Transcript Slide 1

Determine Transfer Breakpoints:
40
REAR LOADER
MANUAL 10
35
30
COST/TONNE ($US)
• Each type and size
of collection
vehicle has a
different transfer
breakpoint
• Traffic speed
affects the transfer
breakpoint
• Consider transfer
for hauls over 30
minutes
COST ($US/Tonne) FOR COLLECTION AND
TRANSFER SYSTEMS - GOVERNMENT SERVICE Georgetown, Guyana- 1999
TRANSFER
SYSTEM W/
COLL.TRUCKS
25
TRANSFER
TRUCK W/
FACILITY
20
15
TRANSFER
TRUCK 60
10
TRANSFER
STATION
5
0
5
15
30
DISTANCE ONE WAY TO DISPOSAL
50
1
Typical 2-Level Transfer
Stations:
Quito, Ecuador, 1998
Manila, Philippines,
1993
2
Direct Unloading
to Transfer Truck:
Hyderabad, India, Skip
Container Lift Collection Truck,
Unloads to Open Tipping Truck,
2001
3
Unloading to Storage Floor:
Wheeled loader pushes waste into hopper. Knuckleboom
crane distributes load.
4
Types of Transfer Vehicles:
US, lightweight, filled by
extrusion from a
compaction chamber
US, lightweight open topped,
filled by gravity from hopper
5
Transfer Systems:
• Enable implementation of regional
Treatment/Disposal facilities that achieve
Economies-of-Scale.
• Treatment/Disposal facilities should be at
least 300 tonnes/daily shift to have
bulldozers, wheeled loaders, windrow
turners fully utilized.
• Roads, fences, weighbridges, gatehouses,
utilities and maintenance components are
fixed costs that should be applied to large
waste quantities to lower cost/tonne.
6
Landfill Economies-of-Scale:
Landfill Costs - Trinidad and Tobago, 1999
45.0
Cost in $US/Metric Tonne
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Investment Cost/Tonne - Clay and Geomembrane
40 TPD
550 TPD
Total Cost/Tonne - Clay and Geomembrane
1100 TPD
7
Composting:
• Compost plants are
safe and clean and
technically
appropriate for
clean organic
waste
• Product quality is
key to success
• Market demand
may not be
adequate to cover
costs
Ahmedebad, India, 2001
8
Vermi-Composting:
• Requires more
land than
composting,
because piles
short.
• It is more
sensitive to
toxics in waste,
and is best done
on partially
composted
waste.
Bangalore, India, 2001
9
Neighborhood Composting:
• Lessen the need to
transport waste to
disposal.
• Enable
neighborhood
revenues and
employment.
• Require motivated
public support.
Dakha, Bangladesh,
2001
10
Refuse-Derived-Fuel Pellets:
Hyderabad, India,
2001
• Limited to dry
climates with dry
waste.
• Only clean sorted
waste can be
consolidated into
pellets for use as
low-calorie fuel.
• Market demand
may not be
adequate for cost
recovery.
11
Materials Recycling at Source:
• Source segregation obtains
cleanest reusable materials.
• Source segregation requires
extra collection systems.
• Registration and route
assignment upgrades the
status and security of waste
pickers.
• Source segregation
minimizes occupational and
environmental health risks.
Bangalore, India, 2001
12
Protective Gear for Workers:
Khulna, Bangladesh (syringes), 2001
Tema, Ghana, 1998
13
Segregate Special Wastes:
• Licensed private operators to safely
handle segregated biomedical
wastes
Hyderabad,
India, 2001
14
Third – How do we
arrange financially for
Sustainable Solid Waste
Systems?
15
Solid Waste Service is Costly:
• Total cost for solid waste collection,
transfer, and disposal is typically
$40-80/tonne.
• Per capita waste generation is 0.2-0.3
tonnes/year.
• 60-70% of total cost is for collection.
• Full solid waste service requires 12% of GDP.
16
Adequate Cash Flow is Essential:
• 50-70% of total cost is for
recurrent expenditure – labor,
fuel, tires, oil, spare parts.
• Labor and fuel are priority
expenditures.
• If there aren’t enough recurrent
funds, spare vehicles are
cannibalized for parts.
17
Sources of Capital Funds:
• Municipal bond issues for facilities,
including intergovernmental tax
credits that recognize externalities.
• Municipal borrowings for vehicles,
such as from national development
banks.
• Renewal funds replenished by special
taxes, user charges, tipping fees.
• Intergovernmental transfers.
• Private sector investment.
18
Private Involvement raises
Recurrent Budget Requirements:
• Recurrent budget must be higher to
involve the private sector.
• Contractors have to pay monthly for
their debt service for investment, and
they borrow from short term notes at
high commercial interest rates.
• Few municipalities could afford to
support private sector investment.
• Mostly old non-specialized private
vehicles are hired.
19
Some reasons for Limited Progress:
• Public systems improved in 80’s not sustained.
• Development organizations in 90’s reduced
funding, assuming there would be private
investment.
• Investment climate didn’t improve, due to
political intervention in contracting and
contract continuity.
• Municipalities were restricted in the size and
length of contracts.
• Labor laws and unions restricted staffing
reductions to enable private sector service.
20
Solid Waste is a Public Good:
• Uncollected and poorly disposed
solid waste adversely affects public
health and environment.
• All municipal residents and visitors
benefit from any solid waste
services, regardless of whether
they directly participated.
• Excluding some residents from
services, adversely affects others.
21
Economic Instruments for Regional or
Global Externalities:
• Intergovernmental transfers to
upgrade disposal to desired national
standards.
• Intergovernmental transfers to
encourage compost as a carbon sink
and means of upgrading land for
agriculture.
• International transfers to encourage
emission reductions to reduce climate
change.
22
Examples of financial transfers:
• USA Superfund to remediate hazardous
releases, including qualifying municipal
dumps.
– 1980-2005+ Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act,
and subsequent amendments.
– Funded with taxes on crude oil and certain
chemicals, eventually 8.5 $US BB.
– 45,000 sites assessed, about 1,600 placed on
National Priority List.
– Private responsible parties sued by Govt. to
reimburse the trust.
Source: Francisco Grajales
23
Examples of financial transfers:
• Israel Solid Waste Subsidy Program
– 1994-2003 financial support to municipalities.
– Covered 5 years of cost increases for increased
disposal and haulage from implementing
improved new landfills.
– Covered recycling communal bins and a fee
for each tonne of waste recycled.
– Covered half the cost of backyard composting
devices.
Source: Francisco Grajales
24
Examples of financial transfers:
• EU funds to upgrade disposal for EU
accession countries.
– 2000-5+ Instrument for Structural Polices for
Pre-Assession.
– Grants to upgrade infrastructure to meet EU
standards, averaging over 1 BB Euros annually.
– Funds up to 75% of landfill civil works
investment.
• EU cohesion funds
– 2000-5+ Assists less prosperous member
countries to meet EU standards – about 28 BB
Euros.
Source: Francisco Grajales
25
Examples of financial transfers:
• UK Landfill Tax Credit
– Taxes every tonne landfilled – 50 BB
Pounds/year – mostly funds remediation of
solid waste activities.
– Landfills given exemption for donations to
environmental improvements.
– Similar landfill taxes in France, Italy, and
Netherlands.
• Ireland Recycling Partnership
– 1997 payment for every tonne of packaging
waste recycled – over 60 MM Euros thus far.
Source: Francisco Grajales
26
Examples of financial transfers:
• USA Tax Exemptions
– For bond issues for resource recovery plants
– For investment in landfill gas recovery
• Various US States Recycling Subsidies
– 5-15% price preferences for recycled content
• Global Environmental Facility
– funds to promote climate change
improvements – 1991-2005+ – ~5 $BB.
• Carbon Finance
– funds to purchase green house gas emission
reductions – 2000-2005+ - ~1$BB.
Source: Francisco Grajales
27
Examples of possible carbon
finance in solid waste sector*:
• Landfill
methane gas
capture to flare
or recover.
• Composting or
anaerobic
digestion to
avoid landfill
gas.
• Transfer stations
reduce vehicle
emissions from
direct haul by
collection vehicles.
• Recycling captures
inherent energy in
recyclable
materials.
*Note: Bank transaction costs necessitate bundling solid waste
components to meet required 50,000 tonnes/year of CO2 equivalent
28
Carbon finance to reduce Green
House Gases:
• In past century, GHG’s grew 35%.
• Industrialized countries, with only 20% of world
population, contributed over 60% of the GHG’s.
• By 2025, global GHG’s are projected to grow by
57%.
• By 2025, developing country GHG’s are
projected to grow by 84%.
• Carbon finance is an international incentive
from the original polluters to LDC’s to motivate
them to reduce global GHG externalities.
29
~41 billion tonnes/yr CO2 equivalent
discharge to atmosphere in 2000:
• ~16% is from methane.
• Methane is 21-25 times stronger as a GHG
than CO2.
• World Bank carbon finance pays according
to climate change impact.
• Each tonne of methane is paid at 21 times the
price of CO2.
• Emission purchase agreements commit to
pay for 10+ years from World Bank funds.
• Prices range upwards from 5$/tonne CO2
equivalent, depending on risk.
30
Solid waste - one of 3 most fixable
sources of methane:
Major Sources of Methane GHG
(~6 billion tCO2e) - % Distribution
Rice-11%
M anure-4%
Ent eric f erment at ion-28%
Biomass burning-5%
Biof uel production-4%
Wastewat er-10%
Coal-8%(f ixable)
Solid waste-13%(f ixable)
Nat ural gas-15%(f ixable)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Source: US EPA year 2000 data
30
31
How do we cover costs for
service benefits occur within
municipal boundaries and
warrant being covered by
municipal revenues?
32
Ideally……
• Delegate more authority to
municipalities to
– Raise capital for investments, and
– Establish fees and taxes to cover
recurrent costs and debt service.
• Encourage municipalities to enter
inter-municipal agreements for
specific facilities with economies-ofscale (~300 tonnes/day for most
facilities…~400,000 residents).
33
Cost Recovery is Recommended:
• People are willing to pay for good
service.
• Free riders and illegal dumpers are
commonly identifiable from papers in
their waste.
• Earmarked user charges enable
reliable revenues for service delivery.
• Large generators may be influenced
by quantity-based charges…polluter
pays principle.
34
Cost Recovery Mechanisms:
• Property-tax additions for solid
waste.
• User charges attached to water or
electric bills.
• User charges billed separately to all
waste generators.
• Tipping fees at transfer and disposal
facilities.
35
Charges are based on City-wide Costs.
• Service to the poor is often more costly
– small loads, poor access.
• Value of waste from the poor is less –
fewer recyclables, more ash and sand.
• Charges should be proportional to
income:
– Property area,
– Water consumption, or
– Electricity consumption.
• Only large generators pay by volume.
36
Additional Revenue Sources:
• License fees from private
subscription operators.
• Franchise fees for service zones.
• Sales from recyclables, compost and
landfill gas.
• Carbon finance from sale of
CO2equivalent emission reductions.
• Landfill, environmental, or tourist
taxes earmarked for solid waste.
37
Conclusions:
•Plan cost-effective technical
systems.
•Address all health and
environmental issues.
•Develop sustainable financial
arrangements.
38
http://www.worldbank.org
/solidwaste
http://carbonfinance.org
[email protected]
39
For Discussion Call:
1-210-515-3863#
Passcode: 9623224
40