DANIDA (ref.104.Malaysia.1.MFS.86)

Malaysian Government / DANIDA

Solid Waste Management Component

Study on Rural Household Waste Management in Peninsular Malaysia

December 2010

DANIDA Ministry of Housing and

Local Government

Danish International

Development Assistance

Study on Rural Household Waste Management in Peninsular Malaysia Copyrights © 2010 by Department of National Solid Waste Management, Ministry of Housing and Local Government and Danish International Development Assistance (DANIDA) This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes or to provide wider dissemination for public response, without prior permission from the copy-right holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. The publisher would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. Published by: Department of National Solid Waste Management Ministry of Housing and Local Government Level 2 & 4, Block B North, Pusat Bandar Damansara 50644 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +603 2092 4488 Fax: +603 2093 5982 www.kpkt.gov.my Assisted by: Danish International Development Assistance (DANIDA) www.um.dk/en Consultants: COWI A/S www.cowi.dk Danwaste Consult A/S www.danwaste.dk Eco-Ideal Consulting Sdn Bhd www.ecoideal.com.my Printed by: Meridian Solutions 1st Edition December 2010 300 Copies ISBN 9675520112

DANIDA (ref.104.Malaysia.1.MFS.86)

Malaysian Government / DANIDA

Solid Waste Management Component

Study on Rural Household Waste Management in Peninsular Malaysia

December 2010

Doc. No. : SWMC_TEC_02-044-Study on Rural Household Waste Management in Peninsular

Malaysia

Issue : 01

Date of Issue : 31 December 2010

Authors : Chen Saw Ling, Liew Shan Sern

Checked : Soon Hun Yang, Brian Makepeace

Approved : Ib Larsen

Acknowledgements

The study team from the Danish International Development Assistance-Solid Waste Management Component (DANIDA-SWMC), the Department of National Solid Waste Management or Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (JPSPN) and the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation or Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (PPSPPA) would like to express their gratitude to all involved parties and agencies for making their time available for meetings, providing information and for assisting in the survey, especially to the following:-

1. Ministry of Health (MOH) at the Head Office and the Jempol District 2. Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) at the Head Office and

the Raja Alias Scheme 3. Ministry of Rural and Regional Development or Kementerian Kemajuan

Luar Bandar dan Wilayah (KKLW) 4. Department of Orang Asli Affairs or Jabatan Hal-Ehwal Orang Asli

(JHEOA)

Table of Contents

1 Introduction and Background 1

2 Study Description 2

2.1 Objectives 2

2.2 Study Scope 2

2.3 Methodologies 3

3 Findings from Desktop Studies and Meeting with Relevant Authorities 6

3.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Relevant Agencies 6

3.2 Information Gathered from Meetings with Relevant Agencies 9

3.3 Analysis of Data Collected from Various Departments 11

4 Findings from the Pilot Field Survey in Jempol District 15

4.1 Traditional Villages 17

4.2 Orang Asli Villages 19

4.3 FELDA Schemes 20

4.4 Private Estate Villages 25

4.5 National / Recreational Parks 27

4.6 Summary of Survey Findings 30

5 Option for Extending Waste Management Services - Zoning of Rural

Areas 31

5.1 Zoning of Rural Areas for SWM 31

5.2 Waste Disposal Options According to the Zoning of Rural Areas 32

5.3 Zoning Case Study: Jempol District 33

5.4 Proposed Service Levels in Each of the Zones in Rural Areas 37

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 41

List of Figures

Figure 1: Work Flow of the Study 5

Figure 2: Development of FELDA Land 7

Figure 3: Type of Waste Storage in Selected Rural Areas (MOH) 14

Figure 4: Method of Waste Collection in Selected Rural Areas (MOH) 14

Figure 5: Location of Field Survey Area 15

Figure 6: Cover for Waste Disposal Pit Provided by MOH to Traditional

Villages for Management of Solid Waste 18

Figure 7: Waste Disposal Pit at Traditional Village

(length = 3’, width = 2.5’, depth = 2’) 18

Figure 8: The Pit Equipped with the Cover 18

Figure 9: Examples of Disposal Pits at Traditional Villages in Jempol District 19

Figure 10: Waste Littered on the Ground or Burnt at Orang Asli Villages 20

Figure 11: Storage of Recyclable Items Observed at Orang Asli Villages 20

Figure 12: Summary of Raja Alias Region in Negeri Sembilan 21

Figure 13: Examples of Waste Bins in Surveyed FELDA Schemes 23

Figure 14: Example of lorry used for collection of waste 24

Figure 15: Examples of Waste Disposal Ground in FELDA Schemes 24

Figure 16: Examples of Waste Storage Bins used in Private Estates 26

Figure 17: Examples of Disposal Grounds in Private Estates 26

Figure 18: Recycling Centres in Private Estates 26

Figure 19: Signboard at Park (a line showing “Do Not Throw Rubbish

Everywhere”) 28

Figure 20: Examples of Waste Bins and Signs of Waste Burning inside

the Parks 28

Figure 21: Officer from PPSPPA Taking a Closer Look at the Waste

Composition 29

Figure 22: Large Bins Provided outside the Park (for Parks within LA Service

Boundary) 29

Figure 23: Recycling Stations outside the Park (for Parks within LA Service

Boundary) 29

Figure 24: Example of Village Categorised under Zone A 34

Figure 25: Example of Village Categorised under Zone B 34

Figure 26: Example of Village Categorised under Zone C 35

Figure 27: Example of Mapping Actual Travelling Distance from a FELDA

Village to the Nearest LA Landfill (TP Jln. Kok Foh) 35

Appendices

Appendix A: Questionnaire Survey Form & an Observation Checklist for Surveyor 44

Appendix B: Detailed Findings from the Site Visits to Jempol District, Negeri

Sembilan 50

Appendix C: Example of a Guideline: Environmental Guidelines for the Establishment

of Rural Rubbish Disposal Facility (RRDF) from NREB, Sarawak 51

Abbreviations and Acronyms

3R Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

BAKAS Environmental Water Supply and Cleanliness Programme (Bekalan Air dan Kebersihan Alam Sekeliling)

BPK Engineering Services Department (Bahagian Perkhidmatan Kejuruteraan)

DANIDA Danish International Development Assistance

DOS Department of Statistics

FELCRA Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority

FELDA Federal Land Development Authority

GIS Geographical Information System

HDPE High-density polyethylene

JHEOA Department of Orang Asli Affairs (Jabatan Hal-Ehwal Orang Asli)

JKKK Village Development and Security Committee (Jabatan Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung)

JPSPN Department of National Solid Waste Management (Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara)

KEDA Kedah Regional Development Authority

KEJORA South-East Johor Development Authority

KESEDAR South Kelantan Development Authority

KETENGAH Central Terengganu Development Authority

KKLW Ministry of Rural and Regional Development (Kementerian Kemajuan Luar Bandar dan Wilayah)

KSN Chief Secretary to the Government of Malaysia (Ketua Setiausaha Negara)

LA Local Authorities

MGB Mobile Garbage Bin

MOH Ministry of Health

NREB Natural Resources and Environment Board

PC Public Cleansing

PERHILITAN Department of Wildlife and National Parks (Jabatan Perlindungan Hidupan Liar dan Taman Negara)

PPSPPA Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation (Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam)

RO-RO Roll-On, Roll-Off

RRDF Rural Rubbish Disposal Facility

SWM Solid Waste Management

SWMC Solid Waste Management Component

ToR Terms of Reference

TP Disposal Site (Tapak Pelupusan)

1

1 Introduction and Background Information on the solid waste management (SWM) practices in areas beyond the jurisdiction of the Local Authorities (LA) is found to be very limited. Typically, these areas, generally referred to as rural areas, are not provided with solid waste collection services by the LA. Solid waste in rural areas is generated from rural settlements, living quarters of plantations, mills, recreational parks and so forth. With the enactment of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act (Act 672), all household and business solid waste are subjected to the Act, including waste from the areas outside LA service boundaries. In 2008, a Government decision was made to extend the solid waste collection services to areas outside LA service boundaries1. All existing disposal sites are subjected to registration and subsequently, to licensing by the Department of National Solid Waste Management or Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (JPSPN). All new disposal sites further require approval by the Department before construction commences. It is therefore, important to establish baseline information on the current disposal practices to provide an overview of the current facilities and to determine the most appropriate system for the future. To establish such baseline information, a study was carried out by JPSPN and the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation or Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (PPSPPA) with the assistance from the Solid Waste Management Component (SWMC) which was funded by the Danish International Development Assistance (DANIDA). A draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the study was prepared in June 2009. The ToR included compilation of available national data supplemented with a detailed field study at a specific pilot area.

1 Decision by “Keputusan Mesyuarat Panel 3P Bilangan 11 Tahun 2008 Bertarikh 17 Disember, 2008”

chaired by KSN (Chief Secretary to the Government of Malaysia or Ketua Setiausaha Negara)

2

2 Study Description

2.1 Objectives The objectives of the study were:

a) To identify the different types of areas outside the LA service boundaries which do not have formal collection and disposal services;

b) To identify the current functions of relevant governmental agencies related to SWM in areas outside the LA service boundaries;

c) To obtain information on the SWM practices in these areas; d) To initiate the establishment of an inventory on disposal sites outside

the LA service boundaries; and e) To determine the conditions of the disposal sites identified during

ground surveys. The study was expected to provide baseline data for the formulation of strategies for future SWM in areas outside the LA service boundaries.

2.2 Study Scope The survey was directed towards household and similar waste2. Agricultural waste, business waste and other types of waste generated in rural areas were excluded from the survey. The household waste generators outside LA service boundaries were divided into the following categories:-

Traditional rural settlements (e.g. traditional and orang asli villages, etc.);

Living quarters for agricultural estates (e.g. Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) schemes, private palm oil estates, etc.); and

Other relevant rural areas (e.g. recreational parks, etc.). The survey was carried out in the period of July 2009 – June 2010.

2 The term “household waste” as defined under the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act

2007 includes any solid waste generated by a household and of a kind that is ordinarily generated or

produced by any premise when occupied as a dwelling house, including garden waste.

3

2.3 Methodologies The methodologies used for the study were as follow:- Part 1: Desktop Study Data was collected from official websites and from published literature. Preliminary information on the number of villages and population in rural areas were obtained from the websites of Ministry of Health (MOH), Ministry of Rural and Regional Development or Kementerian Kemajuan Luar Bandar dan Wilayah (KKLW), FELDA and from reports published by the Department of Statistics (DOS). Part 2: Meetings with Relevant Authorities Meetings were held with relevant authorities who were dealing with the management of areas outside of LA service boundaries. The authorities include MOH, KKLW and FELDA. Existing information were gathered from the authorities, particularly information about the existing household waste management practices, including storage, collection, transportation and disposal. Data on the location and population of rural settlements and contact information for the settlements were gathered and mapped in Geographical Information System (GIS). Part 3: Pilot Field Survey The objective of the pilot field survey was to establish an overview of how household waste is handled in the various types of rural areas which currently do not receive any waste collection services from the LA (i.e. traditional villages, orang asli villages, FELDA schemes, recreational parks, etc.). Information on the state of existing disposal sites and the stakeholders involved was also obtained. The pilot field survey comprised of a questionnaire survey and a ground survey which was carried out within the Jempol District in the State of Negeri Sembilan. Jempol District comprises all the above listed types of villages. The field survey was conducted in July 2009 by DANIDA-SWMC in cooperation with officers from JPSPN and PPSPPA. The officers of the local PPSPPA office in Jempol undertook the practical questionnaire and ground surveys. The district officers of MOH in Jempol also provided their assistance since they are responsible for the public health and sanitation in rural areas and have direct access to the rural areas in Jempol.

4

A questionnaire survey form and an observation checklist were designed for use by the officers who undertook the field survey on the ground. The two documents listed all information required for assessing the existing practices of household waste management (Appendix A). The officers completed the questionnaire survey form based on interviews with the village heads. The information requested in the questionnaire survey form included:- Contact information of the responsible persons Location and estimated population Information on the existing household waste management practices (if

applicable):

Solid waste storage system used

Collection and transportation of the solid waste

Disposal destination and method

Recycling activities (if any) Information on the types of solid waste generated from the different

types of establishments Estimation of the total quantity of waste generated and total amount of

waste being disposed of and recycled (if any)

At the same time, the officers observed the infrastructure and waste management practices on the ground according to the observation checklist. The outcome from the pilot field survey was expected to include the following: Current practice of household waste management for the selected area

from waste generation to disposal; Disposal methods and existing condition of disposal sites; and Possible challenges to be taken into consideration for SWM in areas

outside LA service boundaries under the new Act.

The overall work flow for the study is illustrated in Figure 1.

5

Figure 1: Work Flow of the Study

Collection of available data

Compilation and analysis of

available data

Discussions with relevant authorities to

conduct the questionnaire surveys

Preparation and design of a

questionnaire survey

Discussions of findings / results

with relevant authorities

Meeting with relevant authorities (KKLW,

MOH, etc.)

Conduct ground surveys and

visits

Findings and

reporting

Identification of pilot area

Desktop data collection and visit

preparations

Discussion with authorities and

stakeholders on results

Desktop Study / Internet Search

Gathering of information PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

6

3 Findings from Desktop Studies and Meeting with Relevant Authorities

3.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Relevant Agencies The following Ministries and agencies were identified as the most important organisations in relation to rural development. Ministry of Health (MOH) MOH plays an important role in the social sectors which have major health implications and which are less prioritised by other Ministries, especially in rural areas. The Engineering Services Department or Bahagian Perkhidmatan Kejuruteraan (BPK) of MOH has carried out programmes on health awareness to the rural areas through the Environmental Cleanliness Programme or Program Kebersihan Alam Sekeliling since 1973. The programme was later renamed to the Environmental Water Supply and Cleanliness Programme or Bekalan Air dan Kebersihan Alam Sekeliling (BAKAS). A guideline 3 for waste management in rural areas was prepared and published by MOH in 1999 as part of the BAKAS Programme. The recommendations of the guideline have been implemented in 65% of the traditional and orang asli villages in rural areas. This programme was aimed at ensuring that the rural communities have access to safe water supply, sanitary toilet facilities and proper waste disposal to prevent the transmission of diseases. Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) FELDA is a governmental agency undertaking development programmes for the rural poor. The development programmes support and encourage the rural people to improve their livelihood by growing cash crops such as palm oil and rubber and to improve the infrastructure. The programmes were implemented within schemes which were well defined in physical boundaries. The schemes are generally open only to ethnic Malays. (Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FELDA)

3 Guideline for Solid Waste Management in Rural Areas, Malaysia Ministry of Health (1999)

7

To date, FELDA has developed 317 schemes covering 853,313 hectares of land comprising mainly of palm oil plantations (84.7%) and rubber plantations (9.9%). The scheme areas also included 4.9% (42,173 hectares) for settlers’ villages where 112,635 settlers were accommodated. There were 11 FELDA Regional Offices managing the schemes.

Figure 2: Development of FELDA Land

FELDA was established on 1st July 1956 under the Land Development Ordinance 1956. Its functions as allocated under the Act (Amendment 1991) are as follow:

To develop, facilitate and implement development, management and economic, social, agricultural, settlement, industrial and commercial services as well as other related activities in areas where FELDA has been granted the authority to implement land development projects or in areas owned by FELDA and its companies;

To implement activities to modernise the agricultural sector within FELDA schemes; and

To assist, guide, advise, manage and coordinate social, settlement, agriculture, industrial and commercial activities in FELDA schemes.

Beginning April 2004, FELDA was placed under the Prime Minister's Department. (Source: http://www.felda.net.my, 2010).

8

Ministry of Rural and Regional Development (KKLW) KKLW was established in 1959. It was then called the Ministry of National and Rural Development (KPNLB). The mission of KKLW is to generate a progressive rural community through strengthening human capital, infrastructure and competitive economy in a consistent environment. (Source: http://www.rurallink.gov.my) The objectives of KKLW in rural areas are to:-

Increase rural community welfare; Create a knowledgeable and skilled society; Accelerate concept implementation and integrated development

programme; Improve coverage of basic infrastructure, utility and infrastructure; Ensure rural people attain information technology and communication

benefits; Eradicate hardcore poverty; Increase income and job opportunities in rural areas; Increase road development in rural areas and other less-developed

areas; and Increase coverage of electricity and water supply.

Regional Development Authorities There are four (4) Regional Development Authorities under the jurisdiction of KKLW, they are:-

1. Kedah Regional Development Authority (KEDA) 2. South Kelantan Development Authority (KESEDAR) 3. South-East Johor Development Authority (KEJORA) 4. Central Terengganu Development Authority (KETENGAH)

The objectives of the Regional Development Agencies are to:-

Develop the socio-economic aspects of target groups within rural societies through human resources development, skills training, economic and physical development;

Increase participation of target groups in economic activities through "People Empowerment"; and

Create a balanced development between urban and rural areas. Other agencies under this Ministry include Federal Land Consolidated and Rehabilitation Authority (FELCRA) and Department of Orang Asli Affairs or Jabatan Hal-Ehwal Orang Asli (JHEOA).

9

Federal Land Consolidated and Rehabilitation Authority (FELCRA) FELCRA was established in 1966. Its objective is to develop the rural sector by helping the rural communities to participate in national economic activities and thus improve their standard of living. (Source: http://www.felcra.com.my, 2010). On 1st September 1997, FELCRA was corporatised. FELCRA Berhad has diversified its activities from its original focus on plantation management to the industrial and service sectors as well as other business areas. FELCRA Berhad aspires to be a successful conglomerate while creating a dynamic, attractive and profitable rural sector in line with its operational strategy, which balances a profit oriented programme with social obligation.

Department of Orang Asli Affairs (JHEOA)

The mission of JHEOA is to improve the aboriginal’s socio-economic status and competency, increase their involvement in the national economy and facilitate social and political development while preserving the identity and values of the aboriginals. Jabatan Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (JKKK) The Village Development and Security Committee or Jabatan Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (JKKK) is an institution that forms part of the government’s administration engine at the village level. The committees are established to enable constructive ideas at the grass roots level to be channelled through the district, state and country level.

3.2 Information Gathered from Meetings with Relevant Agencies

Several meetings with the involved agencies were organised to clarify the current waste management practices in areas outside of LA service boundaries. The main findings from the meetings were as follow: FELDA

FELDA does not have a specific department or personnel to handle the issues of SWM.

Before 2005, all the settlements disposed of their waste in waste pits or holes which were then covered, but this is now no longer practised. In 2005, FELDA initiated a yearly competition called “Pertandingan Keceriaan Kampung FELDA” to award RM 1 million to the most beautiful village. Since then, all the settlements were equipped with waste bins as this was one of the judging criteria for the competition.

Contractors or the internal FELDA Koperasi were engaged to collect the waste every 2 or 3 days and dispose of the waste to FELDA

10

disposal grounds located within the FELDA scheme. Generally, each FELDA scheme has one disposal ground. For a few schemes where the LA landfill was located nearby, the waste was sent to this landfill. For example, some of the waste from Bandar Tenggara was sent to Tapak Pelupusan (TP) Seelong in Johor State. The contractors were appointed through open tender.

As for the service fees, each settler (similar to a household) pays RM 5 per month for waste collection, cleansing of communal areas and other services while FELDA contributes RM 10 per month for the services. So, the total payment is RM 15/settler/month.

Generally, the location of disposal ground for solid waste was identified by the Regional FELDA officers or Scheme Managers.

MOH

MOH’s functions in the rural areas were focussed on sanitation and public health.

MOH has initiated BAKAS Programme with the objective to control water-borne and food-based diseases through the provision of basic facilities for water supply and sanitation to the rural population.

Four (4) main aspects are addressed in BAKAS Programme which are (1) water supply, (2) electricity supply, (3) sewerage management and (4) SWM.

Currently, MOH’s focus is mainly on raising the level of awareness and providing education to the people in rural areas. Among the 4 aspects, priority was given to water and electricity supply. SWM was normally given the least focus.

At the moment, MOH has provided education and promoted awareness to 65% of the villages in the country (equivalent to approximately 260,000 rural households).

Inspections were also carried out by the MOH officers to monitor the progress of the programme. Around 10-15% from the total MOH budget has been allocated for the programme.

For waste management, MOH has provided some tools and equipment for digging pits for burying solid waste and for lids to cover the pits.

MOH informed that in some areas private contractors were appointed by the villagers to collect and dispose of their waste.

KKLW

KKLW has appointed a private contractor (Teras Dara Konsortium) to operate landfills and SWM in the outskirts of Pekan, Rompin and 12 other towns in the State of Pahang, excluding FELDA areas.

11

3.3 Analysis of Data Collected from Various Departments

Population Distribution and Waste Generation in Rural Areas using data from Department of Statistics (DOS) A rural area, as defined by DOS, is a populated area other than town area, including villages having less than 10,000 persons. Rural areas, in this definition, are not the same as the areas outside of LA service boundaries. Some rural areas might be located within the LA service boundaries and therefore, waste collection service is provided. The distribution of rural areas within Peninsular Malaysia based on population census from the DOS is presented in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Total Population in Rural Area According to State and Strata, 2010*

Regions

States

2000 2010

Urban Pop* ('000)

Rural Pop* ('000)

% Rural Urban Pop* ('000)

Rural Pop* ('000)

% Rural

Northern

Perlis 70.1 134.4 65.7% 88.2 157.4 64.1%

Kedah 648.0 1,001.8 60.7% 823.5 1,220.7 59.7%

Pulau Pinang 1,052.1 261.4 19.9% 1,288.0 321.9 20.0%

Perak 1,203.9 847.4 41.3% 1,446.5 994.4 40.7%

Central

Selangor 3,667.5 521.4 12.4% 4,709.7 578.2 10.9%

W.P. Kuala Lumpur 1,379.3 0.0% 1,681.6 0.0%

Eastern

Pahang 540.9 747.5 58.0% 702.0 872.3 55.4%

Terengganu 437.5 461.3 51.3% 577.3 571.2 49.7%

Kelantan 448.9 864.1 65.8% 558.5 1,119.5 66.7%

Southern

Negeri Sembilan 459.3 400.7 46.6% 593.2 439.8 42.6%

Melaka 427.3 208.5 32.8% 577.3 208.9 26.6%

Johor 1,787.5 953.1 34.8% 2,342.6 1,116.8 32.3%

Sub-Total 12,122.3 6,401.6 34.6% 15,388.4 7,601.1 33.1%

Northern States 2,974.1 2,245.0 43.0% 3,646.2 2,694.4 42.5%

Central States 5,046.8 521.4 9.4% 6,391.3 578.2 8.3%

Eastern States 1,427.3 2,072.9 59.2% 1,837.8 2,563.0 58.2%

Southern States 2,674.1 1,562.3 36.9% 3,513.1 1,765.5 33.4%

(Source: DOS, 2010)

12

From the table, the following observations are notable:-

The rural population in 2010 is 7.6 million persons, accounting for 32.3% of the total population in Peninsular Malaysia.

Kedah has the highest rural population, followed by Kelantan and Johor. In terms of rural to urban ratio, Kelantan (66.7%) is highest, followed by Perlis (64.1%) and Kedah (59.7%).

Perlis, Melaka and Pulau Pinang have the lowest rural population. In terms of rural to urban ratio, Selangor (10.9%), Pulau Pinang (20%) and Melaka (26.6%) have the lowest.

There is a slight increase in rural population from 2000 to 2010 but a reduction in terms of rural to urban ratio (from 34.6% to 33.1%).

When comparing the regional distribution, the rural to urban ratio is highest in Eastern Region (58.2%), followed by Northern (42.5%), Southern (33.4%) and Central Region (8.3%).

The waste generation in rural areas was estimated by MOH at 0.4-0.6 kg/person/day (Source: Guideline for Rural Waste Management by MOH, 1999). Assuming that the average waste generation rate in rural area is 0.5kg/person/day, the rural waste generation is estimated as shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Estimation of Waste Generation in Rural Areas, 2010

Regions State Waste Generation (TPD)

Northern

Perlis 79

Kedah 610

Pulau Pinang 161

Perak 497

Central

Selangor 289

W.P. Kuala Lumpur -

Eastern

Pahang 436

Terengganu 286

Kelantan 560

Southern

Negeri Sembilan 220

Melaka 104

Johor 558

Total 3,801

By Region

Northern States 1,347

Central States 289

Eastern States 1,282

Southern States 883

Total 3,801

13

SWM Data Provided by MOH MOH has provided data on SWM for a number of rural areas for this survey. The data covers 105 villages with a total population of 74,932 persons and 15,109 households (see Tables 3 and 4 below).

Table 3: Data on Villages, Population and Households in Selected Rural Areas (MOH)

States No. of Villages Population No. of

Households

Perlis 2 1,731 402

Kedah No info No info No info

Pulau Pinang 26 17,462 3,466

Perak 22 10,210 2,250

Selangor 13 8,104 1,713

Pahang No info No info No info

Terengganu 10 14,774 2,815

Kelantan 8 10,608 1,849

Negeri Sembilan 2 459 122

Melaka 12 8,262 1,724

Johor 10 3,322 768

Total 105 74,932 15,109

(Source: MOH, 2010)

Table 4: No. of Villages by Types in the Selected Rural Areas (MOH)

State

No. of Villages by Type

Total

Traditional Orang Asli

Modern/New FELDA

On Water Others

Perlis 2 2

Pulau Pinang 23 3 26

Perak 15 5 2 22

Selangor 9 3 1 13

Terengganu 5 1 2 2 10

Kelantan 6 1 1 8

Negeri Sembilan 1 1 2

Melaka 6 5 1 12

Johor 8 2 10

Total 73 11 14 4 1 2 105

% 69.5% 10.5% 13.3% 3.8% 1.0% 1.9% 100%

14

For each village, the manner of SWM was provided. The types of waste storage and waste collection are presented in the following figure:

Note: “Both Bin” refers to the use of both individual bin and communal bin

Figure 3: Type of Waste Storage in Selected Rural Areas (MOH)

As shown in Figure 3, most of the selected rural villages (77%) used individual bins and plastic bags. 8% of the rural villages used communal bins while 13% had no storage facilities.

Figure 4: Method of Waste Collection in Selected Rural Areas (MOH)

Figure 4 presents the collection methods at the selected rural areas. The majority (42%) of the selected villages had no collection, 27% had collection by lorries and 10% used wheelbarrow. 21% of the selected villages treated their own waste on-site (either burning or burying).

15

4 Findings from the Pilot Field Survey in Jempol District

Jempol District in the State of Negeri Sembilan was selected as the area for the pilot field survey as it comprises the various types of settlements, i.e.:-

Traditional villages

Orang asli villages

FELDA Schemes

Private estates

Recreational parks Jempol District is the largest district in Negeri Sembilan. It borders Pahang State to the east and Johor State to the south (see Figure 5). Appendix B provides a detailed report of the study on the findings from the site visit to Jempol Health Office in Negeri Sembilan.

Figure 5: Location of Field Survey Area

Legend

$+ FELDA Scheme

#* Traditional village

District

Road

16

The list of rural villages and parks covered by the pilot field survey in Jempol District is provided in Table 5.

Table 5: Surveyed Villages and Recreational Parks in Jempol District, Negeri Sembilan

No. Type of

Rural Areas Name of Schemes, Villages and Parks

Surveyed

No. of Rural Areas

Surveyed

1

Traditional Villages

Kampung Bayai Baru / Bayai Lama

7

2 Kampung Dato’ Johan

3 Kampung Serting Hulu

4 Kampung Serting Tengah

5 Kampung Gajah Mati

6 Kampung Jawa / Sungai Bong

7 Kampung Sungai Persum (Ayer Kuning)

1

Orang Asli Villages

Kampung Sungai Sot

8

2 Kampung Batu Peti

3 Kampung Orang Asli Chenderang

4 Kampung Panchor

5 Kampung Kuala Klebang

6 Kampung Lubuk Lawang

7 Kampung Jeram Padang

8 Kampung Sampo Pulapah

1-3

FELDA Schemes

Raja Alias 2, 3 and 4

20

4-5 Serting Hilir 2 and 3

6 Bukit Rokan Barat

7 Lui Barat

8-9 Lui Selatan 1 and 2

10 Lui Timur

11-18 Palong 4 to 11

19-20 Pasoh 2 and 3

1

Private Estates

Ladang Bahau

5

2 Ladang Ayer Hitam

3 Ladang Batang Jelai

4 Ladang Jeram Padang

5 Ladang Sungai Sebaling

1

Recreational Parks

Serting Ulu Recreational Park

5

2 De Bana Recreational Park

3 Bahau Recreational Park

4 Ulu Bernam Recreational Park

5 Simpang Pertang Forest

TOTAL 45

17

In the following, the findings from the pilot field survey will be presented for each type of settlements.

4.1 Traditional Villages There were 26 traditional villages in Jempol District. The number of traditional villages in each mukim is shown in Table 6. Seven (7) villages were selected for the survey which was carried out in July 2009 (see Table 7).

Table 6: No. of Traditional Villages in Jempol District (by Mukim)

Mukim No. of Traditional Villages

Kuala Jempol 6

Jelai 7

Rompin 4

Serting Hilir 2

Serting Hulu 7

Total 26

(Source: MOH 2010)

Table 7: Traditional Villages Surveyed

No. Traditional Villages

1 Kampung Bayai Baru / Bayai Lama

2 Kampung Dato’ Johan

3 Kampung Serting Hulu

4 Kampung Serting Tengah

5 Kampung Gajah Mati

6 Kampung Jawa / Sungai Bong

7 Kampung Sungai Persum (Ayer Kuning)

(Source: MOH 2010)

Summary of the findings from the survey of traditional villages is presented below. General findings

There were no collection services in the surveyed villages.

MOH has implemented a SWM component of the BAKAS Programme (see Section 3.1) at the traditional villages in Jempol District. This component was only implemented in Negeri Sembilan.

The MOH officers have educated the villagers to dig a waste disposal pit of the specific size (length = 3’, width = 2.5’, depth = 2’) (see Figure 7).

18

The BAKAS component then provided a cover for the waste disposal pits, fitting to the dimensions of the pit (see Figure 6) which would then be put on top of the pit (see Figure 8).

When the pit is filled up, a new pit will be dug and the cover will be removed and used to cover the new pit. The filled pit will be covered with soil.

Since 2009, MOH has installed 30 such pit systems in Jempol District.

There was no fee charged to the villages.

However, some traditional villagers did not dispose of their waste in a disposal pit but the waste was burnt or littered on the ground.

Most villages used organic waste for feeding animals such as chickens.

No composting was observed during the survey.

Recycling was not observed during the survey although some villagers who were interviewed were supportive towards recycling.

Figure 6: Cover for Waste Disposal Pit Provided by MOH to Traditional Villages for Management of Solid Waste

Figure 7: Waste Disposal Pit at Traditional Village (length = 3’, width = 2.5’, depth =

2’)

Figure 8: The Pit Equipped with the Cover

19

Figure 9: Examples of Disposal Pits at Traditional Villages in Jempol District

4.2 Orang Asli Villages There were 16 orang asli villages in Jempol District. The distribution of the villages at the 5 mukims in Jempol District is shown in Table 8. Field surveys were conducted for 8 orang asli villages in Jempol. The list of villages surveyed is shown in Table 9.

Table 8: No. of Orang Asli Villages in Jempol District (by Mukim)

No. Mukims No. of Orang Asli Villages

1. Kuala Jempol No orang asli village

2. Jelai 11

3. Rompin 1

4. Serting Hilir 2

5. Serting Hulu 2

Total 16

(Source: MOH 2010)

Table 9: Orang Asli Villages Surveyed

No. Orang Asli Villages

1 Kampung Sungai Sot

2 Kampung Batu Peti

3 Kampung Chenderang

4 Kampung Panchor

5 Kampung Kuala Klebang

6 Kampung Lubuk Lawang

7 Kampung Jeram Padang

8 Kampung Sampo Pulapah

(Source: MOH 2010)

20

General Findings

There were no collection services in the surveyed villages.

Most of the orang asli villages did not have waste bins or disposal pits.

The waste was observed to be littered on the ground or burnt (see Figure 10) or fed to the animals (e.g. dogs and chickens).

Storage of recyclables was observed at the orang asli villages. Villagers sell the recyclable items to agents who come to their village for collection (see Figure 11). It was observed that some recyclable items might have been brought back from outside of the villages (e.g. soft drink aluminium cans and beer bottles).

Figure 10: Waste Littered on the Ground or Burnt at Orang Asli Villages

Figure 11: Storage of Recyclable Items Observed at Orang Asli Villages

4.3 FELDA Schemes The FELDA Schemes in Peninsular Malaysia have been divided into 11 regions as shown in Table 10.

21

Table 10: Number of FELDA Schemes (by Regions)

Region No. of

Schemes

No. of Settlers

Oil Palm Rubber Total

Raja Alias 49 6,846 9,583 16,429

Johor Bahru 42 17,304 247 17,551

Kuantan 42 15,049 0 15,049

Mempaga 36 11,815 1,303 13,118

Jengka 37 13,636 1,320 14,956

Segamat 36 7,980 3,440 11,420

Terengganu 21 7,133 330 7,463

Trolak 21 5,876 1,967 7,843

Alor Star 13 108 3,934 4,042

Gua Musang 11 3,115 0 3,115

Sahabat 9 1,649 0 1,649

Total 317 90,511 22,124 112,635

(Source: FELDA Website, 2010)

(Source: FELDA Website, 2010)

Figure 12: Summary of Raja Alias Region in Negeri Sembilan

The FELDA Raja Alias Regional Office was approached for this survey. The office covers the 5 districts in Negeri Sembilan (Gemas, Jelebu, Jempol, Kuala Pilah and Tampin) with a total of 49 schemes (see Table 11). Jempol District has the largest number of FELDA Schemes, i.e. 30 schemes. Twenty (20) of these schemes were selected for the survey as shown in Table 12.

22

Table 11: No. of FELDA Schemes Managed by Raja Alias Regional Office in Negeri Sembilan

Districts No. of Schemes

Settlers

Gemas 6

Jelebu 3

Jempol 30

Kuala Pilah 1

Tampin 3

Plantation

Felda Plantation Sdn. Bhd. 6 (no settlers)

Total 49

(Source: FELDA 2010)

Table 12: No. of FELDA Schemes Surveyed in Jempol District

No. FELDA Schemes

1-3 Raja Alias 2, 3 and 4

4-5 Serting Hilir 2 and 3

6 Bukit Rokan Barat

7 Lui Barat

8-9 Lui Selatan 1 and 2

10 Lui Timur

11-18 Palong 4 – 11

19-20 Pasoh 2 and 3

(Source: FELDA 2010)

Summary of findings from the survey of FELDA Schemes is presented as follows:

General Findings

Waste management in FELDA was the responsibility of the Scheme Manager in each scheme. There was no specific guideline for waste management issued by FELDA and therefore, the methods of waste management varied between the schemes, depending on the level of commitment, knowledge and creativity of the Scheme Manager.

Every scheme has its own waste disposal ground. Waste Storage

Each scheme has a different waste storage method. However, generally one storage method is standardised within a scheme.

In all schemes, a waste bin was provided for every household.

23

In some schemes, the waste bins were covered with lids. The size and type of the bins varied but the majority were around 50 litre capacity, black in colour and made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) (see Figure 13).

In most schemes, the waste bins were placed at standing poles. According to a Scheme Manager, some bins have drilled holes at the bottom to drain out the leachate.

Wheeled bins were observed in one of the schemes.

Figure 13: Examples of Waste Bins in Surveyed FELDA Schemes

Waste Collection

Waste collection was carried out by private contractors appointed by the Scheme Managers or the internal FELDA Koperasi.

Waste collection was carried out 2-3 times a week, depending on the scheme.

Generally, open lorries were used for waste collection (see Figure 14). Some contractors used lorries for transporting palm fruits to collect the waste.

The contractors were paid on a monthly basis and the payments ranged from RM 950 to RM 1800. There was no specific guideline on the charges but they generally depended on the amount of waste collected and distance to the waste disposal ground.

Although the general policy for the settler was to pay RM 5/month and FELDA will contribute RM 10/month for SWM and public cleansing

24

(PC), there was no mandatory rule for such policy and some settlers chose not to pay.

Figure 14: Example of lorry used for collection of waste

Waste Disposal

There was a waste disposal ground in every scheme. It was typically located within the scheme area and generally within 100m from the main access road.

At some disposal grounds, waste was disposed of in an excavated pit and buried. At other disposal grounds, waste was just spread out on the ground, while at some places waste was burned openly or within a concrete structure (see Figure 15).

Figure 15: Examples of Waste Disposal Ground in FELDA Schemes

25

4.4 Private Estate Villages

Ten (10) estates (plantations) owned by private companies were identified (see Table 13) in Jempol District. MOH has promoted health awareness which included proper waste management in these areas. Field surveys were conducted for 5 private estates in Jempol (see Table 14).

Table 13: No. of Private Estates in Jempol District

No. Private Estates

1 Ladang Bukit Pilai

2 Ladang St. Hilir

3 Ladang Chong Wing Chan

4 Ladang Bahau

5 Ladang Batang Jelai

6 Ladang Good Wood

7 Ladang Koh Foh

8 Ladang Kelipin

9 Ladang Sungai Sebaling

10 Ladang Glendale

(Source: MOH 2010)

Table 14: Private Estates Surveyed

No. Private Estates

1 Ladang Bahau

2 Ladang Ayer Hitam

3 Ladang Batang Jelai

4 Ladang Jeram Padang

5 Ladang Sungai Sebaling

(Source: MOH 2010)

General Findings

The villagers disposed of their waste in various types of waste bins as shown in Figure 16.

Waste collection was performed by the private estate management/owner 3 times a week.

Upon collection, the waste was transferred to a nearby excavated disposal ground (see Figure 17) within the estate. When the disposal ground is full, it will be covered with earth material.

Recycling was encouraged in most of the private estates. Collection of recyclables (papers, plastic and aluminium cans) was practiced at recycling centres located adjacent to the management office of the estate (see Figure 18).

26

Figure 16: Examples of Waste Storage Bins Used in Private Estates

Figure 17: Examples of Disposal Grounds in Private Estates

Figure 18: Recycling Centres in Private Estates

27

4.5 National / Recreational Parks There were 5 recreational parks in Jempol District as shown in Table 15.

Table 15: Recreational Parks in Jempol District

No. Recreational Parks Remarks

1 Serting Ulu Recreational Park Outside of LA service boundary

2 De Bana Recreational Park Outside of LA service boundary

3 Simpang Pertang Forest Outside of LA service boundary

4 Bahau Recreational Park Within LA service boundary

5 Ulu Bernam Recreational Park Within LA service boundary

Three (3) recreational parks were located outside the LA service boundaries while Bahau and Ulu Bernam Recreational Park were located within the LA service boundaries.

A field survey was carried out at Simpang Pertang Forest. The survey was accompanied by Park Rangers from Negeri Sembilan Department of Wildlife and National Parks or Jabatan Perlindungan Hidupan Liar dan Taman Negara (PERHILITAN). General Findings

According to the Park Rangers, cleanliness and waste collection inside the parks was managed by the Park Rangers. For the areas outside the park, solid waste were either collected by SWM Environment Sdn. Bhd. (for those within LA service boundary) or private collectors engaged by the Park Rangers (for those outside of LA service boundary).

Park Rangers played an important role in maintaining the cleanliness and ensuring waste was properly collected and disposed of. There was no guideline on waste management provided for them and the waste management activities depended on the Park Rangers’ initiative, knowledge and creativity.

Generally, signboards reminding park visitors/campers to keep the parks clean were placed inside as well as outside the park boundaries (see Figure 19).

Although waste bins were provided within the parks, waste was seen scattered around the parks and signs of waste burning were noticed (see Figure 20).

Most of the wastes observed in the parks were plastics, styrofoam packaging and aluminium cans while papers were hardly found (see Figure 21).

For recreational parks within the LA service boundary, large waste containers (e.g. Roll-On, Roll-Off (RO-RO) bins and skip bins) were observed. The containers were collected by SWM Environment Sdn. Bhd. (see Figure 22).

28

The waste collected was disposed of at the nearest landfill (for those within LA service boundary) or disposal ground (for those outside of LA service boundary).

Recycling bins were also observed at parks within LA service boundary (see Figure 23).

Figure 19: Signboard at Park (a line showing “Do Not Throw Rubbish Everywhere”)

Figure 20: Examples of Waste Bins and Signs of Waste Burning inside the Parks

29

Figure 21: Officer from PPSPPA Taking a Closer Look at the Waste Composition

Figure 22: Large Bins Provided outside the Park (for Parks within LA Service

Boundary)

Figure 23: Recycling Stations outside the Park (for Parks within LA Service

Boundary)

30

4.6 Summary of Survey Findings In summary, the findings from the pilot survey in Jempol District can be tabulated as follows:-

Table 16: Summary of Survey Findings

Type of Rural Areas

Storage

Collection Recycling Disposal

Traditional

Villages

Do not use waste bins

No collection Not practised

Buried in a pit with cover / burnt on-site

Orang Asli

Villages

Do not use waste bins

No collection Practised At the backyard / empty land

nearby / burnt

FELDA

Villages

Use standing waste bins on

pole

Collected by private

contractor or the internal

FELDA Koperasi

using open lorry, 2-3

times a week

Not practised

At disposal ground within the FELDA Scheme or LA landfill

Private

Estates

Villages

Use various types of

waste bins

Collected by estate

management/ owner using open lorry, 3 times a week

Practised, recycling centres provided

At disposal ground within

the private estate

Recreational

Parks

Waste bins provided

Collected by private

contractor but not on regular

basis

Not practised

At LA landfill / disposal

ground

31

5 Option for Extending Waste Management Services - Zoning of Rural Areas

For the purpose of assessing possible options for extending the waste management services to areas outside the LA current service area, zoning of these areas was considered. The study demonstrated that zoning should be organised based on the physical accessibility of the villages for vehicles that would be able to provide the same service level to the villages as are currently provided for areas within the LA service areas, taking into consideration road conditions as well as distance to existing landfills. These factors, together with proposed solutions, are detailed in Section 5.1 below.

5.1 Zoning of Rural Areas for SWM

The rural areas can be divided into zones as presented in Table 17.

Table 17: Zoning of Rural Areas for Provision of Waste Management Services

Categories

of Zones Accessibility Proposed Solution

Zone “A” Can be accessed by collection truck for house-to-house collection. (*e.g. FELDA

schemes, private

estates, new

villages)

Waste collected house-to-house

If the village is within 35km from the LA landfill, waste can be collected by general collection system and transported to the LA landfill

If the village is more than 35km from the LA landfill, waste can be collected by local collection system and transported to local rural disposal site

Zone “B” Can be accessed by collection truck for bulk collection but local roads not suitable for house-to-house collection. (*e.g. traditional

villages, recreational

Waste is brought by households to communal receptacle for collection

If the village is within 35km from the LA landfill, the communal receptacle can be collected by general collection system and transported to the LA landfill

32

Categories

of Zones Accessibility Proposed Solution

parks) If the village is more than 35km from the LA landfill, the communal receptacle can be collected by local collection system and transported to local rural disposal site

Zone “C” Cannot be accessed by collection vehicles due to poor road condition or distance. (*e.g. orang asli villages, villages on islands or in mountain regions)

Local collection and disposal must be

organised.

If road conditions allow collection with local light-weight collection vehicles, waste should be collected house-to-house and transferred to local rural disposal site. If road conditions and distance for local light-weight collection vehicles allow, villages may share a disposal site.

If road conditions do not allow collection with local light-weight collection vehicles, waste should be disposed at individual pits according to MOH guideline, refer to above.

* The examples given in this table may not represent all villages as they are based on the pilot survey in Jempol District only.

5.2 Waste Disposal Options According to the Zoning of Rural Areas

The zoning of rural areas (Zone A, B and C) as presented in Section 5.1 formed the basis for determining the manner of future solid waste disposal. The three (3) levels of disposal identified are listed in Table 17.

1) Transfer to LA landfill

2) Establishment of rural disposal sites

Standards should be developed for the establishment and operation of such rural disposal sites, taking into consideration the small amount of waste and consequently, small expected impact. An example of standards from the Natural Resources and Environment Board (NREB), Sarawak is attached as example, refer to Appendix C.

33

3) Establishment of individual pits following MOH’s BAKAS Programme or similar guidelines, refer to Section 4.1 above.

5.3 Zoning Case Study: Jempol District

A case study was implemented in Jempol District to assess the applicability of a “zonal” system, and if such a system was implemented, how many villages would fall into each zone.

By using the Google Earth and ArcGIS softwares with the following steps, zoning for the village was defined. a) The LA boundary, village and district boundary layers were processed

in ArcGIS and exported to Google Earth KML format b) Road accessibility was determined by using Google Earth

Figures 24-26 provide examples of areas under Zone A, B and C respectively. Only villages with the location made available on the GIS map provided by the Town and Country Planning Department, Malaysia was assessed. By using the MapSource software with the following steps, actual distance to disposal sites can be calculated. a) All the reference points were converted from MRSO system in meter to

WGS84 in lat/long degree for further calculation in GARMIN GPS MapSource software (primarily supports WGS84 map projection) which provides easy use, nearest distance routing functionality

b) The calculated distances were then used for waste resources optimization purposes

Figure 27 provides an example of determining the distance to disposal site.

34

Figure 24: Example of Village Categorised under Zone A

Figure 25: Example of Village Categorised under Zone B

Access road to the village, but road to each of the houses was not clearly seen

The village have road access to the house Road access clearly seen from Google Earth

35

Figure 26: Example of Village Categorised under Zone C

No. Name of Village

Actual Distance

(km)

Remark

1 FELDA Palong 9, 10 & 11

48.7 (shown

in yellow line)

Figure 27: Example of Mapping Actual Travelling Distance from a FELDA Village to

the Nearest LA Landfill (TP Jln. Kok Foh)

No proper access road to the village

36

Based on the above method, the villages in each zones and the actual travelling distance from each village to the nearest LA landfill, i.e. TP Jln. Kok Foh, are tabulated in Tables 18-21 below:

Table 18: Distribution of Villages in Jempol District for SWM Zones in Rural Areas

SWM Zones No. of Villages % of Villages

Zone A 24 60%

Zone B 10 24%

Zone C 7 16%

Table 19: Examples of Villages in Zone A

Village Name Distance to TP Jalan Kok Foh (km)

Below 35km

1. Kg. C1 11.2

2. FELDA Palong 1 26.3

3. FELDA Palong 2 33.9

4. FELDA Palong 3 32.4

Above 35km

5. Kg. Lui Selatan (FELDA) 50.9

6. FELDA Pasoh 2 51.5

7. FELDA Palong 4 37.6

8. FELDA Palong 6 38.1

9. FELDA Palong 8 49.0

10. FELDA Palong 9, 10 & 1 48.7

11. FELDA Palong 13 52.0

12. Kg. Peladang Baru 40.7

13. Kg. Gajah Mati 48.0

14. Kg. Baharu Ulu Bayal 48.2

15. Kg. Bayai Baru 47.7

16. Kg. Bayai Lama 46.6

17. Kg. C2 40.0

18. Kg. C3 40.0

19. Kg. D 43.2

20. Kg. E 35.3

21. Tmn. Tunku Chik Puan 35.3

22. Kg. Gatco 55.3

23. Kg. Sempo Hulu 58.7

24. Kg. Lui Muda (FELDA) 48.7

37

Table 20: Examples of Villages in Zone B

Village name Distance to TP Jalan Kok Foh

Below 35km

No villages -

Above 35km

1. Ayer Kering 52.8

2. Kg. Baharu Serting Hilir 40.2

3. Kg. Baru Bt. Tempurung 39.2

4. Kg. Kopok 47.2

5. Kg. Cherbang 59.4

6. Kg. K. Sialang 39.0

7. Kg. Lonek 41.2

8. Kg. S. Taling 42.0

9. Kg. Langkap 41.8

10. Kg. Jemuar 36.8

Table 21: Examples of Villages in Zone C

Village Name

1. Kg. Demalek

2. Kg. S. Lui

3. Kg. Selatan

4. Kg. Rompin

5. Kg. Bt. Merah

6. Ldg. Bahau Penari Village

7. Kg. Parit

5.4 Proposed Service Levels in Each of the Zones in Rural

Areas

Based on the information derived from the survey in Jempol, together with the overall study findings, it is proposed that future SWM in rural areas could be organised according to the zoning of rural areas as described in Section 5.1 above. Tables 22-24 present the proposed service levels in each of the zones in rural areas.

38

Table 22: Service Levels for Zone “A” – Can be Accessed by Collection Compactor for House-to-House Collection

SWM Aspects Description

Waste Generation

Waste generation (rate and composition) in Zone “A” is expected to be similar to those households within the LA service boundaries areas. Further study on the rate and composition shall be conducted.

Storage Waste bins (e.g. 120-litre mobile garbage bin (MGB)) can be provided for every house.

Recycling Periodic collection of recyclables can be considered. Education and awareness campaign on segregation and proper storage of recyclables should be provided.

Collection & Transportation

House-to-house collection using compactor. 2 times a week. Further study on bin size and collection frequency shall be considered.

Treatment & Disposal

Two (2) options:- (A) If the village is within 35km from the LA landfill,

waste can be collected by general waste collection system and transported to the LA landfill.

(B) If the village is more than 35km from the LA landfill, waste can be collected and transported to local rural disposal site.

Local rural disposal sites should be shared among villages where feasible. Inventory of existing rural disposal grounds should be prepared for management and monitoring. Existing rural disposal grounds not fulfilling new standards for local rural dumpsites should be progressively closed. Temporary license shall be given to existing rural disposal site grounds not fulfilling new standards for local rural dumpsites until a complying facility is identified for the reception and disposal of solid waste.

39

Table 23: Service Levels in Zone “B” – Can be Accessed by Collection Truck for Bulk Collection

SWM Aspects Description

Waste Generation

The per capita waste generation rate is expected to be lower than Zone “A”. Further study on the rate and composition shall be conducted.

Storage Communal receptacles (e.g. skip bins or RO-RO containers) shall be provided for every village and at the boundary of the recreational parks. The communal receptacles shall be placed at suitable locations where they are not too near to the houses (e.g. more than 100m) and accessible by the collection vehicles. Villagers shall be educated to keep their waste in plastic bags and bring them to the communal bins for collection.

Recycling Collection of recyclables shall be considered at the communal receptacle area. Education and awareness campaign on segregation and proper storage of recyclables should be provided.

Collection & Transportation

Periodic collection of communal receptacles by collection truck (e.g. RO-RO truck).

Treatment & Disposal

Two (2) options :- (A) If the village is within 35km from the LA landfill,

waste can be collected by general waste collection system and transported to the LA landfill.

(B) If the village is more than 35km from the LA landfill, waste can be collected and transported to local rural disposal site.

Local rural disposal sites should be shared among villages where feasible. Inventory of existing rural disposal grounds should be prepared for management and monitoring. Existing rural disposal grounds not fulfilling new standards for local rural dumpsites should be progressively closed.

40

SWM Aspects Description

Temporary license shall be given to existing rural disposal site grounds not fulfilling new standards for local rural dumpsites until a complying facility is identified for the reception and disposal of solid waste.

Table 24: Service Levels for Zone “C” – Cannot be Accessed by Vehicles

SWM Aspects Description

Waste Generation

The per capita waste generation rate is expected to be lower than Zone “B”. Further study on the rate and composition shall be conducted.

Storage Villagers shall be educated to segregate waste for in-situ treatment and disposal.

Recycling Education and awareness campaign on segregation and proper storage of recyclables should be provided.

Collection & Transportation

Local collection and disposal must be organised.

If road conditions allow collection with local light-weight collection vehicles, waste should be collected house-to-house and transferred to local rural disposal site.

Treatment & Disposal

Two (2) options :-

If road conditions allow collection with local light-weight collection vehicles, waste should be transferred to local rural disposal site. If road conditions and distance for local light-weight collection vehicles allow, villages may share a dumpsite.

If road conditions do not allow collection with local light-weight collection vehicles, waste should be disposed at individual pits according to MOH guideline, refer to above.

Education on proper management of on-site treatment and disposal following MOH BAKAS guidelines or similar guideline, refer to Section 4.1 above, shall be conducted. Tools and equipment shall be provided to establish proper on-site disposal.

41

6 Conclusions and Recommendations This study presents the findings on the current SWM in areas outside the LA service boundary. The findings were based on the review of publications, meetings with relevant agencies and a pilot field survey conducted in Jempol District, Negeri Sembilan. Conclusions: Overall, data on SWM in areas outside LA service boundaries are lacking. None of the interviewed governmental agencies have maintained updated records on SWM in these areas. The waste generation in rural areas was unknown. A waste generation rate was estimated and a waste composition study was conducted by MOH in 1999. There was no record on waste collectors. The solid waste disposal sites were not registered and recorded. For the purpose of this study, MOH has provided SWM data for 105 villages for analysis. This exercise will be continued by MOH after the study, in cooperation with JPSPN and PPSPPA. Several agencies relevant to the public health and social welfare of the rural areas were directly or indirectly involved in the SWM in these areas. These agencies included BPK of MOH, KKLW and FELDA. A guideline for SWM in rural areas was prepared by BPK of MOH in 1999 as part of the BAKAS Programme. The recommendations of the guideline have been implemented in 65% of the traditional and orang asli villages in rural areas. The BAKAS Programme was focused on 4 improvement areas, i.e. water supply, electricity supply, sewerage system and SWM. Out of the 4 areas, SWM was given the least priority and therefore, the least budget. The waste component of the BAKAS Programme has mainly implied assistance to establishing the waste pits with lid. Uncollected solid waste is one of the most visible environmental problems in rural areas. In the case of traditional and orang asli villages, waste management was predominantly guided by the district health officers at their own initiatives. However, due to the lack of education and absence of specific responsibility for waste management, especially at the orang asli villages, the proper storage and disposal of solid waste was generally not practiced. Waste was seen haphazardly scattered and distributed everywhere in the villages. In the case for FELDA Schemes, solid waste was managed by the Scheme Manager in every scheme based on their own initiatives and knowledge. No information or guideline was provided to these managers. No record-keeping on SWM was carried out. The usage of storage bins at every household for

42

solid waste was mainly driven by the yearly “FELDA Most Beautiful Villages” competition where the champion was awarded with RM 1 million. Collection of solid waste was conducted by the private contractors or FELDA Koperasi. Each of the 413 FELDA Schemes in Peninsular Malaysia had their own waste disposal ground within the plantation estate despite the close proximity of each Scheme. The settlements in the surveyed private estates were seen to be the most organised in SWM as compared to other rural settlements. Waste collection was performed 3 times a week and disposed of at an excavated disposal ground. When the disposal ground is full, it will be covered with earth material. Most of the waste disposed of was plastic bags. Composting of organic waste was practiced and the compost was used as fertilizer in the estates. The 3-coloured recycling bins (paper, plastics and aluminium cans) were placed at the management office in the estates for separation of recyclables. Recycling or 3R (reduce, reuse, recycle) was observed in orang asli villages and private estates. Residents in the rural areas were generally poorer. According to the questionnaire survey, they were supportive of recycling as they consider proceeds from sales of recyclable items as an income source. They would reduce, wherever possible, the generation of waste, reuse materials within their household or village and segregate/recycle valuable materials (e.g. glass, aluminium can and plastic) for sale. Unlike the SWM within LA service boundaries where households pay assessment taxes to LA for handling the waste, there was no collection system in rural areas outside the LA service boundaries. In the FELDA Schemes, each settler was required to contribute RM 5 per month for the cleansing of common areas, waste collection services and other services deemed necessary while FELDA will subsidise RM 10 for each settler and thus, RM 15/settler/month was collected for providing the services. In the case of traditional and orang asli villages, a budget was allocated under the BAKAS Programme in MOH for the provision of assistance and equipment for SWM. The following are some challenges currently facing SWM in areas outside of LA service boundaries:-

Long distance from existing collection area

Lack of accessibility by collection vehicles

Assessment tariff not imposed on the villages

Lack of funding to implement proper SWM

Lack of awareness and education in managing waste

Lack of economies-of-scale Recommendations: 1. To overcome the challenges outlined above, SWM in rural areas should

be organised according to a zoning system based on the criteria as in Section 5.4.

43

2. Guidelines for establishing future rural waste disposal, including rural disposal sites and individual waste pits should be developed and implemented as discussed in Section 5.2 above.

3. A community-based approach should be introduced in rural areas to encourage the participation of rural people in keeping their village clean and to ensure proper handling of their waste. More education and awareness programmes should be conducted to encourage the rural people to store, recycle, collect and dispose of the waste properly. Incentives should also be considered to support these initiatives.

4. With the enactment of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management

Act (Act 672) and federalisation of SWM, all disposal sites at rural areas will be required to be registered and subsequently approved by the Federal Government. The operators of these disposal sites will also be subject to licensing conditions. An inventory of waste disposal sites at rural areas should be established and the performance of the sites should be monitored.

5. Progressive improvement on SWM at rural areas should be implemented

and monitored by PPSPPA at the local level when the Act comes into force.

6. Further studies should be carried out to other rural areas to confirm

possible strategies and action plans for SWM in rural areas. These strategies and action plans shall cover the various categories of settlements/villages based on the following:-

Road access to village and terrain;

Distance to existing service area and approved landfill;

Size of village; and

Dispersion of houses.

44

Appendix A: Questionnaire Survey Form & an Observation Checklist for Surveyor

Questionnaire Survey Form

45

46

47

48

49

Observation Checklist for Surveyor

50

Appendix B: Detailed Findings from the Site Visits to Jempol District, Negeri Sembilan

Note: The report is printed separately.

51

Appendix C: Example of a Guideline: Environmental Guidelines for the Establishment of Rural Rubbish Disposal Facility (RRDF) from NREB, Sarawak

52

53

54