Global Challenges and Solutions in Waste Management Sandra Cointreau Global Solid Waste Management...

Global Challenges and Solutions in Waste Management

Sandra CointreauGlobal Solid Waste Management Advisor

The World BankPhone: 1 860 488 5910

www.sandracointreau.com

We are a Global Community

Global information exchange, commodity trading, trade agreements, and limits to environmental assimilation have created a new era of global interconnectiveness…most outcomes are good, some are not so good.

Some adverse outcomes: ozone, acid rain, climate change, toxic algal blooms, SARS, Avian Influenza, Swine Flu, energy price fluctuations, the current Economic Crisis.

80% of the world’s people and 40% of the world’s livestock live in developing countries and what happens there affects us all.

~ One World, One Health, One Welfare. ~

Dreaming our Dream

• We are a solution-seeking species.

• We focus our attention on problems and set our intention on solutions.

• Problems are nothing more than challenges to our intention to manifest our dreams.

Framework of this Presentation

Challenges:1. Sustainable municipal waste

systems for growing global urbanization, densification and industrialization.

2. Social inclusion of the poor, women, diverse peoples and the informal sector.

3. Special solutions for special wastes with special needs.

Challenge 1

Sustainable municipal waste systems for growing global

urbanization, densification and industrialization.

Population Growth

• From the time of the first Eve, it took human history over 3 million years to reach 1 BB people in the early 1800’s.

• Today, we gain 1 BB people every 12-14 years.

• World population grows by more than 200,000 each day.

• This year, urban populations exceeded rural populations.

Municipal Solid Wastes

• Developed Countries – High Income• Population – 1.0 BB• Waste – 1.4 MM tonnes/day (1.4 kg/capita/day)

• Developing Countries – Middle Income• Population - 3.0 BB (~ 30% of city dwellers live in

slums)• Waste – 2.4 MM tonnes/day (0.8 kg/capita/day)

• Developing Countries – Low Income• Population - 2.4 BB (~ 65% of city dwellers live in

slums)• Waste – 1.4 MM tonnes/day (0.6 kg/capita/day)

Municipal Waste Collection and Disposal(% of waste tonnes handled)

• Developed Countries – High Income • Collection – 100%• Safe Disposal – 100%

• Developing Countries – Middle Income• Collection – 60%• Safe Disposal - 30%

• Developing Countries – Low Income• Collection – 40%• Safe Disposal – 5%

Available Local Finances

• Developed Countries – High Income • 34.5 $BB GDP (34,500 $/capita/year)

• 18% to government expenditures (6,210 $/capita/yr)

• Developing Countries – Middle Income• 8.5 $BB GDP (2,833 $/capita/year)

• 14% to government expenditures (397 $/capita/yr)

• Developing Countries – Low Income• 1.4 $BB GDP (583 $/capita/year)

• 11% to government expenditures (64 $/capita/yr)

What can we do?Ideas for the global dialogue….

• Holistic decision models to assess the complex array of energy, emissions, and cost implications of alternative solutions.

• Economic instruments to motivate waste generators, service providers and materials users to upgrade waste systems and reduce wastes.


• Regulatory frameworks and rule-of-law to level the playing field for the private sector and incentivize new systems.

• Transparent competitive private sector involvement proceedures. (see World Bank guidance by Sandra Cointreau at www.sandracointreau.com)

• Standardized data collection systems to enable comparative cost and emission analysis and enhance communication about options and outcomes.

Holistic Decision Modeling

• The USEPA holistic decision model was used to assess options in a global study, including a major city in every region of the developing world (ECA, SAR, EAP, MENA, AFR1, AFR2, LAC), and two high income cities, a total of 9 cities, led by consultants Nippon Koei Co. (www.sandracointreau.com)

• The model took 10 years to develop and involved more than 80

organizations. (e.g., 32 local governments, 4 federal agencies, 35 private companies, 9 non-government organizations, and 10 universities).

• The model is operated by Research Triangle Institute (RTI) which has a public/private partnership agreement with USEPA.


• Includes well documented and peer reviewed defaults (e.g., emissions, unit costs, waste composition, land requirements, energy requirements, residuals, labor).

• The defaults are regularly updated by USEPA as new research is conducted and reported.

• Documentation exists on all defaults and is peer-reviewed.• Rural conditions can be modeled, as well as urban

conditions. • Local inputs can overide defaults where good data is

available.


• Model set up to examine multiple technical systems:• Collection Systems (segregated or non-segregated for

recyclables and other treatment streams).• Transfer Systems (rail and truck).• Materials Recovery Facilities.• Composting (MSW, yard waste, and vermi-composting).• Combustion and Waste-to-Energy (for a range of

standards).• Landfill (conventional, ash, bioreactor and baseline open

dump) with vent, flare, or recovery of gas.


Scenarios studied for the 9 city global study, conducted by Nippon Koei Co and RTI (www.sandracointreau.com) :

• Trade-offs between technologies.• Technology combinations to optimize reduction of green house

gases.• Technology combinations to optimize reduction of fine

particulates.• Technology combinations to optimize materials recovery and

recycling.• Technology combinations to use the least energy and optimize

energy recovery.• Technology combinations to optimize costs.


• Landfill with gas ventilation had the highest carbon emissions, but lowest costs.

• Manual systems for recycling and composting used less energy and had lower costs than mechanized systems, but emissions depended largely on whether they had a low or high fossil fuel energy grid mix.

• Incineration with energy recovery and ferrous metals recovery gave the best energy optimization and emission results, but highest cost.

• Composting and landfill with flaring or gas recovery gave the lowest cost results, among systems with acceptable carbon emissions.

Economic Instruments

Market-based incentives and disincentives that:

• Study of economic instruments used globally done for IADB, main author was Sandra Cointreau: www.sandracointreau.com

• mobilize the self-interest of consumers, producers, and service providers to improve solid waste management; and

• incorporate the polluter-pays principle of fully covering the costs of environmental externalities from the combined population of waste generators – not necessarily from each waste generator based on quantity and pollution hazard per generator.

Revenue Instruments

Instruments that generate government income from consumers, producers and service providers from:

• Charges,

• Taxes, and

• Subsidy reductions.Examples: waste collection user charges and tipping fees that encourage

waste reduction, landfill taxes to encourage alternative disposal techniques, fuel taxes to encourage alternative fuels, subsidy reductions on materials or products that compete with marketing of secondary materials or recovered resources.

Revenue Instruments

Instruments that enable producers and service providers to obtain income from government through:• Charge or tax reduction,• Fiscal incentives and grants, • Development rights, • Emission reduction funds.Examples: tax reductions to investors in government bonds for

facilities, depreciation period changes for capital investments, free use of government land for new facilities, concession rights to access waste materials for recyclables and resources, carbon finance.

Non-Revenue Instruments

Instruments that motivate without the generation or provision of revenue, using:• Deposit-refund systems,• Take-back systems (product stewardship),• Product and production change incentives,• Performance disclosure and consumer ratings,• Trade-off policies, and• Procurement policies and liability laws.

Examples: deposits on tires, bottles and cans; take-back of printer cartridges, tax incentives for production changes that enable more recyclable feedstock use, ratings of computer companies that include recycled content, eco-certification of products, cap-and-trade emissions policies, procurement docs and liability laws that encourage recycled content.

Challenge 2

Social inclusion of the poor, women, diverse peoples and the

informal sector.

Poverty and Informal Sector Issues

• One third of the world’s urban population lives below the poverty level of $2/day.

• Majority of the urban poor work in the informal sector.

• Informal sector employment ranges from 30-70% of GDP in developing countries.

• Some collection of wastes and nearly all recycling of wastes in developing countries is done by the informal sector.

Gender Issues

• 2/3 of illiterate adults are women ~ over 300 million illiterate women.

• Children of illiterate women are twice as likely to die before their fifth birthday.

• Women comprise roughly 30% of informal waste pickers, and most bring their children to work, which limits child access to education.

• Waste picking is commonly the occupation of last resort before having to enter the sex trade.

Youth Issues

• Unemployment for urban youth is 2-3 times higher than for others, needing priority attention.

• Youth groups have shown unique creativity and entrepeneurial action when given opportunity.


• Gender action provides access to livelihood, security and property, and involves special study, empowerment, and training. (See video on www.worldbank.org/solidwaste )

• Procurement specifications and preferences include informal sector partnerships with the formal private sector.


• Waste picker’s children need special arrangements for schooling, and orphans working as waste pickers have unique needs for livelihood support in order to attend school.

• Waste picker cooperatives need access to markets, including help to network with end users as buyers, to skip the intermediary agents for better pricing.

• Registration of waste pickers and designation of zones of collection and places for sorting and storing will bring them freedom from harassment.

• Recognition and payment for materials that do not need to be landfilled.


• Youth entrepeneurship in community-based waste collection and recycling provides career development and involves training, networking, and empowerment.

• Targeted aid to improve living and working conditions of the informal sector, especially of waste picker and recycling groups.

Challenge 3

Special solutions for special wastes with special needs…

Priority 1: wastes from intensified livestock production.

Emerging Diseases from Animals

• 60% of all 1,415 known infectious diseases are zoonotic, i.e., they can infect both animals and humans

• 70% of all emerging human diseases in the past 15 years are zoonotic.

• Contact with excreta and carcasses of infected animals are priority means of transmission for many zoonotic diseases.

• Farm-based livestock wastes (e.g., in over 30% of wastes in UK) carry zoonotic pathogens.*

• Livestock wastes from livestock under stress (during transport and at slaughtering plants) show high shedding of zoonotic pathogens .*

Hutchison, ML, et.al., Levels of Zoonotic Agents in British Livestock Manures, 2004

Some Diseases that Derived from Animals

Zoonotic Diseases – Animal to Human

SARS, Avian Influenza (H5N1), Swine/Avian Flu (H1N1), Nipah Virus, Mad Cow, Swine Influenza, Ebola, West Nile Virus, Monkey Pox, Lyme, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Rabies, Tuberculosis, Rift Valley Fever, HIV, Shigellosis, Salmonellosis, Campylobacteriosis, Toxoplasmosis, Brucellosis, Hanta Virus, Leptospirosis, Ringworm, Yellow Fever, Bubonic Plague, Anthrax, Glanders

Global Ratio of People to Livestock

Year 2000

• 1 person to 5.4 livestock

Year 2030

• 1 person to 6.4 livestock

Livestock Populations: 2000 -> 2030

• High Income Countries ($34,500/cap/yr)• People 1.2 BB -> 1.3 BB*

• Cattle, Pigs, Sheep, Goats 4.0 BB -> 5.2 BB**

• Poultry 15.0 BB -> 24.8 BB**

• Low and Middle Income ($583 and $2,833/cap/yr)• People 4.9 BB -> 7.1 BB*

• Cattle, Pigs, Sheep, Goats 3.0 BB -> 4.2 BB**

• Poultry 11.0 BB -> 19.2 BB**

*UN Dept. of Economics and Social Affairs, World Population to 2300**Henning Steinfeld, FAO, The Livestock Revolution – A Global Veterinary Mission, 2004

What’s in Excreta from Intensive Livestock

Farms?Aside from traditional manure organic and nutrient loadings, and

natural hormones: • Antimicrobials used for growth promotion and disease

prevention.***• Antibiotic-resistant pathogens.*,**• Heavy metals.• Synthetic hormones used for growth promotion and reproduction

control.• In some countries, there are banned feed additives, such as

Melamine.****

*Hutchison, M.L., et al. Levels of Zoonotic Agents in British Livestock Manures. 2004.**Tueber, M. Veterinary Use and Antibiotic Resistance. 2001.***Includes: doxycycline, bacitracin, avoparcin, tetracyclines, penicillin, virginiamycin, tylosin, erythromycin, lincomycin, flavophospholipol, monensin, carbadox, spiramycin, tiamulin, salinomycin,sulfamethizole, roxarsone (arsenic based).****October 2008 Chinese newspapers widely reported that melamine (also known as cyanuromide) has been added to most animal and fish livestock feeds in China to falsely boost the appearance of higher feed protein content.

Disease Linkages to Waste

• Many animal diseases are spread by pathogens that are excreted or are in blood.

• Up to 75% of antibiotics given to livestock pass through the livestock gut into excreta, intact and active.

• Crowded and stressed livestock excrete more pathogens than pastoral and calm livestock.

• Inadequate excreta treatment and management spreads pathogens and antibiotics into the environment for the expansion of antibiotic resistance to micro-organisms and wildlife.

Growing Use of Antimicrobials

• World Health Organization estimates half of total amount of antimicrobials produced globally are used in food animals.

• In US, 70-80% of all antimicrobials sold are for livestock and 85% of livestock antimicrobial use is for non-therapeutic feed addition.

Antibiotic Resistant Pathogens

• Antibiotic resistance develops within the livestock gut, and antibiotic resistant pathogens are excreted.

• There is horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistant genes in farm animal colons and there is stable maintenance of resistance transferred genes. (e.g., tetracycline, erythromycin, ampicillin, vancomycin, clindamycine resistance common)*, **

• Antibiotic resistance genes in animals and humans contain identical elements, enabling spread from animal microflora to human microflora through the fecal-oral route.**

*N.B. Shoemaker, et.al. Evidence for Extensive Resistance Gene Transfer, 2000.** M.Tueber, M Veterinary Use and Antibiotic Resistance, Swiss Laboratory of Food Microbiology, 2001

Waste Treatment and Antimicrobials

• Antimicrobials are complex compounds that resist biological decomposition waste treatment.

• Anaerobic digestion destroyed only 59% of oxytetracycline in manures in 64 days. Methane production was reduced from 20-80% when manures contain antibiotics, depending on the concentration of antibiotics in the manures. **

• Composting destroyed 95% of oxytetracyline in manures within first week. Also, levels of oxytetracycline resistant bacteria were 10-fold lower. ****

• Antibiotics found intact in treated sewage sludge were ciprofloxacin, doxycycline, norfloxacin, ofloxacin, and triclosan.***

*J.Fick, et.al., Antivial Osetimiver is not Removed or Degraded in Normal Sewage Treatment, 2007**O.A. Arikan, et.al., Fate and Effect of Oxytetracycline during Anaerobic Digestion of Manure from Therapeutically Treated Calves., 2006***E.Z.Harrison, et.al., Organic Chemicals in Sewage Sludges, 2006****O.A. Arikan, et.al, Composting Rapidly Reduces Levels of Extractable Oxytetracycline in Manure from Therapeutically Treated Beef Calves, 2005.

Examples of Antibiotic Resistance

• One out of every three cases of human infection by Salmonella is resistant to antibiotics.

• Nearly all strains of Staphylococcus infection in the US are now resistant to penicillin.

• More than 2 MM patients get infections in the hospital, and that more than 70% of bacteria causing hospital-acquired infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic commonly used to treat them.*

*CDC website data.

Bioaerosol risks

• Bioaerosols inside intensive pig farms have shown more than 90% had multi-drug resistance.*,**

• Antibiotic resistance bacteria have been recovered 150 meters downwind from intensive pig farms.**

• Swine workers and veterinarians have elevated carriage of MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphyloccoccus aureus), and the Netherlands isolates them upon hospital entry.*, ***

*A.Chapin, et.al, Airborne Multidrug-Resistance Bacteria Isolated from Swine CAFO, 2005.**S.G. Gibbs, et.al. Isolation of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Downwind of Swine CAFO, 2006*** Wulf, M, et.al. MRSA in Veterinary Doctors and Students in Netherlands, 2006

Arsenicals in the Environment

• One group of antimicrobials used for growth promotion contains organic arsenic compounds (e.g., roxarsonne, arsanilic acid).

• Arsenic-based antimicrobials are extensively used in poultry and swine factory farming worldwide (over 70% of US poultry are fed arsenic-based antimicrobials daily, while EU and New Zealand banned arsenicals from in-feed livestock use).

• Up to 90% of the arsenic fed to livestock is excreted. • Some aresenic is converted in the gut from organic to toxic inorganic

forms before excretion.• Up to 70-90% of arsenic in poultry litter was found to be readily soluble

in water.* • Arsenic feed additive compounds readily degrade to toxic forms in

anaerobic/reducing settings within the environment.• Anaerobic digestion may convert all of the arsenic to toxic forms. • Burning of animal wastes releases arsenic stack gas emissions.

*B.P.Jackson, et.al., Fate of Arsenic Compounds in Poultry Litter upon Land Application, 2006D. Rutherfold, et.al., Environmental Fate of Roxarsone in Poultry Litter, 2003

Arsenic in Manure and Litter

• Reported levels in US poultry manure and litter were up to 32 mg/kg arsenic*.

• Reported levels in US pelletalized poultry litter sold as fertilizer were up to 39 mg/kg arsenic.**

• Reported levels in Chinese swine manure were up to 119 mg/kg.***

• Average US sewage sludge is only 10 mg/kg.****

*B.K.Anderson, et.al., Effect of Dietary 3-Nitro-4-Hydroxyphenylarsonic Acid on Total Broiler Excreta and Broiler Litter, 2003.**K.E.Nachman, et.al., Arsenic: A Roadblock to Potential Animal Waste Management Solutions, 2005.***Y-X.Li, et.all, Emissions of Additive Arsenic in Beijing Pig Feeds and the Residues in Pig Manure, 2005.****Harrison, E.Z., et.al., Land Application of Sewage Sludges: an Appraisal of the US Regulations, 1999

Arsenic Pollution from Chinese Hog Farms

• Study of manure application from Chinese hog farms showed arsenic in potato crop soils ranged from 25.8-55.5 mg/kg, in rice paddy soils ranged from 15-23 mg/kg, and in fish pond sediment ranged from 30-45 mg/kg, compared to the national maximum allowable arsenic in soil standard of 15 mg/kg.*

• Sweet potato, rice and fish fatty tissue uptake from these soils was significant, with higher uptake correlating with higher soil levels.*

*Wang, Fu Min, et al. “Investigation on the Pollution of Organoarsenical Additives to Animal Feed in the Surroundings and Farmland near Hog Farms”, 2006.

Copper in Hog Feed*

• Study at 10 large Chinese hog farms showed more than 60% of the feed samples exceeded EU copper standards for addition to feed.*

• About 90% of the copper fed was eventually excreted to manure.*

• Manures in this China showed copper levels were concentrated 3-5 times over levels found in feed, with levels over 2,000 mg/kg found in some manures.*

*Li, Yan-Xia, et. al., “Contributions of Additives Cu to its Accumulation in Pig Feces, study in Beijing and Fuxon, China”, 2006

Current waste management:

• In high-income countries: • Most excreta and bedding is stored in piles, pits, lagoons.

• Most excreta and bedding is applied to cropland after storage.

• Some is pretreated by anaerobic digestion, and some is composted for marketing as a soil conditioner.

• Some animal remains and blood are rendered into animal food.

• Specified animal remains (particularly spine and head parts that could contain TSE’s) receive special treatment before being allowed in sanitary landfills.

Current waste management:

• In developing countries ( Global Livestock Live Market and Slaughterhouse Study by Nippon Koei Co and ProAnd Australia Pty on www.sandracointreau.com) :• Most fifth quarter items, spinal column and heads are sold untreated for human and animal food. • Excreta is applied to crop land or discharged to fish ponds.• Unusable items, like the intestinal and rumen pouch content,

are mostly discharged to open dumps. • Blood is mostly discharged to drains, surface waters, and

sometimes to blood ponds that seep into groundwater.


• Create a global alliance for sustainable livestock.• Farm-to-Fork tracking of livestock extended to all

livestock production, not just for high-end markets.• Disclosure of feed and water additives by animal and

aquaculture producers, as well as by feed manufacturers.

What can we do?Ideas for global dialogue…

• Monitoring of manures for antimicrobials, antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms, arsenic, heavy metals, melamine, hormones, etc.

• Global ban of livestock use of arsenicals for growth promotion, as arsenic is a persistent and cumulative priority pollutant that is highly mobile and a proven carcinogenic in chronic low doses.

• Global ban routine non-therapeutic livestock use of those antibiotics that are important for human therapy, and require veterinary prescription for therapy use, to control the global surge in antibiotic resistant pathogens.

• Invest in improved infrastructure for livestock marketing and processing, and related waste management.


• Harmonize regulatory criteria for land application of manures, compost and biosolids, as well as residential soil limits. Require livestock wastes from intensive farms to meet the same persistent pollutant criteria (e.g., for arsenic, heavy metals) as used for solid waste compost or sewage sludge, or residential soil limits if bagged and sold on the open market for home gardening use.

• Clarify and harmonize regulations on organic crop and livestock production regarding use of manures from intensive livestock production on crop and grazing land.


• Economic instruments to incentivize appropriate waste treatment and reduce feed and energy subsidies that favor landless intensive farms.

• Address market pricing policies for feed, energy, water, and other services that favor landless factory farming.

• Fence all solid waste disposal sites and ban animals from entering and grazing; convert open dumps to landfills so that wastes are covered daily and not available to birds, rodents or other potential disease hosts or vectors.

• Involve waste management, livestock and health professionals on these cross-sectoral issues to work in a multi-disciplinary manner.

• Set up ISWA and chapter animal waste working groups.

Blessings and Thank You

Links for Information

http://www.sandracointreau.com (for documents referred to in this presentation – global holistic decision modeling study, global livestock processing facility study, global review of economic instruments, slides about feed additives and sustainable waste management)

http://www.worldbank.org/solidwaste (for World Bank solid waste activities, including videos about social inclusion and gender issues)

Sandra Cointreau , Solid Waste [email protected] (until November 2009) [email protected] (now and later)

US EPA Holistic Model Design Oversight :Susan Thorneloe - [email protected]

RTI Model Information or Request for Model Runs:Keith Weitz – [email protected]

Global Challenges and Solutions in Waste Management Sandra Cointreau Global Solid Waste Management...

Documents

Transcript of Global Challenges and Solutions in Waste Management Sandra Cointreau Global Solid Waste Management...