in absolute terms its impact is

still relatively small compared to thevolume of organic waste produced.

2.8.4.2Anaerobic digestionAnaerobic digestion is a process fortreating waste, generating energy aswell producing compost. Although thecompost produced by anaerobicdigestion is often an important factor inits use, it is predominantly chosen as atreatment process or energy source. Assuch it is discussed in more detail inthe section on energy recovery fromwaste.

2.8.5 Waste as a feedstock for otheractivities

The materials which are widelyreclaimed from waste and recycledinclude metals, paper, plastics andglass. These materials are bought andsold through a network of itinerantbuyer and waste wholesalers and areultimately used by small and large scaleenterprises as an economic source ofraw materials for production. Theexistence of great numbers of MSE andlarger enterprises active in this areathroughout developing and transitionalcountries is testament to the economicviability of such practices.

Although it is less common for organicwaste to be used as a feedstock inproduction (other than in agriculture) itis by know means unheard of.However, the opportunities for such re-use are highly specific to the type ofwaste and the particular application.

Recycling waste for production orother activities will be mosteconomically viable where the waste isof a known and consistent compositionand quality. This is as true for organicmaterial as it is for non-organicmaterials like metal and paper.

Given the specific nature of suchactivities is likely that sound practicesfor waste authorities in this area will be

based on stimulating the activities ofexisting private sector enterprises (seeSection 2.4) and facilitating theidentification of economic uses ofspecific wastes.

One interesting idea which may beappropriate here is the use of wasteexchanges where industries, businessesand institutions can advertise theirwaste and potential uses can identifyappropriate source of materials. Theyare particularly appropriate to wastefor which there is not an establishedmarket. Waste exchanges have beenused successfully to promote the reuseof waste in industrialised countries formany years and there are a growingnumber of similar schemes indeveloping and transitional countriesfrom those introduced several yearsago in Manila, The Philippines,(Lachance, 1994) to the recentinitiatives in South Africa (DTI SouthAfrica, 2002).

2.9 Energy recovery from wasteMany of the so-called waste-to-energysystems provide not only a usefulsupply of renewable energy but arealso an effective treatment for thewaste, reducing the risk to theenvironment and public health.

There are three broad types ofapproach for converting waste toenergy:

1. Incineration of waste, with orwithout co-firing with other fuels.

2. Thermo-chemical conversion oforganic waste to produce a usableenergy source includingtechnologies such as gasificationand pyrolysis.

3. Bio-chemical conversion of organicwaste to produce biogas from

anaerobic digesters or landfill gasutilisation.

Many different designs of these threebroad approaches have beendeveloped in both industrialisedcountries as well as many countries inthe South. In some instances these areused primarily as cost effective wastetreatment processes whilst others aremotivated by the available energy. Thelevel of success of waste to energysystems has been as varied as thedesigns themselves.

As well as being appropriate to thelocal economic, technical andinstitutional context, there are severalspecific criteria which should be metbefore a specific design can beconsidered sound practice for aparticular application:

• the chosen technology and design areproven with the type of wasteavailable;

• there is a sufficient quantity andreliable supply of waste for theexpected life of the plant;

• there are not competing and moresuitable uses for the waste;

• the quantity and availability of theenergy produced is acceptable for theintended application; and

• there are no more suitable wastetreatment methods and energysources.

To date, the technologies which havebeen most widely applied to themanagement of waste are:

Incineration

This is a comparatively expensive andtechnically demanding means ofdisposing of solid waste. It reduces the



volume and weight of waste and alsokills bacteria and other pathogens. Assuch it is appropriate for the disposalof specific wastes such as medicalwaste or where land for landfill is veryscarce, such as on small island or inhighly urbanised areas (UNEP, 1996).As an economic energy source it isreliant on there being a relatively largefraction of combustible material in thewaste, as is found in higher incomecountries.

The cost and complexity of installingand operating incinerators, combinedwith the practical difficulties in burningwaste with a high organic content,means that incineration is rarely asound practice for either general wastedisposal or conversion of waste toenergy in developing countries.

Anaerobic digestion

Anaerobic digesters are currently usedthroughout the world to treat organicwaste and produce biogas. They areparticularly common in China andIndia and have been promoted assources of rural energy supply with anestimated six million units in place inthese countries alone. (Woods andHall, 1994 and Wheeler, 2000) Theyutilise a variety of different organicfeedstocks and produce biogas and anutrient rich sludge which is a goodfertiliser. Feedstocks can includeanimal and human wastes as well asagricultural residues, food processingwaste, abattoir waste and other organicmaterials.

The majority of smaller scalehousehold and community leveldigesters in India and China use animalor human waste as the primaryfeedstock, with smaller amounts offood and plant waste as a secondaryfeedstock.

In China, there are also a number of

successful examples of larger industrialscale digesters using both dilute andhigh-solid organic waste as feedstocks,including abattoir and food processingwastes (Ashworth, 1996). While inIndia, technologies have beendeveloped which utilise vegetablemarket waste as a feedstock (Kusum etal., 2001). Large scale digesters ofmixed solid waste have proved moredifficult to operate in practice, evenwith considerable pre-processing of thewaste to remove inert matters andreduce the particle size to aide mixing.However, there remains considerableinterest in developing this technologyon a large scale as shown by the recentproject to set-up a 5MW demonstrationwaste to energy MSW digester plant inLuknow, Uttar Pradesh (Bhaskar, 2000)and similar projects in Europe(Wheeler, 2000).

These experiences suggest thatanaerobic digesters may often be asound technical option when appliedon a smaller scale or to specificindustrial applications with provendesigns, a reliable access to ‘clean’organic wastes and there is a demandfor the energy produced. They are ofconsiderable interest in relation tomanaging waste from food supply anddistribution systems. However, giventhe current level of development oflarge scale MSW digesters these may beless appropriate in developingcountries.

Gasification

Gasifiers use heat to breakdown solidorganic material to produce acombustible gas, known as producergas. Gasifiers have been developed touse a variety of feedstocks, includingwastes such as rice husks and coconutshells as well as more conventionalfuels. There are a variety of designs forboth large and small applications.Small-scale gasifiers use relatively

simple and inexpensive technologyand can be readily constructed indeveloping countries by localworkshops and technicians (ITDG,2001). They have been in use for manyyears in countries such as China, India,Mali and the Philippines. They areevidently a sound practice for the smallscale management of particular wastes.

Large scale gasifiers are far lesscommon and appear to be more at theproving stage as there have been anumber of recent studies anddevelopment programmes seeking todevelop the technology for wider use(Woods and Hall, 1994).

2.10 DisposalAny waste which has not been recycledor diverted to other uses mustultimately be disposed of, andpreferably in a manner whichminimises the impact on theenvironment and public health.Landfills are by far the mostpredominant means of final disposalfor solid waste and also have thepotential to minimise the impact of thewaste. As a result, landfills are anessential part of SWM systems.

The quality of landfills in developingand transition countries varies greatly.Well planned and operated sanitarylandfills or controlled dumps representsound practice in disposing of a widerange of waste to locally appropriatestandards. However, poorly managedand unplanned landfills or opendumps damage both the environmentand people’s health and are not soundpractice.

There are many examples of wellmanaged landfills. However, in manyinstances in developing and transitionalcountries landfills are little more thanopen dumps, with few measures to

manage the potential impact on publichealth and the environment(Johannessen and Boyer, 1999).Furthermore, they frequently haveinsufficient capacity to cope with thevolume of waste directed to them,which regularly contains toxic orhazardous materials not suitable fordisposal at such sites.

The main priority in the vast majority ofdeveloping and transitional countries isto upgrade landfills from open dumpsto better controlled and managedfacilities. There is frequently anawareness of the need forimprovements but these are oftengiven a low priority by local decisionmakers. Two of the most pressingissues are the improved managementof leachates and landfill gases (Ibid.).Leachates pollute the localenvironment and water sources whilelandfill gases have been found to beparticularly damaging greenhousegases.

In more general terms, sound practicemust consider a range of institutionalas well as technical issues covering thefull life of the landfill facility includingsiting, design, operation and closure.The discussion of detailed technicaland management options for landfills isbeyond the scope of this paper.However, aspects of sound practice forlandfills in developing and transitionalcountries are dealt with extensively inthe literature. Practical guides areavailable for technical managers aswell as local decision makers andpolitician. For more detailedinformation refer to publications suchas Savage et al., (1998), Thurgood(1998) and Rushbrook & Pugh (1999).



2.11 ConclusionsThis chapter has looked at soundpractices for the range of activitiesfound in SWM systems in developingand transitional economies. Thepractices discussed include:

•Waste reduction measures to reducethe quantity and harmfulness ofwaste. In many cases the priority inreducing waste from food is to limitthe level of mixing of organic solidwastes with other waste or excessquantities of water. Excessive mixingof waste with water is a commonproblem in abattoirs, pig farming andfood processing facilities and greatlyincreases the difficulty of managingthe waste.

•Collection systems involve theselection of appropriate collectionvehicles, routes and collection points.It can also be suitable to consider thebenefits and limitations of separatecollection of different wastes toenable greater reuse and recycling.Effective collection relies on all aspectof the system being suited to the localconditions and the nature andquantities of waste to be collected.Many organic wastes from parts ofthe food supply and distributionsystem, such as market or fisherywaste, can be highly perishable andhave high moisture content, whichcreates additional demands on thecollection system compared todomestic waste.

•Reuse and recycling of organic andnon organic waste has the potentialto greatly reduce the volume of wasteto be disposed of by SWM systemsand provide livelihood opportunitiesfor many of the poorest in society.The very high organic content ofwaste from food means that much ofit has the potential to be reused orrecycled. Agriculture is likely to bethe biggest potential users of waste

from food, either as feed or forapplication to land. Whenever wasteis reused - especially in theproduction of food - health risks towaste workers, farmers, consumersand animals are a majorconsideration. Sound practices inimproving reuse and recyclinginclude increasing the quantity ofwaste reuse and, importantly, alsoimproving existing practices fromboth an environmental and healthperspective.

•Energy recovery from waste canrepresent a more productivealternative to disposal of waste inlandfills. There are a range oftechnologies for generating energyfrom different wastes such asanaerobic digestions, gasification andincineration. Anaerobic digestion isfrequently the most appropriate ofthese technologies to producingenergy from organic waste from food.It is a relative simple technology andhas been proven in many settings indeveloping and transitional countries.Other high-tech or capital intensivesystem such as incineration orgasification may not be well suited tothe nature of the waste nor the locallevel of technical, economic orinstitutional development in manydeveloping and transitional countries.

•Disposal of waste in a sanitarymanner is an essential part of anySWM system, although one which hasbeen given low priority in manytowns and cities in developing andtransitional countries. A great deal ofwaste is dumped in uncontrolled sitesor poorly designed and operatedofficial dumps and landfills. Thepriority for waste disposal in manycases is to upgrade existing dumps tobetter managed and controlledfacilities. Waste from foodcontributes to the production ofleachates and landfill gases from

dump sites and represents a majorfraction of most municipal waste.Improving the reuse of organic wastefrom food can therefore greatlyreduce the burden on disposalfacilities and compliment efforts toimprove the management of dumps.

As well as specific practices formanaging waste, this chapter has alsodiscussed some of the institutionalaspects which affect SWM systems. Asthe public sector often does not havethe capacity to provide adequate SWMservices on its own, the participation ofthe private sector is an importantaspect in tackling many current SWMproblems in cities in developing andtransitional countries. Private sectorinvolvement can range from large scaleformal privatisation of parts of theSWM system to the activities of microand small enterprises in collection andrecycling. The role and potential ofmicro and small enterprises is oftenunderestimated by local authorities butin many cases can greatly contribute toproviding effective, moderately pricedand sustainable SWM services.

As this chapter has illustrated, there area great number of different approachesto providing effective SWM. However,what works in one setting will notnecessarily work in another. Soundpractice is therefore highly situationspecific and technologies and practicesshould be chosen that are appropriateto the local social, economic, political,institutional and physical conditions.They must also represent anappropriate balance of effectiveness,efficiency, equity and sustainabilityrelevant to the local context.Particularly important in this regard indeveloping and transition countries isadequate recognition of the impact thatparticular SWM practices will have onthe livelihoods of the many poorpeople who rely on waste for theirsurvival. Consequently, indigenous

labour intensive technologies andpractices can often be moreappropriate than those imported fromthe very different condition in highlyindustrialised countries, for example inthe areas of primary collection, reuseand recycling of waste and the role ofthe micro and small enterprises in theSWM system.

Having considered the suitability ofparticular waste management practicesin developing and transitionalcountries, the next chapter looksspecifically at the implication of this formanaging waste from different parts ofthe food supply and distributionsystem in these countries.


Part 3: Waste in food supply and distribution systems • 49

Part 3

Waste infood supply anddistribution systems

3.1 IntroductionWaste is generated at every stage of theprocess of food production, processing,supply, distribution and consumption.Such food related wastes are a majorfraction of solid waste generated inboth rural and urban areas ofdeveloping and transitional countries.The wastes from the different stages ofthis process can vary considerably intheir composition and quantitiesdepending on how they are generatedand by whom. These differences affecthow the wastes can be mostappropriately managed.

This section reviews the issues andoptions for the management of waste inthe principal stages of the foodmanagement processes. The analysispresented below frequently refers backto the ideas already discussed on ISWMand the Waste Hierarchy as issues ofsolid waste management from theperspective of food supply anddistribution systems. These issues arebest seen in the context of the overallmanagement of solid waste.

3.2 Key elements of food supply anddistribution systems

Food supply and distribution systemsare complex webs of activitiesinvolving a multitude of actors. Theyspan the full range of activities frominitial production, processing andsupply of basic foods stuff, through thevarious routes of distributing food to

consumers and the final preparationand consumption of food.

The exact nature and organization offood supply and distribution systemsdiffers from country to country,between rural and urban areas as wellas across cultures and social groups.Food from different sources and ofdifferent types will follow differentpaths from production to finalconsumption within the food supplyand distribution system and will notnecessarily pass through each elementof the system in turn.

For the purposes of understanding themanagement of solid wastes withinfood supply and distribution systems, itis helpful to consider the key elementsmost commonly encountered. Thoseconsidered in this paper are:

Food production

Agriculture is a major sector of theeconomies of developing andtransitional countries. Food isproduced in rural areas as well as byperi-urban and urban farmers and canbe a survival or commercial activity.Although much food is used close towhere it is produced, the growingdemand for more and more food incities means that food is increasinglytransported into cities from furtheraway. Aquaculture and fisheries alsoplay an important part in supplyingfood in many countries; however theconsideration of specific waste issues

from these activities is beyond thescope of this paper.

Food assembly (Buyer’s Markets)

The process of food assembly, throughwhich produce from various smallscale producers in an area isaggregated for onward sale andtransportation, can occur through foodassembly markets or as the result ofdealers visiting individual producers.Assembly markets provide moreefficient, lower cost means of foodassembly and facilitate moretransparent linkages betweenproducers and traders, with greaterflow of information about marketprices. From a waste managementperspective this paper considersbuyer’s market alongside wholesaleand retail markets as they share manyof the same issues.

Food packaging

Produce may be packed and repackedseveral times before it reaches theconsumer. Packaging serves a varietyof functions from protecting theproduce during transportation,allowing easier handling, extending itslife as well as in marketing it toconsumers. Packaging materials are amajor fraction of solid waste associatedwith food supply and distributionsystems and tend to represent anincreasing proportion of total wastewith rising levels of prosperity andchanging patterns of consumption.Packaging activities typically take placealongside sorting or food processingactivities while the problems ofmanaging packaging waste occur laterwhere the produce is repacked orused. Accordingly, the issuesassociated with packaging waste arediscussed according to where theyoccur, e.g. food markets orhouseholds, rather than as an isolatedtopic.

Transport

Transporting food is a major activitywithin FSDS and can greatly affect theefficiency of the system, both betweenrural and urban areas and within urbanareas themselves. It can also influencethe levels of damaged or wastedproduce as there can be significantlosses during transportation if produceis moved long distance over poor roadswith little protection. This affects thenature of packaging required.However, although transport practicewill contribute to the level of wastage,the waste itself is ordinarily managed atits destination, be it a wholesalemarket, food processing plant, in thekitchen or elsewhere and so themanagement of waste fromtransporting food is not discussedseparately in this paper.

Food processing

Food may be processed several timesbetween when it is harvested, or killed,to when it is consumed. In principle,processing can happen immediatelyafter it is harvested, in specialist foodprocessing facilities, in restaurant ordomestic kitchen. For the purposes ofthis paper, food processing is taken asthe activities that take place withinspecialist food processing facilities.The waste from food processing inrestaurant or kitchens is discussedunder the relevant sections.

Food markets

Markets provide a crucial link betweenproducers and consumers. Wholesalemarkets and rural buyers markets areoften dedicated to food produce whilemany formal and spontaneous retailmarkets include a wide variety ofgoods as well as food. Theconcentration of food which passesthrough markets means that they havea major role in food security and food



safety. They also produce largequantities of organic and packagingwaste which has to be taken intoaccount.

Canteens, kitchen and restaurants

Food prepared and made availablethrough various institutionalestablishments is a major source ofaffordable nutrition for many people indeveloping and transitional countries.Such establishment included kitchensin hotels, hospitals and otherinstitutions and many small restaurantsand street food stalls. The wastesgenerated from these establishmentscan be major public health problems ifnot adequately managed, especially asmany are located in densely populatedurban areas.

Household food

Whether food is bought from localmarkets, produced by the householdthemselves or obtained elsewhere,domestic food consumption is a centralpart of the lives of most people. Foodrelated organic waste also represent themajority of domestic solid waste inmost developing and transitionalcountries. The challenges of managingfood related waste from household istherefore closely associated withmunicipal waste management as awhole.

The common issues and options formanaging solid waste from each ofthese stages are discussed in detailbelow.

3.3 Waste from agricultureAgricultural waste is composed almostexclusively of organic material, themain constituents being crop residues(e.g. straw and leaves from cerealcrops) and animal waste (e.g. cattle

manure, pig slurry and poultry litter).Consequently, it has considerablepotential as a productive resource be itas feed, fertiliser, a source of fuel or afeedstock for other productionprocesses.The use of agricultural residues and by-products is an ages old practice andmuch agricultural waste is alreadyutilised in one form or another indeveloping and transitional countries.Accordingly, agricultural waste is notalways a problem, especially in lessintensive and subsistence farmingsystems, so called Low External InputAgriculture (LEIA). These farmingpractices already attach a relativelyhigh value to waste as a resource andreuse a significant proportion of it, asillustrated by the example in Box 3.1.

The prevalence of farming practiceswhich utilise agricultural wastesuggests that they have clear economicor livelihood benefits. There is,however, little concrete evidence as tothe scale of these benefits in differentsettings.

The management of waste generatedby more intensive commercial farming,so called High External InputAgriculture (HEIA), can be moreproblematic. Such systems typicallygenerate far larger quantities of wastewithin more concentrated areas whilstat the same time placing a lower valueon it as a resource compared to LEIA.Consequently, the emphasis in HEIA isoften on waste treatment and disposalrather than reuse.

In both cases, the onus is on the farmerto provide adequate management andtreatment of the wastes they produce.The primary role of the local authorityis in the setting and enforcement oflocally appropriate standards for themanagement of agricultural wastes,often linked to education and/ortechnical support in adopting

improved practices. By placing theresponsibility for waste managementwith the farmers, there is a danger thatin certain cases the requirement tomeet inappropriately high wastemanagement standards will, in effect,transfer the burden and costs ofimproved environmental managementto poor local farmers. To avoid thenegative social impacts of suchsituations, waste managementstandards for agricultural waste mustreflect the local social and economicconditions of the farmers as well aswider environmental considerations.

The different fractions of agriculturalwaste include plant residues, animalmanure, poultry litter and swine waste.These different fractions tend not to bemixed at source unless specificallydesired. As a result they can be usedin ways which are most suitable to theparticular types of waste.

3.3.1 Crop residuesCrop residues are the parts of the plantwhich are not harvested as part of theprimary crop, such as cereal straws orleaves. They vary greatly in theirchemical and physical make-up andconsequently differ in their potential asfeed, fuel or fertiliser.

As feed, different crop residues havedifferent value to different animals. Forexample ensiled rice straw is a valuablefeed for cattle and other ruminants, butis of lesser value to pigs or poultry.Furthermore, some crop residues areless suitable as feeds as they maycontain toxic or anti-nutritivecompounds, pathogens or mycotoxins.The presence of these substances caninhibit the performance of animals fedon them as well as creating moreserious health risks to both the animalsand people (Machin, 2001) Simpletreatments, such as ensiling or cooking,can enhance the value of some cropresidues as feeds by enriching the


‘Waste’ recycling on ‘Pozo Verde’ farm,ColombiaIn recent years the Pozo Verde farm in theCauca Valley Province, Colombia, hassuccessfully introduced an integratedfarming system in place of previousintensive farming methods.‘Waste’ on the farm is not wasted but usedin a variety of ways:• Cattle, buffalo and pig waste. The solid

fraction of waste is used to cultivateworms for their compost. About 265tonnes per annum of manure producesaround160 tonnes of compost, half ofwhich is used as fertiliser on the foddercrops and pasture land for the animalsand the other half is sold on the localmarket. The liquid fraction used inanaerobic digesters to produce energyfor heating piglets from birth to 60days, feed processing and for generalelectrical power on the farm. Treatedwastewater is used to grow waterhyacinths to be used for fertiliser andirrigate other crops.

• Poultry litter. All 600 tonnes of litterproduced each year is used in forageproduction and feed for the cattle andbuffalo.

• Foliage. All foliage produced is usedeither as forage or in fertiliserproduction.

The introduction of a more integratedsystem of farming and ‘waste’ reuse hasremoved the need for the farm to usechemical fertilisers and other externalinputs such as feeds and fuel. At the sametime, the system of recycling wasteprovides effective waste treatmentwithout damaging the environment orpeople’s health. The integrated farmingsystem also creates more employment andlivelihood opportunities than the previousintensive methods.

Source: Chará et al. (2000)

Box 3.1 Reusing agricultural waste on anintegrated farm.


nutritional value, improvingdigestibility and acceptability, killingpathogens or deactivating anti-nutritivecompounds.

As fuel, crop residues are currentlyused as a feedstock in anaerobicdigestion, gasification as well as in themanufacture of briquettes. Residuesare frequently attractive alternatives tofossil fuels or wood, although seasonalvariations in availability means thatthey are most often used in conjunctionwith other energy sources. Thesetechnologies have been proven invarious developing countries usinglocal artisans and materials in theirconstruction (ITDG, 2001).

As fertiliser or soil conditioner, cropresidues are typically left in the field,ploughed back into the soil or burntwith the ashes reapplied to the soil.On their own crop residues can add tothe organic material in the soilalthough generally they have onlymodest value as a source of nutrients.As a result, this often represents theleast productive use of crop residues.

In addition, some crop residues havesignificant potential as feedstock forother more specialised non-farm basedprocesses, from the production ofboard and papers to being a source ofactivated carbon for removal of heavymetals and organic pollutants fromindustrial wastewaters.

There are evidently many productiveuses for different crop residues and theobjective must be to identify anddevelop those which are of greatestbenefit to the livelihoods of the farmerand local community.

3.3.2 Animal waste and manureThe potential uses and problemsassociate with animal waste depend onthe types of animals and how the wasteis handled. Although there are certain

health risks associated with theirhandling and use, animal waste can bea valuable resources and a source ofnutrients and energy.

Cattle manure and manure from otherruminants is rarely considered aproblem unless large numbers ofanimals are kept in concentrated areasaway from agricultural land. (SeeSection 3.3.4). Cattle manure iscommonly used as a fertiliser, for theproduction of biogas from anaerobicdigestion or in composting orvermiculture.

Poultry waste including litter anddroppings is also considered a valuableresource, especially as an ingredient infeed for ruminants and fish. Inaddition, poultry manure is valued as afertiliser in many places.Consequently, it is managed as aresource and is not normallyconsidered a problem in mostsituations in developing andtransitional countries (Sanchez, 1998).

Swine waste is one of the mostproblematic agricultural wastes and isoften a major source of pollution ofwater sources. The waste from thepigs by itself is no more harmful thanthat from cattle or poultry, however, itis typically mixed with large quantitiesof water during the cleaning of pensand this greatly increases the difficultyof treating the waste. One productiveuse for such waste is as a feedstock foranaerobic digesters, as described inBox 3.2. Another important approachto managing these wastes is the use ofbuilding and pen designs whichminimise the need for mixing wastewith large quantities of water.

Animal wastes are an important andvaluable resource if economicallyviable methods can be found forhandling and reusing them. The extentto which this is possible is largely

dependent on the level of intensity offarming, with the more dispersed andmixed farming systems having greateropportunity for reusing animal wastes.

3.3.3 Waste in small scale farmingWithin Low External Input Agriculture(LEIA) systems and small scale farms,the use of waste is typically anestablished element of livelihoodstrategies and takes place at the farmlevel. However, poor wastemanagement even on a small farm cancause environmental and public healthrisks.

When considered in relation to thewaste management options of theWaste Hierarchy (1.4.1), there may belittle benefit or opportunity to reducethe quantities of waste where waste isre-used within more integrated farmingsystems. Improving the utilisation ofagricultural waste is therefore a moreappropriate focus. The two biggestchallenges in reusing agricultural wastein LEIA are:

1. Ensuring that current practice forusing waste do not create undueenvironmental or health risks.

Even in LEIA, poorly managed wastecan damage the environment andcause potential health problems. Acommonly encountered problem iswith poorly contained leachates fromsilage and manure, as well as run-offfrom fields that have had untreatedwaste applied. These wastewatersfrequently enter nearby streams andrivers and their high oxygen demand isparticularly damaging to the aquaticenvironment, and contaminates thewater for other users.

Accordingly, the priority is tounderstand how effective currentpractices are in treating waste, andthen working with farmers to improveon existing waste management

practices.

2. Stimulating the better utilisation ofwastes which are currently eitherunder-utilized or not used at all.

Although a lot of animal wastes andcrop residues are already used, theyare not always used in productiveways. Furthermore, some wastes arebarely utilised at all in certain farmingsystems. For example, crop residuessuch as stems and leaves from maize,sorghum and millet are traditionally leftin the field in many parts of Africa,while there are shortages of animalfeed elsewhere.

As such, there is an opportunity toimprove the benefit to farmers’livelihoods through better utilisation ofwaste. (See Box 3.3). However, beforeimproved practices will be adoptedthere must be an acceptance on thepart of the farmers of the value of theclaimed benefits, supported by relevanttechnical know-how and resources.

3.3.4 Waste in large scale farmingFor High External Input Agriculture(HEIA) and more intensive farmingpractices, the practical problems ofwaste management are significantlydifferent from those in small scaleagriculture, even if in essence theobjectives are likely to be the same(namely to ensure environmentallysound waste management and betterutilisation of wastes). The


Animal waste can be an important fuelIn Cambodia, anaerobic digesters suppliedwith the manure from at least three cowsor eight pigs have been shown to produceenough gas to replace approximately 75%of the fuel wood normally used by a familyof six people.

Source: Schiere & Hoek (2000

Box 3.2 The potential of animal waste as asource of fuel.


characteristics of HEIA which influencethe management of its waste are:

•An emphasis on the quality andconsistency of produce to maximiseits value when sold on the market,rather than utilising availableresources.

•Large quantities of waste generatedwithin a comparatively small area,often separated from agricultural landwhere feed is produced and wastecan be reused.

•Farming practices which favourcommercially produced feeds andfertilisers for consistency of quality,reliability and ease of use.

•Tendency to specialise in eitherlivestock or arable production, whichgreatly reduces the opportunities forreusing waste in an integratedfarming system.

As a consequence, animal wastes andcrop residues typically confer littlevalue as a resource and theirmanagement and treatment is seen as anecessary cost of the productionprocess to be minimised whereverpossible. This negative, ‘cost’ basedperspective of waste management doesnot naturally incline generators toemploy more effective but often morecostly waste management practices.

The large quantities of farm wastesgenerated in concentrated areas withlimited opportunities for on-site reusemeans that there are many similaritiesat an organizational level between themanagement of waste from HEIA andmanaging solid waste from other largeinstitutions and industries.

Although larger farms are likely to havegreater investment potential than smallscale farms, practices to improve theutilisation of waste will only beadopted if they are commercially viable

1. Ensiling crop residues for use as feed forruminants.

Treating crop residues such as straw from rice,maize, millet or wheat with urea, i.e. ensiling,has the effect of increasing digestibility(often by 5-10%):• Increasing the nitrogen content of the

straw (to approx. 1% of dry matter).• Increasing acceptability and voluntary

intake of the treated straw as comparedto untreated straw (usually by 25-50%) ona free choice basis.

The benefits to the farmer include:• reduced need for other feeds and

supplements, so reducing costs andpressure on the environment;

• increased performance of animalscompared to untreated crop residues;

• increased quantity of manure, so helpingmaintain soil fertility

(Preston, 1995)

2. Anaerobic digestion of animal waste andunused crop residues.

Dried manure is often stored and burnt asfuel. This may be a cheap and accessiblesubstitute for more conventional fuels, butthe energy recovery is low and much of thenutritive value is lost.Elsewhere, other crop residues and farmwastes are ploughed back into the field orburnt and the ashes reapplied to the land. Thisdoes not exploit the potential for recoveringenergy from these wastes.Both animal waste and crop residues aresuitable feedstocks for anaerobic digesters. Ifused in anaerobic digestion these wasteswould, in contrast, provide: • a more efficient source of energy;• cleaner and more usable fuel; and• better quality fertiliser from the digester

sludge.

Box 3.3 Improving the utilisation of agricultural waste.

or they are required to do so byregulators. There is therefore a role forgovernment in supportingdemonstration programmes of specifictechnologies or changes in farmingpractice while, at the same time,enforcing locally appropriate standardsfor the management and treatment ofagricultural wastes.

3.3.5 Waste from urban and peri-urban agriculture

Urban and peri-urban agriculture is anestablished practice in manydeveloping countries. Such practicescan range from subsistence levelsurvival strategies for low-incomehouseholds, middle-income homegardeners to small commercialenterprises seeking an income. Themajority of urban agriculture falls intothe first two categories, often withincreasing levels of commercial activityin peri-urban areas (Hart and Pluimers,1996).

Although some of the largercommercial enterprise may fall into thecategory of HEIA the vast majority ofurban and peri-urban agriculture istypical of LEIA, seeking to reuse wastesas much as possible and reducing theneed for external resources.

With urban and peri-urban agriculturefrequently taking place on small plotsin residential and other built up areas itis all the more important that wastes,especially from animals, are managedproperly. The lack of available land onwhich to use animal waste can be aparticular problem with livestockrearing in urban areas. Failures tomanage these wastes results in greaterpublic health risks than in more ruralsettings. Concerns about the publichealth risk from keeping animals inurban areas has sometimes led to acomplete ban by local authorities, aswas the case with the banning of pigrearing in Singapore during the 1980s

(Furedy and Chowdhury, 1996).

Waste management for largercommercial farms in peri-urban areasshould be dealt with in the same wayas for other HEIA enterprises. Forsmaller scale and survival level urbanagriculture, the focus should be onimproving public awareness of theproblems of unsanitary conditions inurban agriculture and promoting theuse of practices such as small scalecomposting which reduce the potentialhealth and environmental risks fromthe waste. There is also likely to be arole for effective regulations andguidelines on urban agriculture,although the practicalities ofenforcement for the numerous smallurban farmers may be a problem. Indeveloping locally appropriate policiesit must be recognised that urban andperi-urban agriculture also plays animportant role in using other organicwastes and are often an importantlivelihood strategy, especially for thepoor. Waste management standards forurban agriculture should thereforeallow for local social conditions as wellas environment and public healthrequirements.

3.3.6 Constraints on the betterutilisation of agricultural waste

Despite the considerable advantages ofthe better utilisation of agriculturalwaste on farms, many of thesepractices and technologies have hadrelatively modest take-up rates on awider scale in developing andtransitional countries.

Decisions as to whether or not to adoptnew practices or technologies will belargely based on the perceived impacton the livelihoods of the smaller andsubsistence farmers and on thecommercial performance of largefarms. There are, however, severalpotential constraints on the betterutilisation of agricultural waste for a



particular situation:

Location of users and generators As notall agricultural wastes are used on thefarm where they are produced, the costof transportation can be a significantpart of the cost of using waste. Thus,wastes are most economical when usedlocally. Ultimately, this may affect thepotential economic uses for the wastes.

Availability of waste Farmers’livelihoods are reliant on being able tohave access to sufficient resourceswhen they need them be it in the formof animal feed, fertilisers or power.The seasonal variations in theavailability and composition of manyagricultural waste means that thesupply of resources derived from themwill not always meet the demand. Thisrequires that measures be taken tomeet the resource gap, typically byeither increased storage or use ofalternative resources in parallel tothose available from waste. This isequally true when waste is used asanimal feed as it is when it is used toprovide fuel. The need to be able touse alternative resources in parallel tothose from waste will inevitably add tothe cost of using wastes.

Affordability of changes Although manyof these practices and technologies arewell proven and feature relativelysimple and locally producibletechnologies, the cost of the initialinvestment is often a major barrier.This is especially true for many smallscale and subsistence farms. Forexample, the cost a conventionalIndian design fixed dome anaerobicdigester is estimated at approximatelyUS$500 for a family scale unit (Preston,1995). An investment of this scale islikely to be prohibitive for many smalland subsistence farmers, even if theyrecognise the potential benefits.Changes in the design to exploit moreaffordable materials can dramatically

alter the cost and therefore thepotential impact of such technologies,with low cost digesters now beingpromoted at less than US$50 per familyunit (Ibid.).

Understanding the benefits Any newtechnologies or practices must be seento benefit the livelihoods of the farmerin terms of improved performance oflivestock or crops or the value of theenergy produced. Different agriculturalwastes have different potential benefitsas animal feed, feedstock for anaerobicdigester or other uses. It is importantthat meaningful information isavailable in a form that is accessibleand relevant to the farmers, whichillustrates the realistic potential of theactual waste available. Without suchinformation farmers will not be able tomake informed decisions as to whichapproaches will be of most value totheir own livelihoods. Pilot projectsand demonstration programmes arefrequently an essential part ofpromoting and proving new wastemanagement technologies or practicesfor a particular setting.

3.4 Waste from food processingFood processing in developing andtransitional countries takes place onthe farm, in the neighbourhood andvillage as well as on an industrial scaleat the factory level. A great variety ofactivities fall within the foodprocessing sector. These range fromthe initial processing of raw crops intobasic food stuffs and ingredients to theproduction of finished foods ready forlater consumption. Those involved infood processing include micro andsmall enterprises, for which foodprocessing is an important part of theirlivelihoods, farmers wanting toincrease the value of their raw produceas well as large commercialagrobusiness enterprises. Examples of

activities include:

•Sorting, trimming and washing offruit and vegetables.

•Milling of rice and grains.

•Refining of sugarcane.

•Brewing

•Extraction of juices from fruits.

•Processing of meat products.

By the nature of the activities involved,the vast majority of solid wastegenerated by food processingenterprises is organic. However, wastefrom different food processingenterprises can vary greatly in bothcomposition and quantity. The typesof solid waste materials that areassociated with food processinginclude constituents such as discardedfruit and vegetable peel, seeds, leaves,pulps, spoiled and damaged produce,meat trimmings and fat, spent grainsand crop wastes such as bagasse fromcane sugar. Abattoir wastes areparticularly problematic, and thechallenges of managing them in anenvironmentally sustainable mannerare discussed separately in Section 3.5.

In terms of the characteristics of foodprocessing wastes, some fractions areraw whilst others will have undergonesome form of processing or cooking.Certain food processing practices canproduce wastes with particularly highlevels of certain chemicals such as salt,or those that are highly acidic oralkaline. It is also not uncommon forthe solid waste fraction to be mixedwith considerable quantities of wateras a result of the processes used. Infact, a great deal of food processingwaste, especially in commercial plants,can be considered to be liquid wastewith a high solid content. Techniques

for settling, dewatering or dryingwastes to separate the solid and liquidfractions are often an importantpreliminary step in managing thesewastes, but the specialised treatmentsrequired of these wastewaters isbeyond the scope of this paper.

In principle, the options describedunder the Waste Hierarchy can beapplied to waste from food processing,although the issues concerning healthand the wider context for wastemanagement are also relevant here.Consider:

•Reducing the volume andharmfulness of waste through cleanerproduction will reduce the burden ofwaste management, e.g. by reducingthe unnecessary mixing of solid foodrelated waste with water or avoidingthe use of potentially harmfulchemicals during processing.

•Reusing waste and by-products asingredients in the production of otherfoods is potentially the most valuableway of using the waste, although it isonly likely to be possible for a limitednumber of by-products and wherethere is sufficient local demand.

•Using waste as feed for animals,either directly or after furtherprocessing (such as cooking orfermentation) is often an importantmeans of managing food processingwastes. A greater range of foodprocessing wastes can be used in thisway than in producing human foods,but not all food processing wastes aresuitable for stock feed from anutritional or health perspective.Further more, to be economical, thereneeds to be sufficient demand closeto where the waste is generated tolimit transportation costs and to allowwastes to be used before they beginto perish.



•Using wastes as a feedstock in otherproduction process is sometimes apractical waste management option.Such applications include the use offibrous waste in paper production,and other plant waste in theproduction of activated carbon forwastewater treatment. Theseapplications are specific to theproduction process being used and,although food processing waste maybe technically suitable, they may notalways be economically viable due tothe level of pre-processing requiredor the availability of cheaper or betterquality alternatives.

•Recovering energy from foodprocessing wastes through directcombustion, anaerobic digestion orgasification has been practiced formany years by food processingindustries. It has been mostcommonly used in industrial levelplants as an economical energysupply for the production process. Ithas the advantage that the time ofyear when energy is available fromwaste corresponds to the level ofproduction and therefore demand forenergy. One of the most wellestablished examples is the use ofbagasse for energy production in thesugar processing industry.

•Application of food processingwastes to land is also not anuncommon waste managementpractice. Sometimes the wastes arecomposted or used in vermiculturebefore the organic material is appliedto land, but raw and partiallydecomposed wastes and sludge arealso used.

The fact that most organic waste fromfood processing is not mixed with non-organic contaminants when it isinitially generated and that it has goodnutrient levels means that is hasconsiderable potential for reuse.

However, if food processing wastecannot be diverted to other uses and isdisposed of via landfilling then its highorganic content and moisture levelscan make it problematic. This islargely due to it producing largequantities of environmentallydamaging leachates that have highoxygen demands as well as significantlevels of methane (a major greenhousegas) during decomposition.

Consequently, it is preferable for wastemanagement efforts in relation to foodprocessing to focus on diverting asmuch organic waste as possible toother uses.

Although in practice there arenumerous potential uses for foodprocessing waste, the volume of wastewhich it is possible to divert throughmany of them is relatively modest. Thepotential for waste managementoptions will be correspondingly limitedto specific situations. As aconsequence, although it is laudable toencourage these different uses,agricultural uses are likely to be thepredominant consumer of foodprocessing wastes and therefore mostwidely applicable as an alternativewaste management strategy tolandfilling. Accordingly, local farmersshould be important stakeholders indeveloping waste managementstrategies for food processingindustries.

3.4.1 Small scale food processingSmall scale food processing enterprisesplay a vital role in the food supply anddistribution systems. They contributesignificantly to both the foodrequirements of the community andthe livelihoods of those involved. Suchsmall scale enterprises are frequentlyfelt to better meet local needs ratherthan large centralised plants which canbe seen to be inaccessible, expensiveand unhygienic.

When processing activities take placeon a small scale at farm, village orneighbourhood level, waste isgenerated in smaller quantities over amore dispersed area. As a result, thereis likely to be greater potential forreusing waste in the local area,particularly if the processing activity islocated near to rural or urbanagriculture. In this respect, thesituation is similar to that for LowExternal Input Agriculture describedearlier.

Small scale food processing enterprisesmay sometimes use outdated practicesand equipment which can beinefficient, environmentally damagingor risky for the health of workers. Asa result it is often beneficial to supportefforts to improve on existing practicesand encourage the adoption of locallyappropriate but improved technologieswhich may reduce waste. Communitybased organizations can play animportant role in this by helping toreach the multitude of individualenterprises. Stimulating andsupporting the development ofassociations, trade bodies orcooperatives can also be a usefulstrategy in working with small andmicro enterprises in the food sector.

Small food processing enterprises maylack the scale and resources to invest inequipment needed to recover a greaterproportion of by-products themselves,while their wastes will only be used byother enterprises where these existlocally and where the waste from aparticular food processing activity iswell suited as a feedstock. Similarly,although proven technologies exist forsmall scale digesters which would betechnically suitable for use with a rangeof food processing wastes, many smallfood processing enterprises may nothave the resources to provide for theinvestment required or do not perceivesuch technologies to be of sufficient

benefit to their livelihoods.Consequently, agricultural uses arelikely to be the most commonlyappropriate means of diverting wastes.

When waste is not reused directly bythe generators, networks need to existbetween generators and waste users.In most case this is between the smallscale food processing enterprises andlocal farmers. As with other recyclingof waste, this will only be sustainable ifit is of benefit to the livelihoods of bothgenerators and users. Although somepayment may be made in eitherdirection, the benefits do notnecessarily have to be financial, forexample a small brewery may valuethe regular removal of its spent hopsand yeast by local farmers as a cheapand effective means of disposal, whilethe farmers see these as an economicaland locally available feed for theirlivestock.

For the waste users, the quality andconsistency of the waste as well asvariation in availability are likely to beimportant considerations. By havingnetworks which link the user directlyto the generator, it is easier to managethese issues in a manner that meets theneeds of both generators and users.

Although it is conceivable for wastefrom food processing enterprises to becollected and distributed for reusethrough a centrally run scheme, thiswould have a number of drawbacks.Such centrally run schemes could beexpected to:

•de-link waste users from generatorswhich means that quality andconsistency of waste are moredifficult to control;

•encounter administrative difficultiesin operating the separate collectionand central marketing of waste, asdemonstrated by experiences with



large scale source separation schemes(see Section 2.7.4);

• increase the costs of waste throughhigher transportation costs; and

•reduce the financial and institutionalsustainability of reusing the waste.

Consequently it is preferable for localauthorities responsible for wastemanagement to promote and supportthe development of networks of wastegenerators and users rather than toestablish centrally run separatecollection schemes for food processingwaste.

One of the biggest challenges indeveloping greater reuse of waste fromsmall scale food processing enterprisesis that there are numerous small units,many of which may not be officiallyregistered. When food processingtakes place on a small scale, it may alsobe difficult to distinguish it from otherhousehold or business activities, andthe waste may be mixed with generalmunicipal wastes. Thus, an importantstep in improving the management offood processing waste from smallenterprises is to develop anunderstanding of who they are andwhere they are based, as well as howmuch and what type of waste theygenerate.

Where large numbers of small foodprocessing enterprises are locatedwithin a particular location, many ofthe problems of waste management aresimilar to those for larger industrialfood processing plants, namely that thequantity of waste generated in an areamay outweigh local demand. Similarproblems will be encountered wherefood processing activities are locatednear to other food based enterprisessuch as food stalls, restaurants ormarkets.

When this is the case, the focus needsto shift to larger, area-wide systemslinking waste generators and users, iflarge quantities of organic waste arenot end up being disposed of throughthe mainstream SWM system. As withother practices for reusing waste, thefocus should be on limiting the cost ofthe waste whilst providing appropriatemanagement of the health andenvironmental risks.

As already mentioned, a useful strategyin delivering improvements in thesmall and micro enterprise sector canbe to support the development ofassociations or co-operatives. Suchorganizations can have many benefitsboth to those enterprises directlyinvolved and for those hoping to workwith them. They can be importantmechanisms for sharing knowledgeand understanding of good practices,they provide for collective action andcan even result in investment in sharedequipment or resources which wouldotherwise be unobtainable on anindividual basis. They can also providethe mechanisms for small scaleenterprises to represent their concernsand needs in decision makingprocesses.

3.4.2 Large scale food processingAlthough large food processing plantsmay have greater resources andopportunities to invest in more efficientprocesses, the scale of their activitiesmeans that they produce significantquantities of organic waste inconcentrated locations. Consequently,there may be limited scope for reusingmuch of their waste in the immediatearea. This is especially so if foodprocessing plants are located in urbanareas away from agricultural land. Asis the case with intensive livestockfarming, waste management from foodprocessing plants is likely to befocussed on finding the most costeffective way of disposing of the waste

rather than exploiting it as a resource.

Under these conditions, wastemanagement becomes a cost to thebusiness with the incentive for theenterprise to minimise the costs ofwaste disposal. Often the lowest costoptions, such as disposal through themunicipal waste system or opendumping, are unsound from anenvironmental, technical and socialperspective. Adequate enforcement ofappropriate waste managementstandards and regulations arefrequently an essential tool in limitingsuch practices.

Wherever possible, options should beexplored for promoting the reductionof waste produced as well as divertingwaste to other uses.

Promoting cleaner productionprocesses that reduce the quantity andharmfulness of wastes are anappropriate waste management optionfor food processing plants. Althoughthis may deliver significant benefits toboth the enterprise itself and to thewaste management system over thelonger term, it is a strategy which hasso far received relatively little attentionin most developing and transitionalcountries. This may be due to the factthat for established processingenterprises, it is often perceived thatsignificant investments are required tomove to cleaner production practices.This is not always the case as there areoften many opportunities to reducewaste from simple changes inpractices. Furthermore, the periodicreplacement of equipment which ispart of the ongoing operation of foodprocessing enterprises presentsadditional opportunities to adoptcleaner production processes.Consequently, increasing theawareness of the benefits of cleanerproduction is a valuable option to beconsidered within an integrated waste

management strategy, and one that islikely to deliver increasing benefitsover the medium to long term. From asolid waste management perspective,the priorities for cleaner production infood processing often focus onincreasing the recovery and use of by-products as well as separating differentwastes to facilitate better wastemanagement, especially reducing themixing of solid and liquid wastes.

A practice for on-site reuse andtreatment of waste which is receivingincreasing attention in the food anddrinks processing industries isanaerobic digestion. Often, one of theprimary attractions of this has been asa cost effective method for treatingindustrial effluent to local standards.However, simple and effective designshave now been developed for usinghigh solid liquid wastes and other solidwaste materials. In addition to thevalue as a waste treatment, the energyproduced can be used in theprocessing plant either directly for heator for generating electricity to powerequipment. The sludge produced fromanaerobic digester may be moreattractive to farmers as a soilamendment that the raw wastes, as ithas better value as a fertiliser and issafer and easier to handle. However,high moisture content means thattransportation costs can be high if notused locally.

Although the quantities of wastegenerated may mean that there will notnecessarily be scope to reuse all of thewaste generated, the large quantitiesand more consistent composition ofwaste generated in each locationmeans that it can be an economicallyattractive resource to some local users.There is often potential for increasingthe proportion of waste which isdiverted to local users through theimprovement of linkages betweengenerators and potential users. As with



other organic wastes, local farmers willoften be the most important consumersof food processing waste.

3.4.3 Constraints on reusing foodprocessing waste

While there are many reasons why itmay be desirable to reuse waste fromfood processing, there can be anumber of factors which limit theextent to which this is possible in aparticular situation:

•Local environmental conditions maymean that extensive application ofwaste to land is inappropriate.

•The cost of transporting waste topotential users may be largecompared to the value of the waste,especially where the waste has highmoisture content and needs to betransported over considerabledistances.

•Some food processing wastes mayrequire pre-treatment before they canbe used, which dramatically increasesthe cost of using it.

•There are often alternative orsubstitute products to wastes, whichmay be more suitable, better qualityand/or cheaper, for example withsubsidised commercial fertilisers.

•A lack of effective waste managementstandards and enforcement maymean that reusing waste appears tobe an expensive option, when wastecan easily be dumped of disposed ofby other unsound means.

•Food processing enterprises may lackthe investment capacity and/orknowledge to adopt improvedpractices, e.g. anaerobic digestion,clean production, etc.

Understanding the extent to whichthese and other constraints exist in the

local setting can make the differencebetween developing wastemanagement strategies that work andthose that are impractical.

3.5 Waste from abattoirsAbattoirs and slaughterhouses canrange from large, centralised plantshandling many hundreds of animalseach day to much smaller localfacilities handling just a few animals.While most abattoirs process a range ofanimals, some larger plants specialisein just one or two types of animal.In recent years, especially in Asia andLatin America, there has been a greatincrease in the number of small scaleslaughterhouses at the expense ofcentral abattoirs which have declined(Schiere and Hoek, 2000). As withother food processing activities thescale of abattoirs has importantconsequences for waste management,not only in the quantities of wastegenerated but also in the practicesused.

Waste from abattoirs includes blood,carcasses, gut contents, faecal wastes,fallen animals, washwater andseparated sludge. If these wastes arenot managed properly, then they willcreate serious public health problemsand environmental damage in thelocality. (See Box 3.4). It is notuncommon for slaughterhouses - bothlarge and small - to lack adequate andfunctioning waste treatment facilities.This is especially so for the many smallfacilities that have emerged in recentyears.

The greatest impact from abattoirswastes comes from wastewaters. Dueto the processing and washinginvolved, these often contain largequantities of blood, fat and solid wastessuch as intestines, gut contents, hair orhorns.

The first stage in improving themanagement of abattoir wastes should,therefore, be to reduce the extent ofunnecessary mixing of the wastes withwater. Considerable improvements canoften be achieved through simplechanges in cleaning practices requiringlittle financial investment.

As with other food processingactivities, there are also likely to befurther benefits from the adoption ofcleaner production practices.

The solid wastes that are producedmust be managed in the mosteconomical way which minimises theirimpact on the environment and publichealth. If different fractions of the solidwaste can be adequately separated,then one of the most economicallyattractive means of disposal is often toreuse them for other purposes. Thisincludes:

•Animal carcasses and remnants arewidely used to produce meat andbone meal (MBM) which is a valuablefeed for animals and fish.

•Gut contents and excreta can becomposted with other wastes toproduce high quality compost. (SeeBox 3.5).

•Carcasses can be processed to makehigh quality organic fertiliser. (SeeBox 3.5).

•Hooves and other remnants are usedas feedstock in the production of glueand other products. Safe use ofabattoir wastes.

Although reusing abattoir wastes isoften an economically attractive way ofmanaging otherwise problematicwastes, they must be handled andprocessed properly if they are not tocause further health and environmentalproblems.

During the production of meat andbone meal, the fresh animal carcassesand waste must be treated to destroyany pathogens and prevent thetransmission of disease. The mostwidely used treatment process isrendering. This typically involvesheating the waste to the equivalent of133°C at 3 bar for at least 20 minutes.If the rendering process is not properlycarried out, or is inadequate, there is asignificant risk of infection in theanimals being fed the MBM and therisk of transmission of disease topeople consuming food produced fromthese animals. These risks wereillustrated recently by the outbreak ofbovine spongiform encephalopathy(BSE) in the UK and, to a lesser extent,in other European countries. In theUK, changes in rendering practices toreduce cost led to infected materialentering the feed used for animals.This leads to the infection of largenumbers of cattle and several case ofthe human variant of the disease. One


Abattoir Waste Problems inQuito EcuadorMany of Quito’s abattoirs do not havefunctioning waste management facilitiesand their wastes are damaging the localenvironment, people’s health andlivelihoods.Large quantities of blood, fat, gut contents,intestines and other animal parts can befound in the wastewaters, much of whichis simply allowed to flow untreated intonearby rivers. Elsewhere, other solid wasteshave been left untreated in piles or duginto local soils.While such practices limit the cost of wastedisposal for the businesses concerned, thenegative impact that they have on theenvironment and local community can beconsiderable.

Source: Benitez, et al. (1999) cited in Schiere and Hoek (2000)

Box 3.4 Quito’s polluting abattoirs.


lesson drawn from the BSE problems inthe UK is that there might be dangersin feeding MBM and other animalproteins to ruminants whose digestivesystems are not developed for usingthis material (Machin, 2001).

Processing of animal parts into glueand other products is often carried outby small enterprises located in urbanareas, using unsatisfactory practiceswhich create considerable publichealth risk, environmental damage andprovide unsanitary conditions forworkers and those living nearby.Nonetheless, these activities oftenprovide essential livelihoods for thoseinvolved. The priority must be tosupport and encourage theseenterprises to improve on existingpractices and to meet acceptableenvironmental and health standards.As with other private enterprises, thiswill most likely entail a combination ofpractical advice and support withadequate enforcement of locallyappropriate standards on workingpractices and waste management.

3.5.1 Small abattoirsFor smaller abattoirs, most facilities areunlikely to generate sufficientquantities of waste to create a reliableand lasting demand amongst potentialusers of the waste, be it forcomposting, fertiliser, feed productionor for other purposes. Withoutadequate volumes, the necessaryinvestments are also likely to beprohibitive for abattoirs to adopt any ofthese practices. In such circumstancelandspreading of suitable fractions ofthe solid waste is often the mostappropriate means of disposal. From ahealth perspective, this should betreated as would raw sewage sludgeand should be dug into soils as soon aspossible after it is applied.

Those wastes which are not suitable forspreading on land - such as bones and

fat - must still be disposed of safely.Ideally, these should be rendered toremove the risk of spreading disease.However, there is a lack of adequatetreatment facilities in many developingcountries and the costs would besignificant. Thus, where rendering orother treatments are not practical, thesewastes should be disposed of inapproved sanitary landfills, oftenseparated from other general wastes.

3.5.2 Larger abattoirsLarger abattoirs produce far greaterquantities of waste in a given location.This creates both problems andopportunities. The benefits of scale arethat there are likely to be greateropportunities for the economic reuseof wastes and recovery of by-productsas these are normally produced ingreater and more reliable quantities.From a regulatory perspective it is alsoeasier to monitor the practices of fewerlarger facilities than many smaller onesand so ensure adequate wastemanagement.

The main disadvantage of largerfacilities from a waste managementperspective is the shear quantities ofproblematic waste generated in asingle location. If wastes cannot bediverted to reliable and sustainableuses than there may be few alternativesto disposing of them at designatedsanitary landfills, with or withoutrendering. Landspreading is notnormally practical for large quantitiesof abattoir wastes due to theconsiderable area of land that arerequired and the limited quantity ofwaste that can be practically applied toa given areas. Special arrangementsare often essential for the collectionand disposal of waste from largeabattoirs.

3.6 Market waste

Food markets are a one of the mostcritical parts of the food distributionsystems. They are a vital source offresh and processed food stuffs formany people. Markets supply fooddirectly to end consumers and to otherfood retailers such as restaurants, streetvendors or shops. As well as providingfresh and processed food stuffs mostmarkets also have a range of ready-to-eat food stalls. Together with the freshproduce, such street foods are animportant source of accessible andaffordable nutrition for many urbandwellers, especially the poor.

Although wholesale and rural farmersmarkets may be predominantly foodbased, the majority of retail andspontaneous markets incorporate a mixof stalls selling both food and non-foodgoods. As the focus of local commerceand economic activity, markets areimportant to the livelihoods of manypeople including traders, porters,scavengers and others. In many cases,markets are also considered to be theheart of the local community, acting asboth meeting place and social forum.Be they wholesale, retail orspontaneous markets, they are anessential part of life for a great numberof people.

Despite playing such an important role,the physical conditions in manymarkets are poor and unsanitary. Amajor cause of these unsanitaryconditions is the poor management ofmarket wastes, together withinadequate water and sanitation.Tackling these problems is rarelysimply a matter of improving financesor equipment, and requires a deeperunderstanding of the range of inter-related factors which have contributedto the current problems.

The poor condition of many markets

should be a particular concern to bothmarket traders and the wider public.firstly, as focal points in the foodsupply and distribution system, theshear volume of food passing throughmarkets means that any failures in foodsafety can affect large numbers ofpeople. Adequate environmentalsanitation, including management ofsolid wastes, is recognised by the WHOas an essential element in reducing therisks to food safety in markets.However, SWM and environmentalsanitation is just one part of ensuringfood safety in markets. Improvingfood handling and storage practicesmay be even more important. (WHO,1995)

Secondly, and of potentially greaterconcern to market traders and otherworkers, is the damage that poor


Composting abattoir waste can be highlyprofitableIn Cato Ridge, Durban, South Africa, aprivate enterprise called Neutrog Africahas been producing high qualitycommercial fertilisers and compost frompoultry and abattoirs waste since 1997.One of their products, known as RapidRaiser, is made from processing rottedchicken carcasses from local processingplants. They have been so successful thatfew other commercial compostingbusinesses have been able to compete.

Source: Benitez, et al. (1999)

In Thiès, Senegal, a project running since1990 has been diverting abattoir waste tocontinuous methanation (anaerobicdigestion) and compost production. Theproject has achieved almost 25% annualreturn on investment (World Bank, 1997).The key to success in both cases has beenlinking the production of high qualitycompost and fertilisers to users who arewilling to buy the products.

Box 3.5 Profiting from abattoir wastes.


sanitary conditions can have on theirlivelihoods. Unsanitary marketconditions discourage customers fromusing the market in favour ofalternative markets, shops or streetstalls. Furthermore, it increases the riskof infection and bouts of ill health, andincreases costs to market traders fromgreater wastage of produce.

3.6.1 Challenges in marketsA combination of inter-related factorscontributes to the poor state of manymarkets and many of these are nottraditional technical or financial issues.While farming and food processing arepredominantly carried out by privateenterprises, markets are public spaceswhich are managed by local authoritiesfor the benefit of both the public andprivate enterprises. This createsparticular challenges for theirmanagement and operation.

Behaviours and attitudes. One of themost important factors in the poorsanitary condition of many markets isthe lack of awareness of good sanitarypractices amongst traders andcustomers (and common ownership).This applies equally to food handlingas well as waste management,especially relating to littering anddisposal of solid waste. Changing thebehaviours of market traders and usersis an essential element in improvingthe management of market wastes.Without their support, any changes toSWM practices are likely to fail. But, ifgood practices can be established inmarkets, they can be useful rolemodels for the wider community.

Prolonged lack of resources and underfunding of markets and SWM has led tofacilities and infrastructure falling into apoor state of repair. This is not aproblem confined only to theseservices, but is common across manypublic services in developing countries.To be sustainable, market

administration needs to achieve fullcost recovery in the long term. Thiscan either be done through charges onstall holders, local taxes or usage fees.Weaknesses in financial managementand revenue collection will jeopardisethe financial sustainability of marketfacilities. Once these fall into disrepair,traders are likely to becomeincreasingly reluctant to pay chargesfor substandard facilities and so furtherweakening the financial sustainabilityof the market.

Weak institutional arrangements arecommonplace and, while there areexamples of well run markets, manymore are poorly managed. It is oftenthe case that different aspects of therunning of markets may fall under thejurisdiction of several governmentdepartments. Public healthdepartments will be concerned withfood safety and hygiene issues,economic development departmentswill focus on promoting businessactivities in and around the marketwhile public works departments maybe responsible for solid wastemanagement and transportinfrastructure. Markets are also relianton other basic infrastructure includingwater, sanitation and electricity whichmay be provided by either the publicor private sector. Where MarketManagement Boards exist to overseethe administration of markets, there isfrequently a lack of clarity about thescope of their authority or considerableoverlap and constraints in relation toother departments.

Poor institutional arrangements lead topoor and incoherent management ofmarkets and their facilities. A furthersymptom of the confusion ofresponsibilities is a frequent lack ofadequate regulations or enforcement inrelation to market practices.

The multitude of individual traders and

other market workers adds a furtherlayer of complexity when developingimproved SWM in a market. In somecase there are effective associations ofmarket traders which are able to co-ordinate and represent the interest ofthe market traders. There are,however, many cases where these arerelatively loose association, notrepresentative or do not exist at all,especially in spontaneous markets.Developing effective institutionalmechanisms to enable market tradersand other primary stakeholders toparticipate in decisions about thedevelopment and management ofmarkets is a critical step in makinginterventions demand responsive. Atpresent, it is all too common forimportant decisions to be taken byofficials with little, if any, involvementof those who are affected by thedecisions. Where spontaneous marketsdevelop, many of the problemsidentified above are compounded bythe lack of any formal organization.

The location and layout of markets indeveloping and transitional countrieshave often become established overmany years. In such cases, theirdevelopment has been gradual andrelatively un-planned, with fewresources available for the systematicmaintenance or upgrading of facilitiesto cope with growing populations andquantities of food handled. As a result,current market facilities are all toooften inadequate for the demands of agrowing population. (See Box 3.6).Even in more modern markets,planning and layout frequentlycontributes to the problems ofproviding adequate environmentalsanitation, for example with insufficientspace available for storing waste.

The changing use of surrounding areashas also meant that many markets arenow located close to residential orcommercial areas. This increases the

pressure on markets to limit theirimpact on the immediate environment.However, shortages of space and pooraccess can hamper efforts to improvemarket conditions and provideadequate basic services.

3.6.2 Improving the management ofmarket wastes

Market wastes have a very highproportion of organic waste, typicallyin excess of 80 percent with paper,plastic and other packaging waste alsoencountered. If they are not mixedwith other wastes there is typically arelatively low risk of contaminationfrom human wastes, chemicals orindustrial pollutants. As a result,market wastes can be a valuableresource compared to many otherwastes. This creates a number ofpotential options for improving theirmanagement:

Reducing market waste generation

Poor storage facilities, including a lackof adequate cold stores, and ignoranceregarding good food handling practicescan contribute significantly to thequantity of waste generated in amarket. Improvements in these areaswill, therefore, reduce the volume oforganic wastes. It is in the interest ofboth market traders and wastemanagers to reduce the volume ofproduce ending up in the wastestream. Market traders will reducetheir losses whilst there will be lesswaste to collect, transport and remove.Such improvement would also have arange of other important benefits,including improved food safety.

However, improving storage facilitiesand promoting effective changes infood handling practices are majorundertakings in most markets andrequire significant resources. Thebenefits of such improvements arerelatively modest from a SWM



perspective compared to, say, foodsafety or the livelihoods of markettraders. As such, upgrading marketstorage facilities and food handlingpractices are likely to be mostsuccessful if delivered as part of anintegrated programme of marketimprovements, possibly led through afocus on food safety and hygiene. TheWHO Healthy Markets initiative (WHO1995) recommends a range of issues,including waste management, whichwould typically be covered by a marketimprovement programmes:

•The health conditions of stallholdersand food handlers (water, toilets,availability of health services).

•Practices for storage and handling offoodstuffs.

•How to minimise adverse impact ofmarkets on surrounding residentialareas.

•Solid waste management of themarket area.

•Methods of inspection by governmentauthorities (e.g. how food inspectorscan play a more educational ratherthan punitive role).

•The role of the market place in healtheducation.

A further area for consideration inreducing market wastes is thepackaging used to transport, store, orsell produce. Promoting the use of re-usable rather than disposablepackaging will reduce the volume ofwastes, whilst use of more easilydegradable materials in packaging,such as paper rather than thin plasticbags will reduce the level of persistentcontaminants entering the wastestream. However, although marketsmay be the point where packagingenters the waste stream, decisionsabout the quantity and type ofpackaging used are often taken by theproducers or transporters of theproduce. Action at this level, forexample through legislation oragreement on packaging changes,would also be beneficial. At present,action in this area still receivesrelatively low priority in developingand transitional countries. This can beexplained, in part, by the high levels ofpackaging materials which arerecovered from the waste stream, andthe public health benefits to be gainedfrom improved packaging of food.

Re-using market waste

The concentration of organic materialin market wastes (and the low level ofcontaminants) makes them verysuitable for re-use and they can oftenbe in relatively high demand. Thereare many examples of market wastesbeing used:

•as a source of food for scavengersand the poor;

•as feed for domestic or farm rearedanimals;

•for composting or vermiculture;

My Neighbourhood MarketMany of the 2,500 Peruvian food marketsare old with some built over 40 years ago.They are inadequate for the growingpopulation and need improvements toboth infrastructure and basic services. As aresult, they have been the focus of anationwide initiative to improve marketconditions and food safety, called ‘MyNeighbourhood Market’ based on the WHOHealthy Markets model.

Source: Zárate (2001)

Box 3.6 Peru’s Neighbourhood Markets.

•for direct application to land forcultivation; and

•for biogas/bioenergy production.

Market wastes are frequently thepreferred source of organic material fortheses applications and there may becompetition for access to them.Nonetheless, there are many marketswhere the majority of organic wastesare not recycled and they are simplymixed with other wastes and sent forlandfilling or dumped. Mexico City’smain wholesale market provides anexample of both large-scale re-usewhile at the same time much of itswaste is still dumped in landfills. (SeeBox 3.7).

Before action is taken to improve wastemanagement in a particular market, it isimportant to understand existingpractices in the use and disposal ofmarket waste. As previouslymentioned, it is not unusual to find thatsome market wastes are already usedby groups or individuals as a costeffective resource. Common amongstthese are the many informalarrangements where local urbanfarmers or households collect organicwastes to use as feed for animals andpoultry or to apply to land. Recyclablematerials such as paper, card or plasticsare already frequently removed frommarket waste by waste pickers ormarket cleaners for sale to itinerantwaste buyer or dealers.

Where such arrangement exist it islikely to be most appropriate to buildon and support the extension of thesepractices or to accommodate themwithin any proposed changes. Thiswill not only limit the disruption ofaccess to these resources for existingusers, but may act as basis for creatinga sustained demand for a greaterproportion of market waste. As suchpractices are often informal; their

existence is frequently ignored byformal proposals to improve wastemanagement. If this happens, it willcreate a strong incentive for thosealready using the waste to disrupt orignore any new system which threatenstheir livelihoods.

In some towns and cities, marketwastes can also be an important sourceof nutrition for some of the poorest andmost vulnerable people. Changes tothe way market wastes are managedcan greatly affect their livelihoods andlevels of nutrition. For example, theintroduction of large covered bins forthe collection of organic waste as partof a scheme to reuse all organic marketwastes in a composting scheme maymean that it is no longer possible forscavengers to sort through wasteproduce and retrieve sufficient ediblefood. This may result in scavengerseither disrupting the collection schemeto maintain access to waste produce orsuffering additional problems from thedisruption of their livelihoods, andhaving to find alternative sources offood which are likely to be either oflower quality or more expensive.

Improving collection of solid wastes inmarkets

Collection systems in an aroundmarkets must be consistent with theintended methods for disposal of thewaste collected. Source segregation oforganic and non-organic waste is likelyto be particularly relevant in marketswhere it is intended that organic wasteswill be re-used or recycled rather thansent to landfill. Such practices arelikely to be more easy to operate in therelatively homogonous confines of amarket than, say, for house to housecollection in a district.

Effective collection of waste in markets,either with or without segregation, ismost likely if the system is developed



with the participation of market tradersand workers. Such systems will becharacterised by:

•The provision of appropriately sizedcollection containers that are clearlyidentifiable and convenient and easyto use for market traders and others.

•Adequate space for storage of wastenear the market before collection andtransfer.

•Effective management of on-sitecollection.

Overall SWM improvements in markets

If efforts to improve the managementof waste in markets are to be effectiveand sustainable they must meet theneeds of traders and other marketworkers as well as current, or potential,users of market wastes.

Addressing SWM issues in isolationfrom other problems in markets maycreate barriers to co-operation fromtraders and market workers.Consequently, more integratedprogramme addressing the overall

Re-use of wholesale market waste at Central de Abastos Mexico CityMexico City’s main wholesale food market receives an estimated 24,000 tonnes of produceper day. This makes it one of the largest markets in the world.Closing the loopThe market produces 800 tonnes of waste which is mostly organic. 100 tonnes of this wasteare collected by urban farmers and used as forage to feed 2,500 dairy cattle in smallholdingsin the east of the city. A wide range of waste produce is used as dairy feed including broccoli,cauliflower, lettuce, carrot, corn, pumpkin, cabbage, turnip, radish and sugar beet.Manure from the cattle is used exclusively for cultivating crops on smallholdings in peri-urban areas nearby. These smallholdings are typically between 0.3 – 0.6 ha and apply up to600 tonnes of manure per hectare each year to produce an all year round crop. The vastmajority of the crops are nopal legumes for human consumption harvested weekly with anannual production of 200,000 tonnes of leaf, three quarters of which are consumed in MexicoCity.This re-sue of market wastes and manure produces an interdependent bio-system. On thisscale it represents a considerable organizational achievement as it involves many differentindividuals and enterprises. There are at least 2000 warehouses in the market, estimated 90diary sheds and several hundred nopal growing smallholders.Still going to waste?However, despite large volumes of ‘waste’ being diverted to productive uses, much of theremaining 700 tonnes of mostly organic waste are not currently re-used, and are transportedto sites on the edge of the city for landfilling.What if….?Such a reliable supply of good quality organic waste material could be used to great effect.Under the right conditions it would be possible to produces high quality compost or to supplyan anaerobic digester producing enough biogas to more than meet the power needs of theentire market. Both of these options would save costs in waste disposal and may also generatea source of income, but they would require investment in facilities, skills and organizationwhich may be unattractive or beyond the resources of the municipality or market board.

Source: Losada et al. (2000)

Box 3.7 Reusing market wastes in Mexico City’s largest market.

improvement of the market may bemost appropriate.

As there may be a range of current andpotential users of market waste, equitymust be an important factor in anydecisions about how they will bemanaged.

The concentrations of easilycollectable, good quality organic wastegenerated by markets makes themideal starting points for pilotinginitiatives to divert greater quantities oforganic waste away from the generalmunicipal waste stream. (See Box 3.8).They can help develop a betterunderstanding of the needs of localusers for organic waste andappropriate practices, while avoidingmuch of the organizational complexityand cost of household sourceseparation schemes or the risks fromrestaurant and canteen wastes.Equally, such projects can dramaticallyreduce the quantity of market wastesent to dumps or landfills.

3.7 Waste from canteens,kitchens andrestaurants

Restaurant, kitchen and canteen wastetypically contains a mixture ofdiscarded food stuffs, including bothraw and cooked plant and animalproducts. Food waste from canteensand restaurants is commonly calledswill and is widely used as feed for pigsand poultry in many parts of the world.Although it is a valuable resource, theuse of swill as feed carriersconsiderable dangers if it is not treatedproperly to reduce the risk of diseasetransmission. Inadequately treatedswill has been found to be responsiblefor the spread of swine fever andAfrican swine fever and has also leadto the introduction of these and otherpig diseases into areas which hadpreviously been free from them

(Machin, 2001). As a result, the use ofswill is heavily regulated in manycountries and has even been banned insome countries (e.g. Australia).Typical regulations are those of the ECwhich require swill to be cooked at100°C for one hour or for shorterperiods at higher temperatures (up to133°C at 3 bar for 20 minutes).

If organic canteen and kitchen waste is


On-site composting of market waste inBintaro Market, JakartaA recent pilot project in the traditionalBintaro market, Jakarta, introduced on-site ‘heap’ composting of market wastes.Within two months the volume of wastegenerated at the market was reduced by40%. Two market workers were responsiblefor collection and composting of wastes,training was provide in the market onissues of organic waste recycling anddifferent coloured containers wereprovided for organic and other wastes.Two of the major challenges were findingsufficient space for the compostingprocess and developing a sustainablemarket for the compost produced. If viable,similar recycling schemes could have aconsiderable benefit to SWM in Jakarta astraditional markets generateapproximately 17% of the solid waste fromthe city, or 4,000 m3 per day. However,many other traditional markets in Jakartado not have the space needed for similarschemes and the demand for the compostremains unproven.Nevertheless, the composting schemerepresents a great improvement from aSWM perspective as normal wastemanagement in Jakarta’s markets typicallyinvolves dumping waste at the roadside oron open land before it is collect by trucksand transferred to municipal dumps.

Source: UNESCO (2000)

Box 3.8 On-site composting of market waste.


to be used as swill then it must becollected separately from other wastes,such as packaging or plastic bottles.Furthermore, there needs to be a localdemand for the waste from pig andpoultry farmers and an efficient systemof collection, treatment and transfer tothe farms. The system developed inCuba is a good example of thepotential of a swill feeding system,albeit on a very large scale. (See Box3.9).

Small scale urban farmers andhouseholds with only a few animalsalso use food waste from localrestaurants and food stalls to feed theiranimals. However, the small quantitiesof waste used and limited resourcesmeans that in most cases waste will notbe adequately treated to remove therisk of disease transmission. This cancreate significant problems asoutbreaks of disease can be difficult tocontrol once they become establishedamongst animals of small urbanfarmers. Although there is a publichealth risk as a result of such practices,it must also be recognised that keepingof animals by urban households andfarmers also benefits people’s healthand livelihoods both as a source ofaffordable food and as an asset. Anyintervention must therefore seek tolimit the health risks withoutjeopardising the benefits of urbananimal keeping. One approach is touse only plant based waste whenfeeding animals.

Although there are many example ofswill being used for animal feeding, itis not always practical or economic todo so. This is especially true for themany small restaurants and street foodstalls found in towns and citiesthroughout low- and middle incomecountries. For these establishments thepractical problems and costs oforganising source separation schemesare frequently prohibitive.

Where waste is not diverted at source itis typically disposed of as part of thegeneral municipal waste stream.However, this is not the only possiblemeans of managing the waste. It ispossible to compost canteen andrestaurant waste along with otherorganic waste, although the wastesthemselves may be more problematicto compost and are more likely toattract vermin.

In general terms, waste from canteen,kitchens and restaurants is often bestmanaged through local systems ofreuse. Where this is not appropriatethen the challenges faced are similar tothose encountered for domestickitchen waste.

3.8 Household food related wasteImproving the management and reuseof domestic organic waste is perhapsone of the greatest challenges inimproving solid waste management indeveloping countries. The majority ofhousehold waste is organic which endsup being disposed of along with othermunicipal wastes in dumps andlandfills.

Some households have the opportunityto reuse the organic fraction of theirwaste for feeding animals orcomposting to use on small areas ofcultivated land. Re-using domestickitchen waste at the household levelcan in many ways be considered asound practice, both from a wastemanagement perspective as well as forlivelihoods and food security. Kitchenwaste can also be used as feedstock foranaerobic digestion, but it is oftenmore beneficial to use them as animalfeed and then use animal manure fordigestion.

Nonetheless, feeding animals untreateddomestic kitchen waste can carry the

risk of disease transmission amonganimals as well as other potentialhealth risks. These risks can beminimised by encouraging the feedingof only plant based wastes and theadoption of simple practices ofseparating out suitable material fromother general household waste. Theremay also be some health risks from themanagement of waste from the animalsthemselves, unless there areconvenient areas of nearby land whereit can be disposed of safely. Oftensuch practices are restrained by theavailability of land in small houses,particularly in low income areas.

On a wider scale, there is likely to belimited potential for reusing domesticorganic waste for animal feedingbeyond the domestic level. Domesticfood wastes would need to be dealt inthe same way as restaurant or kitchenwaste from institutions, and treatedbefore they can be safely used as feed.In practice, the difficulties associatedwith managing effective large scalesource separation and collection andthe cost of treatment means that it isnot normally a viable feed sourcecompared to other cheaper and moreaccessible alternatives. These includecrop residues, market wastes, swillfrom institutional sources or subsidisedcommercial feeds.

The other major alternative use fordomestic organic waste is in itsapplication to land. The mostcommonly advocated approach for thisis through composting, as this isconsidered to minimise the potentialhealth risks associated with usingwaste in this way.

Despite the prominence of compostingin much of the literature, thecomposting of domestic organic wasteshas, so far, had relatively little impacton the overall level of waste that isreused. Composting schemes have

often failed to generate a sustained andreliable demand for the compostproduced, and this has been a majorfactor in most composting plants failingto generate sufficient revenue to coverthe costs of production. This does notnecessarily mean that composting is aninappropriate waste managementoption, but that in most case it willneed to be done on a subsidised basis.


Cuban Swill ProgrammeA national system of swill collection andprocessing into pig feed has beendeveloped in Cuba as part of an overallstrategy to develop alternative feedresources.Kitchen waste from institutions such asschools, hospitals and hotels is collected ona daily basis by tankers covering set routes.The waste is taken to specialist processingfacilities adjacent to pig farmers where itis sorted and ground before being sterilisedin an autoclave (121ºC and 1.0 to 1.5atmospheres for 30 minutes). The sterilisedwaste is then mixed with sugar canemolasses to produce a final product, called‘terminal swill’, which is piped to theadjacent feedlot.In 1990 there were 205 collection routes,each collecting an estimated 7.7 tonnes oforganic waste daily, equating to a total ofalmost 1.600 tonnes per day or >500,000 tonnes perannum. Each 10,000 head feedlot requiredapproximately 80 tonnes of waste per day.A related system has been developed toprocess abattoir waste and dead animalsinto a high protein paste for animalfeeding. Engineers have developed asimple technology based on a horizontalautoclave with internal mechanicalagitation which is capable of processingeven sectioned, large dead animals.

Source: Peréz (1997) and Preston (1995)

Box 3.9 Swill collection and processing forpig feed.


The lack of demand for compostproduced from waste suggests thatcurrent practices are failing to meet theneeds of the major potential users ofwaste or compost, who will typicallybe urban and peri-urban farms. This islikely to be because the compost iseither of too low quality, too expensiveto use or where there are cheaper andbetter quality alternatives such assubsidised fertiliser available.

The challenge is therefore to find lowcost ways of reusing greater quantitiesof domestic organic waste. The maincosts involved in reusing householdwaste are from:

•collection of sufficiently good qualityorganic material with fewcontaminants;

•processing or treatment of waste (ifany); and

• transporting waste to where it will beused.

A number of different approaches havebeen suggested which reduce the costin one or more of these areas.

firstly, in some residential areas,especially low income areas andinformal settlements, the bulk of thewaste is organic and typically containsonly limited levels of contaminants. Assuch, it is sometimes possible to reuseresidential waste collected from theseareas without the need for costlysource separation schemes. This willbecome less appropriate as incomelevels rise, as this is often associatedwith an increase in the proportion ofnon-organic materials in domesticwaste. (UNEP, 1996).

Secondly, some initiatives havefocussed on decentralised use ofresidential waste in smaller scalecomposting schemes at neighbourhood

or community level. Reusing the wastecloser to where it is generated willreduce the cost of transporting it. Itmay also facilitate better matching ofthe needs of potential users in terms ofquality, cost and quantity of thecompost. Such approaches have alsotended to use lower levels ofmechanisation and more locallyappropriate technologies which limitthe cost of processing. However, theextent to which there is a generaldemand for the compost producedfrom such decentralised schemes isunclear (Dulac, 2001). There is alsolimited evidence that small scaledecentralized plants may not be largeenough to achieve importanteconomies of scale necessary tominimize costs. (Lardinois andMarchand, 1999).

Thirdly, the cost of providing goodquality separated organic waste hasbeen reduced in some schemesthrough separation of wastes duringthe collection process rather thanthrough source separation schemes.This has the advantage of relyingmainly on the support of the wastecollectors rather than the wholecommunity. It has been mostsuccessful when linked to wastecollector being able to sell on some ofthe more valuable recyclable materialseparated from the waste (Dulac,2001).

finally, it has been suggested that thelarge scale reuse of organic waste canbe revived through improvedmanagement of dumps for recovery ofdecomposed organic material. Somecities in India already have experienceof managing such segregated dumps inwhich the best quality organic waste isdumped in designated areas away frommore contaminated wastes. Farmersare then able to buy decomposedwaste from the designated areas(Furedy, 2002). Such practices may be

less desirable than composting from anenvironmental or health perspective,but economies of scale would allowthem to better meet the need for lowcost access to organic waste that is notheavily contaminated.

In all of these potential solutions, it isthe needs of the potential users thatmust be given greater consideration indeveloping appropriate strategies forreusing waste.

3.9 ConclusionsThis chapter has reviewed themanagement of solid waste from foodsupply and distribution systems indeveloping and transitional countries.It has discussed the main issuesassociated with managing waste fromagriculture, food processing facilities,abattoirs, markets, kitchens, canteensand restaurants and domestic foodwaste.

It is apparent that a great deal of solidwastes from these different parts of thefood supply and distribution system arecurrently poorly managed and/ordisposed of through mainstream wastemanagement systems at dumps andlandfills. This greatly adds to theburden on already overstretchedformal solid waste managementsystems.

However, by considering each of themain elements of food supply anddistribution systems in turn it can beseen that there is considerablepotential for improving themanagement of waste from food usingthe type of sound practices discussedin Part 2.

The main conclusions that can be drawfrom the review of waste managementin the various parts of the supply anddistribution system are:

1. Improving the reuse and recyclingof organic waste has the greatestpotential to improve themanagement of waste from foodover the medium term.

2. Efforts to reduce waste are likely tobe more limited in their applicabilitythan waste reuse and recycling. Thepriority for waste reduction is mostoften in reducing the harmfulness ordifficulty of treating waste ratherthan simply in reducing the quantityof waste produced. Reducingwastes is most applicable in certainpig farms, food processing plantsand abattoirs where currentprocesses can involve the mixing ofsolid organic waste with largevolumes of water. Preventing anyunnecessary mixing of solid andliquid waste can greatly reduce thedifficulty in handling and treatingboth the wastewater and the solidfactions.

Reuse and recycling of waste from food

The high organic content of waste frommost parts of the food supply anddistribution system means that they arewell suited to practices andtechnologies which exploit them as aresource. Examples can be found ofsome organic wastes from food beingreused in almost every town or cityaround the world.

This chapter has highlighted just a fewof the many practices which have beenproven in various settings indeveloping and transitional countries.These include traditional practices suchas farmers collecting local marketwaste to use as feed or to apply to theirlands, as well as more recent practicessuch as the anaerobic digestion of foodprocessing waste or the processing ofpoultry carcasses into high qualityfertiliser. Other common examples arethe systems of low external input



agriculture in which wastes aresystematically reused as part of moreintegrated biosystems, the use ofbagasse as an energy resource in thesugar cane industry as well as the useof household level anaerobic digestersin rural China and India.

Nevertheless, despite the apparentbenefits of these practices and efforts topromote them, in most cases practicesfor systematically improving wastereuse and recycling have so far onlybeen adopted on a modest scale. Forexample, composting waste at eithermunicipal or local scale has notsignificantly increased the level oforganic waste that is reused in mosttowns or cities. Many food processingfacilities and abattoirs lack adequatewaste management systems, andofficial markets are frequentlyunsanitary places lacking the facilitiesor resources to manage their waste. Insome cases these failures haveoccurred due to the choice of practicesand technologies which wereinappropriate to the local context whileothers have proven themselves in pilotprogrammes but have failed to scale upto practical use. Such failures illustratethe complexity of delivering effective,large scale schemes for reuse andrecycling of organic waste.

The challenge of improving waste reuse

The challenges faced in improvingwaste management and reuse in thedifferent elements of food supply anddistribution systems are highly situationspecific. They depend on a range offactors such as the type and quantity ofwaste produced, potential nearbyusers, local environment, economicconditions, cultural norms in dealingwith waste, local levels of poverty aswell as local institutional capacity andresources.

One factor which is common to almost

all successful examples of sustainedand systematic reuse of wastes is thatthere is both a reliable and regulardemand for the waste and that waste isavailable in sufficient quantities, of anacceptable quality and at an affordableprice to the user. This means thatwaste management needs to be seen interms of supply and demand and,therefore, from the perspective of thewaste generator and waste users aswell as others within the SWM system.The implications of this and otherissues to decision makers are discussedin Part 4.

Part 4: Implications for decision makers • 79

Part 4

Implications fordecision makers

4.1 IntroductionThis paper has reviewed the currentissues and practices in the managementof waste from food in developing andtransitional countries. The major issuesfor decision makers that have emergedfrom the review are drawn together inthis final chapter.

The system of food supply anddistribution, from field to kitchen, is amajor source of solid waste and greatlyadds to the problems of solid wastemanagement facing urban managers. Itis apparent from the evidence that themanagement of waste from food indeveloping and transitional countries isfrequently inadequate andunsustainable. Problems of wastemanagement are not limited todomestic food waste, but span all partsof the food supply and distributionsystem: from intensive livestockfarming, food processing plants andabattoirs to markets and other parts ofthe food distribution system. As aresult, approaches to handle domesticwaste can only resolve part of theproblem. Different strategies may needto be developed for managing wastefrom food production, processing,markets and other stages of the supplychain.

Nevertheless, while waste managementis problematic in many cases, thisreview has also identified a variety ofexamples of successful sound practicesin the management of waste fromdifferent parts of the food supply and

distribution systems. The lessonslearned from these sound practices andfrom experiences in solid wastemanagement in general can be used toinform improvements in themanagement of waste from food.

A number of issues emerge from thisreview as being central to the successof efforts to deliver improvedmanagement of waste from food.These issues are interrelated and arebest considered in the context of anintegrated approach to solid wastemanagement. The main issues aresummarised below and subsequentlydiscussed in detail later in the chapter:

•Reuse and recycling of waste shouldbe a priority for managing waste fromfood, and supported by targetedwaste reduction.

•Localising waste managementpractices and technologies to reflectthe individual conditions is essentialin creating adequate and sustainablesolid waste management services,especially for the collection, reuseand recycling of waste.

•Stakeholder participation needs to beboth more systematic and moreextensive, including potential wasteusers as well as waste generators andothers in the development andmonitoring of solid wastemanagement services.

•There is a need for both smaller,

decentralised waste managementsolutions dealing with waste fromsmall groups of generators as well aslarger area-wide approaches toincrease the reuse of waste from thecountless small waste generators thatdo not have the capacity to recycle ormanage their own waste. (Examplesof localised approaches include on-farm reuse of agricultural wastes orthe use of market waste as feed bylocal farmers, while area-widesolutions might include improvedmanagement of municipal dumps topromote the segregation and use ofbetter quality organic wastes).

•The links between wastemanagement, the livelihoods of thepoor and the social impacts ofproposed solid waste managementinterventions must be understoodtogether with the conventionalfinancial, technical andenvironmental issues that normallyapply to the environment and tocommercial activities. Waste is animportant part of the livelihoods ofmany of the poorest and mostvulnerable people in developing andtransitional countries.

4.2 Reuse and recycling of waste fromfood

Waste from food is a primary source oforganic waste material and alsogenerates substantial quantities of otherwastes, mostly in the form ofpackaging related materials such asplastics, glass, paper and metals. Theoptions for managing these wastes are,in principle, similar to those formanaging solid waste in general asoutlined by the Waste Hierarchy, i.e.reduce, reuse, recycle, recover andsanitary disposal.

In practice, however, diverting waste toother uses through reuse, recycling and

energy recovery has the greatestpotential for improving wastemanagement in the medium term.Examples highlighted in this paperhave illustrated that when developed ina manor appropriate to localconditions, such approaches candramatically reduce the quantity ofwaste that enters the formal solid wastemanagement system and providemoderately priced alternatives todisposal of waste in landfills.

Approaches which treat waste as aresource and which seek to reuse it arenot only effective waste managementstrategies but can also have importantsocial and environmental benefits. Forexample, practices for recovering andrecycling useful material from wasteare often labour intensive and canprovide income earning opportunitiesfor many of the poorest in society.Furthermore, recycling the organicmaterial in wastes from food cancontribute to improving local soils andthereby help to meet the growingdemands for food and reduce theburden on the local environment.

In contrast to reuse and recyclingschemes, waste reduction measures areappropriate to more selected situationswithin the food supply and distributionsystem. They are often costly andcomplex to implement on a wide scaleand require concerted effort over manyyears. They are, therefore, moreappropriate to large individual wastegenerators or those producing wasteswhich are harmful or difficult tomanage. In such cases waste reductionefforts can be targeted where they willhave the greatest impact. One of themain opportunities for reducing wastefrom food is in limiting the extent towhich solid wastes are mixed withwater, especially in food processingfacilities, abattoirs and stock farms.This can greatly reduce the difficulty ofmanaging the waste effectively and can



be targeted at a relatively small numberof generators.

Thus, waste reuse and recycling shouldbe a priority for managing waste fromfood, supported by selective wastereduction measures to address problemwastes. The strategies required todeliver widespread reuse and recyclingare likely to be different for the organicand non-organic fractions of thewastes.

Organic waste

For the organic fraction of waste fromfood, widespread separation andrecycling is not commonplace in mostfood supply and distribution systems.This paper has highlighted a few of themany small scale examples of organicwaste from food being successfully andsustainably reused or recycled.Nevertheless, such practices have notgenerally been adopted on a widescale and have therefore had only amarginal impact on the overall level oforganic waste that is diverted to otheruses, especially in urban areas. Thereare also few examples of successfullarge scale initiatives to divert organicwaste, such as the Cuban swillprogramme. (See Box 3.9). Manyschemes have proved difficult andcostly to run. The failure of manycentralised municipal compostingplants exemplifies some of the manycomplex issues involved.

It is suggested that many of the barrierswhich have limited the extent oforganic waste reuse are closely linkedto the other issues highlighted in thischapter, namely:

•The need for more systematicparticipation of key stakeholders(including potential waste users) indeveloping suitable wastemanagement options andeconomically viable practices for the

collection and recycling of organicwastes.

•The need to tailor approaches andtechnologies to fit local conditions.

•The need to consider a combinationof smaller, localised approaches aswell as larger area- wide schemes forrecycling organic wastes.

Non-organic waste

For the non-organic fraction of wastefrom food, the greater value ofmaterials such as glass, metals plasticand paper means that a significantproportion of these are often separatedout and recycled by waste generators,waste pickers, waste workers or microand small enterprises. Sound practicesfor city managers in this area typicallyinvolve stimulating and supporting theextension of existing activities, andworking with those involved in aparticipatory manner to improve oncurrent environmental and healthperspectives. Appropriate measuresinclude greater formal recognition ofthe activities of the informal sector,technical advice and support, capacitybuilding and even financial assistance.

4.3 Localising waste managementpractices

Decision makers in developing andtransitional countries face manychallenges in improving solid wastemanagement, both in general andwithin food supply and distributionsystems. These challenges range fromscarce financial resources towidespread poverty and a lack ofinformation about the local solid wastesituation. Understanding the localcontext and existing solid wastemanagement system and problems isan essential first step in developingappropriate and sustainable waste

management practices that balance theneeds of effectiveness, efficiency andequity. Past experiences have shownthat successful solid wastemanagement systems must be tailoredto the particular conditions of the localcontext, while practices andtechnologies adopted unquestioninglyfrom elsewhere are less likely todeliver the expected benefits.

In response to this need for locallyappropriate waste management, thereis a growing recognition of the value ofadopting more integrated approachesto waste management, both in terms ofthe scope of issues considered as wellas the specific options considered formanaging waste. By extending thescope of issues considered, wastemanagement practices are more likelyto be appropriate to the local context ata social, institutional and economiclevel as well as the traditional areas offocus on technical, financial andenvironmental issues. Integratedapproaches to solid waste managementalso place the problems of wastemanagement in the context of thesystem of production andconsumption, not just as end-of pipeactivities. Integrated Solid WasteManagement can therefore provide ahelpful framework for decision makersto use when planning wastemanagement interventions.

Although originally developed as aframework for solid wastemanagement in general, the principlesof integrated solid waste managementare equally applicable to the specificchallenges of managing waste fromfood. When applied in developing andtransitional countries, this meansdecision makers choosing practicesand levels of technology andmechanisation that are appropriate tothe level of local development,available manpower, financialresources and the capacity of local

institutions to implement and managethe chosen schemes. It also typicallyrequires greater recognition andintegration of the role of micro andsmall enterprises in the formal wastemanagement system. This in turndemands an understanding of theimportant role of these waste relatedactivities in the livelihoods of many ofthe poorest and most vulnerablepeople in society.

If the management of waste from foodis to deliver far greater levels ofrecycling and reuse, then localisingwaste management practices will alsomean the development of practiceswhich are tailored to fit thecharacteristics of the different wastestreams and the needs of potentiallocal users of waste, from poor localfarmers to commercial compostmanufacturers and waste dealers.

4.4 Greater and systematicparticipation of stakeholders

It is now widely acknowledge thatpublic services and infrastructureshould be responsive to the demandsof the people being served. This ismost likely to happen if the groups ofprimary stakeholders are able toeffectively participate in the decisionmaking processes.

Solid waste management affects thelives of a great variety of people, notjust the primary users of the wasteservices. As such, it is not sufficientonly to consider the needs of theservice users but also other groups ofstakeholders affected by wastemanagement practices. This includes:

•Everyone in the formal solid wastemanagement system.

•Micro and small enterprises and thosewithin the informal sector whose



livelihoods depend on waste.

•Waste users, for both traditionalrecyclables and organic wastes.

•People living or working near wastemanagement facilities.

•People living or working near majorpolluters, such as some abattoirs orintensive livestock farms.

The level and manor of participationfor the different groups of stakeholdersneeds to be consistent with the impactthat waste management has on them,as well as their influence overdelivering successful wastemanagement interventions. For themanagement of waste from food thismeans that as well as waste generatorssuch as farmers, food processingfacilities, abattoirs, markets and privatehouseholds, those involved in themanagement and use of waste mustalso be considered as key stakeholders,and participate in the development ofwaste management strategies.

These groups should not only be ableto participate in individual decisionsabout appropriate services levels or theselection of individual practices, but inmore routine and systematic ways inthe development and monitoring of thewaste management system.

This is especially important in relationto efforts to extend the reuse andrecycling of organic waste fromdifferent parts of the food supply anddistribution system. By giving theneeds of potential users of organicwaste greater prominence in thedevelopment of waste managementpractice, there is more likelihood thatwaste will be managed in a way thatpromotes a more sustained and reliabledemand for waste. This is essential forthe success of such initiatives.

Understanding the needs of waste user

From the perspective of potential usersof organic waste, two of the mostimportant factors are the benefits ofusing the waste for a particularpurpose compared to the cost of doingso. Consider:

1. The perceived benefits of usingwaste depend on the needs of theusers, the suitability of the waste forthe intended use and, to a largeextent, on the quality of the waste.

2. The direct cost to the user is relatedto the price (if any) paid for thewaste, the cost of transporting it towhere it will be used and the cost ofany additional processing requiredbefore it can be used. There may beother important indirect costs fromusing waste, especially if it reducesthe willingness of customers topurchase produce and goods thathave been made using waste insome way.

Waste users have differingrequirements in terms of quality andcost, depending on how the waste willbe used and the financial resourcesavailable to waste users. Waste will beacceptable to users when it exceedstheir minimum acceptable qualityrequirements and where the total costof using it is below their maximumaffordable cost, as illustrated in Box 4.2(a).

From a waste management perspectiveit is also vital to understand whatcontribution different groups of userscan make in terms of the potentialquantity of organic waste used. Lowcost agricultural users may frequentlyrepresent the greatest potential users oforganic waste while other morespecialist niche users, such ascommercial enterprises making highquality organic fertiliser from abattoir

waste, will consume more limitedquantities and types of waste.

Box 4.1 illustrates the relativerequirements of some potential usergroups in terms of quality and cost aswell as their potential from a wastemanagement perspective as users ofwaste.

It is also important to note that theavailability of alternative resources towaste will also influence the relativeattractiveness of using waste. Forexample, composted market waste mayhave little value as a soil improvementwhere heavily subsidised and higherquality commercial fertilisers arewidely available. If such alternativeproducts are not available, recycledwaste will be a more attractive option.Consequently, decision makersintending to develop schemes forrecycling waste from food should beaware of locally available alternativesto waste and how this may influencedemand.

Meeting the needs of waste users

While waste users have differing needsin terms of quality and cost of waste,different practices in the collection,handling and treatment of waste have abearing on the quality of wasteavailable as well as the costs to theusers. For example, source separationschemes for organic waste typicallyproduce relatively good quality butexpensive waste when compared tomixed municipal waste collectionservice.

If recycling and reuse of organic wastefrom food is to be developed as amajor waste management option,decision makers must seek to developwaste management practices that arecapable of delivery waste of anacceptable quality that is affordable tothe majority of potential users.

The importance of this can beillustrated by considering the situationof peri-urban and urban farmers whoare likely to be the largest potentialgroup of users of organic waste fromurban areas. Most urban and peri-urban farmers in developing andtransitional countries are small scale or


High

Qualityneeded by users

Mid

LowLow

2

1

MidAffordable Cost

to user

High

The differing needs and potential usage of various users of organic waste

Key

Note: Indicate only

QuantityUse

Size of bubble indicates likelypotential quantity of waste used

High protein feed for commerciallivestock and poultry farmers.High quality but high price affordable.

High quality compost and fertiliserfor commercial farmers.

Feedstock for household levelanaerobic digestion.

Forage for poor urban andperi urban livestock keepersfarmers.

Soil amendment for poor urbanand peri urban farmers.Must be low cost but moderate quality.

1

2

3

4

5

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Large

Mayor

5

3

4

Box 4.1 Different waste users have differing needs and capacity for using waste.


survival farmers. They have fewresources to invest in composts orfertiliser yet would benefit fromimproving the quality of their land.The lack of widespread use ofexternally composted waste amongstsuch farmers suggests that in mostcases it is either too expensive to useor of too low quality. At the sametime, good quality organic waste fromeasily accessible and affordablesources, such as the farmer’s ownanimals and local food markets, will bereadily used. This implies that there isa clear recognition of the value of suchpractices. Box 4.2 (b) illustrates howthe needs of local farmers maycompare to the cost and quality ofwaste produced by some alternativewaste management practices.

From this example the challenges forcity managers are two fold. firstly, theymust develop an understanding of theneeds of local farmers in terms of costand quality of waste. Secondly, theymust involve local farmers as keystakeholders in the development ofinitiatives to recycle organic waste fromfood. It is, however, a sad reflectionon reality that at present local farmersare rarely considered as keystakeholders in solid wastemanagement.

4.5 Combining decentralised and largescale approaches

Achieving widespread reuse andrecycling of waste from food is likely torequire a combination of both smallscale decentralised initiatives as well aslarge scale approaches.

Consider decentralised approacheswhere possible

If viable, it is usually preferable toreuse waste close to where it isgenerated, implying a decentralisedapproach to waste management. Thisis especially true for organic waste

because:

•The high moisture content anddensity of organic waste can meanthat costs of transporting waste cansignificantly increase the cost ofwaste management.

•It is often possible to control the levelof contamination of the waste if it is

Cuban Swill ProgrammeA national system of swill collection andprocessing into pig feed has beendeveloped in Cuba as part of an overallstrategy to develop alternative feedresources.Kitchen waste from institutions such asschools, hospitals and hotels is collected ona daily basis by tankers covering set routes.The waste is taken to specialist processingfacilities adjacent to pig farmers where itis sorted and ground before being sterilisedin an autoclave (121ºC and 1.0 to 1.5atmospheres for 30 minutes). The sterilisedwaste is then mixed with sugar canemolasses to produce a final product, called‘terminal swill’, which is piped to theadjacent feedlot.In 1990 there were 205 collection routes,each collecting an estimated 7.7 tonnes oforganic waste daily, equating to a total ofalmost 1.600 tonnes per day or >500,000 tonnes perannum. Each 10,000 head feedlot requiredapproximately 80 tonnes of waste per day.A related system has been developed toprocess abattoir waste and dead animalsinto a high protein paste for animalfeeding. Engineers have developed asimple technology based on a horizontalautoclave with internal mechanicalagitation which is capable of processingeven sectioned, large dead animals.

Source: Peréz (1997) and Preston (1995)

Box 4.2 (a) Matching users’ needs to differentwaste management options.



Cost to user

“Zone of demand”

Minumumacceptable

quality

Animal manure fromown animals Organic fertiliser

produced from abattoirwaste

Compost from sourceseparated domestic

waste

Compost from mixedmunicipal waste plant

Raw mixedmunicipal waste

Maximumaffordable

cost

Maximumaffordable

cost

Note: Indicative only

Note: Indicative only

Low

High

High

a) The needs of the waste user

Example:Using waste soil amendment for poor urban and peri urban farmers

b) The needs of the user compared to different waste management options

“Unaffordable”

“Unusable”

Low


Cost to user

Minumumacceptable

quality

Low

High

High

“Unaffordable”

“Unusable”

Low

“Acceptable”

“Acceptable”

Local market waste

Box 4.2 (b) Matching users’ needs to different waste management options.


not mixed with waste from a widerange of sources.

•Smaller decentralised schemes aretypically simpler to operate and lessdemanding from an institutionalperspective as they involve thecoordination of the activities of fewerpeople.

Successful decentralised wasterecycling and reuse practices typicallyuse waste from a limited number ofknown sources. As a result, they arecharacterised by waste generatorsreusing their own waste or there beinga link between the waste generatorsand users either on a formal orinformal basis. In addition, manydecentralised practices do not involvethe formal solid waste managementsystem in their day-to-day operationand are carried out on a largely privatebasis. Examples include:

> anaerobic digesters forindividual establishments orhouseholds;

> on-farm reuse of agriculturalwastes;

> recovery of energy from bagassewithin sugar processing plants,;

> networks of local farmerscollecting waste directly fromlocal food markets;

> local farming co-operativescollecting and treating canteenand restaurant waste for use asanimal feed; and

> commercial compost andfertiliser manufacturerscollecting market, poultry andabattoir wastes as feedstock.

Local authorities can stimulate andsupport the development of

decentralised practices throughawareness building, technical andfinancial support, capacity building andthe creation of an enabling regulatoryand institutional context.

In practice, however, there are manysituations where it is not practical toadopt decentralised approaches as theyare dependent on there being sufficientlocal demand for the type of wasteproduced and sufficient resources andspace for recycling activities andstorage of waste.

Examples of situations wheredecentralised approaches may not beappropriate include producers of largequantities of organic waste in urbanareas where there is lesser demand fororganic waste. They are also not wellsuited to recycling waste from a largenumber of small sources, such asdomestic kitchens, small restaurantsand street food stalls. Herein it can bedifficult to control the level ofcontaminant in the waste and morecostly to collect.

Large scale approaches will remainnecessary

As decentralised approaches are onlyappropriate in certain settings thereremains a major need for alternative,large scale waste managementpractices that will encourage thewidespread reuse and recycling oforganic waste from food. Large scalepractices will inevitably involve morearea-wide systems of recycling, withwaste being used further from where itis generated. Examples of area-widepractices for the reuse of organic wasteinclude:

> large central composting plants;

> municipal source separation andcollection schemes;

> large scale municipal anaerobicdigesters;

> farmers using decomposedwaste from municipal dumps toapply to land; and

> centralised swill collection andtreatment programmes.

Successful area-wide approaches needto be tailored to the needs of localusers of waste as well as other keystakeholders, as discussed above.They are also likely to require the moreactive involvement of the formal wastemanagement system to facilitate thecollection and redistribution of wastebetween a large number of sources.

However, to date, many previous area-wide initiatives in developing andtransitional countries have not beensuccessful in diverting waste on a largescale, from the failed city levelcomposting plants in India to therecent failure of a demonstrationproject for a large scale anaerobicdigester for Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.Notwithstanding the failure of manyprevious schemes, there remains aneed for the development of effectivearea-wide approaches.

One option for the large scale, low costreuse of organic wastes worthy offurther consideration is themanagement of dumps and landfills forrecovery of decomposed organicmaterial, suggested recently by Furedy(2002). Furedy suggests that thequality of some organic waste fromdumps could be improved bysegregating waste from the leastcontaminated sources (e.g. markets,food processing plants, parks andresidential waste) in areas of dumpsaway from waste containing higherlevels of harmful contaminants (e.g.hospital waste and toxic industrialwastes). Farmers would then be

permitted to buy or collectdecomposed waste from thedesignated areas. This would reducethe level of contaminants whilstavoiding much of the additional costsof source separation or compostingand so better meet the needs of poorurban and peri-urban farmers.

4.6 Waste and livelihoodsWaste plays an important role in thelivelihoods of many of the poorest andmost vulnerable people in developingand transitional countries. Many townsand cities have a large informal wastesector which relies on waste as a keyresource and source of income, whileformal solid waste managementsystems are often major public sectoremployers. The income from thesewaste based activities can be vital tothe survival of many poor households.

If decision makers are to avoidunintentionally damaging these wastebased livelihoods, they mustunderstand the likely impacts of wastemanagement options on the particularactivities of those relying on waste.The technologies and practices chosencan have a major bearing on people’sabilities to access waste and theiropportunities to generate an incomefrom it. For example, using largecovered containers can make it difficultto access and sort wastes while mixingorganic and non-organic waste canmake both fractions worthless.

As well as the impact on the informalsector, decision makers must also beconscious of the employmentopportunities within the formal wastemanagement system. Wastemanagement practices that favour morelabour intensive methods rather thanhigh levels of mechanisation are likelyto be more beneficial in a wider socialcontext by creating greater



employment opportunities even if, as issometimes the case, they do not deliverthe maximum possible efficiency froma technical waste managementperspective. An example frequentlyencountered in recycling organic wastefrom food is in the choice ofcomposting plant design where,although technically feasible, highlymechanised designs may not representthe best options in the wider socialcontext of developing countries.

4.7 ConclusionsThis chapter has highlighted the mainissues for decision makers that haveemerged from the review of themanagement of waste from food indeveloping and transitional countries.It has been argued that the greatestopportunities for improving themanagement of waste from food willcome from increasing the proportion ofwaste that is reused and recycled,particularly organic waste, supportedby selective waste reduction initiatives.This is primarily due to the highproportion of organic material in wastefrom food.

To realise these opportunities, decisionmakers will need to ensure that wastemanagement interventions are tailoredto the local circumstances and areresponsive to the needs of wastegenerators, waste users and other keystakeholders. Specifically for therecycling of organic waste, this willrequire the development of schemeswhich can deliver waste of anacceptable quality and which will beaffordable to a large proportion ofpotential users. Without this, there willbe little demand for waste andrecycling will not be a viable wastemanagement option. The systematicand more extensive participation ofkey stakeholders in the developmentand monitoring of waste management

practices will therefore be an essentialfeature of successful wastemanagement systems.

In implementing strategies to increasethe reuse and recycling of organicwaste from food, decentralisedapproaches are preferable where thereis sufficient local demand for waste,and resources and space are availableto carry out the recycling activities.Decentralised approaches allow wasteto be reused close to where it isgenerated and can be simpler from anorganizational perspective. Thisincludes in the on-farm reuse ofagricultural wastes or the use of marketwaste as feed by local farmers.

Nevertheless, there will be manycircumstances where decentralisedapproaches are not appropriate andalternative, large scale wastemanagement practices will be vital inachieving the widespread reuse andrecycling of organic waste from food.However, to date, many large scaleapproaches have failed to establish thesustained and widespread reuse andrecycling of organic waste. Decisionmakers will need to consider how toimprove on previous practices to bettermeet the needs of key groups of userssuch as local farmers, for example,with the adoption of managementpractices at municipal dumps thatpromote the segregation and use ofbetter quality organic wastes.

finally, it is important that problems ofwaste management and their solutionsare not seen as isolated issues, but inthe wider social context. Waste is animportant part of the livelihoods ofmany of the poorest and mostvulnerable people in developing andtransitional countries and interventionsto improve the management of wastecan greatly affect the livelihoods ofmany people. For this reason, decisionmaker must consider the wider social

benefits of different options as well asthere effectiveness as wastemanagement solutions.


References • 91

References

Ali, Mansoor, (2001). Personalcommunication – discussion with DrS. M. Ali at Water, Engineering andDevelopment Centre, LoughboroughUniversity, UK.

Ali, Mansoor, Cotton,Andrew & Beall, Jo(1998). Micro enterprisedevelopment for primary collection,in Pickford, John (ed.) (1998).Proceedings of the 24th WEDCConference: Sanitation and Water forAll.

Amis, Philip, (1999). Urban EconomicGrowth and Poverty Reduction,Urban Governance, Poverty andPartnership. Theme Paper 2,International DevelopmentDepartment, School of Public policy,University of Birmingham, UK.

Aragrande, Maurizio & Argenti, Olivio,(2001). Studying food supply anddistribution systems to cities indeveloping countries and countriesin transition. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Ashworth, John, (1996). Mining theUrban Waste Stream for Energy.Office of Energy, Environment, andTechnology, USAID, Washington,DC, USA.

Batley, R. A., (1996). Public-PrivateRelationships and Performance inService Provision. Urban Studies,Vol. 33, No. 4-5, Carfax Publishing,UK.

Beall, J., (1997, 1). Social Capital inWaste - A Solid Investment. Journalof International Development 9 (7),John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.

Beall, J., (1997, 2). Thoughts on Povertyfrom a South Asian Rubbish Dump:Gender, Inequality and HouseholdWaste. IDS Bulletin 28 (3), Instituteof Development Studies, EastSussex, UK.

Benitez Washington, O.; Carrera, F.O.;Torres Egas, H. & Torres Moncayo, M.,(1999). La situacion actual yperspectivas de la ganader aperiurbana de Quito. Organizaciónde la Naciones Unidas para laagricultura y la alimentación (FAO),y Ministerio de Agricultura yganadera, Quito, Ecuador. 102 pp.;Cited in Schiere and Hoek (2000).

Bhaskar, R. B., (2000). Municipal SolidWaste based Power GenerationProgramme in Uttar Pradesh.Bioeneregy News 4 (4), Ministry ofNon-Conventional Energy Sources,Delhi, India.

Bidlingmaier,W., de Bertoldi, M., Diaz, L.F., Papadimitriou, E. K., (Eds.) (1999).Orbit 99: Organic Recovery andBiological Treatment, Part III.RHOMBOS-VERLAG Berlin,Germany.

Brunt, L.P., Dean, R.B. & Patrick, P.K.,(1985). Composting. In: Solid WasteManagement, selected topics. M.J.

Suess (editor). WHO. pp. 70-75;Cited in Hart and Pluimer (1996).Waste, The Netherlands.

Carney,Diana with Drinkwater,Michael;Rusinow, Tamara; Neefjes, Koos;Wanmali, Samir & Singh, Naresh,(1999) Livelihoods approachescompared: A brief comparison oflivelihoods approaches of the UK,DFID, CARE, Oxfam and UNDP.DFID, London, UK.

Chará, Julián David; Pulido, Elkin Dario& Cuellar, Piedad, (2000). Materialflow in “Pozo Verde” IntegratedFarm in Cauca Valley Province,Colombia; In: Foo, E.L.; Della SentaT. and Sakamota K. (2000) Materialflow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems.

Cointreau–Levine, Sandra, (1995).Private Sector Participation inMunicipal Solid Waste Services inDeveloping Countries - Volume 1.The Formal Sector, UrbanManagement and the EnvironmentWorking Paper 13, UrbanManagement Programme Publishedfor the Urban ManagementProgramme by The World Bank,Washington, DC, USA.

Devas, Nick, (1999). Who Runs Cities?The relationship between urbangovernance, service delivery andpoverty. Urban Governance,Poverty and Partnership. ThemePaper 4, International DevelopmentDepartment, School of Public policy,University of Birmingham, UK.

DTI South Africa, (2002). IntegratedWaste Exchange, News Article dated18 April 2002 on official website ofDepartment of Trade and Industry,South Africa (www.dti.gov.za).

Dulac, Nadine, (2001). The OrganicWaste flow in Integrated Sustainable

Waste Management– Tools forDecision Makers. WASTE, Gouda,The Netherlands.

Fernández, Antonia L., (1997). SolidWaste Management Micro-Enterprises: Asian Region Overview,UMP-Asia Occasional Paper No. 35,UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat)/WorldBank Urban ManagementProgramme, Asia and PacificRegional Office, Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia.

Fernando, Austin, Steven Russel,Anoushka Wilson & Elizabeth Vidler,(2000). Urban Governance,Partnership and Poverty; WorkingPaper 9 – Colombo, University ofBirmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Foo, E.L.; Della Senta T. & Sakamota K.,(eds.) (2000). Material flow Analysisof Integrated Bio-Systems, Instituteof Advanced Studies, UN University,Japan(www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ic-mfa).

Furedy, Christine, (2002). Urban WasteAnd Rural Farmers: Enabling Low-Cost Organic Waste Reuse InDeveloping Countries, Paperpresented at 6th World Congress onIntegrated Resources Management,12-15 February, Geneva,Switzerland.

Furedy, Christine & Chowdhury,Tasneem, (1996). Solid Waste ReuseAnd Urban Agriculture—DilemmasIn Developing Countries: The BadNews And The Good News. UrbanAgriculture Notes. City Farmer,Vancouver, Canada(www.cityfarmer.org).

Hardoy, Jorge E; Cairncross, Sandy &Satterthwaite, David, (1990). ThePoor Die Young - Housing andHealth in Third World Cities.


References • 93

Earthscan Publications, London, UK.

Hart, Doortge t’ & Pluimer, Jacomijn,(1996). Wasted Agriculture: The useof compost in urban agriculture.UWEP Working Document 1. Waste,Gouda, The Netherlands.

Ho, Y.W. & Chan, Y.K., (eds.) (1998).Proceedings of the RegionalWorkshop on Area-Wide Integrationof Crop-Livestock Activities. FAORegional Office, Bangkok, Thailand.

Hoornweg, Daniel & Thomas, Laura,(1999). What A Waste: Solid WasteManagement in Asia. Urban andLocal Government Working PaperSeries No. 1. World Bank,Washington, DC, USA.

ITDG, (2001) Biogas and Liquid Fuels –Technical Brief. IntermediateTechnology Development Group,Rugby, UK.

ISWA, (2000). International Directoryof Solid Waste Management 2000 –2001; The ISWA Yearbook. James & James (Science Publishers)Ltd., London, UK for InternationalSolid Waste Association.

Johannessen, Lars Mikkel & Boyer,Gabriela, (1999). Observations ofSolid Waste Landfills in DevelopingCountries: Africa, Asia, and LatinAmerica. World Bank, Washington,DC, USA.

Klundert, Arnold van de & Anschütz,Justine, (2001). IntegratedSustainable Waste Management –The concept – Tools for DecisionMakers. WASTE, Gouda, TheNetherlands.

Kusum,Lata;Rajeshwari,K.V.;Pant,D. C.& Kishore, V. V. N., (2001). TEAMProcess: Conceptualization of effortsto meet the challenge of vegetable

market waste management problem,Bioenergy News 43(11): pp. 21.Ministry of Non-ConventionalEnergy Sources, Delhi, India.

Lachance,Andre, (1994). Manila Turnsto Recycling. IDRC Reports, Vol. 21No. 4, IDRC Ottawa, Canada.

Lardinois, Inge & Klundert, Arnold vande, (1994). Organic Waste - Optionsfor small-scale resource recovery.TOOL/WASTE, Gouda, TheNetherlands.

Lardinois, Inge & Marchand, Rogier,(1999). Technical and financialEvaluation of CompostingProgrammes in Asia. In:Bidlingmaier, W. et al., (1999).Orbit 99 - Organic Recovery &Biological Treatment, Part III, (pp.799-806).

Lewcock, C.P, (1995). Farmers Use ofUrban Waste in KaNo. HabitatInternational, Vol. 19 No. 2,Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.

Losada H.; Bennett R.; Vieyra J.; SorianoR.; Cortes J. & Billling S., (2000).Recycling of organic wastes in theEast of Mexico City by agriculturaland livestock production systems.In: Foo, E.L.; Della Senta T. andSakamota K. (2000). Material flowAnalysis of Integrated Bio-Systems.

Machin, David, (2001). Safe use ofplant and animal by-products.AGRIPPA, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Medina, Martin, (1997). InformalRecycling and Collection of SolidWastes in Developing Countries:Issues and Opportunities. UNU/IASWorking Paper No. 24, UnitedNations University, Tokyo, Japan.

Moser, Caroline O. N., (1998). The AssetVulnerability Framework:

Reassessing Urban PovertyReduction Strategies. WorldDevelopment, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 1 –19, Elsevier Science ltd, UK.

Neutrog, (1999). Company newsletter– “Feedback” Autumn 1999.Neutrog Australia, Kanmantoo,Australia.

Peréz,Rena, (1997). Feeding Pigs in theTropics. FAO Animal Productionand Health Paper 132. FAO, Rome,Italy.

Pickford, John, (ed.) (1998).Proceedings of the 24th WEDCConference: Sanitation and Waterfor All. Water, Engineering andDevelopment Centre, LoughboroughUniversity, UK.

Preston,T. R., (1995). Tropical AnimalFeeding – A manual for researchworkers. Animal Production andHealth Paper 126, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Pugh, Cedric, (1997). Poverty andProgress? Reflections on Housingand Urban Policies in DevelopingCountries, 1976-96. Urban Studies,Vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 1547-1595,Carfax Publishing, UK.

Rushbrook P. E. & Pugh, M. P., (1999).Solid Waste Landfills in Middle andLower Income Countries: ATechnical Guide to Planning,Design, and Operation.World Bank,Washington, DC, USA.

Sánchez, Manuel D., (1998). Feed,animal waste and nutrientbalances. In Ho and Chan (1998).Proceedings of the RegionalWorkshop on Area-Wide Integrationof Crop-Livestock Activities.

Savage, George M.; Diaz, Luis; Golueke,Clarence G.; Martone, Charles &Ham, Robert K., (1998). Guide for

Landfilling Waste in EconomicallyDeveloping Countries. TheInternational Solid WasteAssociation, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Scheinberg,Anne, (2001). Micro- andSmall Enterprise in IntegratedSustainable Waste Management –Tools for Decision Makers. WASTE,Gouda, The Netherlands.

Schiere, Hans & Hoek, Rein van der,(2000). Livestock Keeping in UrbanAreas. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Schübeler, P., (1996). ConceptualFramework for Municipal SolidWaste Management in Low-IncomeCountries. SKAT, St. Gallen,Switzerland.

Smit, Jac;Ratta,Annu & Nasr, Joe, (1996).Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs andSustainable Cities, UNDP, Habitat IISeries. The Urban AgricultureNetwork, Washington, DC, USA.

The Independent, Banjul, (2002).Waste Information and Types ofWaste. In: The Independent, 4January 2002 edition. Banjul, TheGambia.

Thurgood, M., ed. (1998). Decision-Maker’s Guide to Solid WasteLandfills – Summary. The WorldBank, World Health Organization,Swiss Agency for Development andCooperation and Swiss Center forDevelopment Cooperation inTechnology and Management,Washington, DC, USA.

UN, (1992). Agenda 21: Earth Summit- The United Nations Programme ofAction from Rio. United Nations,New York, USA.

UNCHS, (2001). State of the World’sCities 2001. UNCHS (Habitat),Nairobi, Kenya.


References • 95

UNEP, (1996). International SourceBook on Environmentally SoundTechnologies for Municipal SolidWaste Management. UNEPInternational EnvironmentalTechnology Centre, Japan. SMI(Distribution Services) Limited,Stevenage, UK or online athttp://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/ESTdir/pub/MSW/index.asp.

UNESCO, (2000). Reducing megacityimpacts on the coastal environment– Alternative livelihoods and wastemanagement in Jakarta and theSeribu Islands. Coastal Region andSmall Island Papers 6, UNESCO,Paris, France.

Wegelin, Emiel & Borgman, Karin,(1995). Options for municipalinterventions in urban povertyalleviation. Environment &Urbanization, Vol. 7, No. 2 – UrbanPoverty II: From understanding toaction, IIED, London, UK.

WELL, (1998). DFID Guidancemanual on Water Supply andSanitation Programmes. WEDC forDFID, Water, Engineering andDevelopment Centre, LoughboroughUniversity, UK.

Wheeler, Patrick, (2000). Commercialand strategic perspectives foranaerobic digestion. In: ISWA(2000) International Directory ofSolid Waste Management 2000 –2001; The ISWA Yearbook. James &James (Science Publishers) Ltd,London, UK.

WHO, (1995). Building a healthy city;A practitioners’ guide. World HealthOrganization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Wongchantar, Kusuma, (undated) KoratHealthy City Project (KHCP).Nakhon Ratchasima MunicipalityThailand.

Woods, J. & Hall, D. O., (1994).Bioenergy for development –Technical and environmentaldimensions. UN FAO, Rome, Italy.

World Bank, (1997). Urban Waste andRural Soil Management. AgricultureTechnology Note 17, Agriculture andForestry Systems Division, WorldBank, Washington, DC, USA.

Zárate, Eduardo Pretell, (2001).Community Participation in theDevelopment of Healthy Markets.Paper for XII Inter-AmericanMeeting, at the Ministerial Level, onHealth and Agriculture, PanAmerican Health Organization,Washington, DC, USA.

Appendix 1: Further resources • 97

Appendix 1

Further resources

City Farmer www.cityfarmer.org

Canada’s Office of Urban Agriculture,Vancouver, BC, Canada

The searchable City Farmer websiteprovides an extensive range ofinformation and articles on all aspectsof urban agriculture. Informationcovers low-, middle and high incomecountries and is arranged by countryand themes, from livestock tocomposting and solid waste.

SKAT www.skat.ch

Swiss Centre for DevelopmentCooperation in Technology andManagement, St. Gallen, Switzerland

SKAT is a leading Swiss consultancyfirm working internationally in theareas of Water and Sanitation,Architecture and Building, TransportInfrastructure, and Urban Developmentincluding solid waste management. Asa consultancy organization and asectoral documentation centre, SKATcollects relevant information onappropriate technologies, documentedlessons learned, and disseminatedthem.

UNEP International EnvironmentalTechnology Centre www.unep.or.jp

Osaka, Japan

IETC provides various resources onenvironmentally sound technologies

including databases, publications andsupport tools. These include thecomprehensive International SourceBook on Environmentally SoundTechnologies for Municipal Solid WasteManagement.

UN Food and Agriculture Organizationwww.fao.org

Rome, Italy

FAO is the lead UN agency foragriculture, forestry, fisheries and ruraldevelopment. FAO works to alleviatepoverty and hunger by promotingagricultural development, improvednutrition and the pursuit of foodsecurity, and has numerous resourcesdealing with all agriculture and postharvest management of food.

WASTE www.waste.nl

Gouda, The Netherlands

WASTE is a non-profit organization fordevelopment projects in countries inAfrica, Asia and Latin America. WASTEworks for organizations that aim at asustainable improvement of the livingconditions of the urban low-incomepopulation and of the urbanenvironment in general. As well asconsultancy and research, WASTE alsopublishes various toolkits andresources on solid waste managementin developing and transitionalcountries.

WEDC www.wedc.ac.uk

Water, Engineering and DevelopmentCentre, Loughborough University,Loughborough, UK

WEDC is one of the world’s leadinginstitutions concerned with theplanning, provision and managementof physical infrastructure and basicservice for development in low- andmiddle-income countries. WEDCprovides consultancy, research andtraining in solid waste managementand many related areas of water andsanitation.

World Bank - Urban Waste ManagementThematic Groupwww.worldbank.org/urban/solid_wm/swm_body.htm

The Urban Waste ManagementThematic Group formulates strategicapproaches for integrated municipalsolid waste management projects toincrease coverage, especially for theurban poor, and provide safe disposal.Their website provides a wide range ofresources on both technical andmanagement issues of solid wastemanagement and a list of relevantWorld Bank publications.


Waste from Food final - Food and Agriculture Organization · 2009-12-28 · recycling useful...

Documents

Transcript of Waste from Food final - Food and Agriculture Organization · 2009-12-28 · recycling useful...