Critical Review of: Comparison of municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: A case study of the

cities of London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana by M. Asase et al.

People who live in the developed world take many things for granted; drinking water is safe and abundant, electricity is always available and municipal solid waste (MSW) is picked up and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. This is not the case for most of the developing world many of the luxuries we enjoy are not available. In their paper Comparison of municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: A case study of the cities of London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana M. Asase et al. describe and contrast the different drivers of waste generation and the different approaches to that the city of London, Ontario and Kumasi, Ghana take in regards to their MSW management. Since London has adopted and implemented an integrated waste management (IWM) system that is seen by many to be effective and sustainable, the authors suggest things that Kumasi can learn from London suggest ways to implement them. Although the cities are very different, there are a few similarities between the two. Both cities have existing engineered sanitary landfills with sufficient capacity to both the short and medium-term needs of their residents. While costs and scarcity of land for future landfill development are a concern, they are both years away from needing a new landfill, so there is no urgent need to divert or minimize waste in either city. Another similarity between the two is both cities is both involve the private sector in some aspect of their waste management system, which in many cases can reduce the costs to taxpayers and can help to increase efficiency and innovation (Asase, 2009). There are many differences in between the two cities as well. London is a modern, developed city with a relatively small population that occupies a large area resulting in a very low population density. Kumasi is part of the developing world and despite having almost six times the population; physically it is a smaller city with a much higher population density. London, being a developed city, has a much higher standard of living with different industries that produce waste while Kumasi has a much lower standard of living and is not nearly as industrialized. Per capita waste production in London is 1.2 kg per capita per day, while Kumasi is 0.6 kg per capita per day and the composition of waste from Kumasi is primarily organic/compostable and inert, while London is lower composition of organic material with a higher percentage of recyclable materials (Asase, 2009). While there are some similarities between the two, their approaches to MSW couldnt be more different. The focus of solid waste systems in most

developed countries is minimizing the environmental impact of MSW by waste reduction, diversion and maximization of energy recovery from MSW, whereas waste disposal is uncontrolled and waste treatment, processing, energy and material recovery are rare in developing countries (Asase, 2009). The city of London developed long-term IWM plans in consultation with the public and other stakeholders and continues to optimize their IWM plans based on their performance data and results from similar municipalities. Kumasi, on the other hand, has no specific waste management strategy (other than to keep costs down) and does not collect data to monitor their results or might allow them to make better decisions. Another key difference between the two cities is how the waste management system is funded. In London, over 72% of the gross costs of waste collection were funded by property taxes from homeowners, while in Kumasi only 15% of the service costs were paid for by the households whos waste was collected, despite the fact that their waste comprised the majority of the waste stream going to the landfill (Asase, 2009). There is little incentive for households to reduce the amount of waste they generate, nor to demand better solutions from their elected officials, as they bear very little of the cost burden of their waste management system. The city of London is the primary operator of the landfill and waste collection systems, while the city of Kumasi has contracted out the collection of waste and the operation of the landfill to private companies. In Canada and most of the developed world, various levels of governments have developed a strong regulatory framework that mandates minimum standards for waste management, outlines the required monitoring and has penalties that are enacted upon violators. Ghana and Kumasi lack this regulatory structure; the few environmental laws and regulations that do exist are typically not monitored nor enforced. Is Londons approach sustainable? Yes, by most measures. City of London has based the design of their system on a continuous improvement strategy or management philosophy where the strategy provides for the implementation of the strategy involves the annual establishment of community need and priorities, monitoring of the existing and other waste management systems, implementation and assessment of approved initiatives, and utilization of various methods of communicating results (Asase, 2009). Performance of their system is not just measured in dollars spent or amounts of waste collected; environmental impacts, diversion rates, customer satisfaction, lifecycle costs and other non-traditional metrics are considered when performance is measured. Even when considering costs alone, Londons IWM system is considered to be one of the cities with the lowest waste management costs in the province on Ontario, which in an age of increasing fiscal pressure on governments, help to show that Londons model is fiscally sustainable as well (Asase, 2009).

Londons IWM plan is not something that could be directly applied to Kumasi, or to any other city as each municipality faces a unique set of challenges. However, there are many lessons that Kumasi and other cities (even in the developed world) can learn from London and adapt to their unique circumstances. A long-term plan that has been developed in consultation will all stakeholders is key. By getting this feedback and buy-in from the community, it is far more likely to succeed and to survive successive governments if it something that has the support of the community. Secondly, having a rigorous and properly enforced set of laws and environmental regulations with sufficient flexibility so that they can be adapted the community will set necessary minimum standards so that different municipalities and waste operations are playing by the same set of rules. Kumasi also needs to collect key data, so that they can understand what works and what doesnt so that they system can be improved over time. Finally, since the majority of Kumasis waste is organic and compostable, a program of community composting might provide the most diversion and could greatly reduce the amount of waste entering the landfill and lessen the impact of their waste on the environment. By adopting a long-term plan and learning from the successes and failures of other municipalities, Kumasi may be able to avoid many of the costly and environmentally damaging mistakes that other cities make as they develop and hopefully join the ranks of the rest of the developed world.

Sources:
Mizpah Asase, Ernest K. Yanful, Moses Mensah, Jay Stanford, Samuel Amponsah, Comparison of municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: A case study of the cities of London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana, Waste Management, Volume 29, Issue 10, October 2009, Pages 27792786, ISSN 0956-053X, 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.06.019. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X09002347)