Andante Hadi Pandyaswargo

Sustainable Approach of Municipal Solid Waste Management for Developing

Countries: Reflecting on Japan – EU Knowledge and Technology
Andante Hadi Pandyaswargo
Graduate School of Environment and Energy Engineering
Waseda University

Abstract

This study aims at conducting integrated Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) on the
available European Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) technologies. This
assessment is an attempt to find the potential of technology adaptation in the
developing countries as well as providing a general discussion on social and economic
aspects. Modified LCA methodology used in this study is called Environmental Load
Point (ELP) formulated at Waseda University, Nagata Laboratory. The superiorities
of this methodology are; (1) it allows localized result even with incomplete data
consumption / emission inventory database that is the common cases in developing
countries, (2) The output of solid waste weight is taken into account thus it gives
higher relevancy for waste-related analyses (3) Results represent geographical and
social aspects.

1. Introduction

Traditionally, the relationship between environmental degradation and economic

growth follow the pattern of Kuznets curve. This is where a country reaches a certain
level of pollution, energy and natural resource depletion in order to boost economic
growth before finally turning to sustainable solutions. This study attempts to break
this pattern by proposing a better solution to municipal solid waste management
(MSWM). Waste is one of the biggest sources of green house gases, water pollution,
and recyclable and renewable resources.

Fast growing mega cities in developing Asian countries are faced with the problem of
MSWM due to land scarcity, rapid urbanization and population growth. MSW is not
only increasing in volume but also changing in composition. Plastic waste from
packaging and hazardous waste from industrial activities are expected to increase. EU
countries such as Germany and Italy have advanced MSWM solutions that do not
only solve the problem of waste disposal but also ways to recover energy from waste.
This study examines sustainable MSWM technology options from EU countries and
estimates their environmental impact when adapted in developing Asian countries, by
using an integrated sustainability measurement tool developed in Japan.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool that is commonly used to measure the
environmental impact of a certain process within specified boundaries. The down side
of commercialized LCA is that it requires inventory data that often does not exist in
developing countries therefore a fair comparison of processes could not be conducted.
This study patches this flaw by surveying people in the concerned developing Asian
country to capture the local environmental issue priorities and use it for weighting in
the calculation. This survey-based LCA weighting approach is called Environmental
Load Point (ELP), developed in the Nagata Laboratory of Waseda University, Japan.
In this study, ELP is applied to different scenarios of MSWM adopted from European
countries without forgetting the local waste characteristics, community habits and
customs in the developing countries.

This paper is divided into four main sections. The first section describes the related
regulations and the waste management technology that are commonly used in EU.
The second section provides examples of developing Asia – EU collaboration on
waste management technology transfer and the current situation of municipal waste
management in Asian developing country. The third section explains the methodology
of ELP and its application to estimate the environmental load of European MSWM
technology options adaptation in Indonesia, representing the developing countries.

2. Analysis of EU municipal waste management related regulations and practices

2.1 EU municipal waste management related regulations

EU approach on handling solid waste is influenced by the growing importance of
GHG emission abatement reflected in regulations that places priority on renewable

  2  
energy1. Among which, these regulations are The 2009 Renewable Energy Directive
(Directive/2009/28/EC), Waste Directive 2008/98/EC (EU, 2008), and the existence
of feed-in-tariff scheme practiced among the EU member countries.

The 2009 Renewable Energy Directive (Directive/2009/28/EC) set a target of

allocating 35 percent of EU energy consumption to be based on renewable energy by
2020. Seven percent of this is allocated to be coming from biomass. Biomass is
organic matter that has stored energy through the process of photosynthesis. It exists
in one form as plants and may be transferred through the food chain to animals' bodies
and their wastes. Basically, everything that human being is consumed is biomass.
Because human consumption efficiency is not 100%, we produce waste everyday.
These waste maybe recovered either materially by recycling thus avoiding the energy
for raw material acquirement or to be recovered energetically through processes such
as combustion and anaerobic digestion. Fifteen EU member countries, including
Bulgaria, Spain, Hungary, and Germany, have expressed their support in this
renewable energy target by stating to exceed the EU targets.

2005  –  total  3,270.3  TWh   2020  –  Total  3,537.3  TWh  

Figure 2.1 European Union energy mix target. Source: EU Energy Directive 2009

The latest European Union (EU) regulation on waste is Waste Directive 2008/98/EC
(EU, 2008) which gave new definitions for waste, by-products and end-of-waste in
addition to the hierarchical system based on four subsequent levels (EU, 2006). In
summary, each of waste categories (packaging, end-of-life vehicles, electrical and

                                                                                                               
1
European Commission. (2009). The Renewable Energy Directive (Directive/2009/28/EC). Brussels:
European Comission.

  3  
electronic equipment, batteries, graphic paper, commercial waste, waste wood, and
waste oil) has to be treated in line with the waste management hierarchy: (1)
Avoidance, (2) Reuse, (3) Recovery of material, (4) Recovery of energy, (5)
Environmentally sound disposal2. The MSW disposal to landfill without treatment has
been banned for over a decade. The regulation banning on landfill is the Landfilling
of waste directive (1999/31/EC).

The other factor that has driven the development of environmentally sound
technologies on MSWM in EU is the existence of feed-in-tariff mechanism. Some
countries are applying the quota obligation system, the others are feed-in-tariff that is
paid per kWh produced, and some are applying feed-in-premium where subsidy is
given for the investment cost of the plant3. There are also countries that practice their
own unique system or the combination of the mentioned schemes.

Figure 2.2 Feed-in-Tariff schemes in EU. Source: German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), 2010

2.2 EU municipal waste management technologies

There are several kinds of waste treatment processes in EU, among which are
composting, anaerobic digestion (biogas), mechanical-biological treatment, refuse
derived fuel (RDF), and incineration. The following graph shows the share of MSW
treatment in the EU countries.

                                                                                                               
2
European Commission. (2008). Waste Directive 2008/98/EC (EU, 2008). Brussels: EC.
3
German Federal Ministry for the Environment, N. C. (2010). Feed-in-Tariff Mechanisms. Berlin:
BMU.  

  4  
 100  
90   MSW  Landfill  
80  
70   Landfill  
60  
50   IncineraQon  
40  
30   Recycle  /  Bio  Treatment  
20  
10  
0  

Greece  
Austria  

Belgium-­‐Walloon  

Finland  
France  

Ireland  
Italy  
Luxemburg  
Netherlands  
Portugal  
Spain  
Sweden  
Belgium-­‐Flemish  

Germany  
Denmark  

UK  
Figure 2.3 Waste treatment/disposal methods in EU countries. Source: European Commission, 2007 Follow-
up study on the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste in EU-25

Composting
Composting plants that currently are still in operation in Europe were developed as
early as in the 1960's. The so called “bio waste” which contains of garden and kitchen
organics from households are collected separately from “rest waste” which is mainly
the rest of the waste excluding recyclables4. The bio waste is composted centrally,
mainly by aerobic systems, with the compost having a short retention time in a reactor
or pre-composter and a longer time in aerated static piles. Windrow composting is less
common but does exist. The earliest attempt of composting in European countries was
to compost mixed waste, which only result in both contaminated organic materials
and contaminated recyclables that are downgrading the values of both resources.
Mixed waste composting now only exists in several countries such as Spain and
Greece. The second attempt was to implement wet-dry composting which led into
confusion of dry organic and wet inorganic waste. The attempt did not result in any
better quality of compost. The third attempt was by separate collection of organics
where only yard, garden and kitchen waste are collected for transfer in centralized
composting facilities. This model is adopted in countries such as Denmark, Germany
and the Netherlands and growing in other European countries.
                                                                                                               
4
UNEP. (2005). Newsletter and Technical Publication. Retrieved 12 1, 2011, from Solid Waste
Management Source Book: http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/estdir/pub/msw/ro/Europe/Topic_c.asp

  5  
Anaerobic Digestion
Large scale Anaerobic Digestion in Europe increased in the last few years mainly
driven by the guaranteed subsidy for renewable energy and attractive feed-in-tariff.
The inputs are both household and commercial waste such as food waste and organic
waste from production processes which are separated at the source. The commonly
used technology is the wet AD, one-stage mesophilic system.

Mechanical-Biological Treatment
Refuse-Derived-Fuel (RDF) production plants in Europe is usually part of
Mechanical-Biological-Treatment (MBT) plant where metals and inert materials are
taken out from the organic fractions for composting and the rest of the fractions with
high calorific value are made into RDF. RDF production form MSW in most
commonly practiced in EU countries where separation and recycling is active such as
Austria, Germany and Netherlands. The RDF products are mainly incinerated in
fluidized bed incinerators, district-heating plants, or in paper mill boilers. Only 70%
of the RDF products have secured market to be combusted, while the rest have to be
stored.

Incineration Plant
In EU, incineration plants are regulated with strict emission limit and many are
equipped with heat recovery facility that allows self-sufficient energy generation and
often surplus of energy to be supplied back to the electricity grid. The boiler of
incineration plant has better combustion when combustible waste is made into RDF
and used as feedstock. This is due to the higher calorific value and lower humidity of
the waste as fuel.

3. EU – Developing Asian countries relationships and trends in municipal waste

management

3.1 Projects related to waste management involving EU and developing countries in

Asia
There are numbers of waste management projects in Asian countries that are
supported by EU member countries. Many of them are registered as Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) project in the United Nations Framework

  6  
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). CDM projects take place in host
countries that do not belong to the Annex-I countries category, namely the developing
countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, Nepal, Bangladesh, India and
China. The Annex-I country that will accordingly receive the carbon credit benefits
supports each CDM project financially. Many of the EU member countries belong to
the Annex-I category such as The Netherlands, Germany, Austria, UK, Sweden,
France, Denmark and Spain.
In China, many CDM projects for waste management are using the landfill gas
capture and biogas technologies. In India, projects on methane recovery and
composting are more common, while in Indonesia CDM projects on waste
management are mainly using landfill gas capture and composting technologies. More
examples are listed in table 3.1.

Table 3.1 CDM Registered Projects, collaboration between Asian and EU – member countries. Source
UNFCCC, 2012.
Name of Project Date of CDM Registration Host Supporting
country EU-member
country
Meizhou Landfills Gas Recovery 03 Mar 2006 China Austria
and Utilization as Energy
Anding Landfill Gas Recovery and 21 May 2006 China Netherlands
Utilisation Project
LDEO Biomass Steam and Power 10 June 2006 Malaysia Germany
Plant in Malaysia
Angkor Bio Cogen Rice Husk 10 August 2006 Cambodia Sweden
Power Project
SIDPL Methane extraction and 03 September 2006 Malaysia Germany
Power generation project
Methane recovery and power 29 September 2006 India UK
generation in a distillery plant
Uni-Rich Agro-Industrial 28 October 2006 Philippines UK
Corporation Methane Recovery
and Electricity Generation
Korat Waste To Energy 16 June 2007 Thailand UK
Landfill Gas utilization at Seelong 20 May 2007 Malaysia UK
Sanitary Landfill, Malaysia
Pontianak - GHG emission 30 May 2008 Indonesia Netherlands
reduction through improved MSW
management – LFG Capture,
Flaring and Electricity Generation
Windu Nabatindo Lestari Co- 2 November 2011 Indonesia UK
Composting Project
Wastewater Treatment with Biogas 10 November 2011 Thailand Denmark
System (UASB) in a Starch Plant
for Energy & Environment
Conservation at Nakorn
Ratchasima

  7  
Another example of EU – Asia collaboration projects on waste management are those
based on the promotion of circular economy. UNEP (2006) defines Circular Economy
as “An economy which balances economic development with environmental and
resources protection. It puts emphasis on the most efficient use and recycling of
resources, and environmental protection. A Circular Economy features low
consumption of energy, low emission of pollutants and high efficiency”

The barriers of circular economy implementation in Asia were the lack of knowledge
and experiences of the local officials and citizen and insufficient environmental policy.
Several programs were initiated to solve these barriers. Prodev and Asia Pro Eco
program are two examples of the initiatives. Prodev is a project financed by the
European Commission, coordinated by the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP) and carried out in partnerships with the Wuppertal Institute with the
Municipal Government of Guiyang in China. Asia Pro Eco program was designed to
strengthen the environmental dialogue between Asia and Europe through the
exchange of policies, technologies and best practices that promote more resource-
efficient, market driven, and sustainable solutions to environmental problems in Asia.
The program aimed to support a series of preventive and corrective actions, which
materialize in technical solutions5.

3.2. Current Municipal Solid Waste Management Situation in Developing Countries

The common MSWM problem of developing countries, especially in Asia is that
waste segregation is either not yet started or not optimized enough to allow proper
waste treatment. Additionally, moisture level of the mixed waste is high. This is true
especially in countries like India, Indonesia, Srilanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia and
Thailand. However, the potential of these high moisture waste to be made into
compost is ruined by the contamination of hazardous waste which is included in the
mixed waste, making it a lower quality, if not, toxic containing compost that farmers
are reluctant to buy and apply it to their crops6.

                                                                                                               
4
UNEP. (2006). Circular Economy: An alternative model for economic development. United Nations
Environmental Programme, (pp.6 – 7) Paris: UNEP.
6  Hargreaves, JC, Adl, MS, Warman, PR. (2008). A review of the use of composted municipal solid
waste in agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 123, 1–14  

  8  
Table 3.2 Waste treatments in developing Asian countries. Sources: Inanc, B., et al. 2004, Indonesian
domestic solid waste statistics 2008, Zhu, D., 2008, AIT/UNEP 2010, IGES 2012

China India Malaysia Philippines Indonesia Thailand

1.34 1.17 28.4 93.3 69.1
Population Billion Billion million million 240 million million
148,041,000 42,000,000 5,781,600 10,000,000 38,500,000 14,000,000
Waste generation TPY*1) TPY TPY TPY TPY TPY
Collection rate 71% 73% 70% 70% 60% 85%
Waste recycled 12% 10% 4% 28% 2% 2%
No. Of landfill 344 Unknown 161 392 80 101
Sanitary landfill 20 Unknown Unknown 19 10 20
Incineration 2% 5% 0 0 0 1%
*1) TPY: Ton Per Year

The common practice in developing Asian countries for municipal waste treatment is
landfilling. Very limited numbers of these landfills are sanitary landfill and a small
percentage of the recyclables are recycled. Incineration is gaining popularity in China,
it was once existed in Delhi, India but faced technical failure and three are operating
in Thailand. High content of moisture and organic waste are not suitable for
incineration because it requires high calorific value. High calorific value can be
gained when waste is high in petrol-based waste such as plastics and tires therefore
often auxiliary fuels is necessary to be added to the plant. Theoretically, waste with
high organic content is a suitable input for biological treatment such as composting
and anaerobic digestion, however the waste must be purely segregated and this is not
the case in developing Asian countries.
Figure 3.3 of municipal waste composition in Asian countries according to
AIT/UNEP report 2010 shows that the three largest compositions are food waste,
paper waste, and plastic waste. Food waste is as high as 73% in Myanmar, 63% in
Cambodia and Indonesia, and 49% in China. The second largest percentage is paper
waste, which shows a pattern where it is higher in advanced countries like Japan with
50% and Singapore with 22%. The third largest percentage is plastic waste where they
are higher in Lao, Philippines, and Singapore with over 20%. The trend of percentage
of plastic waste is increasing due to more plastic based packaging for commercial
products.

  9  
Table 3.3 Asian MSW compositions. Source: AIT/UNEP 2010

3.3 The estimation of environmental load of adapting European municipal waste

management technologies in developing country

3.3.1 Methodology
Environmental Load Point (ELP) is an ecological sustainability assessment tool
developed in Waseda University, Nagata laboratory to measure the burden that the
environment has to bear during a certain process. In this study, the processes are
several ways of waste treatment using the European technology including incineration,
recycling, and sanitary landfilling. Each of these treatment processes has inventory
database, which is the result of research in the actual process in a certain location.
This study uses ecoInvent database that usually are used in commercial Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) software such as simaPro, Umberto, and Gabi. With ELP
methodology, the database can be calculated manually by simple program like
Microsoft Excel so that it improve the transparency of the calculation as well as
allowing other parties to double check the results and the objectivity of the study. ELP
calculation is based on the following three steps of mathematical formula:

  10  
ELP Integrated Indicator
Aj Annual load in j impact category
Cj,k Weight coefficient for k item in j impact category

TQk Annual consumption or emission for k item

ELFk Integrated coefficient for k item

Wj Weight coefficient (category importance) from

questionnaire in j impact category

Qi,k Total consumption or emission for k item in i process (European Technology

inventory data)

The first step of the calculation is to come up with annual load (A) that is the result of
multiplication of coefficient of each item in impact category (C) that is fixed by the
literature of Nagata Laboratory with the national annual consumption and emission
(TQ). TQ is collected from the secondary data from the government and institutions
that provides the national annual consumption and mission of the related country. In
this paper, Indonesia is taken as a case study.

The second step of the calculation is to produce environmental load factor (ELF) that
is the result of multiplication between coefficient (C) and category importance or
weighting (W), divided by annual load (A). Category importance is the primary data
resulted from survey and questionnaire of the related stakeholder or community; in
this case study is the citizen of Indonesia. The methodology of survey that has been
done over a decade in Nagata lab is by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
questionnaire. Weighting in LCA is a debatable topic especially when TQ of the
country is available. However, in the case where TQ is incomplete, it becomes
necessary to have a weighting system to allow comparisons even in the absence of
some national emission/consumption of several pollutants/resources.

The weighting is done to ELP’s nine impact categories which each of them is
consisting of some items of pollutants and natural resources. The nine categories are

  11  
energy drain, global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, resource consumption, air
pollution, ocean and water pollution, problem of waste disposal, and ecosystem effect.
In total, there are 186 items of pollutant and resources in ELP. Table 3.4 shows the
simplified version of these items. Only the significant ones are calculated in the case
study both because of the limited information from Indonesian database and for the
ease of interpretation of the result.

Table 3.4 ELP's 9 impact categories and the simplified items

Impact categories (j) Indicator items (k)

Energy drain Oil, natural gas, coal

Global warming CH4, CO2
Ozone depletion CFC, HFC
Acid rain NOx, SOx
Resource consumption Fe, Ni, Sn, Au, Ag
Air pollution PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SOx
Ocean and water pollution BOD, COD, SS
Problem of waste disposal Solid waste
Ecosystem effect Petrol, benzene, dioxin

The AHP questionnaire is usually distributed to a group of respondents who are the
most crucial stakeholder in the decision making for technology adaptation or system
and process improvements. AHP questionnaire expects respondents to compare the
nine impact categories by rating the importance with 9 levels of importance. This
approach has been proven effective for smaller group of people especially to
respondents who are actually involved in the processes that are to be measured.
However, in the case of municipal waste management, where the concerned
stakeholder is a larger group of people, the AHP questionnaire is no longer feasible to
do. In this study, text-mining methodology is introduced to discover the priority and
concern of Indonesians in general.

Text-mining in this study were applied to 23 Indonesian online newspapers published

in year 2010, using formula (a):

  12  
 mx

"j m
m =m1
Wj = mx # 100% (a)
"j x,m
m =m1

Wj Weight coefficient (category importance) from the

media in j impact category
! Jm The number of times j impact category is mentioned in
media m in a year
jx The sum of number of times of all impact categories
mentioned in media m in a year
m1 The first media being text-mined

x The last media being text-mined

The media are mainly online newspapers and TV news that had made their news
available in online text, mined by google search engine. These 23 media are from
different regions in Indonesia therefore it produces a representative result of the
Indonesian opinion towards environmental impact priorities. The media that are text-
mined in this study are Detik.com, Pikiran Rakyat, Kompas, Media Indonesia, Antara,
Metro TV News, Republika, Tempo Interaktif, Galamedia, Solopos, Bisnisbali,
Samarinda Pos, Liputan6, Suara Karya, Inilah.com, Okezone, Kabar Indonesia,
Tribunnews, Pos Metro Balikpapan, Berita Indonesia, Surabaya Post, Kaltim Post,
and Harian Equator. The following graph shows the result of text mining. The most
discussed topic in the media is energy drain followed by problems of waste disposal
and global warming. This results in more weight for the pollutant and resources items
in these three categories, which are oil, natural gas, coal, CO2, CH4, and solid waste.

Figure 3.1 Text mining result from Indonesian media

  13  
The third step of the calculation is finding the ELP by multiplying ELF with the
amount of pollutant and resources involved in the concerning processes (inventory
data); in the case of this study is the MSWM technology. The EU MSWM technology
inventory data is integrated in the calculation to give a picture on the amount of
natural resources and emissions when these technologies are implemented in Asian
developing countries.

3.3.2 Analyses
The existing data on annual load 2010 on emission and consumption for energy drain
impact category are available from US EIA which are oil, natural gas, and coal. For
global warming there are data of CO2 and CH4 emissions from Indonesian ministry
of environment. For ozone depletion there are no available data. For acid precipitation,
there are data of NOx and SOx from a study by Zhang Q. et al, 2006. For resource
consumption, there are data of iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), tin (Sn), bauxite (Al2O3), gold
(Au), and silver (Ag) based on the Indonesian statistics office and ministry of mining
and energy in 2008. Data for air pollutions are available from the SOx, NOx, CO,
PM2.5 and PM10 from Zhang Q. et al 2006. Data on waste disposal is available from
ministry of environment. Data on ecosystem influence is only available for the petrol
consumption from the ministry of energy and mineral resources of Indonesia. This
means, there are only 18 known items out of 186 items recognized in ELP 9 impact
categories to calculate the Indonesian annual load. To do a fair calculation, one may
exclude the unknown ones completely, or use the data from other countries. But using
data from other countries may not be fair since it may not reflect the real situation and
this is one reason why weighting is necessary to make the adjustment.
The boundary of the Environmental Load calculation would be the waste treatment
process in the disposal site. This assumes that the transportation related emissions are
equal for all the waste treatment options. The limitation of this study is the non-
availability of detailed inventory data in the concerned developing country. However,
this limitation becomes irrelevant due to the usage of environmental impact category
importance developed by taking a survey in the concerned country in the study. To
show a concrete example, Indonesian available inventory data for annual emissions is
used. The expected results of this study would be the amount of accumulated emission
produced by each technology thus they become comparable in terms of their
environmental load. With ELP, Asian developing countries could measure the

  14  
adaptability of technologies designed in Europe, thus the three regions could work
hand in hand to find the best solution of MSWM in developing countries and
contribute to the world’s sustainability. Table 3.5 shows the first and the second stage
of calculation, which is finding out the annual load and the ELF.

Table 3.5 ELF calculations

Weighting Consumption or
Annual load ELF
coefficient emission
Impact category Item
C TQ (Kg) A = C x TQ (C*W/A*10^16)

Energy drain*1) Oil 1.00E+00 6.46E+10 6.46E+10 1.49E+03

Natural
1.64E+02
gas 1.10E-01 1.30E+13 1.43E+12
Coal 7.70E-01 7.33E+10 5.64E+10 1.15E+03
Global warming*2) CO2 1.48E+01 2.22E+09 3.29E+10 2.50E+05
CH4 2.45E+01 2.75E+09 6.74E+10 4.14E+05
Ozone depletion Data not available
Acid precipitate* 3)
NOx 7.00E-01 1.58E+09 1.11E+09 4.86E+04
SO2 1.00E+00 1.45E+09 1.45E+09 6.94E+04
Resource Iron ore
1.92E+05
consumption*4) (Fe) 1.00E+00 1.65E+09 1.65E+09
Nickel
6.73E+05
(Ni) 3.50E+00 3.83E+05 1.34E+06
tin (Sn) 3.85E+00 1.93E+06 7.42E+06 7.41E+05
Bauxite 1.23E+05
(Al2O3) 6.41E-01 3.36E+07 2.15E+07
1.29E+06
Gold (Au) 6.71E+00 3.63E+06 2.43E+07
Silver 1.54E+06
(Ag) 8.01E+00 1.20E+07 9.60E+07
4.97E+05
Air pollution*3) SO2 1.40E+00 1.45E+09 2.03E+09
NOx 1.00E+00 1.58E+09 1.58E+09 3.55E+05
CO 9.16E-03 5.70E+08 5.22E+06 3.25E+03

PM2.5 1.09E+00 6.10E+07 6.65E+07 3.87E+05

PM10 1.09E+00 6.80E+07 7.41E+07 3.87E+05

Ocean & water Data not available
pollution
Solid
4.30E+04
Waste disposal*2) waste 1.00E+00 5.24E+10 5.24E+10
Ecosystem
5.44E+03
influence*5) Petrol 5.00E+10 4.94E+10 2.47E+21

1
US Energy Information Administration 2010
2
Ministry of Environment, Indonesia 2009, 2008
3
Zhang, Q. et al. 2009 (excluding biomass burning)
4
National Statistics Office, Indonesia 2006
5
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Indonesia 2010

  15  
The third step of the calculation is multiplying the ELP result with Inventory data.
Inventory data for plastic recycling, paper recycling, landfilling and incineration are
used in this study.

3.3.3 Paper waste treatment

The paper recycling facility inventory data used in this study is the provided by PRé
Consultants in the Netherlands, generated in 2004, and archived in the eco invent
database. The ELF is Indonesian ELF derived from the second step of ELP
calculation, and the input amount of waste is the percentage of paper waste in Jakarta
city landfill, which is 10.11% of 6000 tons of MSW/day. (Q) Shows the amount of
pollutant emitted for every kg of wastepaper recycled. Negative values imply the
avoided pollutant that would have to occur if the paper was made from new materials.
Gabor Doka in Switzerland, generated in 2005, provides the paper landfilling
inventory data. The same institution published the inventory data for Incinerating
paper waste in the same year. Both data are archived in ecoInvent database.

Table 3.6 ELP for waste paper recycling

Items ELF Waste paper Q (Kg/Kg waste ELP (recycle)

input (Kg) paper recycled)
Oil 1.49E+03 -3.00E-02 -3.06E+07
Natural gas 1.64E+02 1.40E-01 1.86E+08
Coal 1.15E+03 2.00E-01 1.81E+08
CO2 2.50E+05 -3.00E+00 -2.81E+09
CH4 4.14E+05 2.00E-03 1.53E+06
NOx 4.86E+04 -3.00E-03 -2.34E+06
SO2 6.94E+04 5.00E-04 4.90E+05
Iron (Fe) 1.92E+05 -8.00E-03 -7.38E+06
Nickel (Ni) 6.73E+05 2.00E-04 1.50E+05
6.07E+05
tin (Sn) 7.41E+05 5.00E-06 4.77E+03
Bauxite (Al2O3) 1.23E+05 2.00E-03 2.23E+06
Gold (Au) Not applicable
1.29E+06
Silver (Ag) 1.54E+06 7.00E-03 6.74E+06
CO 1.54E+06 -8.00E-04 -7.56E+05
PM10 3.87E+05 Not applicable
PM2.5 3.87E+05 Not applicable
Solid waste 4.30E+04 8.00E-04 7.30E+05
Petrol 5.44E+03 Not applicable

  16  
Table 3.7 ELP for waste paper landfilling

Items ELF Waste paper Q (Kg/Kg waste ELP (sanitary

input (Kg) paper landfilled) landfill)
Oil 1.49E+03 5.89E-03 5.32E+06
Natural gas 1.64E+02 6.64E-04 6.61E+04
Coal 1.15E+03 1.73E-03 1.21E+06
CO2 2.50E+05 2.96E-01 4.49E+10
CH4 4.14E+05 4.19E-02 1.05E+10
NOx 4.86E+04 1.33E-04 3.92E+06
SO2 6.94E+04 7.53E-05 3.17E+06
Iron (Fe) 1.92E+05 3.34E-04 3.89E+07
Nickel (Ni) 6.73E+05 2.45E-05 9.99E+06
6.07E+05
tin (Sn) 7.41E+05 6.77E-09 3.04E+03
Bauxite (Al2O3) 1.23E+05 1.07E-05 8.00E+05
Gold (Au) 1.29E+06 Not applicable
Silver (Ag) 1.54E+06 2.76E-06 2.58E+06
CO 1.54E+06 6.05E-05 5.66E+07
PM10 3.87E+05 2.81379E-06 6.61E+05
PM2.5 3.87E+05 1.39684E-05 3.28E+06
Solid waste 4.30E+04 9.38E-06 2.45E+05
Petrol 5.44E+03 Not applicable

Table 3.8 ELP for waste paper incineration

Items ELF Waste paper Q (Kg/Kg waste ELP

input (Kg) paper (incineration)
incinerated)
Oil 1.49E+03 2.09E-03 1.89E+06
Natural gas 1.64E+02 2.13E-03 2.12E+05
Coal 1.15E+03 2.39E-03 1.66E+06
CO2 2.50E+05 1.48E+00 2.24E+11
CH4 4.14E+05 3.71E-05 9.31E+06
NOx 4.86E+04 4.77E-04 1.41E+07
SO2 6.94E+04 3.23E-05 1.36E+06
Iron (Fe) 1.92E+05 1.50E-03 1.74E+08
Nickel (Ni) 6.73E+05 3.35E-05 1.37E+07
6.07E+05
Tin (Sn) 7.41E+05 2.12E-08 9.55E+03
Bauxite (Al2O3) 1.23E+05 8.21E-06 6.13E+05
Gold (Au) 1.29E+06 Not applicable
Silver (Ag) 1.54E+06 3.26E-07 3.05E+05
CO 1.54E+06 2.65E-04 2.47E+08
PM10 3.87E+05 5.33381E-06 1.25E+06
PM2.5 3.87E+05 1.01712E-05 2.39E+06
Solid waste 4.30E+04 1.30E-05 3.39E+05
Petrol 5.44E+03 Not applicable

  17  
Figure 3.2 Summary of ELP for waste paper treatment options

The best waste paper treatment option is recycling it since it has a negative ELP,
which means it saves a lot of resources and avoids emissions that would have
occurred in case of paper production from the new material. The analysis shows that
CO2 and PM10 are significantly avoided and these items belongs to global warming
and air pollution category.

3.3.4 Plastic waste treatment

The plastic recycling facility inventory data used in this study is provided by PRé
Consultants, the Netherlands, generated in 2004. The landfilling and incineration
facility inventory data are from Gabor Doka in Switzerland, published in 2005 and
archived in ecoInvent database.

Table 3.9 ELP for waste plastic recycling

Items ELF Waste plastic Q (Kg/Kg waste ELP (recycling

input (Kg) plastic recycled) waste plastic)
Oil 1.49E+03 -9.29E-01 -9.21E+08
Natural gas 1.64E+02 -4.97E-01 -5.42E+07
Coal 1.15E+03 8.87E-02 6.78E+07
CO2 2.50E+05 -1.58E+00 -2.62E+11
CH4 4.14E+05 -5.62E-03 -1.55E+09
NOx 4.86E+04 -9.10E-03 -2.94E+08
SO2 6.94E+04 6.65E+05 8.50E-04 3.92E+07
Iron (Fe) 1.92E+05 -7.06E-04 -9.02E+07
Nickel (Ni) 6.73E+05 1.09E-07 4.86E+04
Tin (Sn) 7.41E+05 -1.94E-07 -9.58E+04
Bauxite (Al2O3) 1.23E+05 -5.02E-04 -4.10E+07
Gold (Au) 1.29E+06 Not applicable
Silver (Ag) 1.54E+06 1.02E-08 1.05E+04

  18  
 CO 1.54E+06 -6.61E-04 -6.77E+08
PM10 3.87E+05 -6.28E-04 -1.62E+08
PM2.5 3.87E+05 -3.06E-04 -7.88E+07
Solid waste 4.30E+04 -5.38E-05 -1.54E+06
Petrol 5.44E+03 Not applicable

Table 3.10 ELP for waste plastic landfilling

Items ELF Waste plastic Q (Kg/Kg waste ELP (landfilling

input (Kg) plastic landfilled) waste plastic)

Oil 1.49E+03 5.79E-03 5.74E+06

Natural gas 1.64E+02 5.34E-04 5.83E+04
Coal 1.15E+03 6.71E-04 5.13E+05
CO2 2.50E+05 3.01E-02 4.99E+09
CH4 4.14E+05 2.69E-03 7.40E+08
NOx 4.86E+04 1.06E-04 3.42E+06
SO2 6.94E+04 2.18E-05 1.01E+06
Iron (Fe) 1.92E+05 3.99E-04 5.09E+07
Nickel (Ni) 6.73E+05 1.37E-05 6.12E+06
6.65E+05
Tin (Sn) 7.41E+05 2.81E-10 1.38E+02
Bauxite (Al2O3) 1.23E+05 8.77E-06 7.17E+05
Gold (Au) 1.29E+06 Not applicable
Silver (Ag) 1.54E+06 4.26E-07 4.36E+05
CO 1.54E+06 3.84E-05 3.93E+07
PM10 3.87E+05 1.32E-06 3.41E+05
PM2.5 3.87E+05 8.67E-06 2.23E+06
Solid waste 4.30E+04 5.43E-06 1.55E+05
Petrol 5.44E+03 Not applicable

Table 3.11 ELP for waste plastic incineration

Items ELF Waste plastic Q (Kg/Kg waste ELP

input (Kg) plastic (incinerating
incinerated) waste plastic)
Oil 1.49E+03 1.35E-03 1.34E+06
Natural gas 1.64E+02 1.30E-09 1.42E-01
Coal 1.15E+03 3.46E-06 2.64E+03
CO2 2.50E+05 1.32E-05 2.20E+06
CH4 4.14E+05 1.02E-03 2.80E+08
NOx 4.86E+04 1.44E-07 4.66E+03
6.65E+05
SO2 6.94E+04 1.34E-05 6.20E+05
Iron (Fe) 1.92E+05 1.06E-03 1.35E+08
Nickel (Ni) 6.73E+05 8.62E-05 3.86E+07
Tin (Sn) 7.41E+05 1.64E-06 8.07E+05
Bauxite (Al2O3) 1.23E+05 5.50E-06 4.50E+05
Gold (Au) 1.29E+06 Not applicable

  19  
 Silver (Ag) 1.54E+06 1.87E-07 1.91E+05
CO 1.54E+06 2.53E+00 2.59E+12
PM10 3.87E+05 4.65E-06 1.20E+06
PM2.5 3.87E+05 8.98E-06 2.31E+06
Solid waste 4.30E+04 9.60E-06 2.74E+05
Petrol 5.44E+03 Not applicable

Figure 3.3 Summary of ELP for waste plastic treatment options

 
The summary of ELP for waste plastic treatment options also shows that recycling is
the best option as it has negative ELP value due to avoidance of emissions and
resource consumption. Analysis from the result shows that the most significantly
avoided emissions are CO2 and CH4 which both belong to the global warming
category.

3.3.5 Unrecyclable mixed waste

Gabor Doka in Switzerland published both the sanitary landfilling and incineration
inventory database used in this study in 2005 and 2003.
Table 3.12 ELP for Landfilling MSW (paper and plastic waste excluded)

Items ELF Unrecyclable Q (Kg/Kg ELP (Sanitary

waste input (Kg) Unrecyclable landfilling
waste landfilled) Unrecyclable
waste)

Oil 1.49E+03 1.85E-12 3.50E-03

Natural gas 1.64E+02 8.11E-09 1.69E+00
Coal 1.15E+03 2.49E-08 3.65E+01
CO2 2.50E+05 1.27E+06 1.97E-05 6.26E+06
CH4 4.14E+05 7.25E-07 3.82E+05
NOx 4.86E+04 2.56E-11 1.58E+00
SO2 6.94E+04 7.81E-04 6.89E+07

  20  
 Iron (Fe) 1.92E+05 8.67E-02 2.12E+10
Nickel (Ni) 6.73E+05 3.88E-07 3.32E+05
Tin (Sn) 7.41E+05 1.08E-03 1.02E+09
Bauxite (Al2O3) 1.23E+05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Gold (Au) 1.29E+06 Not applicable
Silver (Ag) 1.54E+06 6.39E-06 1.25E+07
CO 1.54E+06 1.13E-04 2.21E+08
PM10 3.87E+05 1.07E-03 5.26E+08
PM2.5 3.87E+05 6.63E-07 3.26E+05
Solid waste 4.30E+04 1.39E-02 7.61E+08
Petrol 5.44E+03 Not applicable

Table 3.13 ELP for MSW Incineration (paper and plastic waste excluded)

Items ELF Unrecyclable Q (Kg/Kg ELP

waste input (Kg) Unrecyclable (Unrecyclable
waste waste
incinerated) incinerated)

Oil 1.49E+03 2.99E-03 5.66E+06

Natural gas 1.64E+02 2.48E-03 5.17E+05
Coal 1.15E+03 5.47E-03 8.00E+06
CO2 2.50E+05 1.22E+00 3.89E+11
CH4 4.14E+05 5.25E-05 2.76E+07
NOx 4.86E+04 4.88E-04 3.02E+07
SO2 6.94E+04 4.62E-05 4.08E+06
Iron (Fe) 1.92E+05 1.16E-02 2.84E+09
Nickel (Ni) 6.73E+05 1.36E-04 1.16E+08
1.27E+06
Tin (Sn) 7.41E+05 4.55E-05 4.29E+07
Bauxite (Al2O3) 1.23E+05 9.94E-06 1.55E+06
Gold (Au) 1.29E+06 Not applicable
Silver (Ag) 1.54E+06 9.86E-07 1.93E+06
CO 1.54E+06 2.36E-04 4.62E+08
PM10 3.87E+05 5.90E-06 2.90E+06
PM2.5 3.87E+05 1.22E-05 6.01E+06
Solid waste 4.30E+04 2.14E-05 1.17E+06
Petrol 5.44E+03 Not applicable

  21  
Figure 3.4 ELP summary for MSW treatment options (paper and plastic waste excluded)

 
ELP summary for MSW (excluding paper and plastic waste) treatment option shows
that incineration still have significantly higher load on the environment compared to
sanitary landfilling. CO2 is again the biggest contributor on the load and it belongs to
the global warming category.

4. Conclusion

Waste management has become a serious issue and recently requires much attention
because of the problem of its handling and treatment that becomes more difficult due
to land scarcity, urbanization, and higher consumption and population growth.
Moreover, it requires treatment in the correct manner to make sure of energy
consumption efficiency and the emissions that relates to the options of treatments.
This is especially true in the developing and emerging countries in Asia such as
Indonesia, Philippines, China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, and many other which are
faced with urgency of taking the right action and adopting the right technology in
their mega cities.

On the other hand, the development of waste treatment technologies in EU member

countries is leading ahead. This is mainly driven by the following three major factors:
(1) the existence of laws that supports renewable energy, (2) the existence of law on
waste treatment priorities, and (3) feed in tariff mechanisms.

Collaborations and technology transfer programs on waste management between

Asian and EU countries are driven by carbon emission reduction enforcement by the
UNFCCC and the promotion of circular economy concept. Under the UNFCCC

  22  
platform, developing Asian countries that falls in the non-Annex I category are the
hosts of clean technology adaptation for waste management, supported by the Annex I
countries which many are the EU member countries. Host countries such as Indonesia,
Malaysia, India, China, and Thailand are adopting the advanced waste treatment
technologies such as landfill gas capture, composting, and biogasification supported
by countries like Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, UK and Austria.

The circular economy, which focuses on increasing efficiency and energy and
material recovery, is promoted by creating a number of initiatives where assistance in
technology and know-how transfer from EU countries to Asian countries. Some of
these initiatives are Prodev and Asia Pro Eco programs. These initiatives allowed not
only technology dissemination from EU to Asia but also discussions and collaboration
on the policy-making to create a more sustainable environment.

To assist the environmental impact estimation on technology adaptation, this study

improved the methodology formulated in Waseda Graduate school of Environment
and Energy Engineering, Nagata lab called Environmental Load Point (ELP). ELP
allows estimation of resources and emissions load of the available technology options.
In the past ELP weighting used AHP questionnaire, which is only applicable to a
smaller group of respondent. In this study, text mining from the media was adopted to
gain a larger picture representing the priorities and concern in the national level. As a
case study, Indonesian resources and emission loads are integrated in the calculation
to give a concrete example on how the methodology can be applied.

The results of this approach on waste treatment technology options showed that
recycling is the most desirable option for waste paper and plastic, while sanitary
landfilling for the rest of the waste still have a lower load on the environment as
compared with the incineration.

Further research of this working paper would to adopt the methodology in a wider
scope and boundary by taking into account the emissions and resources that are
related to transportation of waste and further processes such as the waste water
treatment from the landfill. Additionally, when inventory data become accessible,

  23  
landfill-gas captures and biogasification of organic waste may also be analyzed since
they are the most-practiced options in the current CDM projects in Asian countries.

5. Bibliography
AIT/UNEP. (2010). Municipal Waste Management Report: Status-quo and
Issues in Southeast and East Asian Countries. Asian Insitute of Technology / United
Nations Environmental Programme. Bangkok: AIT/UNEP RRC. AP
UNEP. (2006). Circular Economy: An alternative model for economic
development. United Nations Environmental Programme. Paris: UNEP.
UNEP. (2005). Newsletter and Technical Publication. Retrieved 12 1, 2011,
from Solid Waste Management Source Book:
http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/estdir/pub/msw/ro/Europe/Topic_c.asp
European Commission. (2008). Waste Directive 2008/98/EC (EU, 2008).
Brussels: EC.
European Commission. (2009). The Renewable Energy Directive
(Directive/2009/28/EC). Brussels: EC.
German Federal Ministry for the Environment, N. C. (2010). Feed-in-Tariff
Mechanisms. Berlin: BMU.
Hargreaves, JC, Adl, MS, Warman, PR. (2008). A review of the use of
composted municipal solid waste in agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 123, 1–14  
  IGES (2012). National Overview / Country Situation Report on Municipal
Solid Waste Management and Composting; interim reports. Institute of Global
Environmental Strategies, Kitakyushu
  Inanc, B., Idris, A., Terazono, A., Sakai, S. (2004). Development of a database
of landfills and dump sites in Asian countries. Journal of Material Cycles and
Waste Management 6, 97–103.
Ministry of Environment Indonesia. (2008). Indonesian Domestic Solid Waste
Statistics, Jakarta: The Republic of Indonesia
Ministry of Environment Indonesia. (2009). Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca Dalam
Angka (GHG emission in figure), Jakarta: The Republic of Indonesia
National Statistics Office Indonesia. (2006). Mining. Retrieved 12 1, 2011,
from Statistics Indonesia:  
http://www.bps.go.id/eng/menutab.php?kat=3&tabel=1&id_subyek=10
State Ministry of Environment, The Republic of Indonesia. (2008) Indonesian
Domestic Solid Waste Statistics 2008, Jakarta
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Gabor Doka (2010). EcoInvent
database Retrieved 12 1, 2011, from http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/.
UNFCCC. (2012). Project Search. Retrieved 12 1, 2011, from Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM): http://cdm.unfccc.int/
US Energy Information Administration. Indonesia – Country Data. Retrieved
21 1, 2012, from International Energy Statistics:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/data.cfm.
Zhang, Q. Streets, D.G. Carmichael, G.R. He, K.B. Huo, H. Kannari, A.
Klimont, Z. Park, I.S and Reddy, S. (2006). Asian emissions in 2006 for the NASA
INTEX-B mission. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 9:5131-5153
Zhu, D., Ansani, P.U., Zurbruegg, C., Anapolsky, S., Mani, S. (2008).
Improving Municipal Solid Waste Management in India: A Sourcebook for Policy
Makers and Practicitioners. Washington D.C: The World Bank

  24