Dear Mr. Kumar,

Thank you for your feedback. Yes, I'll write to him. I thought, you are based at ESCAP.
Please keep us posted with your work.

Regards,

F H Mughal

Dear Mr. Mughal,

I had mailed to Donovan Storey to know his idea of Karachi waste management practices but I didn't get his reply so far. He seems very busy. Also, I am based in New Delhi, India and I can't talk to him on this issue. And for me it would be very difficult to make comments with such limited information. Whatever the models have been identified and rationale used in managing wastes in growing cities are the results of years of experience and learning.

May be Donovan Storey get some time to reply the emails. You can send him mails on this ID "This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.". Hope you may get his reply.

Thanks and regards
Suman

Dear Mr. Kumar,

Many thank for the 1995 UNESCAP SOE. On pp. 341, it says:

“Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) in Pakistan has a public fleet of 100 new and 250 old garbage vehicles. At present, the KMC fleet collects around 35 per cent of the 600 tonnes of garbage generated daily.”

My query is the same, I mentioned earlier. I’m re-phrasing it here again:

With the solid waste scenario that we have here in Karachi (no partnerships; municipal agency handles SWM; organic component is 30 per cent; waste collection efficiency is 35 per cent; existence of waste dumps; waste uncollected for 2-3 days; industrial wastes dumped on banks of water bodies; open burning of solid waste is common), what should be the rational waste management strategy for Karachi?

Since, this is a very important topic, I suggest that you discuss this with Mr. Donovan Storey, Chief, Sustainable Urban Development Section, Environment and Development Division of ESCAP. You can take your time – no problem.

Also, please send me the email address of Mr. Donovan, so that I can email him directly for his opinion.

Regards,

F H Mughal

Dear Mr. Mughal,

Please find the UNESCAP 1995 publication in the attached file and let me know your query now.

I think due to large file size (28 MB) its not getting uploaded! Or you can download the publication from following link.

www.unescap.org/resources/state-environm...sia-and-pacific-1995

Regards
Suman


Thanks
Suman

Dear Mr. Kumar,

Please see pp.13 of the attachment. I'm also looking for that 1995 UNESCAP publication. Since you are there, please locate it and share it with me through this forum - Thank you

Regards,

F H Mughal

Dear Mr. Mughal,

I am not sure of which UNESCAP report are you talking about? However in the posted report there are no such information mentioned about Karachi. And yes these models (mentioned in the report) have been identified with the lessons of six years of sustained engagement by ESCAP, Waste Concern and its partners on issues of municipal solid waste management across the Asia-Pecific region.

Please let me know the page no. of the report if there exist such information about Karachi.

Thanks
Suman

Dear Mr. Kumar,

The concept of waste-to-resource, as mentioned by you, is interesting. You have also mentioned the Islamabad case study.

In Karachi, there are no partnerships in solid waste management (SWM). The municipal agency handles SWM. The organic component of Karachi’s solid waste is around 30 per cent. The solid waste collection efficiency is 33 per cent (UNESCAP report). Dumps in Karachi are full of solid waste, with waste uncollected for 2-3 days. Industrial solid waste is dumped on banks of water bodies and in depressions. Open burning of solid waste is common in Karachi.

With that brief background, how would your model fare? Or, better still, shouldn’t the basic operations of SWM be attended first, before venturing into the new model?

Regards,

F H Mughal

Growing urban populations and economies across the Asia-Pacific region are generating an increasing amount of solid waste. Too often, these wastes are poorly managed in low and middle income urban centres. After all, this leads to the emergence of waste crisis. A large portion of this waste mainly contains organic waste (upto 80 percent in some cases). This organic part of the waste which includes food scrap and garden waste can be recycled into compost, which represents a vast and largely untapped opportunity for cities across the region to manage waste usefully while creating jobs. Until recently, low and middle income cities lacked viable models to valorise most of this opportunity. Many regions have experimented with large and often expensive waste-to-resource initiatives using foreign technology but it failed. However, some smaller, low-tech, decentralised models, such as integrated resource recovery centre (IRRC) concept developed in Dhaka, Bangladesh is proving successful in the local regions especially low and middle income cities. The IRRC transforms waste-something typically given no value-into a resource that can be sold. In addition to that, the IRRC generates a range of economic, social and environmental benefits for local communities, businesses and governments, including financial savings for municipalities, job creation, reduced environmental pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

In Asia-Pacific region, rapid urbanisation, demographic growth and economic development are changing their landscape and generating a tremendous amount of waste. So, it became very challenging for the local government to manage this increasing waste. Limited technical understanding, financial resources and regulatory support restrict many local government’s ability to keep up. Overwhelmed and seeing no alternative, too many local governments are relying on open dumping and uncontrolled landfilling to cope with their waste management demands. But dumps and uncontrolled landfilling present numerous issues for a municipality and its residents. For example, dumping will need extra cost of transportation, dumpsites will produce foul odour, which the local residents find unpleasant. Also, it will pollute soil and water table through leaching as the wastes contains some trace elements and heavy metals. Openly dumped waste attracts vermin, resulting in a higher incidence of disease among local populations and burning waste pollutes the air and can lead to respiratory illnesses. Although a formidable challenge, the Asian-Pacific waste crisis also presents a unique opportunity to create resources and usher in the needed paradigm change in waste management practices. With the appropriate paradigm shift, it is possible that up to 90 percent of total municipal solid waste could be recovered, reducing the need for huge landfills and the use of raw materials.

ESCAP began developing the IRRC model across the Asia-Pacific region in 2007 after assessing the regional viability of low-cost and low-technology solid waste management practices that can thrive in unique conditions cited it as exemplary. The IRRC transforms waste into resources using a range of techniques depending upon the waste composition and the needs and limitations of the communities and city that it serves. There are five main techniques used in the IRRC model:

Composting organic waste.
Co-composting organic waste with faecal sludge.
Producing biogas from organic waste.
Producing refuse-derived fuel.
Producing biodiesel out of used cooking oil.
Successful launching and sustaining a waste to resource initiative relies upon (i) government commitment, (ii) cost recovery, (iii) waste separated at source and (iv) stakeholder engagement and education. Without these critical requisites, facilities will struggle and falter. To achieve and sustain these four requisites, managers of waste-to-resource initiatives must deploy a range of activities, including strategic thinking, business modelling and community outreach.

Successful waste-to-resource initiatives are built on the bedrock of effective partnerships. Partnership development particularly underpins the success of such critical components as community outreach, financial sustainability and policy support. Across Asia-Pacific region these partnership models are observed in different cities viz. Kushtia (Bangladesh), Kampot (Cambodia), Islamabad (Pakistan), Matale (Sri Lanka) and Quy Nhon (Vietnam).

Kushtia model

In Bangladesh, the Kushtia model is led by the municipal government, which owns and operates the IRRC and collects and delivers waste to the facility. Several partners made essential contributions. The local Government Engineering Department covered the cost of modifying the existing facility, ESCAP provided funds for the construction of cocopeat filter, the Kushtia municipal authority provided the land for construction of facility and also runs a waste collection and sanitation service in the city. The IRRC model in Kushtia produced good results and impacts in a number of important areas. First, the amount of waste disposed through open dumping has reduced. Second, the compost produced is of high quality which complies with the government standards. Third, the financial management of the operation has been successful, mainly due to strong support from the municipal authority. Fourth, this project led to the awareness within local government on the importance of waste as a valuable resource. And fifth, the project has demonstrated that co-composting is a viable and affordable technique that can be adopted in other cities.

Kampot model

In Cambodia, the Kampot model is an NGO-led approach. The Community Sanitation and Recycling Organization (CASRO), a local NGO operates the facility with some external funds funded by ESCAP to construct the facility and land provided by the Kampot municipal authority. The model has benefit of high level of community engagement because the NGO can typically generate community trust. It also facilitates the introduction of additional funds and know-how from the NGO. For waste collection, the municipal authority has contracted a private operator, Global Action for Environmental Awareness (GAEA), which collects waste from the main market in the city and delivers it to the IRRC. This project has had mixed results. The IRRC operates well below capacity, processing between 0.2 and 0.8 tonnes of organic waste per day. GAEA has demonstrated weak commitment and the provincial and municipal governments have not put in place adequate incentives or regulation to enforce co-ordination with the project. Nonetheless, there has been strong increase in understanding the need for and practise of waste separation at source. Similarly, some success has been found with the informal sector waste pickers who have become more organized.

Islamabad model

In Pakistan, the private sector leads the Islamabad model. There is no direct municipal or national government involvement. Under this model, the municipal burden of solid waste management is offset through private sector participation. The model relies upon an entrepreneurial approach and is likely to generate employment and business within the community. The Islamabad model involves activity and contribution from all partners. Through UN-Habitat, ESCAP provided funds for the construction of the facility and the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Housing Society provided the land on which the facility was built. This facility is operated by a local social enterprise, Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan Memorial Trust and also collects recyclable and separated organic waste within the area (Sector G15). They get payment for this service by the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Housing Society.

Matale model

In Sri Lanka, the Matale model is based on a public-private partnership in which the municipality and a social enterprise closely engage. The first IRRC in Matatle was built in 2007, two other facilities were built in 2009 and 2011 respectively. Further expansion is planned in 2015. ESCAP and the Government’s Central Environment Authority provided funds for the construction of the facility. The Matale Municipal Council provided the land. A local social enterprise, Micro Enriched Compost, operates the facilities and the municipal authority provides some of the workers. The municipality, in partnership with Sevanatha Urban Resource Centre, an NGO, conducts community outreach education on waste separation. Waste collection is managed by the municipality government, which delivers separated organic waste to the IRRC. In 2015, the three IRRCs processed an average of 135 tonnes of organic waste per month, with daily intake ranging from 6 to 9 tonnes. The waste is converted to compost, with the IRRCs producing an average of 2.6 tonnes of compost per month. The amount of waste sent to landfill has reduced by 6-9 tonnes per day or 0.3-0.5 per cent per day of the total amount collected and landfilled previously. In 2014, the Central Environmental Authority announced it was adopting the IRRC approach as the principal model for its national solid waste management program.

Quy Nhon model

In Viet Nam, community groups lead the Quy Nhon model, with strong support from the municipality authority. The Quy Nhon IRRC was established in 2007 and expanded in 2011. This model benefits from the direct involvement of the community in the management of waste collection, recycling and composting. It is not a profit seeking model. The model tends to generate jobs among the immediate community and alleviate the solid waste management burden on local government through community input. In Quy Nhon, ESCAP provided the funds for the construction of the original facility in 2007 and for its expansion in 2011. The People’s Committee of Quy Nhon provided the land on which facility was built. A group of community members in Nhon Phu, where the facility is located, manages its operations. They also conduct public outreach activities to stimulate the practice of separation of waste at source and promote the sale of compost. The Environment and Development Action, an NGO, provides technical support to the community group and to the local government and training on waste collection. The success of the Nhon Phu waste-to resource facility has led to direct changes in the operation of the Long My Sanitary Landfill and Composting Facility, a 250-tonne-per-day-capacity facility owned and operated by the municipal government. As of 2015, the Nhon Phu IRRC processed around 1.2 tonnes of waste per day of which it extracted around 300 Kg of organic waste per day. Waste separation at source is now practiced by 30 percent of households and 75 percent of non-households Nhon Phu. This percentage will increase as the municipality expands the waste separation programs into new wards.

Source: ESCAP, Waste Concern