Non-governmental refuse collection system

Roger Pfammatter (7222175)

Roland Schertenleib (2507911)

English

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

G   SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION: PFAMMATTER and SCHERTENLEIB33522nd WEDC Conference New Delhi, India, 1996Non-governmental refuse collection systemsRoger Pfammatter and Roland Schertenleib, SwitzerlandREACHING THE UNREACHED: CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURYcan be drawn from the review of 18 operating systems(Pfammatter and Schertenleib, 1996).Operational optionsThe main options for primary collection and communalstorage facilities observed in the selected cases are pre-sented in Figure 1: communal storage or "bring-system"(I); tricycles as "mobile" collection points (Ia); door-to-door collection with manually operated hand or donkeycarts (II); and house-to-house collection with trucks (III).The "bring-system" is certainly the cheapest alternative interms of cash requirements and is therefore an option to beseriously considered. However, it requires considerablecontributions from the households and thus an increasedawareness of the population. The truck-system, on theother hand, appears to be the most efficient but can onlybe applied where access roads are adequate.The most widespread and most promising option amongthe reviewed cases is the door-to-door or kerbside collec-tion with hand or donkey carts (II). In serving householdsdoor-to-door, this system is likely to prevent people fromthrowing the garbage elsewhere. Use of handcarts hasalso proven most suitable for conditions generally pre-vailing in low-income areas, such as narrow streets, lowgeneration rates and low wages. Manually operated cartsare cheap in manufacture and operation, quite simple inALTHOUGH URBAN ADMINISTRATIONS in low and middle-income countries increasingly acknowledge the impor-tance of adequate refuse collection and disposal, it ismostly beyond their resources to handle the growingamount of solid waste generated by the rapidly expand-ing cities. Inadequate waste collection coverage is therebyone of the most important problem areas (Schertenleiband Meyer, 1992). Many administrations still fail to pro-vide this basic public service to a large section of thepopulation, leaving often more than 50 per cent of thehouseholds underserved. As a result, refuse is indiscrimi-nately dumped on roads, into open drains, rivers andsurrounding areas. This practice poses a serious healthrisk to the population and leads to a general degradationof the living environment for millions of people. Theproblem is most acute in low-income peri-urban areaswhere access with collection trucks is difficult and/or thepopulation cannot afford the conventional door-to-doorservice. This situation, however, impairs in the long runnot only the quality of life of the poorer communities, butis likely to affect the welfare of the entire urban popula-tion, with negative impacts on the national economies.Alternative approachOne approach to improve this situation is for the popula-tion of unreached areas to assume the responsibilities ofthe municipality with regard to handling of its waste, andto set up a collection system appropriate to its economicstanding. This can take different forms; i.e., the commu-nity either pays private collectors from within or outsidethe neighbourhood to bring the waste to communal col-lection points or the households will have to carry out partof the work. Such types of non-governmental primaryrefuse collection schemes have been initiated and oper-ated over the past few years in different cities of Asia,Africa and Latin America. Owing to the limited amountof literature on the experience gained so far, and due tothe great number of people and institutions looking foralternatives to improve solid waste collection, SANDEC(formerly IRCWD) decided to review a number of se-lected cases and assess the potentials and limitations ofsuch non-governmental approaches based on practicalexperience. The reviewed approaches thereby range frommore community-based schemes in China, Indonesia andsome parts of Africa, to schemes in Peru and Colombiawhich are operated and managed by small private enter-prises. This paper summarises some technical, organisa-tional and financial aspects, and the conclusions whichFigure 1. Options for primary collectionG   SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION: PFAMMATTER and SCHERTENLEIB336design, and can be produced and maintained locally -which are all important prerequisites for a sustainabletechnology. With regard to the cart design, attentionshould be paid to easy handling. The review suggests thatthe volume should not exceed 1.5m3 and that the cartsmust be operated in a team of two. The frequently ob-served dumping of the waste on the ground for transferto a container or larger transport vehicle should be avoidedas it is messy, tiring, and exposes the operators unneces-sarily to health risks. Where households may be con-vinced to use plastic bags for storage, the problem is lesssignificant. Another cheap solution to overcome the han-dling problem is to place containers (bins, large bags) inthe carts which can then be lifted out for transfer and/orunloading. According to the review, about one collectorhour is necessary to serve around 200 inhabitants withhandcarts. However, coverage of participating house-holds is often low which hinders such high efficiencies.Besides being dependent upon the topography of thearea, analysed data indicate that collector’s productivityis also influenced by the income of the collectors (Hawkins,1995). The income is often too low to offer an incentive todo a good and reliable job. As a result, many of thecollectors perceive their job as a temporary source of(additional) income, and most of them would change itimmediately if given another opportunity.Technical interfacesPrimary and secondary collection are interdependentsystems (as shown in Figure 1) and evidently do notfunction properly one without the other. The studiedcases indicate, however, that the interfaces between (com-munity-level) primary collection and (municipal) sec-ondary collection are very critical elements in mostschemes. The waste is often not regularly picked up at thecollection or transfer sites by the secondary collectionsystem. The resulting waste accumulation and mess at thecollection points thereby discourage residents and collec-tors from using the primary collection system. Althoughsuch interface problems may occur irrespective of thechosen collection method or transfer facility, the use ofpassing trucks as transfer points is likely to be the leastappropriate option. Truck delays force the collectors towaste their time in waiting for the truck or make themdump the collected refuse elsewhere. In any case, coop-eration between the involved actors as regards timing ofcontainer collection or emptying of storage facilities is apre-condition for successful interfaces. Another wide-spread source of problems are the activities of wastepickers looking for inorganic recyclable material at collec-tion points. Although these recycling activities have un-doubtedly important advantages since valuable resourcesare recovered, waste quantities to be transported anddisposed of are reduced, and income for the poorest isgenerated, a potential conflict exists with an efficient andsafe collection and transfer process.Organisational modelsDifferent institutional arrangements with inherent ad-vantages and disadvantages have been identified. De-spite the great variety observed, two main models can bedistinguished: a more "community-based" and a "micro-enterprise" model.The first model includes systems operated and man-aged at community-level by community groups or indi-viduals as applied quite successfully in Indonesia forseveral years. There are varying arrangements accordingto the level of community involvement (Meyer andSchertenleib, 1992), however, most schemes may be de-scribed by the organisational chart given in Figure 2. Thecollectors are paid by the community organisation whichrecovers the service costs via a fee collection system(alternatively, fees are recovered by the collectors them-selves). Financial and managerial support is often pro-Figure 2. "Community-based" model Figure 3. "Micro-enterprise" modelG   SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION: PFAMMATTER and SCHERTENLEIB337capita and month (max. US$ 0.70 per household). As arule of thumb, about US$ 100 are necessary to cover themonthly operating costs of a manually operated house-to-house collection service for 1,000 inhabitants (US$ 0.10per capita and month) - a sum which seems affordable.The figures are, however, only rough approximationssince the cost structures of the studied schemes are nottransparent enough. Many of the schemes have receivedcapital and/or equipment in the form of grants fromdonors and municipal sources, "expenditures" which arenot accounted for.The fact that solid waste certainly does not receivehighest priority within a low-income household shouldalso be borne in mind. Particularly where the populationis not aware of the problems related to inappropriate solidwaste handling, households are rather reluctant to usetheir limited financial resources for solid waste services.Survey results from Indonesia suggest that in typical low-income areas about 60 per cent of the income is expendedfor food, 20 per cent for housing and education, 15 percent for transportation, clothing and electricity (DianDesa, 1993). The remaining 5 per cent have to be sharedbetween water, hygiene, etc., and solid waste services.Assuming that an average household income is US$ 150,and that 1 per cent can be spent for SWM, the theoreticalability to pay is around US$ 1.5 per household and month.Although this is an estimate, it clearly indicates that low-cost solutions are a pre-condition for successful ap-proaches.Conclusions and recommendationsThis review of selected schemes revealed that non-gov-ernmental primary refuse collection is basically a suitableapproach to increase service coverage in low-incomeurban areas. Small private enterprises and communityorganisations have a great potential in easing the respon-sible public authorities of part of their burden. However,most schemes are far from being self-sustainable and faceproblems which can and do lead to a break down ofoperation. The following are the most important conclu-sions which can be drawn from the reviewed schemes:Collaboration between public authorities and non-governmental actorsA common denominator of most schemes is the absenceof a municipal framework which adequately integratescommunity groups and the private sector in SWM serv-ices. Lack of cooperation between the actors, however,results in operational difficulties, particularly at the inter-face between non-governmental primary collection andthe required municipal secondary collection. Promisinginitiatives of motivated community organisations, NGOsand individuals are bound to fail if activities are notsupported by and coordinated with public authorities.Establishment of a service-oriented partnership betweenthe key actors involved in such systems is urgentlyneeded.vided by formal and informal community leaders whomainly work on a voluntary basis. The responsible mu-nicipality is active only as initiator of such a scheme or assupporter in terms of providing access to handcarts orloans. This model is thus not entirely reliant on a cooper-ating municipality and might prove advantageous whereauthorities are unable or unwilling to cooperate.The second model refers to a specific "micro-enterprise"approach which finds increasing application in LatinAmerican cities (Giesecke et al., 1993). As shown in Figure3, the service is contracted out by the local government toa small private enterprise and is based on a writtenagreement which defines the tasks and duties of bothactors. While the investment capital is covered by loans,operating costs are recovered through municipal taxes.Technical and financial assistance is provided by finan-cial institutions and consulted NGOs. As the contractwith the municipality is the key element of this approach,successful implementation is dependent on the goodcooperation between the small private enterprise and thelocal authority. However, once successfully established,this institutional link appears to facilitate dialogue be-tween the actors and may have a positive impact ontechnical interfaces.Although both models are operating, the review indi-cates that the business management approach of the"micro-enterprise" model is likely to be advantageouswith regard to providing an efficient and reliable service.The "community-based" models, which are operated with-out a commercial approach and dependent on voluntarymanagement or external assistance, have failed or arebound to fail. However, the models can be combined andmicro-enterprises may also be contracted in a similar wayby strong community organisations.Service costsFigure 4 presents the service costs per served inhabitantas identified for the studied schemes operated withhandcarts. They range between US$ 0.03 and 0.14 perFigure 4. Served inhabitants vs. operating costsG   SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION: PFAMMATTER and SCHERTENLEIB338Information of the users and their involvement indecision-makingPrimary refuse collection, particularly alternative ap-proaches, require considerable participation of the house-holds. Besides involving the future users in decision-making; i.e., in the choice of a system, peoples’ capacityand willingness to contribute in cash or kind are thusimportant factors to be considered. However, willingnessto contribute is strongly dependent on the felt need of thepopulation for solid waste collection and disposal, whichoften appears to be low. Enhancing awareness with re-gard to problems related to inappropriate solid wastehandling, and providing information on possible im-provements are consequently crucial elements.Assessment and transparent recovery of incurred costsLack of cost assessment and insufficient cost recovery arethe major causes which lead to a dependency on externalfinancial assistance. Although donations and voluntarymanagement can be a valuable contribution, particularlyduring the initial phase, operation and maintenance arelikely to cease as soon as support is withdrawn. Whilerequired investment capital may be covered throughdonations or loans, calculated operating costs should befully recovered from the beneficiaries via a simple feecollection system. A more commercial approach in man-aging non-governmental schemes could lead to the re-quired accountability and improved motivation of itsactors.AcknowledgementsThis work was carried out with financial support of theSwiss Development Cooperation (SDC). As it is mostlybased on information and experience gained by others, itwas only made possible with the commitment and col-laboration of many people. SANDEC is especially grate-ful to the numerous organisations and individuals whohave been involved in developing the selected non-gov-ernmental refuse collection schemes and who have sharedtheir experience with us. The authors also wish to thankthe following persons who have been specifically in-volved in the evaluation of the schemes and compilationof the collected information: Werner Meyer, Tore R. Semb,Mary Judd the NGO Dian Desa, Peter Hawkins andRicardo Giesecke, as well as Lydia Zweifel, Brigitte Hauserand Sylvie Peter.ReferencesGiesecke, R., et al (1993), Microempresas de RecolleciónManual y Transporte de Basuras Domésticas, Manual APS/GTZ, Calcuta, Colombia.Hawkins, P. (1995), Primary Collection of Solid Waste atCommunity Level: A Summary of Case Studies from FiveDeveloping Countries, IRCWD Internal Report,Duebendorf, Switzerland.Meyer, W. and R. Schertenleib (1993), Community Partici-pation in Solid Waste Management, Paper presented at the18th WEDC Conference, Kathmandu, Nepal.Pfammatter, R. and R. Schertenleib (1996), Non-Govern-mental Refuse Collection in Low-Income Urban Areas, Les-sons Learned from Selected Schemes, SANDEC Report No.1/96, Duebendorf, Switzerland.Semb, T.R. (1992), Field Investigations on Community-BasedSolid Waste Collection in Shanghai, China, IRCWD FieldReport, Duebendorf, Switzerland.Schertenleib, R. and W. Meyer (1992), Municipal SolidWaste Management in Developing Countries, Problems andIssues, Need for Future Research, IRCWD News No. 26,Duebendorf, Switzerland.Yayasan Dian Desa (1993), Study on Community-BasedPrimary Collection of Solid Waste in Indonesia, Dian DesaField Report, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Non-governmental refuse collection systems

https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Non-governmental_refuse_collection_systems/9588638/files/17227715.pdf

Non-governmental refuse collection systems

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Institutional Repository