545640
research-article2014
WMR0010.1177/0734242X14545640Waste Management & ResearchOlley et al.
Original Article
Developing a common framework for integrated solid waste management advances in Managua, Nicaragua
Waste Management & Research 2014, Vol. 32(9) 822–833 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14545640 wmr.sagepub.com
Jane E Olley1, Jeroen IJgosse1, Victoria Rudin2 and Graham Alabaster3
Abstract This article describes the municipal solid waste management system in Managua, Nicaragua. It updates an initial profile developed by the authors for the 2010 UN-HABITAT publication Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities and applies the methodology developed in that publication. In recent years, the municipality of Managua has been the beneficiary of a range of international cooperation projects aimed at improving municipal solid waste management in the city. The article describes how these technical assistance and infrastructure investments have changed the municipal solid waste management panorama in the city and analyses the sustainability of these changes. The article concludes that by working closely with the municipal government, the UN-HABITAT project Strengthening Capacities for Solid Waste Management in Managua was able to unite these separate efforts and situate them within a strategic framework to guide the evolution of the municipal solid waste management system in the forthcoming years. The creation of this multi-stakeholder platform allowed for the implementation of joint activities and ensured coherence in the products generated by the different projects. This approach could be replicated in other cities and in other sectors with similar effect. Developing a long term vision was essential for the advancement of municipal solid waste management in the city. Nevertheless, plan implementation may still be undermined by the pressures of the short term municipal administrative government, which emphasize operational over strategic investment. Keywords Process flow analysis, strategic planning, multi-stakeholder platform, international cooperation, Managua, Nicaragua, Central America
Introduction Municipalities in low and middle income countries face increasing challenges for the delivery of effective solid waste management services. These challenges are particularly acute in highly urbanised regions such as Latin America, where approximately 80% of the total population currently lives in urban areas (UN-HABITAT, 2012). Analysis and documentation of existing cases showing how municipal governments are working to find solutions adapted to their local context are important to promote horizontal learning and replication. This article presents a case study of the municipal solid waste management (MSWM) system in Managua, Nicaragua, and builds upon and updates the profile developed and analysed in the UN-HABITAT Third Global Report on Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities to evaluate the state of Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities (Scheinberg et al., 2010). Table 1 provides a comparison of population, gross domestic product (GDP) and unemployment statistics for the seven countries in Central America. In 2010, the region had an estimated
population of 42.47 million people, of which 57% were living in urban areas (CEPAL, 2009). Nicaragua accounted for 14% of the region’s urban population. Nicaragua has the lowest GDP of the seven countries and one of the highest levels of unemployment. The city of Managua is the industrial, commercial and administrative centre of Nicaragua and home to nearly 20% of the country´s population. The city’s population has increased from 430,690 in 1971 to an estimated 1,002,452 in 2009. Average population growth of 1.7% was reported in the latest national census undertaken in 1995 (INIDE, 2007). In recent years, the city of Managua has been the beneficiary of a number of international cooperation projects aimed at improving 1Independent
consultant San Jose, Costa Rica 3UN-HABITAT, Geneva, Switzerland 2ACEPESA,
Corresponding author: Jane E Olley, Apartado Postal 84, Granada, N/A, Nicaragua. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
823
Olley et al. Table 1. Population projections, GDP and urban unemployment in Central America in 2009. Country
Total population (in thousands)
% urban
Urban population (in millions)
GDP per capita (2008) (US$)
Urban unemployment (%)
Belize Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama TOTAL
313 4640 6194 14,377 7616 5822 3508 42,470
52 64 64 50 52 57 75 57
164 2989 3983 7111 3930 3337 2624 24,138
3933 5189 2677 1699 1452 897 5580 3061
8.2 4.8 5.5 No data 4.2 8.0 6.5
Source: CEPAL, 2009.
Figure 1. Map of district divisions in Managua. Source: Adapted from es.wikipedia.org
MSWM services. The article describes how these technical assistance and infrastructure investments have changed the MSWM panorama in the city and analyses the sustainability of these changes. Projects ranged from district level interventions aimed at expanding waste collection to unserved areas, e.g. the Public Private Partnership Project funded by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (District V); the European Union (EU)-funded Social Entrepreneurship and Ecomanagement of Urban Waste (RESSOC) project (Districts VI and VII); and the Italian funded Basmanagua project (Districts VI and VII) to significant investments in the upgrading of centralised solid waste management (SWM) treatment and disposal infrastructure, i.e. the Spanish funded Integrated Development of the Acahualinca Neighbourhood Programme. Working together with the Department of International and Public Relations of the Municipality of Managua, the UN-HABITAT project Strengthening Capacities for Solid Waste Management in Managua was able to unite these separate efforts and situate them within a strategic framework to guide the development of MSWM in Managua in the forthcoming years.
Background information on Managua Managua is located on the banks of Lake Xolotlán (1100 km2) and rises from 43 m above sea-level at the lake side to 700 m
above sea-level in the surrounding hills (MGM, 2007). The city is situated over a series of geographic faults and is vulnerable to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, seasonal flooding and landslides. The climate is tropical with temperatures between 27 °C and 38 °C. The rainy season extends from May to November, with precipitation in the range 1000–1600 mm year-1 (MGM, 2007). Managua covers an overall area of 267 km2 and is made up of seven administrative districts, as shown in Figure 1. The most densely populated districts are Districts II and IV, which constitute the original centre of the city. The city has grown horizontally along the main transport arteries to the east (Districts VI and VII), south east (District V) and south west (District III).
Methodology The methodology used for gathering and reporting on municipal solid waste (MSW) data is that developed in the UN-HABITAT publication Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities (Scheinberg et al., 2010). This framework divides into three physical MSWM components: (1) public health, (2) environmental protection, and (3) resource management; and three governance strategies: (4) inclusivity, (5) financial sustainability, and (6) sound institutions and pro-active policies. A process flow diagram (PFD) has been prepared, and is presented later in this article in Figure 3, to help visualise the entire MSWM system. The PFD is an invaluable tool to identify the issues facing MSWM systems in cities and in developing appropriate actions to resolve these issues. MSW data collection draws mainly upon the products of the UN-HABITAT project Strengthening Capacities for Solid Waste Management in Managua, undertaken between August 2008 and December 2012. Information from other donor-funded projects undertaken in the city in the same period, derived from project reports and discussions with project teams and their municipal counterparts, has also been included where appropriate. The base year for the PFD is 2009. This analysis provided a key input to the development of the Strategic Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Plan for Managua 2010–2025 (UN-HABITAT, 2010) in the framework of the aforementioned project.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
824
Waste Management & Research 32(9)
Table 2. Total annual MSW generated in tonnes using Strategic Plan Projections (2009). Source
Generation total (t)
%
Markets2 Households (domestic waste)3 Households (special waste)4 Industry, commerce and institutions5 Street sweeping and ditch cleansing, etc.6 Total
19,554 215,878 107,939 78,574 63,557 485,501
4% 44% 22% 16% 13% 100%
Method of calculation and key assumptions made: 1. All key assumptions have been verified with staff from the municipality. 2. Weight of market waste collected by COMMEMA in 2009, registered at the landfill weighbridge. It is assumed that 100% of waste generated at the markets is collected. 3. Population (2009) of 1,002,452 × ppc of 0.59 kg per capita per day × 365 days. 4. Population (2009) of 1,002,452 × ppc of 0.295 kg per capita per day × 365 days. The ppc for special waste (bulky materials, construction and demolition waste and green waste) is estimated to be 0.5 of the ppc of domestic waste. 5. Weight of waste from industry, commerce and institutions collected by different actors in 2009, registered at the landfill weighbridge. It is assumed that 90% of waste generated at these sources is collected. 6. Weight of waste from street sweeping and ditch cleansing collected by the municipality in 2009, registered at the landfill weighbridge. It is assumed that 80% of waste generated at these sources is collected. Source: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), 2010.
Special Waste 0.3 %
Tetra pack 0.2 %
Others
0.8 %
PS
Others 11.5%
0.6 %
Paper and cardboard 8.3 % PP
0.4 %
PEBD Non-organic recyclable materials 18.2 % Organic Ma er 69.7%
1.4 %
PVC Plas c 7.6 %
0.2 %
Other PEAD
0.8 %
Hard Plas c PEAD Glass 1.3 % Metal 1.0 %
2.1 %
PET Bo les
1.4 %
0
1
2
3
Figure 2. Composition of MSW arriving at La Chureca site (2009) in percentage by weight (UN-HABITAT, 2009). Source: UN-HABITAT, 2009b.
Results Waste quantities and composition The following definitions of waste have been used: domestic or household solid waste is that which is generated in a person’s place of residence; MSW includes waste with similar characteristics to domestic solid waste, generated in markets, commercial enterprises, industry and institutions. MSW also includes waste from public cleansing activities and special waste defined as bulky materials (electrical appliances, furniture, tyres), construction and demolition waste and green waste. Hazardous (healthcare and non-healthcare) waste is considered to be a separate waste category and not included in data discussed in this article.
According to the most recent city-wide waste characterisation study (UN-HABITAT, 2009a) the per capita generation of domestic solid waste in 2009 was 0.59 kg per capita, resulting in an estimated household waste generation of 215,878 tonnes year, accounting for 44% of the total MSW, as shown in Table 2. The composition of waste arriving at the final disposal site is predominantly organic (70%). Potential recyclable materials (paper, cardboard, glass, plastics and metals) account for 18%, while the remaining 12% is a mix of mainly inert materials, as shown in Figure 2. Comparing the composition of waste from residential routes arriving at the final disposal site with average household waste composition, as shown in Table 3, provides evidence of informal waste recovery before and during the waste collection process. Paper, plastic, metals and glass are removed from the waste
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
825
Olley et al.
(Continued)
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
826
Waste Management & Research 32(9)
Figure 3. Process flow diagram for Managua.
stream. Slight increases in easily biodegradable organic matter and cardboard are attributed to waste from commercial generators that are part of residential routes.
of this largely traditional system is on providing a reliable waste collection service that covers the whole urban area. Recent investments in SWM infrastructure have begun to shift this focus and these changes are analysed in the following sections.
Physical components of the MSW management system
Public health – waste collection
The main components of the MSWM system in Managua are the waste collection service and the materials recovery and disposal facilities operated by the central municipal authorities at the Acahualinca site in District II, called La Chureca. The main focus
Waste collection is undertaken by the Central Public Cleansing Department (CPCD). In 2009, the service comprised of 132 routes with door-to-door collection, three times a week, on each route. The municipal waste collection service collected 84% of
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
827
Olley et al.
Table 3. Comparison of materials entering the disposal site from the districts, with the results of the characterisation study for domestic waste at point of generation. Component
Organic matter, easily degradable Paper Cardboard Plastic Metal Glass Others Total
Part I dry season (%)
Part II rainy season (%)
Average (%)
Final disposal site (% originating from the districts)
Difference (± %)
71.72
74.17
72.94
74.35
+1.41
6.40 2.17 8.37 1.28 1.42 8.64 100.00
3.58 2.58 10.21 1.61 2.26 5.59 100.00
4.99 2.37 9.29 1.45 1.84 7.12 100.00
1.41 3.69 7.12 1.03 1.19 11.21 100.00
–3.58 +1.32 –2.17 –0.42 –0.65 +4.09
Source: UN-HABITAT, 2009b.
the domestic solid waste generated in 2009 (UN-HABITAT, 2010). Household waste collection is provided using compactor trucks and, to a lesser extent, tipper trucks, tractor-trailers and container vehicles. A waste container service is provided to some commercial and industrial generators, and to residential areas inaccessible to compactor trucks. In areas not yet covered by the municipal waste collection service, the population often pay someone to dispose of their waste. This waste usually ends up in illegal dumpsites and drainage ditches. Each of the seven districts has a District Public Cleansing Department (DPCD), which is charged with street sweeping, and ditch and illegal dumpsite cleaning, accounting for 29% of MSW collected in 2009. A small number of private companies collect waste from large commercial and institutional waste generators, representing 11% of MSW collected in 2009. Although waste collection has traditionally been exclusively municipal, efforts to expand waste collection to areas inaccessible to the municipal service, through community-based microenterprises and cooperatives, date back to the late 1990s. Between 2006 and 2007, the municipal government supported the formation of waste collection micro-enterprises in District VI. Of six micro-enterprises established, only one, Limpiando Fuerte (Cleaning Hard) maintained its operations for more than a couple of years. The failure of these microenterprises has been attributed to the fact that they were unable to effectively recover the cost of their operations from service users. Limpiando Fuerte survived by supplementing income obtained from collection fees with sales of recovered recyclable materials (Africa 70 et al., 2008). Limpiando Fuerte has subsequently benefited from technical assistance and credit offered by the Basmanagua project to form and equip three new micro-enterprises (Limpiando Más, Limpiando Bien y Limpiando Mejor (Cleaning More, Cleaning Well, Cleaning Better )) offering a collection service to residents of District VII (Minelli and Praslin, 2012). These microenterprises operate in conjunction with a small municipal
transfer station that also provides them with facilities to clean and store recovered recyclable materials. In contrast to previous efforts to introduce community-based collection services, recent projects have recognised and addressed the need for waste transfer stations to provide an effective interface between community-based service providers and the wider municipal SWM system. In District V, the Manos Unidas (Joined Hands) cooperative has provided a collection service to residents of the surrounding informal settlements since 2010. Collected waste is delivered to a temporary transfer station where it is removed by the DPCD. Steps to develop a more permanent waste transfer station were initiated in 2012 (Zapata Campos and Zapata, 2013). The UN-HABITAT project also supported the construction of a small transfer station in District VI in 2012. Community-based collection services were introduced in District VI on a trial basis in May 2013 (Zapata Campos and Zapata, 2014). Table 4 presents a summary of the micro-enterprises and/or cooperatives formed to undertake community waste collection services over the last five years. Project support for these new service providers has focused on equipping them and building their technical–operational and financial–administrative capacity, as well as creating awareness within the municipality of its contractual–financial–administrative and supervisory responsibilities, all of which are important for ensuring the sustainability of the contribution of these service providers to the MSWM system.
Environmental – waste disposal The La Chureca waste disposal site has been in use since 1973. The site is situated on the banks of Lake Xolotlán and has long been considered to be a major source of contamination. In 1995, a JICA-funded study was undertaken to plan the technical closure of the site and the selection, design and construction of an alternative sanitary landfill for the city (JICA, 1995). This was followed by additional studies in 2000 (JICA, 2000) and 2004
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
828
Waste Management & Research 32(9)
Table 4. Community-based waste collection services in Managua. Name
District
Operating since
Cooperative “Manos Unidas”
V
2010
Micro-Enterprise “Limpiando Más”, “Limpiando Bien” y “Limpiando Mejor” Cooperative “Centroamérica Limpia”
VII
Cooperative “La Chureca Guardabarranco” Cooperatives “Martha Lorena López”, “Desechos Sólidos 31 de Diciembre”, “Laureles Sur”, “La Anunciación”& “La Bendición de Josué” Cooperative
No of workers
Households served
Associated projects and organisations
6
2695
2011
19
2600
V
2011
21
Collects waste from commerce/ institutions
II
2012
N/D
N/D
Public Private Partnership Project (UNDP). Implemented by Habitar Basmanagua Project (Italian government). Implemented by Africa 70, Movimundo, CAPRI & ACCRA Comunidad Ecológica de la Colonia Centroamérica (CECCA) supported by American Chamber of Commerce (Amcham) Supported by Red-Nica
VI & VII
2013
105
N/D
Emprendedurismo Social y Ecogestión de Residuos Urbanos (RESSOC) (EU)
VI
2013
17
N/D
Strengthening Capacities for SWM in Managua (UN-HABITAT)
Source: MGM, 2012; Minelli and Praslin, 2012; Red-Nica, 2012; Zapata Campos and Zapata, 2014.
(PROINTEC, 2004). However, none of these studies led to measurable improvements in waste disposal. In 2008, the Spanish government approved the Integrated Development of the Acahualinca Neighbourhood Programme, a four-year initiative to improve conditions at the site and provide new social and economic opportunities for those living in surrounding neighbourhoods. The main environmental aim was to undertake the technical closure of used areas of the site and rehabilitate the remaining working area to give the city access to a technically managed landfill. The project also included the construction of a materials recovery facility (MRF). Both the landfill and MRF were inaugurated in February 2013. Key challenges remaining for the municipal government include the adequate operation of the new landfill (Nuevo Diario, 2013) and the development of a new site during the lifetime of the interim landfill. In the base year of 2009, municipal records show that the disposal site received an average of 1053 tonnes day-1 of municipal non-hazardous waste from Managua, a further 5 tonnes day-1 from the neighbouring municipality of El Crucero and 5 tonnes day-1 registered as cover material.
Resource management – materials recovery and recycling Although there has been a small semi-formal and formal waste recovery and recycling sector in Nicaragua since the early 1960s, over the last 10 years there has been an increase in the number of people dedicated to informal waste recovery, reflecting the growing demand for recyclable materials and the absence of other employment opportunities for a significant proportion of the urban population.
Recyclable material recovery begins with street collectors, who sometimes collect from households, but mostly recover materials from pavements, illegal dumpsites, markets and commercial establishments. Street collectors recover an estimated 9 tonnes day-1 of recyclables, including metal, plastic and, to a lesser extent, paper, glass and cardboard. Collection methods vary from walking with sacks, to hand and horse carts, to small and large trucks. Street collectors sell collected materials to small collector businesses or ‘chatarreras’, who then sell to other intermediaries or directly to export or recycling companies. Most materials recovered in Managua are exported, with the exception of some plastics and non-ferrous metals that are recycled by national companies, and some glass bottles that are recovered for reuse. Small collector businesses also receive recyclables from municipal workers who separate waste during their collection routes, a practice called ‘La Prepa’, constituting an estimated 4 tonnes day-1. Until recently, informal waste recovery at the La Chureca disposal site provided an income to approximately 1000 individuals (Olley et al, 2009). An estimated 10.5 tonnes day-1 of dry recyclables were collected from the site in 2009. The rehabilitation of the site and its operation as a landfill means that these Churequeros (as they known locally) are no longer permitted to work at the tipping face. The new MRF facility built on the site is designed to employ 425 operating staff in 1.5 shifts (AECID, 2013), less than half of the people working at the site before its transformation.
Presentation and analysis of process diagram The PFD presented in Figure 3 is an updated version of the PFD presented in Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities (Wilson et al., 2012). Weighbridge information collected
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
829
Olley et al. Table 5. Summary of solid waste quantities (tonnes day-1) that pass through the different operating phases of the MSWM system in Managua. Source
(1) Markets (2) H ouseholds (domestic waste) (3) Households (special waste) (4) Industry, commerce and institutions (5) Street sweeping, ditch cleansing, etc. (6) Cleaning of open dumps aned river beds3 (7) Recovery of recyclables from la Chureca Total MSW received from other municipalities and cover material Total waste disposed of at the la Chureca final disposal site
Generation total (t)
Collection coverage %
Primary and secondary collection (t)
53.6 591.4 295.7 215.3
100% 84% 0% 90%
53.6 495.7 0.0 193.7
174.1
80%
139.3
41%
171.0
Lost to the environment (t) 0.0 11.81
Recovered (t) 0.0 21.72 2.8
79%
1053.3
53.6 495.7 193.7 139.3
229.3
0.84 10.5
1330.1
Final Disposal (t)
242.1
35.8
171.0 1053.3 9.5 1062.8
1. A total of 11.8 tonnes day-1 of domestic waste generated by households that is burned or buried is ‘lost to the environment’. 2. This includes an estimated 11.8 tonnes day-1 used as fodder for animals by households. 3. No separate generation figure is given for these activities. It is assumed that the waste generated from sources (1) to (5), which is not collected, ends up in the open dumps and river beds (this excludes waste mentioned under note (1)). Based on the collection coverage estimates for each of these sources, this amount would be (0 + 62.2 + 295.7 + 19.4 + 34.8) = 412.1 tonnes day-1. Of this amount, 171.0 tonnes day-1 is collected by District Delegations and the CMPCD. The remaining 229.1 tonnes day-1 is not collected and recorded as ‘Lost to the environment’. 4. Based on 1% of waste from sources (2) and (3), and not including special waste as this has little to no value for recovery. Source: MGM, 2009a.
by the CPCD forms the starting point for the construction of the PFD. Additional assumptions (validated by the CPCD) include the following. 1. Data for collected waste refers to those quantities that are deposited at the disposal site. 2. An estimated 2% of domestic waste generated by households is burned or buried, and a further 2% is used as animal fodder for domestic animals. 3. There is no special waste collection service. Special waste fraction generated at household level is disposed of in open dumps and/or river beds by residents or by the informal waste collectors they hire. The information in the PFD is based on estimates. 4. DPCD activities fall into two categories: (a) street sweeping and ditch cleansing; and (b) clearing of open dumps and river beds. It is assumed that (i) the weight of waste coming from the districts is evenly distributed between these activities and (ii) that the DPCDs are able to remove 80% of the waste every day; the remainder accumulates in open dumps and river beds, and is considered to be lost to the environment. 5. Service coverage for non-domestic waste generators is estimated at 90%. 6. An estimated 1% of domestic waste generated at household level and 1% of domestic waste generated by commercial,
industrial and institutional sources is sold or donated in the form of recyclables to the informal sector. 7. An estimated 1% of domestic waste disposed of in open dumps and/or river beds and 1% of all municipal waste disposed of at La Chureca are recyclables recovered by the informal sector. 8. An estimated 1% of domestic waste collected by the CPCD are recyclables recovered by municipal waste collectors. Table 5 provides a summary of the solid waste quantities in tonnes day-1 that pass through the different operating phases of the MSWM system in Managua. A total of 79% of all MSW waste generated daily is collected and transported to the disposal site. Of the remainder 18%, 241 tonnes day-1 are lost to the environment accumulating in one of the more than 200 registered open micro dumps, while 3%, 35.8 tonnes day-1 are recovered for recycling (UN-HABITAT, 2010). During the strategic planning process, the PFD proved instrumental in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the MSWM system, and in particular the consequences of the current distribution of roles and responsibilities between the CPCD and DPCD. A total of 310 tonnes day-1 of waste, or 30% of all waste registered by the weighbridge, came from districtlevel collection. The absence of a special waste collection service means that CPCD, DPCD and green waste generated primarily at household
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
830
Waste Management & Research 32(9)
level ends up in open dumps. This system weakness explained an apparent contradictory situation found regarding public cleanliness. Specifically, in spite of a relatively high domestic collection coverage, there are still numerous small dumpsites located throughout the municipality where domestic and special waste accumulate. Because the issue of special waste is structural and has not, as yet, received the required attention, these points of accumulated waste continue to exist in spite of the daily clearance activities undertaken by the Districts. Of an estimated 421 tonnes day-1 that is not collected (30% of total generation) and ends up in the open dumps, 40% is cleared on a daily basis, resulting in 241 tonnes day1 of waste left to accumulate in the environment. The development of the special waste collection service was, therefore, an important action included in the MSWM Strategic Plan.
SWM governance In addition to the physical components, the MSWM system in Managua has been analysed considering three strategies of good governance: (1) inclusivity; (2) financial sustainability; and (3) sound institutions and pro-active policies. Inclusivity. The analysis of inclusivity is based upon the level of stakeholder involvement in the planning, implementation and monitoring of SWM services. Until recently, waste management planning in Managua was an almost exclusively internal municipal process undertaken by the CPCD, with little to no contribution from any other municipal departments or external stakeholders. Between 2009 and 2010, the municipality, with the support of UN-HABITAT, undertook a strategic planning process with the aim of providing the necessary framework for the progressive improvement of MSWM over the next 10–15 years. The planning methodology was designed to ensure participation and ownership of the process by the municipal government. Representatives from involved municipal departments (Public and International Relations, Planning, Public Cleansing, Environmental Management, Financial Administration), as well as representatives from the MSWM technical assistance projects being undertaken in the city at the time, participated in the process to develop the strategy and action plan for service development. The culmination of the process was the presentation of the Strategic ISWM Plan for Managua to national stakeholders in the First Regional Exchange Meeting of Urban SWM Experiences held in November 2010. Despite the approval of the plan by the participating municipal departments, the plan has not been officially approved and adopted by the Municipal Council, and hence, subsequent implementation has been relatively piecemeal. In a recent analysis of the process, it was concluded that the planning process had served to strengthen local SWM capacity (Olley et al., 2011) and that the involvement of external actors had created the conditions to explore and consolidate new working alliances to support the evolution from a traditional
SWM service focusing on waste collection and disposal, to an integrated system including activities of waste recovery and treatment. Inclusivity is also a factor in the successful implementation of MSWM services. MSWM in Managua operates through two parallel systems. On the one hand the formal municipal structure centred upon domestic and to a lesser extent commercial and industrial waste collection and disposal, which co-exists harmoniously with private companies dedicated to waste collection from large commercial and industrial generators. On the other hand, the recyclable waste recovery system, in the hands of the formal and informal private sector, in which until recently the municipal government has not had a formal role, with the exception of regulating these activities and ensuring businesses have the required operating and environmental permits. Both the formal and informal recycling sectors are often in tension with the MSWM system and this has resulted in some serious conflicts over the last five years. In 2008, as prices for recyclable materials tumbled owing to the global financial crisis and wastepicker incomes fell by 50% from US$3–4 day-1 to US$1.5–2 day-1 (Hartmann, 2012), tensions between the churequeros and municipal workers exploded into serious conflict with a churequero strike and blockade of the La Chureca site. Wastepickers complained that the ‘Prepa’ practice was affecting the amount of valuable recyclables arriving at the site (Nuevo Diario, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d). A settlement was eventually reached in which municipal workers agreed to stop separating recyclable waste during their collection routes in exchange for improvements to their working terms and conditions. Subsequent to the blockade, municipal workers are reported to have obtained a 40% salary increase, whereas wastepicker incomes remained largely unchanged (Hartmann, 2012). Hence, tensions remain and seem likely to worsen with the introduction of the MRF at the La Chureca site, where less than half of the informal waste collectors that originally worked at the site were projected to find work at the plant (AECID, 2013). In contrast, several initiatives to promote non-traditional waste collection methods have been implemented over the last five years, with cooperatives and micro-enterprises established and strengthened to offer waste collection services in Districts V, VI and VII of the city. These micro-enterprises and cooperatives have been well received by local communities and providing that on-going issues of financial sustainability can be overcome, appear to offer a viable alternative for the expansion of SWM services in otherwise inaccessible neighbourhoods. These successes are important first steps in the recognition and integration of private sector waste collection and recovery activities into the MSWM system. Strengthening these initiatives has been included as an action of the strategic waste management plan. Financial sustainability. The waste collection and disposal system in Managua is highly subsidised both in terms of investment and operating costs. In 2009, of 89 vehicles used for solid waste collection in the city almost 70% were purchased with donor funds (MGM, 2009b). The recent rehabilitation of the final
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
831
Olley et al. disposal site and the construction of the MRF on that site were also financed through donor funds. The municipality of Managua implemented direct charging for waste collection for the first time in 1993 and there has been no revision of these charges since that time. A total of C$33 million (around EUR 1.3 million) was collected from waste collection charges in 2008 (MGM, 2009f). The domestic waste collection charge is differentiated according to types of residential zones and metres of frontage, i.e. the length of the front of the house on the street side. Municipal employees go door-to-door to collect this charge. Potential versus actual recovery rate for the domestic waste collection charge is around 25%, in part because collection charges have been determined for only 200 of the 670 recognised neighbourhoods that receive the municipal collection service and hence fee collection only takes place in these neighbourhoods. Households in remaining neighbourhoods, including middle and high income neighbourhoods, are not charged. Commercial waste collection charges are linked to gross monthly income registered with the municipal tax department, and hence, recovery of these charges is more efficient accounting for 70% of the total funds recovered in 2008. A structural weakness identified in the analysis of the financial management system in Managua is related to recognised SWM costs. The current reporting system only recognised the CPCD costs and failed to take into account costs incurred at district level or costs related to other SWM functions, such as vehicle O&M, planning, public relations and environmental education. A thorough analysis of the actual costs incurred based on the municipal budget revealed that CPCD costs only represented 30% of the total SWM costs in 2008. Service charges collected in 2008 only covered 50% of the cost of the CPCD and none of the costs incurred by the DPCDs or other related SWM costs. Improving cost understanding and registration, as well as cost recovery, for SWM in Managua has been prioritised in the actions proposed in the Strategic SWM Plan for Managua. Sound institutions and pro-active policies. SWM functions and tasks within the municipal government are divided between the Department of Infrastructure and Municipal Services, responsible for operational planning and execution of waste collection and disposal services through the CPCD; and the Department of Environment and Urban Planning, responsible for overseeing the development of new SWM infrastructure and for undertaking Environmental Education Programmes. The CPCD has limited budgetary control and accountability over its daily operational expenses, in specific those related to fuel, lubricants, maintenance and repair of its collection fleet, which are the responsibility of the Department of Finances and Administration. This reduced autonomy limits the CPCD in its daily operational collection tasks and affects its planning and monitoring tasks. As discussed previously, District Delegations also have SWM functions and are directly accountable to the Mayor through the
District’s representatives. Coordination between central and district level government, which is critical for the implementation of an efficient MSWM service, remains limited. The on-going clearance of recurring small dumps by the Districts is evidence of this lack of coordination and joint planning to meet the demand of the entire municipality. This fragmentation of SWM roles and responsibilities is the main issue that the Strategic SWM Plan for Managua has sought to address through the development of a centralised MSWM department responsible for the planning, operation and monitoring of service implementation. The plan recognises the need to develop the municipal regulatory framework for MSWM and includes actions to achieve this.
Discussion The current article updates information prepared for the publication Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities (Scheinberg et al., 2010) and analysed in Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities (Wilson et al., 2013). Table 6 reveals differences between the updated and initial profile that are the result of additional analysis undertaken by the project team and its municipal and international cooperation partners after the first city profile had been prepared. Waste collection coverage is slightly lower than originally calculated and is significantly lower than the average figure for the 20 reference cities discussed in Wilson et al. (2012). As discussed previously in the article, although 79% of MSWM waste generated every day is collected and receives a controlled disposal, an estimated 18% accumulates in open dumps and river beds and is lost to the environment. To tackle this issue and bring coverage into line with other similar sized cities in Latin America, the strategic plan for Managua includes two actions to increase waste collection coverage: (1) expansion of decentralised waste collection services; and (2) introduction of a special waste collection service. At 3% of the total waste generated, overall recycling rates are also much lower than originally calculated. This can mainly be attributed to an overestimate of the amount recovered by waste collectors at the final disposal site in the initial model. Nevertheless, the authors consider that additional work on the recycling chain value in Managua is necessary to arrive at a more robust estimate of recycling levels in the city. The recycling figure is significantly lower than the average for the 20 reference cities cited in Table 6. However, it is in line with the results from Belo Horizonte, Brazil and Canete, Peru, the other cities from Latin America included in that report, the difference being that in these cities measures have been taken to integrate recyclers into the formal MSWM system, increasing their access to recyclables, thereby increasing the amount of waste they are able to collect. The model suggests that 70% of recyclables recovered are recovered at source (this includes 34% biodegradable waste used as animal fodder) or during waste collection, and a further 30% at the final disposal site. The amount collected at source is expected
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
832
Waste Management & Research 32(9)
Table 6. Comparison of indicators in Managua with those of 20 reference cities (Wilson et al., 2012). City, country
Public health
Environmental protection
Resource value
Waste collection and sweeping coverage (%)
Controlled disposal/ incineration of total disposed/ incinerated (%)
Materials recovered by formal sector (%)
Managua, Nicaragua (Wilson et al., 2012) Managua, Nicaragua
82
100
0
79
0
Belo Horizonte, Brazil Canete, Peru Average Median
95 73 82 93
100% of collected waste 79% of generated waste 100 81 90 100
City, country
Inclusivity
Degree of user inclusivity
Managua, Nicaragua (Wilson et al., 2012) Managua, Nicaragua Belo Horizonte, Brazil Canete, Peru Average Median
State-of-theart landfilling/ incineration of total disposed/ incinerated (%)
100 0 62 100
3
research-article2014
WMR0010.1177/0734242X14545640Waste Management & ResearchOlley et al.
Original Article
Developing a common framework for integrated solid waste management advances in Managua, Nicaragua
Waste Management & Research 2014, Vol. 32(9) 822–833 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14545640 wmr.sagepub.com
Jane E Olley1, Jeroen IJgosse1, Victoria Rudin2 and Graham Alabaster3
Abstract This article describes the municipal solid waste management system in Managua, Nicaragua. It updates an initial profile developed by the authors for the 2010 UN-HABITAT publication Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities and applies the methodology developed in that publication. In recent years, the municipality of Managua has been the beneficiary of a range of international cooperation projects aimed at improving municipal solid waste management in the city. The article describes how these technical assistance and infrastructure investments have changed the municipal solid waste management panorama in the city and analyses the sustainability of these changes. The article concludes that by working closely with the municipal government, the UN-HABITAT project Strengthening Capacities for Solid Waste Management in Managua was able to unite these separate efforts and situate them within a strategic framework to guide the evolution of the municipal solid waste management system in the forthcoming years. The creation of this multi-stakeholder platform allowed for the implementation of joint activities and ensured coherence in the products generated by the different projects. This approach could be replicated in other cities and in other sectors with similar effect. Developing a long term vision was essential for the advancement of municipal solid waste management in the city. Nevertheless, plan implementation may still be undermined by the pressures of the short term municipal administrative government, which emphasize operational over strategic investment. Keywords Process flow analysis, strategic planning, multi-stakeholder platform, international cooperation, Managua, Nicaragua, Central America
Introduction Municipalities in low and middle income countries face increasing challenges for the delivery of effective solid waste management services. These challenges are particularly acute in highly urbanised regions such as Latin America, where approximately 80% of the total population currently lives in urban areas (UN-HABITAT, 2012). Analysis and documentation of existing cases showing how municipal governments are working to find solutions adapted to their local context are important to promote horizontal learning and replication. This article presents a case study of the municipal solid waste management (MSWM) system in Managua, Nicaragua, and builds upon and updates the profile developed and analysed in the UN-HABITAT Third Global Report on Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities to evaluate the state of Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities (Scheinberg et al., 2010). Table 1 provides a comparison of population, gross domestic product (GDP) and unemployment statistics for the seven countries in Central America. In 2010, the region had an estimated
population of 42.47 million people, of which 57% were living in urban areas (CEPAL, 2009). Nicaragua accounted for 14% of the region’s urban population. Nicaragua has the lowest GDP of the seven countries and one of the highest levels of unemployment. The city of Managua is the industrial, commercial and administrative centre of Nicaragua and home to nearly 20% of the country´s population. The city’s population has increased from 430,690 in 1971 to an estimated 1,002,452 in 2009. Average population growth of 1.7% was reported in the latest national census undertaken in 1995 (INIDE, 2007). In recent years, the city of Managua has been the beneficiary of a number of international cooperation projects aimed at improving 1Independent
consultant San Jose, Costa Rica 3UN-HABITAT, Geneva, Switzerland 2ACEPESA,
Corresponding author: Jane E Olley, Apartado Postal 84, Granada, N/A, Nicaragua. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
823
Olley et al. Table 1. Population projections, GDP and urban unemployment in Central America in 2009. Country
Total population (in thousands)
% urban
Urban population (in millions)
GDP per capita (2008) (US$)
Urban unemployment (%)
Belize Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama TOTAL
313 4640 6194 14,377 7616 5822 3508 42,470
52 64 64 50 52 57 75 57
164 2989 3983 7111 3930 3337 2624 24,138
3933 5189 2677 1699 1452 897 5580 3061
8.2 4.8 5.5 No data 4.2 8.0 6.5
Source: CEPAL, 2009.
Figure 1. Map of district divisions in Managua. Source: Adapted from es.wikipedia.org
MSWM services. The article describes how these technical assistance and infrastructure investments have changed the MSWM panorama in the city and analyses the sustainability of these changes. Projects ranged from district level interventions aimed at expanding waste collection to unserved areas, e.g. the Public Private Partnership Project funded by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (District V); the European Union (EU)-funded Social Entrepreneurship and Ecomanagement of Urban Waste (RESSOC) project (Districts VI and VII); and the Italian funded Basmanagua project (Districts VI and VII) to significant investments in the upgrading of centralised solid waste management (SWM) treatment and disposal infrastructure, i.e. the Spanish funded Integrated Development of the Acahualinca Neighbourhood Programme. Working together with the Department of International and Public Relations of the Municipality of Managua, the UN-HABITAT project Strengthening Capacities for Solid Waste Management in Managua was able to unite these separate efforts and situate them within a strategic framework to guide the development of MSWM in Managua in the forthcoming years.
Background information on Managua Managua is located on the banks of Lake Xolotlán (1100 km2) and rises from 43 m above sea-level at the lake side to 700 m
above sea-level in the surrounding hills (MGM, 2007). The city is situated over a series of geographic faults and is vulnerable to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, seasonal flooding and landslides. The climate is tropical with temperatures between 27 °C and 38 °C. The rainy season extends from May to November, with precipitation in the range 1000–1600 mm year-1 (MGM, 2007). Managua covers an overall area of 267 km2 and is made up of seven administrative districts, as shown in Figure 1. The most densely populated districts are Districts II and IV, which constitute the original centre of the city. The city has grown horizontally along the main transport arteries to the east (Districts VI and VII), south east (District V) and south west (District III).
Methodology The methodology used for gathering and reporting on municipal solid waste (MSW) data is that developed in the UN-HABITAT publication Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities (Scheinberg et al., 2010). This framework divides into three physical MSWM components: (1) public health, (2) environmental protection, and (3) resource management; and three governance strategies: (4) inclusivity, (5) financial sustainability, and (6) sound institutions and pro-active policies. A process flow diagram (PFD) has been prepared, and is presented later in this article in Figure 3, to help visualise the entire MSWM system. The PFD is an invaluable tool to identify the issues facing MSWM systems in cities and in developing appropriate actions to resolve these issues. MSW data collection draws mainly upon the products of the UN-HABITAT project Strengthening Capacities for Solid Waste Management in Managua, undertaken between August 2008 and December 2012. Information from other donor-funded projects undertaken in the city in the same period, derived from project reports and discussions with project teams and their municipal counterparts, has also been included where appropriate. The base year for the PFD is 2009. This analysis provided a key input to the development of the Strategic Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Plan for Managua 2010–2025 (UN-HABITAT, 2010) in the framework of the aforementioned project.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
824
Waste Management & Research 32(9)
Table 2. Total annual MSW generated in tonnes using Strategic Plan Projections (2009). Source
Generation total (t)
%
Markets2 Households (domestic waste)3 Households (special waste)4 Industry, commerce and institutions5 Street sweeping and ditch cleansing, etc.6 Total
19,554 215,878 107,939 78,574 63,557 485,501
4% 44% 22% 16% 13% 100%
Method of calculation and key assumptions made: 1. All key assumptions have been verified with staff from the municipality. 2. Weight of market waste collected by COMMEMA in 2009, registered at the landfill weighbridge. It is assumed that 100% of waste generated at the markets is collected. 3. Population (2009) of 1,002,452 × ppc of 0.59 kg per capita per day × 365 days. 4. Population (2009) of 1,002,452 × ppc of 0.295 kg per capita per day × 365 days. The ppc for special waste (bulky materials, construction and demolition waste and green waste) is estimated to be 0.5 of the ppc of domestic waste. 5. Weight of waste from industry, commerce and institutions collected by different actors in 2009, registered at the landfill weighbridge. It is assumed that 90% of waste generated at these sources is collected. 6. Weight of waste from street sweeping and ditch cleansing collected by the municipality in 2009, registered at the landfill weighbridge. It is assumed that 80% of waste generated at these sources is collected. Source: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), 2010.
Special Waste 0.3 %
Tetra pack 0.2 %
Others
0.8 %
PS
Others 11.5%
0.6 %
Paper and cardboard 8.3 % PP
0.4 %
PEBD Non-organic recyclable materials 18.2 % Organic Ma er 69.7%
1.4 %
PVC Plas c 7.6 %
0.2 %
Other PEAD
0.8 %
Hard Plas c PEAD Glass 1.3 % Metal 1.0 %
2.1 %
PET Bo les
1.4 %
0
1
2
3
Figure 2. Composition of MSW arriving at La Chureca site (2009) in percentage by weight (UN-HABITAT, 2009). Source: UN-HABITAT, 2009b.
Results Waste quantities and composition The following definitions of waste have been used: domestic or household solid waste is that which is generated in a person’s place of residence; MSW includes waste with similar characteristics to domestic solid waste, generated in markets, commercial enterprises, industry and institutions. MSW also includes waste from public cleansing activities and special waste defined as bulky materials (electrical appliances, furniture, tyres), construction and demolition waste and green waste. Hazardous (healthcare and non-healthcare) waste is considered to be a separate waste category and not included in data discussed in this article.
According to the most recent city-wide waste characterisation study (UN-HABITAT, 2009a) the per capita generation of domestic solid waste in 2009 was 0.59 kg per capita, resulting in an estimated household waste generation of 215,878 tonnes year, accounting for 44% of the total MSW, as shown in Table 2. The composition of waste arriving at the final disposal site is predominantly organic (70%). Potential recyclable materials (paper, cardboard, glass, plastics and metals) account for 18%, while the remaining 12% is a mix of mainly inert materials, as shown in Figure 2. Comparing the composition of waste from residential routes arriving at the final disposal site with average household waste composition, as shown in Table 3, provides evidence of informal waste recovery before and during the waste collection process. Paper, plastic, metals and glass are removed from the waste
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
825
Olley et al.
(Continued)
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
826
Waste Management & Research 32(9)
Figure 3. Process flow diagram for Managua.
stream. Slight increases in easily biodegradable organic matter and cardboard are attributed to waste from commercial generators that are part of residential routes.
of this largely traditional system is on providing a reliable waste collection service that covers the whole urban area. Recent investments in SWM infrastructure have begun to shift this focus and these changes are analysed in the following sections.
Physical components of the MSW management system
Public health – waste collection
The main components of the MSWM system in Managua are the waste collection service and the materials recovery and disposal facilities operated by the central municipal authorities at the Acahualinca site in District II, called La Chureca. The main focus
Waste collection is undertaken by the Central Public Cleansing Department (CPCD). In 2009, the service comprised of 132 routes with door-to-door collection, three times a week, on each route. The municipal waste collection service collected 84% of
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
827
Olley et al.
Table 3. Comparison of materials entering the disposal site from the districts, with the results of the characterisation study for domestic waste at point of generation. Component
Organic matter, easily degradable Paper Cardboard Plastic Metal Glass Others Total
Part I dry season (%)
Part II rainy season (%)
Average (%)
Final disposal site (% originating from the districts)
Difference (± %)
71.72
74.17
72.94
74.35
+1.41
6.40 2.17 8.37 1.28 1.42 8.64 100.00
3.58 2.58 10.21 1.61 2.26 5.59 100.00
4.99 2.37 9.29 1.45 1.84 7.12 100.00
1.41 3.69 7.12 1.03 1.19 11.21 100.00
–3.58 +1.32 –2.17 –0.42 –0.65 +4.09
Source: UN-HABITAT, 2009b.
the domestic solid waste generated in 2009 (UN-HABITAT, 2010). Household waste collection is provided using compactor trucks and, to a lesser extent, tipper trucks, tractor-trailers and container vehicles. A waste container service is provided to some commercial and industrial generators, and to residential areas inaccessible to compactor trucks. In areas not yet covered by the municipal waste collection service, the population often pay someone to dispose of their waste. This waste usually ends up in illegal dumpsites and drainage ditches. Each of the seven districts has a District Public Cleansing Department (DPCD), which is charged with street sweeping, and ditch and illegal dumpsite cleaning, accounting for 29% of MSW collected in 2009. A small number of private companies collect waste from large commercial and institutional waste generators, representing 11% of MSW collected in 2009. Although waste collection has traditionally been exclusively municipal, efforts to expand waste collection to areas inaccessible to the municipal service, through community-based microenterprises and cooperatives, date back to the late 1990s. Between 2006 and 2007, the municipal government supported the formation of waste collection micro-enterprises in District VI. Of six micro-enterprises established, only one, Limpiando Fuerte (Cleaning Hard) maintained its operations for more than a couple of years. The failure of these microenterprises has been attributed to the fact that they were unable to effectively recover the cost of their operations from service users. Limpiando Fuerte survived by supplementing income obtained from collection fees with sales of recovered recyclable materials (Africa 70 et al., 2008). Limpiando Fuerte has subsequently benefited from technical assistance and credit offered by the Basmanagua project to form and equip three new micro-enterprises (Limpiando Más, Limpiando Bien y Limpiando Mejor (Cleaning More, Cleaning Well, Cleaning Better )) offering a collection service to residents of District VII (Minelli and Praslin, 2012). These microenterprises operate in conjunction with a small municipal
transfer station that also provides them with facilities to clean and store recovered recyclable materials. In contrast to previous efforts to introduce community-based collection services, recent projects have recognised and addressed the need for waste transfer stations to provide an effective interface between community-based service providers and the wider municipal SWM system. In District V, the Manos Unidas (Joined Hands) cooperative has provided a collection service to residents of the surrounding informal settlements since 2010. Collected waste is delivered to a temporary transfer station where it is removed by the DPCD. Steps to develop a more permanent waste transfer station were initiated in 2012 (Zapata Campos and Zapata, 2013). The UN-HABITAT project also supported the construction of a small transfer station in District VI in 2012. Community-based collection services were introduced in District VI on a trial basis in May 2013 (Zapata Campos and Zapata, 2014). Table 4 presents a summary of the micro-enterprises and/or cooperatives formed to undertake community waste collection services over the last five years. Project support for these new service providers has focused on equipping them and building their technical–operational and financial–administrative capacity, as well as creating awareness within the municipality of its contractual–financial–administrative and supervisory responsibilities, all of which are important for ensuring the sustainability of the contribution of these service providers to the MSWM system.
Environmental – waste disposal The La Chureca waste disposal site has been in use since 1973. The site is situated on the banks of Lake Xolotlán and has long been considered to be a major source of contamination. In 1995, a JICA-funded study was undertaken to plan the technical closure of the site and the selection, design and construction of an alternative sanitary landfill for the city (JICA, 1995). This was followed by additional studies in 2000 (JICA, 2000) and 2004
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
828
Waste Management & Research 32(9)
Table 4. Community-based waste collection services in Managua. Name
District
Operating since
Cooperative “Manos Unidas”
V
2010
Micro-Enterprise “Limpiando Más”, “Limpiando Bien” y “Limpiando Mejor” Cooperative “Centroamérica Limpia”
VII
Cooperative “La Chureca Guardabarranco” Cooperatives “Martha Lorena López”, “Desechos Sólidos 31 de Diciembre”, “Laureles Sur”, “La Anunciación”& “La Bendición de Josué” Cooperative
No of workers
Households served
Associated projects and organisations
6
2695
2011
19
2600
V
2011
21
Collects waste from commerce/ institutions
II
2012
N/D
N/D
Public Private Partnership Project (UNDP). Implemented by Habitar Basmanagua Project (Italian government). Implemented by Africa 70, Movimundo, CAPRI & ACCRA Comunidad Ecológica de la Colonia Centroamérica (CECCA) supported by American Chamber of Commerce (Amcham) Supported by Red-Nica
VI & VII
2013
105
N/D
Emprendedurismo Social y Ecogestión de Residuos Urbanos (RESSOC) (EU)
VI
2013
17
N/D
Strengthening Capacities for SWM in Managua (UN-HABITAT)
Source: MGM, 2012; Minelli and Praslin, 2012; Red-Nica, 2012; Zapata Campos and Zapata, 2014.
(PROINTEC, 2004). However, none of these studies led to measurable improvements in waste disposal. In 2008, the Spanish government approved the Integrated Development of the Acahualinca Neighbourhood Programme, a four-year initiative to improve conditions at the site and provide new social and economic opportunities for those living in surrounding neighbourhoods. The main environmental aim was to undertake the technical closure of used areas of the site and rehabilitate the remaining working area to give the city access to a technically managed landfill. The project also included the construction of a materials recovery facility (MRF). Both the landfill and MRF were inaugurated in February 2013. Key challenges remaining for the municipal government include the adequate operation of the new landfill (Nuevo Diario, 2013) and the development of a new site during the lifetime of the interim landfill. In the base year of 2009, municipal records show that the disposal site received an average of 1053 tonnes day-1 of municipal non-hazardous waste from Managua, a further 5 tonnes day-1 from the neighbouring municipality of El Crucero and 5 tonnes day-1 registered as cover material.
Resource management – materials recovery and recycling Although there has been a small semi-formal and formal waste recovery and recycling sector in Nicaragua since the early 1960s, over the last 10 years there has been an increase in the number of people dedicated to informal waste recovery, reflecting the growing demand for recyclable materials and the absence of other employment opportunities for a significant proportion of the urban population.
Recyclable material recovery begins with street collectors, who sometimes collect from households, but mostly recover materials from pavements, illegal dumpsites, markets and commercial establishments. Street collectors recover an estimated 9 tonnes day-1 of recyclables, including metal, plastic and, to a lesser extent, paper, glass and cardboard. Collection methods vary from walking with sacks, to hand and horse carts, to small and large trucks. Street collectors sell collected materials to small collector businesses or ‘chatarreras’, who then sell to other intermediaries or directly to export or recycling companies. Most materials recovered in Managua are exported, with the exception of some plastics and non-ferrous metals that are recycled by national companies, and some glass bottles that are recovered for reuse. Small collector businesses also receive recyclables from municipal workers who separate waste during their collection routes, a practice called ‘La Prepa’, constituting an estimated 4 tonnes day-1. Until recently, informal waste recovery at the La Chureca disposal site provided an income to approximately 1000 individuals (Olley et al, 2009). An estimated 10.5 tonnes day-1 of dry recyclables were collected from the site in 2009. The rehabilitation of the site and its operation as a landfill means that these Churequeros (as they known locally) are no longer permitted to work at the tipping face. The new MRF facility built on the site is designed to employ 425 operating staff in 1.5 shifts (AECID, 2013), less than half of the people working at the site before its transformation.
Presentation and analysis of process diagram The PFD presented in Figure 3 is an updated version of the PFD presented in Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities (Wilson et al., 2012). Weighbridge information collected
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
829
Olley et al. Table 5. Summary of solid waste quantities (tonnes day-1) that pass through the different operating phases of the MSWM system in Managua. Source
(1) Markets (2) H ouseholds (domestic waste) (3) Households (special waste) (4) Industry, commerce and institutions (5) Street sweeping, ditch cleansing, etc. (6) Cleaning of open dumps aned river beds3 (7) Recovery of recyclables from la Chureca Total MSW received from other municipalities and cover material Total waste disposed of at the la Chureca final disposal site
Generation total (t)
Collection coverage %
Primary and secondary collection (t)
53.6 591.4 295.7 215.3
100% 84% 0% 90%
53.6 495.7 0.0 193.7
174.1
80%
139.3
41%
171.0
Lost to the environment (t) 0.0 11.81
Recovered (t) 0.0 21.72 2.8
79%
1053.3
53.6 495.7 193.7 139.3
229.3
0.84 10.5
1330.1
Final Disposal (t)
242.1
35.8
171.0 1053.3 9.5 1062.8
1. A total of 11.8 tonnes day-1 of domestic waste generated by households that is burned or buried is ‘lost to the environment’. 2. This includes an estimated 11.8 tonnes day-1 used as fodder for animals by households. 3. No separate generation figure is given for these activities. It is assumed that the waste generated from sources (1) to (5), which is not collected, ends up in the open dumps and river beds (this excludes waste mentioned under note (1)). Based on the collection coverage estimates for each of these sources, this amount would be (0 + 62.2 + 295.7 + 19.4 + 34.8) = 412.1 tonnes day-1. Of this amount, 171.0 tonnes day-1 is collected by District Delegations and the CMPCD. The remaining 229.1 tonnes day-1 is not collected and recorded as ‘Lost to the environment’. 4. Based on 1% of waste from sources (2) and (3), and not including special waste as this has little to no value for recovery. Source: MGM, 2009a.
by the CPCD forms the starting point for the construction of the PFD. Additional assumptions (validated by the CPCD) include the following. 1. Data for collected waste refers to those quantities that are deposited at the disposal site. 2. An estimated 2% of domestic waste generated by households is burned or buried, and a further 2% is used as animal fodder for domestic animals. 3. There is no special waste collection service. Special waste fraction generated at household level is disposed of in open dumps and/or river beds by residents or by the informal waste collectors they hire. The information in the PFD is based on estimates. 4. DPCD activities fall into two categories: (a) street sweeping and ditch cleansing; and (b) clearing of open dumps and river beds. It is assumed that (i) the weight of waste coming from the districts is evenly distributed between these activities and (ii) that the DPCDs are able to remove 80% of the waste every day; the remainder accumulates in open dumps and river beds, and is considered to be lost to the environment. 5. Service coverage for non-domestic waste generators is estimated at 90%. 6. An estimated 1% of domestic waste generated at household level and 1% of domestic waste generated by commercial,
industrial and institutional sources is sold or donated in the form of recyclables to the informal sector. 7. An estimated 1% of domestic waste disposed of in open dumps and/or river beds and 1% of all municipal waste disposed of at La Chureca are recyclables recovered by the informal sector. 8. An estimated 1% of domestic waste collected by the CPCD are recyclables recovered by municipal waste collectors. Table 5 provides a summary of the solid waste quantities in tonnes day-1 that pass through the different operating phases of the MSWM system in Managua. A total of 79% of all MSW waste generated daily is collected and transported to the disposal site. Of the remainder 18%, 241 tonnes day-1 are lost to the environment accumulating in one of the more than 200 registered open micro dumps, while 3%, 35.8 tonnes day-1 are recovered for recycling (UN-HABITAT, 2010). During the strategic planning process, the PFD proved instrumental in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the MSWM system, and in particular the consequences of the current distribution of roles and responsibilities between the CPCD and DPCD. A total of 310 tonnes day-1 of waste, or 30% of all waste registered by the weighbridge, came from districtlevel collection. The absence of a special waste collection service means that CPCD, DPCD and green waste generated primarily at household
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
830
Waste Management & Research 32(9)
level ends up in open dumps. This system weakness explained an apparent contradictory situation found regarding public cleanliness. Specifically, in spite of a relatively high domestic collection coverage, there are still numerous small dumpsites located throughout the municipality where domestic and special waste accumulate. Because the issue of special waste is structural and has not, as yet, received the required attention, these points of accumulated waste continue to exist in spite of the daily clearance activities undertaken by the Districts. Of an estimated 421 tonnes day-1 that is not collected (30% of total generation) and ends up in the open dumps, 40% is cleared on a daily basis, resulting in 241 tonnes day1 of waste left to accumulate in the environment. The development of the special waste collection service was, therefore, an important action included in the MSWM Strategic Plan.
SWM governance In addition to the physical components, the MSWM system in Managua has been analysed considering three strategies of good governance: (1) inclusivity; (2) financial sustainability; and (3) sound institutions and pro-active policies. Inclusivity. The analysis of inclusivity is based upon the level of stakeholder involvement in the planning, implementation and monitoring of SWM services. Until recently, waste management planning in Managua was an almost exclusively internal municipal process undertaken by the CPCD, with little to no contribution from any other municipal departments or external stakeholders. Between 2009 and 2010, the municipality, with the support of UN-HABITAT, undertook a strategic planning process with the aim of providing the necessary framework for the progressive improvement of MSWM over the next 10–15 years. The planning methodology was designed to ensure participation and ownership of the process by the municipal government. Representatives from involved municipal departments (Public and International Relations, Planning, Public Cleansing, Environmental Management, Financial Administration), as well as representatives from the MSWM technical assistance projects being undertaken in the city at the time, participated in the process to develop the strategy and action plan for service development. The culmination of the process was the presentation of the Strategic ISWM Plan for Managua to national stakeholders in the First Regional Exchange Meeting of Urban SWM Experiences held in November 2010. Despite the approval of the plan by the participating municipal departments, the plan has not been officially approved and adopted by the Municipal Council, and hence, subsequent implementation has been relatively piecemeal. In a recent analysis of the process, it was concluded that the planning process had served to strengthen local SWM capacity (Olley et al., 2011) and that the involvement of external actors had created the conditions to explore and consolidate new working alliances to support the evolution from a traditional
SWM service focusing on waste collection and disposal, to an integrated system including activities of waste recovery and treatment. Inclusivity is also a factor in the successful implementation of MSWM services. MSWM in Managua operates through two parallel systems. On the one hand the formal municipal structure centred upon domestic and to a lesser extent commercial and industrial waste collection and disposal, which co-exists harmoniously with private companies dedicated to waste collection from large commercial and industrial generators. On the other hand, the recyclable waste recovery system, in the hands of the formal and informal private sector, in which until recently the municipal government has not had a formal role, with the exception of regulating these activities and ensuring businesses have the required operating and environmental permits. Both the formal and informal recycling sectors are often in tension with the MSWM system and this has resulted in some serious conflicts over the last five years. In 2008, as prices for recyclable materials tumbled owing to the global financial crisis and wastepicker incomes fell by 50% from US$3–4 day-1 to US$1.5–2 day-1 (Hartmann, 2012), tensions between the churequeros and municipal workers exploded into serious conflict with a churequero strike and blockade of the La Chureca site. Wastepickers complained that the ‘Prepa’ practice was affecting the amount of valuable recyclables arriving at the site (Nuevo Diario, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d). A settlement was eventually reached in which municipal workers agreed to stop separating recyclable waste during their collection routes in exchange for improvements to their working terms and conditions. Subsequent to the blockade, municipal workers are reported to have obtained a 40% salary increase, whereas wastepicker incomes remained largely unchanged (Hartmann, 2012). Hence, tensions remain and seem likely to worsen with the introduction of the MRF at the La Chureca site, where less than half of the informal waste collectors that originally worked at the site were projected to find work at the plant (AECID, 2013). In contrast, several initiatives to promote non-traditional waste collection methods have been implemented over the last five years, with cooperatives and micro-enterprises established and strengthened to offer waste collection services in Districts V, VI and VII of the city. These micro-enterprises and cooperatives have been well received by local communities and providing that on-going issues of financial sustainability can be overcome, appear to offer a viable alternative for the expansion of SWM services in otherwise inaccessible neighbourhoods. These successes are important first steps in the recognition and integration of private sector waste collection and recovery activities into the MSWM system. Strengthening these initiatives has been included as an action of the strategic waste management plan. Financial sustainability. The waste collection and disposal system in Managua is highly subsidised both in terms of investment and operating costs. In 2009, of 89 vehicles used for solid waste collection in the city almost 70% were purchased with donor funds (MGM, 2009b). The recent rehabilitation of the final
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
831
Olley et al. disposal site and the construction of the MRF on that site were also financed through donor funds. The municipality of Managua implemented direct charging for waste collection for the first time in 1993 and there has been no revision of these charges since that time. A total of C$33 million (around EUR 1.3 million) was collected from waste collection charges in 2008 (MGM, 2009f). The domestic waste collection charge is differentiated according to types of residential zones and metres of frontage, i.e. the length of the front of the house on the street side. Municipal employees go door-to-door to collect this charge. Potential versus actual recovery rate for the domestic waste collection charge is around 25%, in part because collection charges have been determined for only 200 of the 670 recognised neighbourhoods that receive the municipal collection service and hence fee collection only takes place in these neighbourhoods. Households in remaining neighbourhoods, including middle and high income neighbourhoods, are not charged. Commercial waste collection charges are linked to gross monthly income registered with the municipal tax department, and hence, recovery of these charges is more efficient accounting for 70% of the total funds recovered in 2008. A structural weakness identified in the analysis of the financial management system in Managua is related to recognised SWM costs. The current reporting system only recognised the CPCD costs and failed to take into account costs incurred at district level or costs related to other SWM functions, such as vehicle O&M, planning, public relations and environmental education. A thorough analysis of the actual costs incurred based on the municipal budget revealed that CPCD costs only represented 30% of the total SWM costs in 2008. Service charges collected in 2008 only covered 50% of the cost of the CPCD and none of the costs incurred by the DPCDs or other related SWM costs. Improving cost understanding and registration, as well as cost recovery, for SWM in Managua has been prioritised in the actions proposed in the Strategic SWM Plan for Managua. Sound institutions and pro-active policies. SWM functions and tasks within the municipal government are divided between the Department of Infrastructure and Municipal Services, responsible for operational planning and execution of waste collection and disposal services through the CPCD; and the Department of Environment and Urban Planning, responsible for overseeing the development of new SWM infrastructure and for undertaking Environmental Education Programmes. The CPCD has limited budgetary control and accountability over its daily operational expenses, in specific those related to fuel, lubricants, maintenance and repair of its collection fleet, which are the responsibility of the Department of Finances and Administration. This reduced autonomy limits the CPCD in its daily operational collection tasks and affects its planning and monitoring tasks. As discussed previously, District Delegations also have SWM functions and are directly accountable to the Mayor through the
District’s representatives. Coordination between central and district level government, which is critical for the implementation of an efficient MSWM service, remains limited. The on-going clearance of recurring small dumps by the Districts is evidence of this lack of coordination and joint planning to meet the demand of the entire municipality. This fragmentation of SWM roles and responsibilities is the main issue that the Strategic SWM Plan for Managua has sought to address through the development of a centralised MSWM department responsible for the planning, operation and monitoring of service implementation. The plan recognises the need to develop the municipal regulatory framework for MSWM and includes actions to achieve this.
Discussion The current article updates information prepared for the publication Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities (Scheinberg et al., 2010) and analysed in Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities (Wilson et al., 2013). Table 6 reveals differences between the updated and initial profile that are the result of additional analysis undertaken by the project team and its municipal and international cooperation partners after the first city profile had been prepared. Waste collection coverage is slightly lower than originally calculated and is significantly lower than the average figure for the 20 reference cities discussed in Wilson et al. (2012). As discussed previously in the article, although 79% of MSWM waste generated every day is collected and receives a controlled disposal, an estimated 18% accumulates in open dumps and river beds and is lost to the environment. To tackle this issue and bring coverage into line with other similar sized cities in Latin America, the strategic plan for Managua includes two actions to increase waste collection coverage: (1) expansion of decentralised waste collection services; and (2) introduction of a special waste collection service. At 3% of the total waste generated, overall recycling rates are also much lower than originally calculated. This can mainly be attributed to an overestimate of the amount recovered by waste collectors at the final disposal site in the initial model. Nevertheless, the authors consider that additional work on the recycling chain value in Managua is necessary to arrive at a more robust estimate of recycling levels in the city. The recycling figure is significantly lower than the average for the 20 reference cities cited in Table 6. However, it is in line with the results from Belo Horizonte, Brazil and Canete, Peru, the other cities from Latin America included in that report, the difference being that in these cities measures have been taken to integrate recyclers into the formal MSWM system, increasing their access to recyclables, thereby increasing the amount of waste they are able to collect. The model suggests that 70% of recyclables recovered are recovered at source (this includes 34% biodegradable waste used as animal fodder) or during waste collection, and a further 30% at the final disposal site. The amount collected at source is expected
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE CO on February 4, 2015
832
Waste Management & Research 32(9)
Table 6. Comparison of indicators in Managua with those of 20 reference cities (Wilson et al., 2012). City, country
Public health
Environmental protection
Resource value
Waste collection and sweeping coverage (%)
Controlled disposal/ incineration of total disposed/ incinerated (%)
Materials recovered by formal sector (%)
Managua, Nicaragua (Wilson et al., 2012) Managua, Nicaragua
82
100
0
79
0
Belo Horizonte, Brazil Canete, Peru Average Median
95 73 82 93
100% of collected waste 79% of generated waste 100 81 90 100
City, country
Inclusivity
Degree of user inclusivity
Managua, Nicaragua (Wilson et al., 2012) Managua, Nicaragua Belo Horizonte, Brazil Canete, Peru Average Median
State-of-theart landfilling/ incineration of total disposed/ incinerated (%)
100 0 62 100
3
