CONCEPTS AND
9. Geographical
2.5 WASTE RELATED DATA AND INDICATORS
2.5.3 Waste management indicators
Converting environmental data into statistics and then into indicators, and potentially using those as an input to indices, requires a level of confidence in the underlying data that statisticians do not have in the case of waste management data.32 This is illustrated starkly by the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which publishes rankings of the comparative environmental performance of countries every two years. The EPI has been developed over 15 years and six iterations and its component indicators measure performance across 20 environmental issues. A further nine issues are explicitly listed as important, but are currently excluded from the EPI33 as ‘global data are still lacking’. These include municipal solid waste management, recycling rates and toxic chemical exposures. Hazardous waste and any other waste indicators are also excluded.
The UN has had guidance on environmental statistics in place since 1984, and this guidance was updated in 2013.34 The basic set related to the generation and management of waste comprises the total waste collected, the amount treated by different methods, the number of treatment and disposal facilities and their capacity for MSW, hazardous waste and other/industrial waste; the amount of recycled waste; and imports and exports of both waste and hazardous waste.
Once waste statistics have been standardized, a selection of these statistics can be used as indicators. For example, the definition and use of quantitative ‘key performance indicators’ has been relatively common within individual, mainly high-income countries.35 The typical set of benchmark indicators in the 1990s was: waste generated per capita; proportion of waste being managed by different methods; and proportion of households with regular collection service. Similar indicators are still used today as part of composite sustainable development indicators in cities.36 A common addition is the per cent of recyclables actually recycled. It is difficult to achieve consistent comparisons here, so a three-year European collaboration has developed a standard methodology to improve benchmarking.37
Recently, much activity has focused on developing indicators for benchmarking the performance of waste management systems in individual cities or countries in greater detail. An overview appears in Table 2.2. The majority of this work has been academic research, often as PhD projects. The scope is often quite specific,
30 An interesting exception, where data for the broad range of wastes from industry, including from mining and mineral extraction, is much more widely available than data for MSW, is the Russian Federation and some of its neighbouring countries - comprehensive reporting from (formerly state-run) enterprises has been in place since Soviet times, and detailed annual reports are published. See http://www.mnr.gov.ru/regulatory/list.php?part=1101 (in Russian; waste data (‘ОТХОДЫ’) are on pages 64-67 of the 2013 report).
31 For example, see Scheinberg, Wilson and Rodic (2010; UN-Habitat publication) listed in Annex A, Chapter 1, Waste management; also Wilson et al. (2001) (World Bank publication), IJgosse et al. (2003) and UNEP (2009c), listed in Annex A, Chapter 1, Strategic planning.
32 Ronconi (2001), listed in Annex A, Chapter 2, Data and indicators.
33 http://epi.yale.edu/our-methods
34 UNSD (2013), listed under Annex A, Chapter 2, Data and indicators.
35 For example, KPIs were defined and used in England up to 2010. Ireland published an annual waste benchmarking report from 2006-2010 (Forfás, 2010). A review of four international and eight national indicator sets is provided by Munizaga & Garcia (2012), including those used in Chile and Colombia.
36 Global City Indicators Facility (2014). See http://www.cityindicators.org/
37 Regions4Recycling (2014). See http://www.regions4recycling.eu/R4R_toolkit/R4R_methodology
focusing on a particular aspect of the waste management system, such as selective collection or comparing technologies. Some proposals are untested, while others have been applied to one (local) case study.
Table 2.2 Overview of recent initiatives to develop waste management performance indicators
The focus here is on for benchmarking the performance of waste management systems in individual cities or countries. Indicators for comparing the performance of particular technologies have not been included. The sequence is alphabetical, in order of the first authors. Both the selection and each summary are based on a review of the published literature. In the rows marked with an asterisk (*), specific references have been chosen to represent multiple similar but unrelated initiatives.38
No. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION REFERENCE ORIGIN APPLICABILITY EXTENT OF USE
1. Various methodological proposals for
a SWM indicator set* Armijo et al. (2011) University research This one - Brazil
*Others - Europe
None
One case study each 2. Evaluation of programs for selective
collection of MSW including social inclusion*
Bringhenti et al.
(2011) University research Brazil Indicators validated but not tested
3. Performance Assessment System for urban water, sanitation and solid waste
CEPT University
(2010) Action research
funded by Gates Foundation
India 400 urban local bodies
in two Indian states 4. Comparison and ranking of SWM
programs in the U.S. Greene & Tonje
(2014) University research US 10 municipalities in New
York State 5. Monitoring progress of 3R efforts
towards a green economy. Discussion paper and factsheets on performance indicators in the 3Rs & resource efficiency
Hotta et al. (2014) Asia Resource Circulation Policy Research Group (international collaboration)
Low-, middle- and high-income countries
None (Discussion paper and factsheets)
6. Assessment of the performance of
SWM collection* Huang et al. (2011) University research People’s Republic of
China (PRC) 307 local governments 7. Evaluation of MSWM services using a
Balanced Score Card* Mendes et al. (2012) University research Europe 1 municipality in Portugal 8. Assessment of the performance of
recycling, treatment and disposal as a component of sustainable SWM systems*
Menikpura et al.
(2013) University research Thailand 1 municipality in Thailand
9. Service level benchmarks for water supply, sanitation and solid waste management in Urban Local Bodies
Ministry of Urban Development of India (2010)
Government of
India India Widespread but results
not yet published 10. Garbometer: Evaluation on MSWM
systems Munizaga & Garcia
(2013) University research Spain 1 city in Spain
11. Sustainability indicators for SWM Polaz & Teixeira
(2009) University research Brazil 1 city in Brazil
12. Benchmarking performance of a national hazardous waste management system
Romualdo (2014) University research Low-, middle- and high-income countries
Proposed indicator set tested in 7 countries (4 in Europe plus 1 each in Africa, Asia and Latin America)
13. ‘Wasteaware’ ISWM benchmark indicators to compare performance of SWM in cities
Wilson et al. (2015) (Also Scheinberg, Wilson, Rodic (2010); Wilson, Rodic et al. (2012);
Soos et al. (2013a)
International community of practice. Parts of the 6-year programme funded by UN-Habitat and GIZ
Low-, middle- and high-income countries
Tested in 39 cities in 6 continents; being used to monitor progress in 19 cities in Egypt. An adaptation has been used to benchmark performance across 9 countries (SweepNet, 2014).
14. Measuring progress in national waste
prevention programs Wilts (2012) University research Europe 1 case, Germany
15. Development of a zero waste index
for measuring performance of SWM Zaman & Lehmann
(2013)* University research, Zero Waste South Australia
High-income cities 3 cities (Adelaide, San Francisco, Stockholm)
38 A more extensive listing of references is provided in the paper by Wilson et al. (2015).
Background, definitions, concepts and indicators 35
Some of the initiatives in Table 2.2 stand out in terms of both their origins and the extent of their use. Both the ‘Wasteaware’ (row 13) and the two Indian (rows 3 and 9) initiatives have had institutional input to develop comprehensive indicators to benchmark performance of cities’ SWM systems. The work of the Asia Resource Circulation Policy Group (row 5) is also notable for its broad stakeholder input, although their proposals remain at the discussion stage. The ‘Wasteaware’ and Indian indicators are expanded upon here as examples. The results from their application are used later in the GWMO alongside other available data.
The ‘Wasteaware’ ISWM benchmark indicators were developed over six years, building on work for UN- Habitat and GIZ. The framework provides a self-assessment and diagnostic tool for a city to benchmark the performance of its MSWM system and raise the ‘waste awareness’ of decision makers. The indicators have been designed such that they are applicable to cities in high-, middle- and low-income countries. They have so far been applied to more than 50 cities in all six inhabited continents. An earlier version was adapted and applied to benchmarking the state of MSWM systems across nine countries (see row 13). A recent research project extended the methodology and built on other published work to propose an indicator set to benchmark the performance of national hazardous waste management systems (row 12).
The ‘Wasteaware’ indicator set combines relatively well-established quantitative indicators for waste generation, composition and the three main physical components or infrastructure, with a corresponding, qualitative, composite indicator for the ‘quality’ of service provision for each physical component as well as five qualitative, composite indicators assessing performance for the three main governance aspects (see Figure 2.3). Table 2.3 provides an example to illustrate this, for the city of Maputo in Mozambique.
In India, two related indicator sets have been designed to provide service level benchmarks for Urban Local Bodies (cities and municipalities), to be used for monitoring performance of water supply, sanitation, solid waste services and storm water drainage. The first of these is a National Service Level Benchmark (SLB) for four key sectors, which has been rolled out across India by the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) as part of its programme to facilitate critical reforms in the urban sector (row 9).39 The SLB has now been included as an eligibility criterion for performance grants from the Central Finance Commission, with the result that over 1400 ULBs notified the central government of their service levels for the year 2010-11. These were published by MoUD as an SLB Data Book.40
A parallel initiative is the Performance Assessment System (PAS) (row 3),41 which aims to develop an assessment system at the local and state levels and link the planning and fund allocation process to performance. It includes indicators related to the access and coverage, equity, service levels and quality, efficiency and financial sustainability of service provision. There is five years of annual data now available for 400 ULBs in two states.
At the state level, the information is used to monitor ULB performance and assess investment requirements and also used for benchmarking. At the ULB level, it assists in planning, target setting and tariff determination.
Table 2.4 illustrates the application of the PAS to the city of Navi Mumbai.
39 To encourage and facilitate adoption of the SLB framework, the MoUD launched an SLB Pilot Initiative in February 2009. The Initiative involved provision of technical support for implementation of the framework in 28 pilot cities across 14 states and one union territory. The Pilot Initiative was undertaken under a partnership arrangement with the involvement of various development agencies, viz. Water Sanitation Program - South Asia, JICA, GTZ, CEPT (supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) and PROOF.
40 http://moud.gov.in/servicelevel
41 PAS is an action research programme initiated by the CEPT University, Ahmedabad, with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation since 2009. The seven-year programme works with all levels of government: national, state and local. The performance indicators developed under PAS are aligned with the MoUD framework. PAS was tested in over 400 ULBs in the two states of Gujarat and Maharashtra over five years. The PAS system is now mainstreamed in state governments through state-level SLB cells. Other states in India have also begun to implement this system.
Table 2.3 The WasteAware ISWM benchmark indicators - worked example for Maputo, Mozambique42 No. CATEGORY BENCHMARK INDICATOR
(DATA POINT) RESULTS ‘TRAFFIC
LIGHTS’
Background information Data point
B1 Country income category Gross National Income (GNI) per capita $470
World Bank income category Low Income
B2 Population of city Total population of the city 1,131,149
B3 Waste generation Total municipal solid waste (MSW) generation (tonnes/year) 508,000 Key Waste-related data Data point
W1 Waste per capita MSW per capita kg per year MSW per capita kg per day
316 0.9 W2 Waste composition: Summary composition of MSW for four key fractions –
all as % by weight of total waste generated
W2.1 Organic Organics (food and green wastes) 65%
W2.2 Paper Paper 8.5%
W2.3 Plastics Plastics 8%
W2.4 Metals Metals 2.5%
Physical components Benchmark indicator
1
Public health – Waste collection
1.1 Waste collection coverage (% households who have access to a reliable waste collection service)
82%
(Medium) 1.2 Waste Captured by the System (% of MSW
generated that is handled completely by the waste management and recycling system)
75%
(Medium) 1C
Quality of waste collection service
Medium/High
2 Environmental control – waste treatment and disposal (T&D)
Controlled treatment & disposal (% of MSW for T&D which goes to at least a ‘controlled’ site)
0%
(Low)
2E Quality of environmental protection in waste treatment
and disposal Low/Medium
3 Resource Value – 3Rs:
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Recycling rate (% of total MSW generated that is recycled as materials or as organic products)
<5%
(Low)
3R Quality of 3Rs – Reduce, reuse, recycle – provision Low/Medium
Governance factors Benchmark indicator
4U Inclusivity User inclusivity Medium
4P Provider inclusivity Medium
5F Financial sustainability Financial sustainability Medium/High
6N Sound institutions, proactive policies
Adequacy of national solid waste management
framework Low/Medium
6L Local institutional coherence Medium
Key for abbreviations 1.1 1.2
1C
2
2E
3 4U 3R
4P 5F
6N 6L 100
80 60 40 20 0
For details of how the colour coding has been assigned to the different indicators, see the original source paper
B Background information W Waste information 1, 1C Public health 2, 2E Environmental control 3, 3R Resource value – 3Rs
4U User inclusivity 4P Provider inclusivity 5F Financial sustainability 6N National framework 6L Local institutions Key for colour coding
Low Low/Medium Medium
Medium/High High
Background, definitions, concepts and indicators 37
Table 2.4 Performance assessment system (PAS) for urban water and sanitation in India: SWMindicators for the city of Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 2013-201443 GENERAL INFORMATION
Parameters 2014
Area (Km²) 110
Population (1000s) 1244
Households (1000s) 293
Slum population (1000s) 280
Slum households (1000s) 47
Establishments (1000s) 7.3
Financial Information
Total revenue income (Million Rs)
1 USD ≈ 60 Rs 11896
Total revenue expenditure (Million Rs) 14612
Total Capital receipts (Million Rs) 250
Total Capital expenditure (Million Rs) 7642 Solid Waste Management
Parameters 2014
Waste generated (metric tonnes per day (TPD*) 778.5
Waste collected/ transported to disposal site (TPD) 755.0
Waste at all type of processing facilities (TPD) 583.3
Waste disposed at compliant landfill sites (TPD) 150.0
Waste disposed at open dump sites (TPD) ND
Door to door collection – Households and establishments
(1000s) 294.8
Door to door collection – Slum households (1000s) 27.3
Financial Information
Revenue expenditure on SWM* (Million Rs) 890
Revenue receipts from SWM (Million Rs) 582
Capital expenditure on SWM (Million Rs) 47
Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) Indicator Values
Coverage and Equity Service Levels and Quality
0 20 40 60 80 100
Household (HH) level coverage of SWM services in 'slum settlements' (%) Household (HH) level coverage of SWM services (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Efficiency of collection of MSW (%) Extent of segregation of MSW (%) Extent of MSW
processed and recycled (%)
Efficiency in Service Operations Financial Sustainability
0 20 40 60 80 100
Extent of scientific disposal of MSW (%) Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Extent of cost recovery in SWM services (%) Efficiency in collection of SWM related user charges (%)
* SWM – solid waste management TPD – tonnes per day MSW – municipal solid waste
43 CEPT University – PAS (2010). See www.pas.org.in