LOGO

www.endavn.org.vn

EXPERIENCE ON IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT: “Pro-poor and sustainable solid waste management in secondary cities and small towns”

Ms Nguyen Thi Hoai LinhProgram Manager

Contents

1.Overview: problems with original SWM

2. IRRCs

3. Challenges and/or convenience of implementing IRRC

4. Benefits of IRRC for community

5. Experiences and Lessons learnt

3

City grade 1, belongs to Binh Dinh Province

Area: 284 km2; Population : 300,000 people

Density : 1,056 people 1km2

Number of administrative units: 16 wards, 3 peninsula communes, 1 island commune and 1 mountainous commune;

- Amount : 216 tons/day

- Ratio: 0.72kg/person /day; Ratio of collection 86% (center: 100%)

- Waste component: 60.8% (organic waste), 39.2% (non-organic waste)

1. OVERVIEW OF QUY NHON CITY:

4

Area : 432,12 km2

Population : 150,767 people

21 administrative units: 10 wards, 11 communes, including 179 villages and groups in which 94 villages (61 ethnic minorities) and 85 groups.

- Amount of waste generated : 60 – 65

tons/ day;

- Collection ratio : 75 – 80 % (city center)

- Waste component : 65 % (organic), 35%

(inorganic)

1. OVERVIEW OF KON TUM CITY:

5

PAST

Household solid waste was collected at night: waste handcart transit site truck dumpsiteSmall trader’s solid waste and public wastebasket were collected at daytime: solid waste truck dumpsiteA mount of waste to dumpsite: 197 tons/day (Quy Nhon) and 70 tons/days in Kon Tum

1. OVERVIEW (Cont):

• City land-fillings/dumpsites tend to be far from the municipality and therefore costly to access

• Lack of land required for landfilling and most city landfilling/dumpsite overloaded

• Leachate – water pollution• Bad odors• Vermin and other disease vectors• Methane emissions

6

1. Overview (problems for original SWM):

• The high percentage of organic waste (60-65%) => potentials for compost through aerobic treatment.

• Reduce costs of waste transferring to landfilling, reduce land required for landfilling.

• Have support from UN-ESCAP/ Enda and Waste Concern (finance and technique at beginning)

• Avoid environment pollution• Simple technique so community easily adaptation.• Replace solutions for big investment;• Strong support from related departments (multi-

stakeholders partnership)

7

2. IRRC (reasons for selection)

8

PRESENT

Household solid waste is collected at night: waste handcart transit sitetruck organic waste IRRCSmall trader’s solid waste and public wastebasket are collected at daytime: solid waste truck organic waste IRRC

=>inorganic waste dumpsiteA mount of waste treatment: 197 tons/day

2. IRRC (Cont):

Convenience of implementation of IRRCs:a. Suitable with National Program on SWM: National Strategy for Integrated Management of Solid Waste up to

2025 and Vision towards 2050:- By 2050, all types of waste are to be collected, reused, recycled and treated

- Specific targets laid out for 2015, 2020 and 2025 (100% waste collection rates in urban areas by 2025; 90% of collected waste to be treated in an environmental friendly manner by 2025)

National Strategy for Climate Change (By 2020, 90% of the total volume of urban waste domestic waste should be collected and treated, of which 85% it to be recycled and reused

b. Strongly support from authorities;c. Outside support ( technique and finance);

9

3. CHALLENGES/CONVINIENCE:

Challenges of implementation of IRRCs: The sustainability of IRRC, especially

financial sustainability:

Making compost is for environment

purpose not for profit because it took to

long to process compost and the price is

not high;

10

3. CHALLENGES/CONVINIENCE (Cont):

Too difficult to find out the market for compost at the beginning;

farmers refer to use chemical fertilizers instead of compost;

Collection fees take 75-80% revenue of IRRC so it is a need to

advocate for provincial government to increase collection fees

Challenges of implementation of IRRCs (Cont): Behavior change among community on waste separation:

Waste sorting at source is the big challenge because it needs to

change the thought and behavior of community people who

generate waste. Behavior change / changing mindset always need

long-time and synchronous from national to grassroots level;

The community people do not pay much attention on environment

protection; they just focus on how to earn money, how to overcome

the poverty. They think the government has duties to protect

environment, not community people.

11

3. CHALLENGES/CONVINIENCE (Cont):

Challenges of implementation of IRRCs (Cont): Lack of synchronized system to implement waste separation

and IRRC:

Lack of policies/ regulations to guide the community doing waste

separation as the helmet policy.

Waste separation just implements some places so the community

always make comparison and they are not willing to do. So far, this

program has been conducted much in locals and only in some big

cities such as Ha Noi, Ho Chi Minh, Quy Nhon;

Waste collection is not invested synchronously for separated

waste collection;

12

3. CHALLENGES/CONVINIENCE (Cont):

13

4. BENEFITS FOR COMMUNITY

Economic

Job creation (7 full-time staffs and 2 part-time)

Reduced spread of disease vectors

Increased awareness of the community to 3R principlesSocial

Environment

Reducing of pollution in local communities Soil enrichment with the return of nutrients to the soil

with the use of compost Reduces leachate water in landfills

Income derived from the sale of compost, recyclables, energy, etc.

Reduced costs with landfilling Reduced costs with waste transportation to landfill sites

Income:

Expenses:

14

Items

Amount(USD)

Income from sale of compost* 70Income from sale of recyclables 50Income from collection fee 1,270List any other source of income(from bank)subsidy from local/national government Subtotal 1,390

ItemsAmount (USD)

Salaries and allowances (health insurance and protective clothes) 1,170Electricity + water 10Fuel 100Communication (phone, internet, print) 5Costs for oil, maintenance truck, hiring driver 80Transport inorganic waste to dumpsite 20Total 1,385

4. SUSTAINABILITY OF IRRC IN QUY NHON:

15

The enthusiastic participation of local authorities and leaders of from municipal level to commune/ ward level plays a key role in the initiatives implementation progress.

There should be both encouraging guidelines for households and mandatory regulation for non-households. In addition, Municipal PC had better closely follow up and timely monitoring to provide prompt support for these local authorities.

Mobilizing the community participation and civil organizations to change community behaviors (Multi-stakeholders partnership).

The IRRC should involve in all process: from collection waste from households=>IRRC=>separation again=>compost because collection fees take 70-75% revenue of IRRC;

Set up the strategic plan; Synchronous system for initiatives

5. EXPERIENCES/GOOD PRACTICES:

a. Promoting waste-to-resource initiatives requires changing mindsets

and engaging communities in solid waste management. Waste

separation at source is an essential keystone of good solid waste

management practice: Developing long-term strategies and programs to promote waste

segregation at source. Mindsets cannot be changed overnight with one-off projects.

Setting up a system of incentives and disincentives for waste segregation at source, including penalties for non-compliance.

16

5. LESSONS LEARNT:

17

Engaging communities using public information and advocacy campaigns and door-to-door communication for improved waste segregation.

Integrating the ‘Reduce, Reuse and Recycle’ (3R) philosophy into educational policy, school curricula and educational facilities. School children are effective agents of change, both at household and community level.

Developing the necessary infrastructure to support waste segregation at source, including separate collection systems for organic and inorganic waste =>synchronous system

5. LESSONS LEARNT (Cont):

Promote and encourage the

community participation of all

levels

18

5. LESSONS LEARNT (Cont):

b. Maintain and replicate waste-to-resource initiative requires strong and

commitment from all levels of government;c. Attention should be placed on ensuring adequate revenues for waste-to-resource initiatives, so as to cover, at minimum, the operational costs. In this regard should consider: Putting in place incentives for waste-to-resource facilities, including

tipping fees, feed-in tariffs for waste-to-energy, tax holidays, reduction in import duties and sales taxes, etc.

Help develop markets for resources that can be recovered from waste. Facilitate access to financing for waste-to-resource initiatives. Increase collection fees

19

5. LESSONS LEARNT (Cont):

d. Establishing standards of quality for compost production, as well as corresponding quality inspection and certification.e. Promoting the use of compost among farmers through agricultural extension and other programs.f. Identifying, reviewing and reducing any market distortions created through subsidy to chemical fertilizers in order to level the playing field for compost products.

20

5. LESSONS LEARNT (Cont):

Implement 3R and waste separation

at source program at work place

Mobilize sources from these companies

(finance, experience, skills)

g. Encourage the participation of private sector, organizations through corporate social responsibility

practices:

21

5. LESSONS LEARNT (Cont):

LOGO