Search

Numbers do matter; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s 2010 data that the waste sector is responsible for just 3% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has led to the misperception that solid waste management (SWM) has little to contribute to climate mitigation. Global efforts to control methane emissions and divert organic waste from landfills had already reduced direct emissions. But end-of-pipe SWM has also been evolving into more circular waste and resource management, with indirect GHG savings from the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) which IPCC accounts for elsewhere in the economy. The evidence compiled here on both direct emissions and indirect savings demonstrates with high confidence that better waste and resource management can make a significant contribution to climate mitigation, and must form a core part of every country's nationally determined contribution. Even the most advanced countries can still achieve much from the 3Rs. In the Global South, the challenge of extending waste collection to all and stopping open dumping and burning (sustainable development goal 11.6.1), essential to improve public health, can be turned into a huge opportunity. Moving early to divert waste from landfill by separation at source and collecting clean organic and dry recycling fractions, will mitigate global GHG emissions, slash ocean plastics and create decent livelihoods. But this can only happen with targeted climate, plastics and extended producer responsibility finance; and help to local communities to help themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Improving waste and resource management (WaRM) around the world can halve the weight of plastics entering the oceans, significantly mitigate global heating and contribute directly to 12 of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). Achieving such results demands understanding and learning from historical evolution of WaRM. The baseline is 1970, prior to environmental legislation. Early steps in the Global North focused on the 'technical fix' within strictly enforced legal frameworks, first bringing hazardous wastes and municipal solid wastes (MSW) under control, then gradually ramping up environmental standards. Using modern technologies to the Global South often failed due to institutional and financial constraints. From 1990, focus switched to integrating technical and governance aspects: local institutional coherence, financial sustainability, provider inclusivity, user inclusivity, national legislative and policy framework. The Global North rediscovered recycling, using policy measures to promote segregation at source; this relied on new markets in emerging economies, which had largely disappeared by 2020. The Global South is making progress on bringing wastes under control, but around 2.7 billion people lack access to waste collection, while ~40% of collected MSW is open dumped or burned – a continuing global waste emergency. So, much remains to be done to move further towards a circular economy. Three policy priorities are critical for all countries: access to sustainable financing, rethinking sustainable recycling and worldwide extended producer responsibility with teeth. Extending services to unserved communities (SDG11.6.1) requires a people-centred approach, working with communities to provide both quality services and decent livelihoods for collection and recycling workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the evidence base for ‘operator models’ – that is, how to deliver a sustainable service through the interaction of the ‘client’, ‘revenue collector’ and ‘operator’ functions – for municipal solid waste management in emerging and developing countries. The companion article addresses a selection of locally appropriate operator models. The evidence shows that no ‘standard’ operator model is effective in all developing countries and circumstances. Each city uses a mix of different operator models; 134 cases showed on average 2.5 models per city, each applying to different elements of municipal solid waste management – that is, street sweeping, primary collection, secondary collection, transfer, recycling, resource recovery and disposal or a combination. Operator models were analysed in detail for 28 case studies; the article summarises evidence across all elements and in more detail for waste collection. Operators fall into three main groups: The public sector, formal private sector, and micro-service providers including micro-, community-based and informal enterprises. Micro-service providers emerge as a common group; they are effective in expanding primary collection service coverage into poor- or peri-urban neighbourhoods and in delivering recycling. Both public and private sector operators can deliver effective services in the appropriate situation; what matters more is a strong client organisation responsible for municipal solid waste management within the municipality, with stable political and financial backing and capacity to manage service delivery. Revenue collection is also integral to operator models: Generally the municipality pays the operator from direct charges and/or indirect taxes, rather than the operator collecting fees directly from the service user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the second of two papers reporting the results of a major study considering ‘operator models’ for municipal solid waste management (MSWM) in emerging and developing countries. Part A documents the evidence base, while Part B presents a four-step decision support system for selecting an appropriate operator model in a particular local situation. Step 1 focuses on understanding local problems and framework conditions; Step 2 on formulating and prioritising local objectives; and Step 3 on assessing capacities and conditions, and thus identifying strengths and weaknesses, which underpin selection of the operator model. Step 4A addresses three generic questions, including public versus private operation, inter-municipal co-operation and integration of services. For steps 1–4A, checklists have been developed as decision support tools. Step 4B helps choose locally appropriate models from an evidence-based set of 42 common operator models (coms); decision support tools here are a detailed catalogue of the coms, setting out advantages and disadvantages of each, and a decision-making flowchart. The decision-making process is iterative, repeating steps 2–4 as required. The advantages of a more formal process include avoiding pre-selection of a particular com known to and favoured by one decision maker, and also its assistance in identifying the possible weaknesses and aspects to consider in the selection and design of operator models. To make the best of whichever operator models are selected, key issues which need to be addressed include the capacity of the public authority as ‘client’, management in general and financial management in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The need for improved cost planning methods for solid waste management (SWM) is particularly strong in emerging economies where problems are severe, expectations for improvements are high, but finances are constrained. Estimating cost functions is suggested as an improved cost planning method. The research uses 1999 data from 298 Indian municipalities, covering over 140 million people. Stepwise multiple regression involving eight predictor variables was conducted on costs to detect any statistically significant correlations. The average costs on either a per tonne or per capita basis are most influenced by the total number of staff employed per capita or per tonne. The results are believed to be due to labour costs being such a high fraction of total costs in developing countries. Due to high variability in labour intensity between municipalities the data showed no clear correlation between per tonne or per capita costs and population, indicating no economy-of-scale. The data used here are subject to significant conjecture over their quality and age; however, the unique nature of the study should help future researchers investigating costs in emerging economies [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A comparison of the implementation of extended producer responsibility (EPR) to packaging waste and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is presented for a representative sample of eleven European Union countries based on five indicators: stakeholders and responsibilities; compliance mechanisms; role of local authorities; financing mechanisms and merits and limitations, with four countries selected for more detailed case study analysis. Similarities, trends and differences in national systems are highlighted with particular focus on the role of local authorities and their relationship with obligated producers and the effect on the operation and success of each system. The national systems vary considerably in design, in terms of influence of pre-existing policy and systems, methods of achieving producer compliance (multiple or single collective schemes), fee structures, targets, waste stream prioritization and local authority involvement. Differing approaches are evident across all member states with respect to the role played by local authorities, responsibility apportioned to them, and the evolution of working relationships between obligated producers and municipalities. On the whole, EPR for packaging and WEEE has been successfully implemented throughout Europe in terms of Directive targets. It is, however, clear that the EPR systems currently in application across Europe differ primarily due to contrasting opinion on the legitimacy of local authorities as stakeholders and, in some cases, a fear on the part of industry of associated costs. Where local authorities have been engaged in the design and implementation of national systems, existing infrastructure used and defined roles established for producers and local authorities, results have been significantly more positive than in the cases where local authorities have had limited engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article addresses a number of issues concerning waste prevention around the world. Most developed countries reported high levels of recycling rates. In Europe, the Waste Framework Directive has been introduced to require member states to develop national waste prevention programmes by December 2013. The concepts of waste management and sustainable consumption and production and the increasing volume of food waste are also discussed.