From waste to resource

ankind has long possessedthe notion of rarity, and reco-gnised the limited nature of

its resources compared with the extent of its needs. Everything available had tobe used and nothing – or practically nothing – was ever discarded. However,the Industrial Revolution obliged mankindto adopt a new rationale, that of exploita-tion, predatory behaviour and theconsumption of resources, whether sus-tainable or not, with no apparent limits.Gradually waste became regarded as pollution and had to be collected, hiddenor buried, with minimum impact on theenvironment.However, at the beginning of the 21st century, the world experienced a series of shocks affecting as much thenatural resources markets as the clima-tic and environmental equilibrium of ourplanet. The explosion of prices in worldmarkets in 2008 impacted economiesreaching their limits as much in demo-graphic as physical and biological terms.Rarity had suddenly returned to centrestage of our concerns.Mankind had now collect, sort, recoverand recycle, and in a word, get back to theancient ideal of closing the material cycle

loop by transforming waste into materialresources. Waste management had beena matter of proximity for a long time, andtended to be perceived in a caricaturalmanner in its environmental pollution reduction task. Today it is becoming theincreasingly world-wide problem of ma-naging resource supplies exploited forthe energy and materials they provide.The increase in world flows of scrap andrecovered cellulose fibres and plasticshas turned the developed countries of the northern hemisphere into a source of supply, one which those in southernhemisphere are now beginning to exploit.This is inducing new problems of inter-dependence between north and south.The 2009 World Waste Panorama study is the result of collaboration betweenVeolia Environmental Services, worldNo. 1 in the waste management, recoveryand recycling domain, and CyclOpe, theleading European research institute in thearea of raw material and commoditymarkets. The study has been producedby Catherine Gaillochet, a legal expertspecialising in environmental law, underthe direction of Philippe Chalmin, Pro-fessor with the Paris-Dauphine Univer-sity and Chairman of CyclOpe.

Graph

ic design cover: Claire Mab

ille - www.clairmab

.com

, pho

tos: Philip

pe Dureu

il - www.dureu

ilpho

to.com

— Im

p. Stip

a - 93 Mon

treu

il - Fran

ce —

11/09

philippe chalmincatherine gaillochet

m

From waste to resource:

an abstract oF

world waste survey 2009

Integral text: Du rare à l’infini.

Panorama mondial des déchets 2009 Edition Economica

49, rue Hericart, 75015 Paris - FRANCE

From waste

to resourcean abstract of world waste survey

2009

Abstract_Couv_GB:CHALMIN_4910_Couv 13/11/09 12:00 Page1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD 3

INTRODUCTION 5

SYNTHESIS: FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE 6

What is waste? 8

Where is the waste? 9

Assessment of world production 11

Highly diverse “waste philosophies” 17

The developing countries 20

Industrial waste difficult to assess 23

Special case of hazardous waste 25

A world market worth 300 billion euros 26

From waste to resource 27

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 2 13/11/09 12:05:26

FOREWORD

The last few years have been particularly turbulent for the major natural resource markets. Between the end of the 20th century and the early summer of 2008, world prices were multiplied by a factor of seven in current value. In spring 2008, market tensions were such that the vulnerability of our planet in terms of natural resource availability came to the frontline. With climate change and global warming accelerating, time appeared to be running out before the end of fossil fuel energy, the rarefaction of numerous mineral substances and a penury even of agricultural and forestry goods.

The financial and then economic crises that hit the world in 2008 have led, in the last few months, to brutal readjustment of the raw materials markets. On a case by case basis, these have lost between half and two-thirds of the peak values recorded in the spring of 2008. But abruptly the fears of shortage and exhausted resources became less acute. The economic recession made us forget the potential consequences of strong growth at the beginning of the 21st century. However, the problems have not gone away, and mankind would be radically wrong to forget the message of 2008. Soon – in the space of the next two generations – the Earth will be saturated by its human population. Our grandchildren will then number ten billion, living for the vast majority in huge megapolises, the measure of which we are only just beginning to perceive. They will have to feed themselves, travel and keep warm, and consume resources which will be rarer and more difficult to extract and produce. But, being richer, and more “developed”, they will also produce more waste, perhaps twice as much as we can measure at the present time.

Waste management is one of the major issues of urban engineering for the decades to come. However, it is not just a question of managing waste flows and disposing of unwanted products. We must realise that part of our future depends on this waste: four billion tonnes are produced each year of which scarcely one-quarter is recovered or recycled at the present time: energy, compost, scrap, cellulose fibres, as many “secondary” materials which can substitute for the raw materials of which we are likely to run short before the end of this century. There is an echo here of the ancient dream of the medieval alchemists, who sought to transform lowly lead into precious gold, and who also sought to give some meaning to the “philosopher’s stone”.

The “transmutation” of waste in the 21st century is another form of the “philosopher’s stone” Veolia Environmental Services is now a major player, one of the few to hold a real world position, at a time when the waste economy is well on the way to globalisation via the secondary raw materials markets.

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 3 13/11/09 12:05:27

laragutierrezsantander

Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight

Despite the efforts of international organisations, we still have little knowledge of the fundamentals of waste economy. This is why in 2006 Veolia retained CyclOpe, the leading European research institute on commodity markets, to prepare an initial exploratory study of the waste context in our world. Despite its many omissions, this study rapidly became a reference and received noteworthy acclaim, reflected in distinction on the part of ISWA (International Solid Waste Association), the major international waste sector organisation. However, Veolia Environmental Services believed in the essential need to deepen this approach, and a new partnership was set up with CyclOpe. The aim was to undertake a new study in greater depth, taking account of the emerging countries in particular. It is this work which we now are pleased to present you.

The title, “From waste to resource” has been kept, so well does it sum up our ambition. Our objective is to reconcile the scarcity of our natural resources with the almost “infinite” quantities of waste produced by our towns, cities and industries, waste which we must unfailingly and assiduously recover.

Denis GasquetCEO of Veolia Environmental Services

Executive Vice President of Veolia Environnement

4 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE – WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 4 13/11/09 12:05:27

INTRODUCTION

The world natural resource markets indeed blew hot and cold in 2008 and 2009. Hot when fears of penury again made the headlines in the midst of the sharpest price rises the world had known since the 1970s, and cold when, a few months later, world recession induced a collapse of prices so severe that the majority of production tools were seriously disrupted. In both cases, repercussions for the secondary material markets and, in more general terms for the waste economy as a whole, have been extensive.

Ignored or left on the shelf for many years, the waste economy is now called on to play a fundamental role in the resources rationale of our planet in the 21st century. But we must face the fact that we have very little data and equally limited analysis concerning one of the most difficult sectors to apprehend. This is because of the extent to which the formal and informal sectors are intermingled. In partnership with Veolia Environmental Services, the leading world operator in this field, CyclOpe published an initial study which, despite its omissions, filled an unquestionable gap in our economic knowledge. This document, now updated, amplified and enriched constitutes a second study published in the Autumn of 2009.

The mainspring of the new study has been Catherine Gaillochet, whom we must thank for having successfully produced a work that has acquired tentacular proportions and at the same time progressively quickened our curiosity. Possessing a legal background, Catherine has integrated the legal dimension of the transition from “waste to resource” fully and with particular skill. It is to Catherine that the greater part of the core quality of this work is due, any weaknesses being attributable to the author of these few lines – who wishes to take this opportunity to thank Veolia Environmental Services for the exemplary nature of this partnership between a spirit of enterprise and academic research.

Philippe ChalminProfessor at Paris-Dauphine University

Chairman of CyclOpe

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 5 13/11/09 12:05:27


Highlight

SYNTHESIS:

FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 6 13/11/09 12:05:27

SYNTHESIS:


SYNTHESIS – FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 7

Mankind long possessed the sense of scarcity, and recognised the limited nature of its resources compared with the extent of its needs. Everything available had to be used and nothing – or practically nothing – was ever discarded. Due to limited techniques, natural resources remained little exploited and all types of waste had to be recycled. This was the situation of traditional societies in the past, and the traveller of today encounters a barely changed attitude in the most remote villages of the developing countries. Everything has a value, a use and man still controls the cycle of materials.

The industrial revolution that started at the end of the 18th century obliged mankind to adopt a new rationale – that of exploitation, predatory behaviour and consumption of resources, whether sustainable or not, with no apparent limits. Technical progress enabled to go further, quicker and deeper, adopting a philosophy of discover and exploit. Little by little, resources to be recovered and waste (increasing at a rate equal to that of urbanisation) were seen as pollutants that had to be collected discretely (with the first appearance of the dustbin in Paris in 1884, taking its French name “Poubelle” from its inventor Préfet Poubelle), hidden or buried and, and above all, destroyed. The minor recycling trades (the rag-and-bone men and their like, raked and sifted refuse in the dustbin, drawn by Daumier and celebrated in verse by Baude-laire, much in the same way as their contemporary counterparts who “process” the wildcat landfill sites of the third world countries) went out of business in most industrialised countries during the second half of the 20th century.

But, at the same time, the world grew aware of its limits, as evidenced by the celebrated Limits to Growth report published by the Club of Rome in 1971. This coincided with the first oil crisis, and the major crisis of 1974 impacting the raw materials markets. The main areas of concern at the time were pollution and the availability of natural resources. The Club of Rome did its best to underscore the need to process and recycle waste, but its warnings were quickly forgotten, overshadowed by the collapse of world prices marking the end of the 20th century.

“The recycling of waste or the manufacture of durable products are, for the most part, regarded as ‘unprofi-table’” (page 183).… “Some notable examples of discoveries of a practical nature which would favour the emergence of a world in a state of balance…:– new methods of waste collection designed to reduce pollution and encourage recycling of re-usable sc rap,– more efficient recycling techniques aimed at reducing consumption of basic raw materials…” (page 281).

Club of Rome “Limits to Growth” 1972 report for the French version.

A new crisis brought us back to reality at the dawn of the 21st century. From 2002/2003 onwards, the majority of raw materials markets were faced with deficits, shortages and rocketing prices, these reaching levels by July 2008 which, calculated on a constant value basis (taking inflation into account), exceeded those of the early 1970s. World economic growth and the impressive lift-off of the Chinese economy have been at the root of this major crisis following two decades marked by the illusion of abundance.

Once again, the scarcity of resources became a subject of concern, together with the exhaustion of supplies in a new context, that of climate change and global warming. The world suddenly became aware of its economic fragility from a number of reports and films such as those of Nicholas Stern and Al Gore. Not only were resources becoming rarer and consequently more costly, but their largely uncontrolled exploitation was causing practically irreversible situations of im-balance. The sombre conclusions of “Limits to Growth” were finally appearing to ring true, and looking even blacker as the new apostles of “negative growth” missed no opportunity in emphasising. Without going this far, the issue of “sustainable development” has now reached centre stage in the majority of major public policies, from the “Grenelle Environmental Forum 1” of 2007 in France, to the Barack Obama recovery plan in the USA in 2009.

The brutal drop in prices in the raw materials (and secondary) markets during the second half of 2008, with oil and metal prices divided by three, should not modify the fundamental factors in an analysis of rarity, in particular when this is applied to the prospect of a world population of 10 billion in the space of the next two generations.

For a few months during 2007 and 2008, “secondary” materials obtained from the recovery and recycling of waste saw their prices multiplied by a factor of five or six under the impact of the insatiable appetite of China. At the same

1. France’s Environment Round Table

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 7 13/11/09 12:05:27


Highlight


Highlight

time, the very sharp rise in energy prices made the most ambitious waste energy recovery projects possible. Despite their excesses and the apparently irrational nature of this “speculative bubble”, the message from the markets remains fundamentally valid.

The 21st century has begun with on a number of unbalanced situations: those of the mouths to feed, starving po-pulations which will need every acre of available land, fossil and mining resources on the road to extinction, or at least ever more costly to extract, a world at the mercy of increasing urban development and confronted with cities ever more complex to manage. These examples of imbalance represent as many challenges but with one dimension common to all of them, regarded too often as a problem and still far too infrequently as a solution, namely waste, a source of production practically without limits, of which mankind, more than ever before, must learn to identify the value in order get back to the ancient ideal of the alchemists of completing the material cycle, transmuting waste into a resource, and reducing all forms of predatory consumption to the greatest possible degree.

Waste management was long a question of proximity, and the very location of certain landfill sites led to petty quar-rels between neighbouring municipal authorities. The implementation of national policies is a more recent phenomenon, where each country has applied its own particular style of inventiveness to its own complexities, such as again demonstra-ted by the revision of the European waste framework directive at the end of 2008. More recently still, it has become clear that the problem is situated at world level. Apart from that aspect of the problem, best known in media coverage terms, concerning the transport of hazardous waste and the pollution risks involved in the movement of undesirable elements such as the Clémenceau and other France type vessels, there are a steadily increasing flows of scrap, recovered fibres and plastics, for which the “mines” are the long established industrialised countries now exporting to the emerging countries. In many cases, the proportion of secondary raw materials obtained through recycling already exceeds the share of “pri-mary” materials such as for paper and some non-ferrous metals. The production of energy is also far from being anecdotal, in common with the contribution of waste treatment to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol.

It is consequently more than ever essential to seek a world vision of waste economics, from the initial discarding of waste to its ultimate use. The task here is particularly difficult as the definitions involved are so variable, the statistics so incomplete and international vision practically non-existent.

WHAT IS WASTE?

This question lies in the background to all national and international regulations governing the waste markets (proces-sing methods, industrial structures and trading dynamics). This question could summarise, in its own right, all discussions on the subject of waste, arguments between countries, manufacturers, legal experts, economists, environmentalists and politicians, statistical problems encountered and the difficulties of achieving a comparative analysis of national markets.

Defining waste is not a simple matter. How can we establish the link between an individual or a school, the activity of which is simply living, and an industry manufacturing some products it desires and others it does not?

Faced with this complexity, lawmakers have generally replied in equally complex terms, combining an objective phy-sical definition (a list of defined substances) with a subjective legal definition (“any substance or object which the holder discards, or intends or is required to discard 2”). Most national legal definitions consequently associate both these physical and legal aspects. There is no international definitive list of items which are waste and items which are not. It is frequently left to jurisprudence to rule on qualification as waste. The notion of “abandonment” can raise problems according to the substances or materials considered, in particular in the case of materials reintroduced in industrial cycles such as metal, paper or plastic bottles. If in some industrialized countries, particularly in Europe, plastic bottles still do not have a clear status, developing countries clearly view these materials as resources.

From the point of view of economic theory, waste is a negative externality: both consumption and manufacturing activities generate waste with a negative impact on the wellbeing of populations (environmental pollution) outside any market context. Regulatory bodies tend to correct this externality by internalising post-consumption cost. Measurement of this environmental pollution is generally the result of a political decision, one which sets the level of externality adjust-ment based on remediation costs. Through the introduction of taxes (impact on prices) or emission standards (impact on quantities), waste is attributed a value and externality a price.

2. Article 3.1, Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 2008 on waste


Abstract_2009_GB.indd 8 13/11/09 12:05:27


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight

The value of waste is also the cost incurred for the environment and its protection. However, distinction is made between two “types” of waste, according to the two economic circuits which they follow to correct their negative impact. Initially, all was-te has a cost (collection cost), but subsequently distinction is made between waste having a negative or positive exchange value, according to whether the value of the products (energy or materials) resulting from their recovery covers associated depollution and disposal costs or not, after adding in any eventual environmental taxes and/ or deducting eventual financial assistance.

This distinction is dynamic. Market developments trends show waste as having an increasing positive exchange value and becoming a resource and a secondary material. A growing number of first type wastes are moving to the second type (toward energy recovery, selective collection rationale or even future recovery of stored waste currently not recovered).

The ability of waste to be re-used, to be introduced in a recovery process (where the waste acquires increasing value), and the risks which it represents for the health and the environment thus appear as qualification criteria for the loss of waste status.

It is essentially the clear definition of the borderline between “waste” and “non-waste” which appear decisive for the economic players in the waste market. It is in terms of materials which can be recovered, recycled or re-used, and thus definition of the terms “recovery”, “re-use” and “recycling” that the borderline beyond which waste ceases to be waste is situated. The whole problem is to reach a clear and precise consensus of opinion on these definitions, and this debate has not yet been settled. Clear loss of waste status is however crucial, and the issues involved are important from an econo-mic viewpoint, as loss of waste status conditions recovery procedures, markets, trading (circulation and traceability) and return on invested capital.

It is clearly the transition from waste status to resource status which constitutes the core element of the complex, “waste cycle” world and our analysis.

WHERE IS THE WASTE?

The production of waste is perhaps the most natural act of life and of mankind in a society whether rural or urban. The more developed – and therefore the wealthier – an economy, the greater the quantity of waste it produces despite the fact that this correlation is not always followed, as we shall see.

There are many sources of waste. A distinction is currently made (and increasingly uniformly according to the coun-tries concerned) between:

Waste produced by households, frequently linked to consumption, and collected essentially under the responsibility of the municipalities. This waste includes, without always being able to identify them, other urban wastes originating from economic activities (shops, restaurants, etc.) or more or less public establishments (schools, etc.), hence the term municipal waste;

Waste generated by industrial activities, frequently linked directly to production (and, in some cases, reintroduced directly into the production process) or occurring at the end of life of certain products;

Two somewhat special categories, namely waste emanating from the construction and demolition sector as also mining activities and waste generated by agricultural activities and;

Finally, on a transverse basis with regard to all categories of waste, those regarded as “hazardous” by the national or international authorities.

Various attempts, coherent to a greater or lesser degree, have been and continue to be made at international level, to classify and categorise waste (European Waste Catalogue, OECD lists, Basel Convention). Confronted with this hetero-geneous situation, the shortage of statistical data and the complexity of the sector, any assessment at world level inevitably includes a degree of imprecision.

The very notion of the waste “production” is ambiguous and, in any case, more or less uncontrollable. Preference is therefore frequently given to the collection stage, namely the moment when the waste enters the economic circuit. However, if it is just as possible to make relatively reliable municipal waste volume calculations, limited nevertheless to urban populations in the case of emerging and developing countries, estimates of industrial waste (non-hazardous and ha-zardous) are often unreliable, even in developed countries. Finally, in view of the heavyweight characteristics of construc-tion, demolition, mining and agricultural waste, combined with relatively high internal re-use levels tending to restrict trading, it is even harder to consider these waste categories and include them in an analysis of an international character.


Abstract_2009_GB.indd 9 13/11/09 12:05:27


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mil

lion

ton

nes

China (

urb.

+ rur.)

2005

EU 15 +

Nor.

+ Sw

itz. +

Icela

nd 20

06

USA 20

06

Brazil 2

006

India

(est.)

2004

Indon

esia 2

003

Japan

2005

Turke

y 200

6

Mexico

2006

EU NMS 2

006

Bangla

desh

2004

Thaila

nd (u

rb.) 2

003

South

Kor

ea 20

05

Pakis

tan 20

04

Philipp

ines (

urb.)

2004

Egypt

2001

Austral

ia 20

03

Vietna

m (urb.

) 200

4

Canad

a 200

6

Argenti

ne 20

06

Moroc

co (e

st.)

Taiw

an 20

06

South

Africa

2006

Colombia

2001

Hong K

ong 2

006

Venezu

ela (e

st.) 2

003

Chile (

est.)

2006

New Z

ealan

d 200

5

Singap

ore 2

006

Tunis

ia (es

t.) 20

06

300

238228.48

83

67.559.1 55.6

35.9 38 34.72

2420 18.7 15.1 14.514.4 14 13 12.8

10 7.58 7.7 7 5.2 1.546.2 1.46 6

Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, UN statistics, CyclOpe, UNESCAP and World Bank.Note: Russian and Ukrainian figures were omitted from this table (not sufficiently reliable).

Source: CyclOpe.Note: The quantities of non-hazardous and hazardous construction and demolition waste produced in a selection of countries amounts to 1 billion tonnes. The quantities of waste produced by the mining, electricity and water industry (non-hazardous) in a selection of countries amount to 6.4 billion tonnes.

Tonnes

Quantities Quantities produced (tonnes) collected (tonnes)

World total municipal waste 1.7 to 1.9 billion 1.24 billion

Manufacturing industry non-hazardous waste 1.2 to 1.67 billion 1.2 billion

Manufacturing industry hazardous waste for a selection ofcountries 490 million 300 million

Total 3.4 to 4 billion 2.74 billion

Estimated world waste production and collection for 2006

Municipal waste production in selected countries

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 10 13/11/09 12:05:28


Source: CyclOpe.

Note: EU 15: collected statistics.

EU NMS (New Member States): collected statistics.

Other OECD: collected statistics.

CIS: extrapolation from data for Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Byelorussia, Georgia, Kirghizstan and Moldavia for population and production per inhabitant.

Southeast Asia: extrapolation from data for Bangladesh, urban India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka for population and production per inhabitant.

Asia Pacific: extrapolation from data for China, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan and South Korea for population and production per inhabitant.

North Africa: extrapolation from data for Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt for population and production per inhabitant.

Middle East and Arabian Peninsular: extrapolation from data for Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Yemen for population and production per inhabitant.

Sub-Saharan Africa: extrapolation from data for South Africa, Benin, Madagascar and Zambia for population and production per inhabitant.

Central America and the Caribbean: extrapolation from data for Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, Dominican Republic and Cuba for population and production per inhabitant.

South America: extrapolation from data for Venezuela, urban Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Argentine, Bolivia, Uruguay and Chile for population and production per inhabitant.

ASSESSMENT OF WORLD PRODUCTION

Simple assessment of world waste supply nevertheless represents an exercise of considerable complexity. Definitions are barely harmonised from one country to the next, in particular in regard to the most loosely defined categories, namely those including waste from the construction and demolition, mining, agricultural and forestry sectors.

If we take only those categories best documented at world level – municipal waste and industrial waste – we obtain an estimate of global annual waste supply amounting to between 3.4 and 4 billion tonnes. The image of a world produ-cing 10 million tonnes of waste per day is probably accurate. However, it should be pointed out that this figure contains many approximations insofar as industrial waste is concerned, for which the estimates made in many emerging countries appear somewhat unreal, even where the data is obtained from recognised national institutions or authorities. The prin-cipal inaccuracy in the case of industrial waste (non-hazardous and hazardous) is due to the waste treated internally by the manufacturers themselves. This waste is not included in collected waste statistics, and consequently does not enter the waste management economic circuit directly, but rather the economic circuit for the industrial sectors concerned (e.g.: steel industry, etc.). Furthermore, industrial waste data could only be collected for a number of countries, and it is not possible to extrapolate for this category of waste (in contrast to municipal waste), due to the extent to which the data depend on the industrial structure particular to each country. An estimate of non-hazardous and hazardous industrial waste quantities is consequently only partial due to its geographical representation, and imprecise due to the relative unreliability of the data.

Once again, our estimates for municipal waste appear the most reliable, in particular at the waste collection stage. World production would appear to be of the order of 1.7 billion tonnes, of which 1.24 billion tonnes are apparently actually collected, collection accounting for practically all production in the developed countries, and declining in the developing countries according to their GDP and level of urban development. This being so, the absence of organised collection does not mean that the existing supply is not exploited on an informal basis. Paradoxically, recycling levels – should it be possible to calculate these – would probably be surprising.

The figure of 1.24 billion tonnes is itself an estimate. Figures are reliable for OECD countries. However, for the emerging and developing countries, data were extrapolated for a number of representative countries, taking due account of GDP levels, degrees of urban development and population figures. At all events, this data is probably underestimated in regard to the real situation, but does include what we can qualify as “merchant” waste, namely waste which will enter the economic circuits in one way or another. It should also be pointed out that international comparisons can be distor-ted by the fact that some countries include commercial waste and even some urban industrial waste, while others limit themselves with domestic waste alone.

EU NMS(26 Mt)

South-EastAsia (53 Mt)

Asia Pacific(236 Mt)

Other OECD(388 Mt)Other CIS

(83 Mt)

EU 15(225 Mt)

North Africa(32 Mt)

Middle East& Arabian Peninsula

(31 Mt)

Sub-Saharan Africa(64 Mt)

South America(89 Mt)

Central America& Caribbean (13 Mt)

Estimate of the world municipal wastecollection – Total: 1.24 billion tons

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 11 13/11/09 12:05:28


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight

For purposes of comparison, we can take a look at figures for municipal waste production in urban areas estimated by the World Bank. At nearly 1.9 billion tonnes, the World Bank estimate is situated in the upper segment of our bracket, the major difference relating to the estimate for emerging and developing countries.

However, it is in these very countries that the rates of “conventional” collection, namely collected waste entering a controlled circuit, are the lowest: 60% in average revenue countries and 40% in the poorest countries 3.

The richer a country, the more waste it produces! This affirmation almost checks out completely. High revenue countries produce 500 kg and more municipal waste per inhabitant per year. As is to be expected, the highest figure (730 kg) is for the USA, at least if we ignore the figures put out by the city States such as Singapore and Hong Kong, which include certain types of industrial waste in their data. In general, the most advanced emerging countries are situated at between 300 and 400 kg per inhabitant. Other emerging countries such as China are at between 200 and 300 kg. As for the developing countries where data are available, and in particular for the urban areas, the figure is around 150 kg.


Mil

lion

ton

nes

250

200

150

100

50

0

Venezu

ela 20

03

Tunisia

2006

New Z

ealan

d 200

5

Bangla

desh

2004

Taiwan

2006

Singap

ore 2

006

Chile 2

006

Moroc

co 20

04

Vietna

m (urb

.) 20

04

Hong K

ong 2

006

South

Afri

ca 20

06

Colombia

2001

Argenti

na 20

06

Philipp

ines (

urb.)

2004

Ukraine

2006

Pakist

an 20

04

Canad

a 200

6

Austral

ia 20

02

Thaila

nd (u

rb.)

2003

South

Kor

ea 20

05

EU NMS 2

005

Indon

esia 2

003

Turke

y 200

6

India

(urb.)

2004

Mexico

2006

Russia

(est.)

2006

Brazil 2

006

Japan

2006

China 2

005

EU 15 +

Nor

. + Ic

e. 20

05

USA 20

06

226 225.8

55.4

148

51.448.6

36 34.529.7 29

18.3 18.214.413.2 13 11 10 10 8.3 7 6.7 6.2 5.4 5.3 5.2 5 4.85.7

1.5 1.3 0.8

Collected municipal waste in selected countries

Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe, UN statistics, UNESCAP and World Bank.

3. Waste collection systems in developing countries, Sandra Cointreau, World Bank, 2005.

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 12 13/11/09 12:05:28

Nevertheless, the very nature of the waste differs substantially according to the degree of development of the countries concerned. The waste of the rich is not the waste of the poor!

The richer a country, the more its waste contains packaging materials and sophisticated products, and less food waste and consequently less organic and fermentable waste. In poor countries, this waste represents between 50 and 80% of the total. Furthermore, insofar as a large part of this waste is raked and picked, quasi-systematically by the informal sector, active in almost all wildcat landfills in major developing countries cities, what is left would basically sufficiently homogeneous for energy or biological recovery. The paper and cardboard content of municipal waste in rich countries can be as high as 50% of the total, with a substantial proportion of plastics, metals and glass also. Selective sorting and recycling are entirely logical in this context.

As many countries and as many cultures, as many sources of waste supply and as many collection models, and more and more waste recovery.


Source: “The growing complexities and challenges of solid waste management in developing countries”, Sandra Cointreau estimates, World Bank, 2007.

Municipal waste in kg/inhabitant/year

Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe, UN statistics, UNESCAP and the World Bank. Note: Official municipal waste data for Singapore and Hong Kong call for comment as the figures are very high at 1,176 kg and 854 kg respectively. These are not included in the above graph, as they correspond to flows including a substantial proportion of industrial waste, not normally accounted for under the definition of municipal waste generally accepted. It was consequently preferred to give figures for domestic waste only.

kg/i

nhab

itan

t/ye

ar

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

USA

Austral

iaEU 15

Turke

y

Hong K

ongJap

an

New Z

ealan

d

Canad

a (do

mestic)

Singap

ore

EU NM

South

Kor

eaRuss

ia

Taiw

anBraz

il

Mexico

Moroc

co

Indon

esia

Thaïla

nd

Ukraine

China

Venezu

ela

Argenti

na

Colombia

Bangla

desh

Philipp

ines (

urb.)

India

(urb.)

Vietna

m (urb.

)

South

Africa

Pakis

tan

India

(rur.)

82127144146

164 164180199209220230235237

255 250

332337339346361375380382400434

461480

577

680

760

Population Municipal waste quantities in urban areas

High revenue developed 1 billion Approx. 1.4 million tonnes per daycountries (1.4 kg/capita/day)

Average revenue developing 3 billion (approx. 30% of the urban Approx. 2.4 million tonnes per daycountries population live in shantytowns) (0.8 kg/capita/day)

Low revenue developing 2.4 billion (approx. 65% of the urban Approx. 1.4 million tonnes/daycountries population live in shantytowns) (0.6 kg/capita/day)

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 13 13/11/09 12:05:29


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Waste and GDP: what correlation?

Municipal waste and GDP per capita

0

10,0

00

5,00

0

15,0

00

20,0

00

25,0

00

30,0

00

35,0

00

40,0

00

45,0

00

50,0

00

800

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

kg/i

nhab

itan

t/ye

ar

GNP/inhabitant for 2007 ($)

USA

Australia

CanadaNew Zealand

Singapore

EU 15

EU NEM

South Korea

TaiwanRussia

Turkey

BrazilChile

Mexico

ArgentinaVenezuela

China

India South Africa

Japan

2006 and 2007 statistics illustrate the intuition according to which the quantity of waste produced per capita depends on the standard of living measured in terms of GDP per capita. The correlation between the two variables is 0.56, which could lead to the likelihood of a causal link between the GDP level per inhabitant and the quantity of municipal waste per capita.

After calculating the waste regression line by GDP, we observe that the points are relatively distant from the line. The causality link between GDP and waste quantities is consequently, at the very least, questionable.

In truth, the two variables are linked. This is because waste production statistics are based on waste collection, and collection is as comprehensive as the GDP is high.

In other words, the market in volume follows changes in the GDP. Changes in household consumption are also a decisive factor. The production of municipal waste is indeed linked to the GDP per inhabitant in two ways: firstly by living standard and, secondly by waste collection efficiency, itself dependent on the GDP.

In real terms, international comparisons are significant if between groups of countries having similar GDP/ inhabitant figures, naturally provided that the available statistics relate to the same waste categories.

Domestic waste collected and GDP

Although Australia, Canada and the USA have comparable GDP/inhabitant figures, comparison is impossible as Canadian statistics relate to domestic waste, while those for the other two countries to municipal waste.

On the other hand, comparisons between EU 15 and Japan, as also between South Korea and the new Member States (NMS) of the European Union, are meaningful.

The same remarks apply to emerging and developing countries.

Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe and UN statistics.Notes: Municipal waste except Canada and Morocco (domestic waste).

2007 data except China (2006), South Korea (2005) and urban India (2004).

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 14 13/11/09 12:05:29


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Domestic waste collected and GDP

Municipal waste and GDP per capita for emerging and developing countries

Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe and UN statistics.

Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe and UN statistics, World Bank.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

kg/i

nhab

itan

t/ye

ar

GNP/inhabitant for 2007 ($)

0

2,00

0

4,00

0

6,00

0

8,00

0

10,0

00

12,0

00

1,00

0

3,00

0

5,00

0

7,00

0

9,00

0

11,0

00

Chile

Russia

Turkey

Brazil

Mexico

Argentina

Venezuela

China

Pakistan

India urb.

IndonesiaMorocco

Ukraine

Thaïland

ColombiaVietnam urb.

South Africa

Country kg/inhabitant GNP/inhabitant for 2007 ($)

USA 730 45,593Australia 680 42,552UE 15 577 28,100Turkey 480 6,547Japan 434 34,022New Zealand 400 29,697Canada (domestic) 382 42,738UE NEM 375 20,153South Korea 361 19,624Russia 346 8,611Taiwan 339 16,274Brazil 337 6,841Mexico 332 8,426Singapore (domestic) 325 34,152Chile 318 9,697Indonesia 255 1,824Morocco (domestic) 250 2,367Thailand 237 3,399Ukraine 235 2,829China 230 2,459Venezuela 220 8,251Argentine 209 6,309Colombia 199 3,614India (urban) 164 964Vietnam (urban) 146 808South Africa 144 5,723Pakistan 127 908

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 15 13/11/09 12:05:29


Typology of municipal waste collection by country revenue

Source: CyclOpe.

Low revenue Average revenue High revenue countries countries countries (India, Africa) (Argentina, EU NMS) (USA, EU 15)

GDP in $/capita/year < $5,000 $5,000 – $15,000 > $20,000

Average consumption of paperand cardboard by kg/capita/ year

20 20 – 70 130 – 300

Municipal waste by kg/capita/year 150 – 250 250 – 550 350 – 750

Formal collection rate < 70% 70% – 95% > 95%

Statutory waste managementframework

No nationalenvironmental strategy,little application of thestatutory framework,absence of statistics

National environmentalstrategy, Ministry of theEnvironment, statutoryframework but insufficientapplication, little statistics

Nationalenvironmentalstrategy, Ministry ofthe Environment,statutory frameworkset up and applied,statistics

Informal collection

Highly developed,substantial volumecapture, tendency toorganise in cooperativesor associations

Developed and in processof institutionalisation Quasi non-existent

Municipal waste composition (%)

Organic/fermentable 50 – 80 20 – 65 20 – 40

Paper and cardboard 4 – 15 15 – 40 15 – 50

Plastics 5 – 12 7 – 15 10 – 15

Metals 1 – 5 1 – 5 5 – 8

Glass 1 – 5 1 – 5 5 – 8

Humidity 50% – 80% 40% – 60% 20% – 30%

Calorific power in kcal/kg 800 – 1,100 1,100 – 1,300 1,500 – 2,700

Waste treatment Wildcat landfills > 50%Informal recycling 15%

Landfill sites > 90%, startof selective collection,organised recycling 5%,coexistent informalrecycling

Selective collection,incineration,recycling > 20%

Informal recycling

Highly developed,substantial volumecapture, tendency toorganise in cooperativesor associations

Developed and in processof institutionalisation Quasi non-existent

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 16 13/11/09 12:05:30


Source: OECD Environmental Data, Compendium 2006/2007.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Switz

erlan

d - 20

05

Netherl

ands

- 200

4

Japan

- 200

3

Swed

en - 2

005

Denmark

- 200

3

Austria

- 200

4

Belgium

- 200

3

German

y - 20

04

Luxem

bour

g - 20

03

Norway

- 200

4

Fran

ce - 2

005

South

Kor

ea - 2

004

Spain

- 200

4

USA - 2

005

Italy

- 200

5

Finlan

d - 20

04

Portu

gal - 2

005

United

King

dom - 2

005

Irelan

d - 20

05

Austral

ia - 2

003

Icelan

d - 20

04

Slovak

ia - 2

005

Czech R

ep. 2

004

New Z

ealan

d - 19

99

Hungar

y - 20

03

Mexico

- 200

6

Greece

- 200

3

Polan

d - 20

05

Turke

y - 20

04

97.8

%

96.7

%

92.2

%

91.9

%

90.4

%

84.7

%

79.8

%

77.9

%

72.1

%

69.7

%

66.1

%

64.3

%

64.1

%

59.9

%

54.4

%

54.3

%

51.7

%

36.4

%

36%

25.9

%

19%

17.7

%

11.6

%

6.8%

5.1%

4.8%

3.4%

1.7%

0.5%

Municipal waste: landfilling rate in OECD countries

HIGHLY DIVERSE “WASTE PHILOSOPHIES”

The relationship between the different societies with their waste is highly complex, to analyse both in terms of time and space. This is illustrated by the way in which waste is treated at the production and collection stages, collection being increasingly organised on a collective basis. There are four types of waste treatment methods:

uncontrolled wildcat landfill sites, disposal into controlled landfills, ranging from simple uncovered landfills to “ecological” landfills using cutting-edge techniques to recover biogas and convert waste to energy,

incineration with or without energy recovery, material recovery ranging from composting to recycling.

Several factors have an impact on the waste markets and influence their development in terms of structure and dynamics. These are:

degree of wealth and economic development, availability of land, nature of soils more or less suitable for burial, legal constraints, more subjective factors such as civic behaviour or collective awareness, climatic factors.

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 17 13/11/09 12:05:30


80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Inci

nera

tion

rat

e as

% o

f tot

al

Poland

- 200

5

Hungar

y - 20

03

Spain

- 200

4

Austria

- 200

4

United

King

dom - 2

005

Icelan

d - 20

04

Finlan

d - 20

04

Italy

- 200

5

Slovak

ia - 2

005

USA - 2

005

Czech R

ep. -

2004

South

Kor

ea - 2

004

Portug

al - 2

005

German

y - 20

04

Norway

- 200

4

Netherl

ands

- 200

4

Fran

ce - 2

005

Belgium

- 200

3

Luxem

bour

g - 20

03

Denmark

- 200

3

Switz

erlan

d - 20

05

Swed

en - 2

005

Japan

- 200

3

74%

54%

50.2

%

49.8

%

38.9

%

34.3

%

33.8

%

32.3

%

24.7

%

24.6

%

21.1

%

14.4

%

14%

13.6

%

12.5

%

12.1

%

9.9%

8.8%

8.4%

6.8%

6.7%

5.6%

0.5%

All – or practically all – countries reflect a particular situation, although a number of major rules exist which check out in most cases:

The poorer a country, the less it possess genuine waste policies, and the higher the proportion of waste landfilled with a very high percentage placed in wildcat landfill sites. This is the case in the majority of developing countries, but also a number of emerging countries such as Turkey and Mexico, the majority countries with formally centrally planned economies (USSR and Eastern Europe), where ecological awareness is at least recent, and even in Europe in a country such as Greece or, in a different context, Southern Italy, the most flagrant example of a developed country incapable of controlling its wildcat landfill sites.

The greater the size of a country, the greater the attraction of using space for controlled landfill sites and application of burial rationales. This is the case with Australia and, to a lesser extent, the USA and, paradoxically, Hong Kong.

The greater the environmental awareness, the more marked the recovery and recycling policies applied. This is the case in most Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and Germany.

Generally, the choice of incineration corresponds to high urban population densities and a relative shortage of space, such as for Japan, Taiwan or Northern Europe.

Countries which have accorded priority to the recycling of industrial waste ahead of municipal waste, such as Japan. Countries which have placed the emphasis on recycling and composting of organic matter extracted from municipal waste, such as South Korea.

However, other factors can be mentioned, such as the nature of clay soils in the United Kingdom, explaining the choice of landfilling as the main method of waste treatment.


Municipal waste: incineration rate in OECD countries

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 18 13/11/09 12:05:30


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


50.0%

45.0%

40.0%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

%

South

Kor

ea - 2

004

Swed

en - 2

005

Switz

erlan

d - 20

05

Irelan

d - 20

05

Norway

- 200

4

German

y - 20

04

Belgium

- 200

3

Austral

ia - 2

003

Finlan

d - 20

04

Canad

a - 20

04

Austria

- 200

4

Denmark

- 200

3

Netherl

ands

- 200

4

USA - 2

005

Luxem

bour

g - 20

03

United

King

dom - 2

005

Japan

- 200

3

Fran

ce - 2

005

Icelan

d - 20

04

New Z

ealan

d - 19

99

Spain

- 200

4

Portu

gal - 2

005

Greece

- 200

3

Polan

d - 20

05

Mexico

- 200

6

Hungar

y - 20

03

Czech R

ep. -

2004

Slovak

ia - 2

005

1.2%

1.3%2.7%

3.3%3.

9%

8.1%

8.6%9%

15.3

%

15.6

%

15.8

%

16.8

%

17.4

%23.2

%

23.8

%25.4

%

25.6

%

26.5

%

26.8

%30.1

%

30.3

%

31.1

%

33.1

%

33.7

%

33.9

%

33.9

%

33.9

%49

.2%

45.0%

40.0%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

%

Austria

- 200

4

Italy

- 200

5

Spain

- 200

4

Belgium

- 200

3

Luxem

bour

g - 20

03

German

y - 20

04

Switz

erlan

d - 20

05

Norway

- 200

4

Denmark

- 200

3

Fran

ce - 2

005

Canad

a - 20

04

Swed

en - 2

005

United

King

dom - 2

005

Icelan

d - 20

04

USA - 2

005

Portu

gal - 2

005

Polan

d - 20

05

Czech R

ep. -

2004

Netherl

ands

- 200

4

Turke

y - 20

04

Slovak

ia - 2

005

Hungar

y - 20

03

1.1%1.4%

1.4%

2.3%3.

2%

3.4%

6.3%8.

4%8.8%

9.3%10

.4%

12.5

%14.3

%

15.3

%

15.3

%

15.9

%

17.1

%

19.3

%22.8

%

32.7

%

33.3

%44

.7%



Municipal waste: composting rate in OECD countries

Municipal waste: recycling rate by OECD country

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 19 13/11/09 12:05:31

In total, we observe a number of waste treatment schools of thought, apart from differing levels of economic development, and taking the industrialised countries only:

Countries still marked by landfilling and underground disposal (over 50% of total waste): Oceania, United Kingdom, Ireland and the USA on the one hand, and Greece, Spain and Italy on the other. On the one side, the Anglo- Saxon countries, and on the other the Mediterranean countries, which we could perhaps not have imagined adopting the same practices in regard to waste.

Incineration culture generally less marked, but which we find in Northern Europe, Switzerland and, in particular, in Japan, where it represents three-quarters of all waste treatment.

Growth in material recovery (composting and recycling), very strong (over 50%) in Northern Europe, but also in South Korea and Singapore.

Finally, a few countries such as France, with more or less balanced profiles. The case of France is relatively unique with an almost even balance between landfilling (36%), incineration (34%) and recovery (30%).

THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Waste management in developing countries is closely linked to the need for an approach adapted to a socio-economic context which differs from that of industrialised countries. This approach is now accepted by the various players in the waste management domain, as being the only approach that can ensure the success of waste management projects in the countries of the southern hemisphere. Yet this awareness is not fully substantiated. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by 2015, do not include waste-related problems explicitly.

Waste management in developing countries is still most frequently the responsibility of the municipalities. Neverthe-less, we observe that public budgets are being trimmed, waste management costs are on the increase, and municipalities in these countries are confronted with growing problems of corruption. The private sector is increasingly called on to handle this management task. Now added to conventional waste management is management by the informal sector, comprising a poor population engaged in collection and recycling of materials extracted from waste, for resale and in order to guarantee its revenues, which also manages that part of waste not handled by the municipalities.

In many towns and cities, waste is largely absorbed by the activities of the informal sector, traditionally regarding waste as a resource. However, these activities are conducted under conditions injurious to the health of the workers and the environment. Solutions have been found in some countries for the purpose of recognising the value of the informal sector activity, and to reconcile this activity with modern management methods. This trend stems from progressive international recognition of recycling as the primary waste treatment method. It should also be noted that the informal sector is becoming increasingly organised, benefiting from its social and environmental usefulness and professionalism, although its procedures have not yet been perfected. Thus, the trend is towards coexistence, on the one hand of manage-ment methods of a high technological level, adapted for certain towns and cities where the composition of the waste is tending to resemble that of the industrialised countries and, consequently, become more complex, and on the other of the extremely flexible and suitably adapted management methods practiced by the informal sector.

Collection in the developing countries is the responsibility of the municipalities, but is still far from efficient for a number of reasons. Management and supervision of staff are weak, waste transport vehicles are inadequate, collection routes are not rational and highly diversified, travel times are not adjusted and the capacity of most transfer centres is insufficient. The private sector, together with NGOs and the informal sector, could contribute in better adapted, more efficient and less costly solutions.

Landfilling is the preponderant waste treatment method in the developing countries. Waste transport distances are tending to push up collection costs, and waste disposal costs in emerging and developing are increasing by as much. Consequently, the number of wildcat disposal sites is on the increase. This partially explains the growing attraction of recycling for the purpose of reducing waste disposal costs. Waste is still sorted for recycling by the informal sector on the landfill sites themselves. However, there is no assessment of the quantities sorted in this way. The waste management modernisation wave requires closure of wildcat sites, and the construction of landfills meeting sanitary and environmental standards.


Abstract_2009_GB.indd 20 13/11/09 12:05:31


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Highlight


Recycling in developing countries

Average revenue developing countries

Low revenue developing countries

Recycling in some developing countries’ cities

Recycling has a natural usefulness in developing countries, insofar as the economy of these countries is one of penury. Recycling is totally conducted by and depends on the informal sector. There is consequently no assessment of the volumes involved, such assessment being difficult as the waste flows do not enter the conventional circuit.

According to some experts, between 1 and 2% of the urban population in developing countries is involved in urban material recycling or over 15 million persons worldwide, with an economic impact of several hundred million dollars a.

The municipal waste produced in developing countries and, in particular, Asian towns and cities, is generally largely absorbed by re-use and informal recycling (75-95% b). This means that only a small proportion of municipal waste is actually landfilled.

Recovery and recycling factors depend on the scarcity of materials, the level and lifestyle of the inhabitants, the existence or not of a social group linked to waste management, the number of rural migrants, the number of homeless, the industrial diversity, the level of trading in recycled raw materials, agricultural activities in peri-urban areas, available technology, the efficiency of collection and official treatment methods, and the policy adopted by municipalities in regard to homeless people.

Waste content in developing countries is also a key factor in regard to recovery and recycling. Content varies according to the revenue level of the countries c:

Recovery and recycling methods in developing countries range from barter trade between the households, charity donations and sorting of waste in the landfill sites themselves, at transfer centres and waste hoppers and in the street. They also include the sale of materials by households or small stores, institutions to itinerant merchants, small traders or farmers, and the sale of materials between structured dealers and recycling operators. Higher up the scale we find trading in materials between industries, trading and auctioning of scrap for industrial applications, exporting of surplus materials for recycling elsewhere, material imports, small-scale composting and the sale of organic waste.

Quantities Number of persons involved City recycled by year (tonnes) in the informal sector

Cairo, Egypt 2,162,500 40,000Cluj, Romania 14,700 3,200Lima, Peru 529,400 11,200Lusaka, Zambia 5,400 390Poona, India 117,900 9,500Quezon City, Philippines 141,800 10,100

Recyclable materials 25%Compostable organic matters 50%Humidity content 50%

Recyclable materials 15%Compostable organic matters 60%Humidity content 60%

Source: WASTE, Anne Scheinberg, GTZ/CWG Case studies, 2008

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 21 13/11/09 12:05:31


Highlight


Informal sector characteristics are generally as follows: most vulnerable segment of the population: recent migrants, unemployed, widows, handicapped persons, the elderly and children;

the names given to the persons concerned vary from country to country and are frequently linked to the materials recovered or recycled (paper, cardboard or metal) or the methods of recovery employed (tricycles, carts, sacks): “cartoneros”, “catadores”, “pepenadores”, “buscabotes”, “traperos”, “chatarreros”, “mikhali”, etc.;

the recycling activity dates back a very long way; the sector is increasingly organised, and possesses a level of know-how not to be found in the public sector; the informal sector is highly sensitive to factors modifying economic growth, demand and raw material procurement.

The advantages of integrating the informal sector in waste management by municipalities or private enter-prises are numerous: the informal sector operates at the waste colle ction and sorting stages; landfilling is the preponderant conventional treatment method. Intervention by the informal sector makes it possible to reduce volumes landfilled by recycling raw materials collected and sorted upstream, in particular in urban areas;

it ensures all recycling of recyclable materials, and constitutes a major supplier to the industries, reducing the dependence of these countries on raw material imports d;

selective sorting of organic materials extracted from the municipal waste flows makes it possible to produce quality compost for the farming industries e. Small-scale or decentralised composting is particularly appropriate as it reduces transport and landfilling costs;

intervention by the informal sector makes it possible to reduce waste management costs in the towns and cities, and extend the lifetime of the landfill sites. Procurement of recycled materials enable the industries to maintain their competitiveness;

The organised informal sector is a potential private sector, providing for the creation of micro-businesses and cooperatives.Nevertheless, a number of factors restrict their activity. Urban zoning, land values, control of tricycle and cart transport added to flow controls impede the activity of itinerant merchants and small traders. Enterprises and farms moving round the periphery of towns and cities leads to higher transport costs for these small operators, making the recovery of low value materials unprofitable. Mechanised collection is making access to recyclable materials more difficult for informal sector workers, thus encouraging them to sort these materials on the landfill sites. However, it is more dangerous for them to work on the sites than in the road. In many cases, privatisation of waste collection which integrates informal sector workers prevents the latter from continuing their recyclable material recovery activities as staff is forbidden to sell recyclable materials. Furthermore, municipal authorities frequently control informal waste collection by introducing a worker registration system. Repressive policies in regard to the informal sector can also exist, leading to further deterioration of their living conditions. Nevertheless, examples of cooperation between municipalities, NGOs, informal worker associations or cooperatives, as also private enterprises are making it possible to find waste management solutions which are both suitable and balanced, and can serve as models for integration.Imports of recovered raw materials can also have a decelerating impact on local development of recovery and recycling activities. Negotiations on the liberalisation of environmental services and goods under the auspices of the WTO, and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) are also decisive insofar as the measures for controlling imports of waste for recycling are liable to be regarded as contravening the conditions for free trade.

a. Christine Furedy ibid; Martin Medina, “The world’s scavengers, salvaging for sustainable consumption and production”, 2007.b. Christine Furedy, “Solid waste in the waste economy: socio-cultural aspects”, Urban studies program, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada, 1994.c. The growing complexities and challenges of solid waste management in developing countries, Sandra Cointreau (Sandra Cointreau estimates), World Bank, 2007.d. In Brazil, 90% of materials recycled by industry are recovered by the “Catadores”, at a rate of 30 000 tonnes per day. Martin Medina, “Waste pickers in developing countries: challenges and opportunities ” 2007.e. Non-contamination of organic waste by hazardous substances, or materials such as glass or metal is nevertheless essential for the durability of the activity.

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 22 13/11/09 12:05:31


Incineration is a waste treatment method largely unsuitable for the towns and cities in the developing countries, as all the conditions for efficient operation of a site are rarely met. The waste has low calorific power, humidity content is high and the supply of large quantities of waste is not ensured. Furthermore, the level of investment required can only be achieved in rare cases.

INDUSTRIAL WASTE DIFFICULT TO ASSESS

Measurement of industrial waste production has been found to be even more difficult because of incomplete, heterogeneous and uncertain available data. Our estimates, corresponding to a waste collection figure of 1.2 billion tonnes, should be regarded at best as an order of magnitude. In many countries, industrial waste includes waste generated by the production of energy, and even mining waste. At the two extremes, neither Russian nor US figures can be taken at face value. In Russia and also Ukraine, data are manifestly overestimated and take account, at least partly, of mining waste. Conversely, in the USA, there is no precise measurement of industrial waste, apart from a number of specific categories (plastics, tyres, etc.), and the figures available seem equally underestimated. Finally, as far as China is concerned, the most total degree of imprecision rules the roost, with estimates ranging from 135 million tonnes to one billion tonnes, a figure quoted by some professionals.

Logically, at least for “recent waste”, industrial waste geography concords with industrial geography itself. In the case of “historical waste”, we follow substantially more a process of deindustrialisation logic. The existence of dedicated markets, such as the naval demolition market, should be noted.

Manufacturing industry non-hazardous waste production in a selection of countries

Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe and UN Statistics.

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Mil

lion

ton

nes

New Z

ealan

d 199

9

Argenti

na 20

06

Colombia

2001

Tunis

ia 20

06

Vietna

m 2004

USA 20

01

EU 15 +

Nor.

+ Sw

itz. +

Icela

nd 20

06

India

(est.)

2000

China 2

005

Japan

2005

EU NMS 2

006

South

Kor

ea 20

05

South

Africa

2006

Canad

a 200

6

Brazil 2

006

Turke

y 200

4

Austral

ia 20

03

Mexico

2006

Moroc

co (e

st.) 2

004

Thaïla

nd 20

03

Chile (

est.)

2006

275à 305

229 125à 214

135122.9

96

38.3 36 22 20 17.5 11.8 9.2 8 5.9 2.6 2.5 2.2 2 1.2 1

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 23 13/11/09 12:05:32


Highlight


Highlight


Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services, CyclOpe and UN Statistics.

Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia EnvironmentalServices, CyclOpe and UN Statistics.

Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia EnvironmentalServices, CyclOpe and UN Statistics.Note: Japan and Ukraine: forestry, agriculture and services included.

Manufacturing industry non-hazardous waste collected in a selection of countries

Construction and demolition wasteproduction in a selection of countries

Mining industry and electricityproduction waste quantitiesin a selection of countries

250

200

150

100

50

0

Mil

lion

tonn

es

EU 15 +

Nor.

+ Ic

eland

2006

New Zeal

and 1

999

Argenti

ne 20

06

Moroc

co 20

04

Tunis

ia 20

06

Chile 2

006

Hong K

ong 2

006

Mexico

2006

Turke

y 200

4

Austral

ia 20

05

Brazil 2

006

Canad

a 200

6

South

Africa

2006

South

Kor

ea 20

05

EU NMS 2

006

India

(est.)

1999

China (

est.)

2005

Japan

2006

228.87

122.9108 100

96.01

38.226.4

22 18 9.47 7 4.9 2.6 2.3 1.9 1 0.96 0.8

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Mil

lion

ton

nes

New Z

ealan

d 199

9

Chile 2

006

Mexico

2006

Hong K

ong 2

006

Austral

ia 20

05

Canad

a 200

6

Russia

2006

EU NMS 2

006

South

Kor

ea 20

05

Japan

2005

USA 20

06

EU 15 +

Nor.

+ Ic

eland

2006

575.4

260

54.232 24.3 16.7 13.7 6.5 4.9 3.5 0.8

76.2

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Mil

lion

ton

nes

Tunis

ia (es

t.) 20

06

Turke

y 200

4

India

(urb.)

1999

Canad

a 200

5Mor

occo

(est.

) 200

6

South

Kor

ea 20

05

Brazil (

est.)

2006

USA 20

06

Japan

2005

Ukrain

e 200

4

South

Africa

2006

China (

est.)

2006

EU 27 20

06

Russia

(est.)

2006

2,500

926

680

464422

290

66 54.3 50 47 10.5 5 5

900

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 24 13/11/09 12:05:33


Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services, CyclOpe and UN Statistics.

Manufacturing industry hazardous waste collectes in a selection of countries

We should also mention construction and demolition waste on the one hand, mining and electricity production waste on the other. Data in these cases is far too incomplete and heterogeneous for aggregation to have any form of relevance. One may simply note that these waste categories represent considerable volumes and tonnages, and are of very low value.

Production of non-hazardous industrial waste is difficult to assess in developing countries, despite existing manage-ment conducted in most cases by the manufacturers themselves, recycling operators or the informal sector. One may hope that the implementation of concepts such as “cleaner production” will in the future help in assessing waste quantities and in elaborating statistics.

SPECIAL CASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

The question of hazardous waste is one of the most sensitive in regards to public opinion, regularly alerted by scan-dals and “affairs” such as the “Probo Koala” affair involving a tanker which dumped toxic waste in Abidjan, or the more tragicomically tribulations of the “France” and “Clémenceau”. At international level, the Basel Convention of March 1989 sets up an international control system for hazardous waste flows. However, there is still no real standardization in the definitions of hazardous waste and in its quantification. Increasingly strict application of the precautionary principle on the one hand, and the complexity of waste produced from increasingly sophisticated consumer goods on the other, have induced real awareness of the importance of hazardous waste management in some countries, whereas neighbouring countries were still continuing to underestimate the phenomenon. On the basis of the non-exhaustive statistics available, it can be estimated that worldwide collection of hazardous waste, as defined in the Basel Convention, accounts for some 300 million tonnes. However, to highlight the fragility of this figure, it should be emphasised that Russia alone is declaring hazardous waste production at a figure of 150 million tonnes (basically plausible when we think of the total absence of environmental consideration presiding over Soviet industrial development, and that this figure includes hazardous waste stored and awaiting treatment).

50

40

30

20

10

0

Mil

lion

ton

nes

Argenti

ne 20

06

Singap

ore 2

006

Moroc

co 20

04

Tunis

ia 20

06

Chile 2

006

Vietna

m 2004

Colombia

2001

Austral

ia 20

03

Canad

a 200

6

Thaïla

nd 20

03

Indon

esia 2

000

Turke

y 200

6

Philipi

nes 2

001

Brazil 2

006

Japan

1999

South

Kor

ea 20

05

EU NMS 2

006

Mexico

2006

India

(urb.)

2006

South

Africa

2006

China 2

005

EU 15 +

Nor.

+ Ic

e. 20

06

USA 20

05

(est. p

rodu

ction

)

44

30

20.5

12.6

85.7 5.5

3.5 3.3 3 2.4 1.5 1 0.96 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.07

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 25 13/11/09 12:05:33


Highlight

The production of hazardous waste in developing countries is lower than in developed countries, but represents serious problems. Management of this waste is practically non-existent apart from medical waste, consequently creating severe cases of environmental and public health damages. Assessing the production of this waste is difficult despite the existence of dedicated regulations. Figures for hazardous waste collection are substantially lower than corresponding production, and vary according to the revenue levels of developing countries.

A WORLD MARKET WORTH 300 BILLION EUROS

All economic activities associated with waste, from collection to recycling, would appear to represent a world mar-ket of some 300 billion euros, shared about evenly between municipal waste and industrial waste. This figure essentially covers OECD countries and a number of large emerging countries such as China and Brazil. The true figure is thus pro-bably substantially greater, insofar as mere assessment of the informal sector, present in most emerging and developing countries, is impossible.

The four major municipal waste markets are the USA, Europe, Japan and China, together accounting for a turnover worth more than 130 billion euros. The leading industrial waste market would appear to be Japan, ahead of Europe and the USA.

These figures are representative of the “modern” waste economy sector, illustrating above all the extraordinary he-terogeneity of this activity at world level. On the one side, in many countries, the informal economy deals with waste collection with, in parallel, more or less effective participation by the municipalities, resulting in massive landfill sites picked and operated by the descendants of the erstwhile rag-pickers. In contrast, in developed countries and in towns and cities of emerging countries, waste management has become an integral part of urban engineering. Alongside the municipal services, we find small and large enterprises in increasing numbers, the large enterprises having an internatio-nal dimension in the same way as the principal players Veolia Environmental Services and Suez Environnement or, in the American market only, Waste Management.

It is true that part of the downstream waste market has acquired worldwide proportions.


Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services, design and engineering entities and CyclOpe.Note: Attempts have been made to estimate the value of the recycling market in the low revenue Asian countries. In Thailand, for example, given the composition of the municipal waste, it has been estimated that 42% of this waste is potentially recyclable. Thus, the market for recyclable materials obtained from municipal waste in this country has been estimated at 16 billion THB per year (or 402 million euros) for 2003. In Vietnam, it has been estimated that the informal sector recycles 22% of municipal waste produced. The recycling market in this country consequently has considerable potential for expansion. It has been estimated that the informal recycling sector captures VND 135 billion per year (or 5.7 million euros for 2004)a.

a. Environment Monitor, World Bank.

Mil

lion

eur

os

0

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

EU 15 +

Nor.USA

Japan

South

Kor

eaChin

a

Canad

aBraz

il

Russia

Turke

y

Mexico

New Z

ealan

d

Ukraine

Austral

ia

India

(urb.)

42,900

36,000

30,000

25,600

3,000 2,500 2,400 1,300 1,269 987 831 688 634 570

Estimate municipal waste market in OECD countries and a numberof emerging countries (total: 150.6 billion euros)

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 26 13/11/09 12:05:34


Highlight


Highlight


Waste recovery combines both local and global approaches. Local when landfill biogas is recovered into electricity or when compost is produced. The local approach also includes incineration with energy recovery or production of biofuels from used oils or solvents. The global approach corresponds to markets now operating on a worldwide basis for a number of substantial “secondary” materials, at the forefront of which we find ferrous or non-ferrous scrap and recovered cellulose fibres (RCF).

In total, all these forms of waste recovery represent volumes of the order of one billion tonnes, or slightly over one-quarter of world production or a third of the volume collected. Recycling appears to represent 700 million tonnes, with precise estimates for scrap (400 million tonnes) and RCF (250 million tonnes), and substantially less accurate figures for plastics. Reliable figures exist for plastic recycling in Europe, with of 12.3 million tonnes recovered of which 5 million tonnes recycled. About 200 million tonnes would be treated through energy recovery incineration, while biological ap-plications such as composting accounts for another 100 million tonnes.

The potential for developing waste recovery and recycling is consequently substantial, all the more so as accelerated urban development worldwide will oblige an increasing number of populations to integrate “modern” management of their waste, while the increasing pressure of environmental constraints and awareness of the reduced availability of natural resources will oblige politicians to develop genuine recovery strategies for their waste.

A new phenomenon has appeared over the last few years: the emergence of genuinely worldwide markets for a number of secondary materials (scrap and paper) for which 2007 and 2008 performances copied and then anticipated those for raw materials (steel and paper pulp). From a marginal situation, world secondary material flows have become essential, to the point of becoming a veritable indicator for part of the world waste economy, and also industry in general. It is now wealthy countries, consumers and consequently producers of waste, which export, no longer waste products they wish to get rid of, but secondary materials destined for emerging countries, China and Turkey, where supplies are insufficient. Long criticised as a form of neo-colonial exploitation (dumping the waste of the rich in the gardens of the poor), this trade is, on the contrary, a sign of a new balance of power in favour of the large emerging countries.

Of all the large commodity markets of the 21st century, the market for secondary raw materials obtained from waste is the one the evolution of which will be the most fascinating to monitor, in anticipation of this challenge which mankind-will have to meet, that of rediscovering the meaning of scarcity.


Estimate non-hazardous industrial waste market in a selection of OECDcountries (total: 147 billion euros)

0Japan EU 15 + Nor. USA South Korea Australia Mexico Brazil

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

Mil

lion

eur

os

2505071,1403,200

31,27943,28243,282

67,000

Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services, design and engineering entities and CyclOpe.

Abstract_2009_GB.indd 27 13/11/09 12:05:34

Documents

From waste to resource