A Practical Approach to Future Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries - A Closer Look at Georgetown, Guyana

The need for proper municipal solid waste management (MSWM) in developing countries is obvious as the effects on the environment and public health can be more profound there. Waterborne diseases and the proliferation of disease-carrying vectors associated with solid waste only increase due to improper sanitation and pollution management, and have resulted in many illnesses and deaths in developing countries throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Therefore, good MSWM will help immensely in proper sanitation while solving the problem for many citizens of having to deal with waste disposal on their own. Benefits of better MSWM also include improved environmental conditions and an improved economic status with savings in the long-term development of MSWM. The underlying purpose of this study was to develop a conceptual methodology for MSWM strategies in developing nations while demonstrating the ability to make sound and practical decisions with limited and constrained data in the present and in the future. The methodology that was developed is specific in its recommendations to Guyana, yet it is generic enough to be modified and applied to any situation in other developing countries with similar characteristics. The final product of the study was a quick, practical, costeffective, and environmentally sound ten-point checklist that could be followed by solid waste planners in developing countries. AIAEE 2002 Proceedings of the 18 Annual Conference Durban, South Africa 486 Introduction Practical solutions to environmental problems today show that the technical answer is not always the whole answer. In many situations, this is due partly to inadequate detailed technical knowledge and partly to socioeconomic reasons, yet in spite of this, decisions still have to be made. Lack of information, be it scientific or social, is a common phenomenon in many developing countries where insufficient funding only exacerbates the problem. This dilemma is directly applicable to municipal solid waste management (MSWM) in many developing countries, many of which do not have formal methods of managing their solid wastes and whose MSWM systems are often unstructured, inadequate and obsolete. It has been estimated that between 30% and 75% of waste in the cities of developing countries goes uncollected (Doberstein, 1992). In some countries, wastes may be buried, burned, or simply dumped on vacant land or into drains, ditches, and other waterways because of inadequate collection or options for its disposal. These practises are often made worse by the lack of trained personnel and the lack of enforcement of minimal existing regulations. This is the situation in Guyana. Brief Background of Guyana and its MSWM Guyana, a former British colony with an area of 83,000 square miles (Central Intelligence Agency, 1999) and population of 705,156 (Central Intelligence Agency, 1999) is located on the northern coast of South America. The population of metropolitan Georgetown, the capital and chief port, is estimated at 254,000 (World Almanac, 1999). The MSWM system in Georgetown has suffered from years of under-funding, improper planning, and mismanagement. It has experienced and continues to have problems with inadequate collection and disposal of waste. There are no costs to users, such as license fees, collection fees, tipping fees at the landfill, environmental taxes, and/or special sanctions against contractors or customers, to recover charges (Cointreau-Levine, 1998). Collection is a very inefficient process. While most of the collection is done by private contractors, some is done by the municipality with the few functional trucks that it does have. Waste is contained and collected in any available container bins, drums, barrels, boxes, etc. In places where no containers are used, the waste is simply thrown on the side of the road in front of homes, sometimes by several households. In Georgetown, there is only one way of disposing of municipal solid waste landfilling. The current landfill, like all the others in the past, is nothing more than a temporary, shallow, poorly designed, unlined, unmonitored hole in the ground that is backfilled with solid waste and covered with soil by bulldozers once filled to capacity. There is no compaction of the waste, except for natural settling and that resulting from the weight of the bulldozers that spread the waste. There is no daily covering of waste, nor any leachate or air emission monitoring. Methods, Data Sources and Situation Overview In order to have a good frame of reference, cultural, societal, economic, historical, financial and political aspects of MSWM in Georgetown were analysed. The inherent problem of lack of data was circumvented by comparing and contrasting the municipal solid waste situation in Guyana with that in the United States. All information and data were obtained from original research as well as published and unpublished government and private agency reports, personal communications, literature reviews and secondary field data. Due to AIAEE 2002 Proceedings of the 18 Annual Conference Durban, South Africa 487 the space constraints of this paper, a very condensed summary of the background information gathered is presented in the following table. It gives an overview of the major differences in MSWM between Guyana and the United States. Guyana United States Environmental Laws Some, not well enforced Strict laws, enforced Pollution Prevention Minimal, not mandated Present Recycling Present, highly efficient, not mandated Present, mandated Quantity of Waste 1.2 pounds/person/day 4.4 pounds/person/day Disposal methods Organised in some places, mostly urban areas Organised everywhere Education None, lack of resources Present, good resources Waste Composition of Municipal Waste Mostly organic, minimal hazardous Mostly packaging, less organic, little hazardous Scavenging Common Against the law Waste and Health Data Very limited Very good Methodology for Future Planning The following ten-point checklist that was developed is one that could be followed by planners and researchers when trying to assess and improve MSWM systems. It is in effect a rapid assessment tool for the local situation that will not be time consuming and will not require large amounts of funding. 1. Social Factors and Education: Social factors refer to the awareness and attitudes that people have regarding solid waste, its management and risk perception. It includes local beliefs and customs, all of which vary not only from country to country, but, even village to village. It is important to plan MSWM systems such that the people who will be using them can accept them. Social behaviours will impact education efforts if issues such as public health must be addressed. Simple surveys could be designed to find out vital information from the public. These must be simple, realistic and must not overwhelm. A few important questions could be asked in the form of questionnaires or personal interviews. If this is the first time that such a thing is being done, it is of utmost importance not to annoy the public. Beginning simply is the most important step. Some questions that could be asked are: a) What problems are you experiencing with MSWM? b) What kind of changes would you like to see? c) Would you be willing to make some adjustments in order to support a more functional MSWM plan? d) Would you be willing to pay a fee for reliable collection and disposal? e) Would you be willing to participate in a recycling programme if there were one? f) Would you agree to financial penalties for those who do not comply with regulations? AIAEE 2002 Proceedings of the 18 Annual Conference Durban, South Africa 488 The answers to these questions can provide researchers with an idea of how people feel about current MSWM practises and to what extent they would support changes. Education of the public and to a certain degree risk communication, will play a very distinct role in present and future planning. 2. Waste Stream Information: One of the most important factors in MSWM planning is the waste stream composition. Questions that need to be answered are: a) What are the quantities, or at least approximations, of the total amounts of waste produced and possible future projections? b) What is the basic composition of stream, i.e., is it mostly organic food waste? Does it contain a high recyclable content? c) What are the densities of the waste? 3. Collection: Based on waste stream composition data, several options will have to be addressed. These are: a) Would separate (house to house), combined (one bin for several households) or a combination of the two be appropriate? b) Would curbside, in the alley or at the back door collection be most efficient? c) What frequency of collection, based on ambient temperature, would be the best in order to avoid disease and vector breeding? In hotter climates more frequent pickup will be necessary to minimise odour, vector breeding and human and animal scavenging if they are not well controlled (Doberstein, 1992). d) Will collection be performed by the municipality (public agency or utility collects waste using its own employees and equipment), contract (public agency pays contractors to collect), private (resident and/or firms in limited groups pay private collectors directly) or some combination of the three? e) What would be the best routes, given the conditions of the roads, street patterns and widths, to be taken by collection vehicles to maximise collection efficiency and decrease damage to them and the roads? f) Do traffic patterns need to be addressed if they are too heavy in certain collection areas? If so, a schedule that is least disruptive to both collectors and motorists must be instituted. 4. Work Force and Productivity: Several important considerations are: a) What would be an appropriate crew size and its organisation to promote efficiency? b) How well trained would workers have to be in order to perform tasks that include basic reporting about SWM operations? AIAEE 2002 Proceedings of the 18 Annual Conference Durban, South Africa 489 5. Equipment: The available technology plays a significant role in MSWM. While there are advanced and complex technologies for management of solid waste in developed countries, these technologies may not be available in developing nations. Efforts must be made to utilise low-cost technology. This applies mostly to collection methods and final disposal facility maintenance. Thus, a) For collection, the vehicles that are employed must be well-suited for the job in terms of size, type of design and number. b) At the final disposal facilities the same applies machinery that is used should be the best suited for this job. Many times, trucks and landfill machines can be much smaller than those used in developed countries. 6. Resource Recovery: The following four areas can provide direction to recovering resources. a) Options of recycling materials for which there are markets should be considered. This could mean recycling of consumer products generated in the home or other materials such as tyres. If these cannot be recycled locally and there are possibilities of taking them overseas while still being economically feasible, the avenues should be explored. b) The recycling of other materials, such as glass, plastic, tin and aluminum should be researched. If no possibilities exist locally, would it be possible to ship the materials abroad, but close by? Would the market costs for recycled material make the endevour cost effective after collection and separation? b) In hot and humid areas, gas evolution from the decay of waste is accelerated, so if landfilling is chosen as an alternative, this issue could be addressed. Some sort of gas ventilation or collection method could be employed. If the gas could be collected, it could be used in homes for cooking or even cooling (and heating, if necessary) purposes. c) Composting and mulching of all yard and organic waste should at least be considered. Research and field demonstrations indicate that urban-derived composts and mulches have several positive effects. These are: increasing soil organic content and water retention, decreasing water contamination, suppressed disease in specific crops and prevention of soil erosion (Relis, 1998). In developing countries where climatic and economic conditions favour composting, it is a very good option for reducing the volume of waste (up to 50%, mainly by releasing water and carbon dioxide) requiring final disposal. Composting is not very labour intensive and requires relatively little screening. This compost would be very useful in arid and semiarid regions where soils lack organic content. Yard waste just needs to be chipped to increase surface area to aid the breakdown process of organic matter. Setting it out in long piles or windrows and turning it periodically, manually or mechanically, to introduce fresh air also increases rates of decomposition. AIAEE 2002 Proceedings of the 18 Annual Conference Durban, South Africa 490 7. Disposal Options: Since landfilling (semi-controlled dumping) and incineration are still the most predominant methods of solid waste disposal in many developing countries, a closer look should be taken at the factors that affect their choice. Climatic conditions play a very important role in the selection of the type of MSWM that will be employed. If there is much rainfall, then incineration without proper pollution controls would not be a good idea because the emitted fumes would be brought down over the immediately surrounding area. Heavy rainfall would also impact landfilling as an option, especially if the landfill is a simple dump. The water will act as a medium to dissolve and transport all produced leachate downward. In places with high water tables, this could be a potential problem. Heavy rainfall could also affect composting efforts by flooding the systems if they are not covered. Soil type is an especially important parameter in the consideration of landfill siting. If the soil is very porous, the result can be increased rates of leaching. If the landfills are sanitary landfills, then it is not such a problem, but if the landfills are no more than simple dumps, then location should be chosen with the least porous soil, i.e. some type of clay. For incineration and composting options, the soil type is not very crucial when considering pollution (not air) problems. The position of the water table is a major consideration in the siting of landfills. Sites where the water table is high should be avoided as much as possible. If the water table is high, there is an increased chance of leachate entering the groundwater. This could be especially problematic if the groundwater is a potable source. As with the soil type, the water table does not affect incineration and composting options very much. In arid regions, disposal sites may be located in areas with higher water tables than in wetter regions, such as the tropics, where leaching, overflow and surface water contamination could be a significant problem. In areas where there is significant seismic activity, its relevance to landfill and incinerator siting must be addressed. Activity could disrupt liners and pollution control methods at landfills. There could be high risk of gas ignition from the sudden earth movements. For an incinerator, it could also be dangerous in that seismic activity could destroy or cause serious structural damage to such a costly facility. The landfilling option can be chosen if the above factors are permitting. Then, several other questions need to be addressed: I. Would there be a problem with blowing debris? If so, is there material for daily cover and are fences an option to reduce it? II. What would be an approximate life span of the facility? How much waste could it accept? III. Would methane generation be a problem? If so, would collection be possible? If not, could it be burned off? IV. Will leachate be a concern? Will liners be available and affordable? Would other methods of leachate collection be possible? Incineration is always an option if the technology is available, but the important factor would be whether pollution controls have been fitted. If the incinerator simply burns waste AIAEE 2002 Proceedings of the 18 Annual Conference Durban, South Africa 491 without any kind of air emission control device, then the types of materials incinerated must be limited. This is especially true of plastics, which are composed of non-biodegradable inorganic materials. They breakdown into reactive flammable monomers containing chlorine compounds. Improper incineration can pose some degree of toxicity, especially the evolution of vinyl chloride, a colourless, mildly sweet smelling, highly explosive and flammable gas and a known human carcinogen. There is also potential for the production of hydrogen cyanide (HCN), another toxic gas. Plasticisers, which increase flexibility in plastics, have been known to bio-accumulate (Bynoe, 1997). Incineration also requires the disposal of ash. 8. Laws and Regulations: While laws in many developing countries are minimal or simply nonexistent, the issue still needs to be addressed. If laws are existent, they should be reviewed and if possible revised, so that they can be applicable to the local situation. If there are no laws, then they should be written. They need not be complicated, they just need to be realistic and functional. Law enforcement needs to be included in such laws. Once again, it does not need to be highly sophisticated, just straightforward, useful and enforceable given the local conditions. Environmental policies must coincide with desired levels of environmental quality and public health, while improving economic development. 9. Financial Resources: The economic factors are probably the most crucial of all the factors that need to be considered. Inadequate funding limits all aspects of SWM including collection, transport, management, as well as landfill siting, incinerator operation and law enforcement. The final disposal site must be located at such a location as to minimise transportation costs. Location decisions must be based on processing and transportation costs. The exact amount of funding must be known and the responsible disbursement body must be held responsible and accountable for these funds. Financial aid can be sought from developed countries and international communities (Curi, 1985). For nations like Guyana, which do not have critical problems, monetary aid would be ideal. Since the investments to improve the current systems would not be large, possibilities of getting financial aid will be higher. 10. Other Issues: While hazardous substances, such as household and automobile chemicals, are found in negligible quantities in the developing countries’ wastes, options for some method of collecting it could be considered. Education begun at this point would be invaluable in the future if quantities of the hazardous waste were to increase and would need to be dealt with. Improved communication between developing and developed countries could be beneficial to all for exchange of information, technology and support (Curi, 1985). Educational/Extension Importance: Proper MSWM improves environmental conditions and public health, both of which are key to global well-being and sustainability. With growing populations comes an increase in municipal solid waste. Because of the burdens of understaffing and lack of funding, it is important for decision-makers in developing countries to have ecologically sustainable, AIAEE 2002 Proceedings of the 18 Annual Conference Durban, South Africa 492 socially sound and economically feasible alternatives for MSWM. Caution must be exercised when hiring foreign consultants and when considering transfer of technology. Local constraints must be addressed and incorporated into final decisions. Changes need not be drastic and costly. Better planning and enforcement must accompany a dedicated effort to follow through with proposed improvements. Feasible and realistic improvements now, could be a very cost efficient preventative action for the future. The role that extension can and will play in future MSWM is invaluable because of the outreach that it can provide. Extension specialists in developing countries have the means to communicate not only with planners, but with workers and citizens as well. Their ability to be aware of and understand local conditions, as well as their hands-on approach, will serve as a valuable resource in information dissemination especially where it counts the most. While this may seem to be a nontraditional role for extension workers, it appears to the researchers that there is no better organization to deal with these kinds of issues in developing countries. Conclusion: In conclusion, it is imperative for developing countries to pay more attention to MSWM, because in spite of the many limitations that exist, initiatives must be taken to improve the current systems and plan for the future. The hard lessons that have already been learned by developed countries point to the fact that a well thought out and developed approach can literally save money and lives. Ultimately, all decisions involving MSWM in developing countries will be based upon insufficient data and since the technical data may be hard to find, it is very important that the choice of the non-technical people whose combined views will enable judgments to be made during policy making are picked very carefully. Fundamental to this entire process is the education of people about the processes and possibilities. Extension workers can and probably should be involved in this arena in developing countries.