Reuse of Urban Waste for Agriculture An Investment Program for Progressive Action

1420 King Street, 3rd Floor, Alexandria, VA, USA 22314 Tel: (703) 684-2893, Fax: (703) 836-4875

Email: [email protected], Website: www.wenet.org

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development

Secretariat for Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Rural – Urban Connection “The Challenge in Wasting Waste”

REUSE OF URBAN WASTE FOR AGRICULTURE: AN INVESTMENT PROGRAM FOR PROGRESSIVE ACTION

Phase 1 Report

May, 98

Michael R. Sanio David Burack Sadaf Siddiqui

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development i

PREFACE

This report covers Phase 1 of a cooperative waste recycling initiative of the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the private sector, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The program focuses on the beneficial agricultural uses of municipal organic waste.

This initiative arose from a successful meeting, “Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Rural - Urban Connection,” held at the World Bank, Washington, D.C., September 23-24, 1996. The meeting was co-chaired by Maurice F. Strong, Senior Advisor to the President - World Bank and Henry J. Hatch, President – World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development. Co-sponsors included UNDP, World Bank, WHO, FAO, Rodale Institute, private sector and other non-governmental organizations.

The meeting discussed problems of accumulating waste in cities and the potential for making organic materials available to increase agriculture productivity. Beyond specific use of waste for agriculture, the meeting also discussed recycling all wastes in contrast to conventional linear end-of-pipe solutions.

Participants agreed upon the need to advance waste recycling. In particular, developing theoretical frameworks and methodologies, adopting cutting-edge technologies, and undertaking demonstration projects were suggested. It became clear that developing a successful waste recycling initiative would require significant cooperation and support through UNDP, World Bank, international aid agencies, NGOs and the private sector.

This report presents the rationale for such a program by addressing the two-fold problem of increased waste in urban centers and reduced soil fertility and productivity. The report covers key issues in advancing this program. It also describes an approach to undertaking three demonstration waste recycling projects and creating as many as 17 additional waste recycling projects in a subsequent phase.

The World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development (WEPSD) acted as secretariat for the 1996 meeting as well as subsequent activities. WEPSD generated this report, commissioned by the UNDP Sustainable Energy and Environment Division. Many groups have contributed to the program, but several organizations supported it from its inception. The UNDP provided management oversight as well as support for two of the report’s authors. The World Bank's Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network contributed management oversight, expertise, office space and support services. The Swedish Consultant Trust Fund provided the time of two specialists. Other private sector companies contributed expertise, time and materials. Most notably, CH2M HILL offered the time of the program manager, who helped write this report. The Mott Foundation also provided support through a generous grant to WEPSD. None of these organizations has officially adopted this draft report and therefore should not be held accountable for its findings, conclusions, or recommendations.

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the leadership of Anders Wijkman – formerly UNDP, Peter Matlon - UNDP, Douglas Forno, Carl Bartone, and Joan Martin-Brown – World Bank, for supporting this phase of the project. In drafting this report we would like to acknowledge the valuable insight and contribution from, Ed Falkman - WMI, Phil Hall – CH2M Hill, Dan Hoornweg – World Bank, Sheela Nair – formerly Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Patrick Nicholson – N-Viro Inc., Don Roberts – WEPSD, and William Tolle – Montgomery Watson. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the support of Anders Byström – Rondeco, Kevin DeBell – Water Environment Federation, Gunilla Eitrem - Consultant, Brad Inman, Dee Muir-Brown, Laura Shear – CH2M Hill, Jac Smit – Urban Agriculture Network, June Taylor - Consultant, Surendra Thakral – Montgomery Watson, and Annika Törnqvist - Consultant. We thank the co-chairs of the Council of Convenors, Maurice F. Strong and Henry J. Hatch, and the members for their vision in supporting this complex, yet fundamentally important initiative. Members of the Council of Convenors included Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, Christina Amoako-Nuama, Alicia Barcena, Amigo Bob Cantisano, Julia Carabias, Ed Falkman, Douglas Forno, John Haberern, Phil Hall, Samir Kawar, Caio Koch-Weser, Wilfried Kreisel, Robert Marini, Alex McCalla, Aldo Hector Mennella, Roberta Miller, Sankie Mthembi-Nkondo, Wally N'Dow, Sheela Nair, Gunter Pauli, Abdoulaye Sawodogo, Ismail Serageldin, Faton Sow, Murli Tolaney, Jack Whelan, and Ann Whyte.

Michael R. Sanio David Burack Sadaf Siddiqui

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ___________________________________________________________________ i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ____________________________________________________ ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ______________________________________________________ iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ____________________________________________________ 1

GLOSSARY OF TERMS______________________________________________________ 4

1.0 REUSE OF URBAN WASTE FOR AGRICULTURE _________________________ 5 1.1 CURRENT SITUATION______________________________________________________ 5

1.1.1 Food Security, Soil Fertility and Farming Practices_______________________________________5 1.1.2 Waste Disposal ___________________________________________________________________6 1.1.3 Health Issues_____________________________________________________________________7

1.2 CLOSING THE ORGANIC LOOP _____________________________________________ 7

1.3 QUALITY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES___________________________________ 11

1.4 AGRICULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ___________________________________________ 12 1.4.1 Rural Economic Considerations _____________________________________________________13

1.5 URBAN PERSPECTIVE_____________________________________________________ 14 1.5.1 Conversion Technologies __________________________________________________________15

2.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR WASTE RECYCLING ____________________________ 17 2.1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS _____________________________________________ 17

2.1.1 Identifying Demonstration Projects __________________________________________________19 2.1.2 Pre-investment Feasibility Studies ___________________________________________________19 2.1.3 Demonstration Project Selection Criteria ______________________________________________20

3.0 IMPLEMENTATION __________________________________________________ 21 3.1 SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES FOR PHASE 2 __________________________________ 23

3.2 Organizational Structure_____________________________________________________ 23 3.2.1 Consultative Group for Recycling Waste ______________________________________________24 3.2.2 Technical Advisory Group _________________________________________________________25 3.2.3 Secretariat ______________________________________________________________________25

3.3 Resources__________________________________________________________________ 25 3.3.1 Phase 2 Budget __________________________________________________________________25 3.3.2 Feasibility Study Cost_____________________________________________________________26 3.3.3 Implementation Costs _____________________________________________________________26 3.3.4 Program Management Costs ________________________________________________________27 3.3.5 Phase 3 Budget Years 3, 4 and 5 ____________________________________________________27

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ____________________________ 28 4.1 CONCLUSIONS____________________________________________________________ 28

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS _____________________________________________________ 29

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development iv

5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY______________________________________________________ 30

6.0 APPENDICES_________________________________________________________ 34 APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF REUSE AND FIELD STUDIES ________________________ 34

Senegal ________________________________________________________________________________34 Israel __________________________________________________________________________________34 Tunisia ________________________________________________________________________________35 Egypt__________________________________________________________________________________35 India __________________________________________________________________________________36 United States____________________________________________________________________________36

APPENDIX B: QUALITY STANDARDS ____________________________________________ 38

APPENDIX C: EXISTING CONVERSION FACILITIES_______________________________ 39 Excel Industries _________________________________________________________________________39 N-Viro ________________________________________________________________________________39 Bedminster _____________________________________________________________________________40 Rondeco System _________________________________________________________________________41

APPENDIX D: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS _______ 42 Waste Management Criteria ________________________________________________________________42 Urban-Agriculture Linkage ________________________________________________________________42 Appropriate Institutional Setting ____________________________________________________________42 Geographic Diversity, Scale and Location _____________________________________________________42

APPENDIX E: OPPORTUNITY COUNTRIES _______________________________________ 43 South Africa ____________________________________________________________________________43 Kenya _________________________________________________________________________________43 Peru___________________________________________________________________________________43 Ghana _________________________________________________________________________________44 India __________________________________________________________________________________44

APPENDIX F: RECYCLING WASTE INTEREST GROUP ____________________________ 46

APPENDIX G: POLICY GUIDELINES AND ROLES OF THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS____ 47 Policy Guidelines and Role of Federal and Municipal Governments_________________________________47 Multilateral/Bilateral Agencies______________________________________________________________48 The Private Sector _______________________________________________________________________49 Public Health and Regulatory Agencies _______________________________________________________49 Non-Governmental Organizations ___________________________________________________________49

APPENDIX H: RECYCLING WASTE FOR AGRICULTURE WEB SITE________________ 50

APPENDIX I: TABLE 2 - PRE-INVESTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY - SCOPE OF WORK 51

APPENDIX J: COUNCIL OF CONVENORS _________________________________________ 52

World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mankind requires enough food, water and land to survive. Yet, the world’s urban population continues to expand. The depletion of our natural resources, an inability to manage waste, and resulting illness and death are universal problems. In the short term, they threaten economies and lifestyles. In the long term, they threaten humanity.

One pragmatic approach to these challenges is recycling, the use of urban waste to promote agriculture. Fortifying soil with waste and reusing wastewater, through accepted standards and guidelines, can help sustain the land and alleviate pressures upon urban waste management systems.

This report covers Phase 1 of a proposed three-phase, cooperative, waste recycling program in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, private sector and non-government organizations. Phase 1 was managed by the World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development in its capacity as secretariat for the program “Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Rural - Urban Connection.”

The argument for waste recycling is compelling. Food supplies must double by 2025 if they are to provide adequate food for those now in poverty and to keep pace with expected population growth. It is projected that within 30 years, the world's population will increase by three billion people. Almost all (95 per cent) of this growth will occur in developing countries.

By the year 2025, urban waste will more than quadruple. Organic matter forms the bulk of the municipal waste; 36 per cent of the waste flow in OECD member states is food or garden waste. Organic matter in developing countries is even more important accounting for 50 to 75 per cent of the total waste stream. Lack of proper treatment for these waste streams is one of the most serious health issues confronting the world today.

Previously, additional land and irrigation could substantially increase agricultural production. Future growth must increasingly come from other sources of improved yield, because arable land and fresh water are in shorter supply. The challenge is to increase food production by more than two per cent each year to meet growing demand. But this comes at a time when soil degradation has eroded the fertility of 26 per cent of the world’s agricultural land and when salinity is making fresh water increasingly scarce.

There is a missing link between the urban and rural sectors. Both sides address their problems separately. Cities produce large volumes of organic residues, while farms consume great quantities of chemicals and/or humus to produce food and fiber. The urban sector dumps waste in landfills, incinerators, streams, or the ocean, while the rural sector depends upon imported fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.


Both sides’ infrastructures are based on these patterns, and reinforced in public policy. A closed circle of organic production (agriculture), consumption (human and industrial activities) and reuse (rather than disposal) could connect the two sectors.

Some good examples exist where urban waste has been safely and effectively collected, treated and re-used for agriculture in a comprehensive and integrated manner. However, most projects are occurring in isolation, in an uncoordinated manner preventing rapid knowledge transfer. There is no obvious focal point for coordination and collaboration with others; opportunities to gather and share information on successful projects are rare. As a result, fewer communities consider waste recycling in addressing waste management issues, ultimately maintaining a once-through process with undesirable results.

In a complementary study, supported by the Swedish Consultant Trust Funds, entitled "Recycling Urban Waste for Agriculture - Creating the Linkages" Eitrem and Tornqvist surveyed over 70 individuals from 20 different organizations including: the World Bank, UNDP, IFAD, IDB, NGOs, research institutions and the private sector. The report demonstrates that a significant amount of experience currently exists and that there are many "best practice" case studies that can be modeled and replicated. Further, the report highlights "success criteria" for effective organic waste to agriculture systems based on a thorough review of 10 programs currently underway in cities in Asia, Middle East, Africa and Latin America. In order to meet the needs of farmers, a local champion, involvement of local government and private sector participation are critical for success. Further, the report clearly demonstrates the practical need, the opportunities and the enthusiasm for further encouraging such a program.

It is clear that what is needed is a focal point and advocate for recycling waste for agriculture. Such an advocate would identify and pursue the development of demonstration projects by initiating pre-investment feasibility studies and subsequent implementation. The present program aims to play this role. The organization would then manage the next phase, during which additional recycling projects would be added.

One approach to accelerate the use of waste for agriculture is for the World Bank and UNDP to support country level efforts. In particular, to facilitate public/private partnerships and to encourage local efforts to develop proposals to undertake projects through an open, objective, quality-based competition. Successful and creditworthy recycling projects will become full-scale “demonstrations” for urban organic waste to agriculture systems. A survey of interested managers and technical staff at the World Bank and UNDP, as well as other stakeholders, revealed a large number of project opportunities.

It has been estimated that the cost of full-scale implementation of urban organic waste to agriculture systems could be as little as $5 to $6 million for a city of 1 million people. The cost estimate is incremental to the costs for a conventional landfill or municipal wastewater treatment facility. The costs could be much higher depending on what infrastructure exists and the technologies chosen. In the near term, this program represents an immediate investment opportunity of $15 to $20 million needed to launch activities in three pilot cities. Over the longer term, for the 300 cities of 1 million or more, investments of about $1.5 billion may be required.


This report provides the rational for further developing this initiative to Phase 2. In Phase 2, the initial three projects will require financial support for the pre-investment studies and possibly for full implementation. A budget of $2 million should be established for Phase 2 and administered by a multidisciplinary group. During Phase 2, the initiative will deliver three pre-investment feasibility studies, provide a focal point for waste-to-agriculture activities, and manage an information clearinghouse to serve UNDP, the World Bank and other interested parties.

To simplify the process, we recommend that initial financial support, coordination and advocacy be provided by the World Bank and UNDP.


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Biosolids: Nutrient-rich organic material resulting from the biological and physical treatment of wastewater to levels acceptable for reuse.

Bio-Mineral: A combination of organic residuals and mineral residuals produced through chemical exothermic reactions generating destructive and stabilizing pH, heat and drying using alkaline processes.

Compost: Conditioners and biofertlizers converted from organic residues using destructive heat, ammonia and consequent drying generated by biological (microbial) activities.

Mineral Byproducts: Mineral residuals used in bio-mineral processes such as coal ash, calcium carbonate fines, cement kiln dusts, lime kiln dusts, wood ash, flu gas desulferization and fluidized bed materials.

Municipal Solid Waste:

Usually non-hazardous materials collected at landfills including such materials as paper and paper board, metals, plastics, rubber, textiles, wood, food scraps, yard trimmings and miscellaneous inorganics.

Sludge: Residuals of wastewater treatment facilities that have not been disinfected or stabilized.


1.0 REUSE OF URBAN WASTE FOR AGRICULTURE

1.1 CURRENT SITUATION

1.1.1 Food Security, Soil Fertility and Farming Practices

Widespread malnutrition, poverty, the destruction of the world’s forests and hillsides, and further degradation and erosion of soil are legacies of a burgeoning world population and environmental neglect. There are 840 million malnourished people in the developing countries alone who do not consume adequate calories to lead a healthy and productive life; 75,000 – most of them children - die each day from malnutrition-related causes.

According to the World Bank, demand for food supplies could double over the next 30 years to keep pace with population growth. Many regions already compete for water and arable land, and are challenged by soil degradation due to erosion, leaching, and poor cultivation practices.

Many soils suffer from a deficiency of phosphorus that must be compensated for. Phosphorus is a critical element in the photosynthesis process and all biological systems. The total stocks in the world are limited and much of it unavailable and deposited at the bottom of the oceans as a result of present waste management systems. Furthermore, some mineral sources of phosphorus from waste contain undesirable levels of heavy metals.

In addition, the current use of inorganic fertilizers is not satisfactory. In developed countries a large portion of readily soluble commercial fertilizer ends up in groundwater, rivers, lakes, and seas. Some drinking water in the United States and in many European countries contains traces of fertilizer runoff and pesticide residues. In developing countries, although there are instances of excesses and/or imbalances in inorganic use, such as the irrigated areas in China and the Indo-Gangetic plains in India, the basic factor contributing to land degradation is the depletion of soil organic matter. Unless management practices provide for nutrient replenishment, soil productivity, yield stability, and efficiency of inorganic fertilizer will be low.

A recent study found that inorganic fertilizer is often applied more liberally than necessary for plant growth. In the United States, between 1991 and 1995, close to 56 per cent more fertilizer was applied to land than was accepted by crops. In China, only a quarter of the fertilizer was absorbed by harvested grain. Essentially, a large share of the fertilizer is lost, resulting in water pollution and ecosystem degradation.

Previously, the expansion of land and irrigation increased agricultural production. Now, meeting the world's escalating demand for food will depend primarily on heightening efficiencies in sustainable agricultural productivity, distribution, and marketing systems – essentially, making the most of natural resources.


1.1.2 Waste Disposal

Today, the sheer volumes of waste, its ecological and health hazards, and the costs associated with urban waste systems require more cost effective strategies. The rapidly growing population of urban centers around the world strains existing sewage systems. Developing nations face disease and death caused by improper disposal of sewage and solid waste. Meanwhile, communities face new disposal problems, such as industrial and toxic waste pollution.

Population growth makes waste management an increasingly pressing concern. In 1995, 325 cities had populations greater than one million; by 2015, the number will grow to 543. Almost all of these “mega-cities” will be in developing nations. Carl Bartone of the World Bank in his 1995 presentation "Recycling Urban Waste" to the Urban Agriculture Seminar, estimated that one million people produce some 100,000 to 200,000 m3/day of wastewater; 70,000 to 140,000 dry tons/day of sludge; and 400,000 to 800,000 tons/day of municipal solid waste.

Currently, one billion people lack access to adequate supply of safe water and 1.7 billion people do not have safe means of sanitation. Most waste is directly discharged without treatment, contaminating water supplies. In developing countries, less than 10 per cent of urban wastes are treated, and only a small portion of that percentage meets acceptable standards.

Urban areas have complex waste disposal challenges. Treating sewage, urban garbage, and garden waste requires water, pipes, pumps, electricity, transport, landfill sites, treatment plants, equipment, and labor. Most waste disposal systems include landfills, incinerators and wastewater treatment facilities. In most cities, urban waste systems often mix human, industrial, and food waste, complicating waste management. In addition, many cities combine drains from storm water with sanitary sewer. As a result, sewage treatment facilities are overwhelmed by flows following rainstorms. Money and solutions are limited to meet present demand for urban services, leaving these wastes to cause increasing pollution and environmental degradation, especially in the developing world. Finally, a major problem in developing countries is that national infrastructures often cannot support the needs of modern treatment plants, such as electricity and land. Solutions appropriate to developing country realities are necessary.

Landfills for solid waste in many countries are near capacity. In addition, some leak toxic substances into groundwater and generate large quantities of methane into the atmosphere. Landfills with no liners or deficient liners often leak materials that are not toxic but do degrade groundwater quality. Existing designs of sewage systems are expensive to build and operate, and consume large quantities of water. In developed countries, flush toilets account for 20 to 40 per cent of the domestic water use in sewered cities. By rethinking current practices for managing both municipal solid wastes and waste water, opportunities exist to improve living conditions in cities, while at the same time making available organic material for agriculture and improving the environment.


1.1.3 Health Issues

Health risks associated with the improper management of municipal waste affect both residents and waste handlers. Uncollected waste on the streets encourages the breeding of flies, mosquitoes, and other insects, and attracts rodents and stray animals that may spread disease. Collecting waste presents other health threats. Dust particles from waste heaps can contain heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic; all harmful to humans. Drinking water can be polluted via leachate from waste dumps, causing diarrhea, gastroenteritis, cholera, typhoid fever, and dysentery.

Pathogens often contaminate urban organic waste. Primary pathogens include bacteria, viruses, protozoa and helminthes (i.e., parasitic intestinal worms). Secondary pathogens grow during biological decomposition, and include fungi and acid-producing bacteria that can cause primary infections and respiratory diseases in people with weak immune systems.

One of the most important health issues with regard to wastewater treatment is the contamination of drinking water by discharges of untreated sewage. This can cause widespread disease among those least able to seek medical care. Heavy metals in sewage are a problem when solids are applied to agricultural land, but if the solids are not removed at all and discharges are untreated, the health of entire populations are threatened. Thus, adequate sewage treatment provides good, clean solids for agricultural use and safe discharges to protect drinking water.

Finally, industrial pollution is a distinct urban problem. Often, untreated industrial wastes are allowed to flow into sanitary sewers. The presence of higher concentrations of metals like cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, nickel, can create health problems, and are difficult to dispose in traditional applications, such as landfilling, land application or incineration.

1.2 CLOSING THE ORGANIC LOOP

Municipal engineers traditionally have focused on landfills, dumps, and incinerators to solve solid waste problems. Agriculturists, meanwhile, continue to use inorganic fertilizers and fresh water to meet their soil nutrient and irrigation needs.

Organic wastes generated in urban centers — compostable municipal solid waste, wastewater, and biosolids — can, when properly collected and processed, be used to feed depleted soils. More than half of a typical urban landfill consists of soiled paper, degradable sludge, yard wastes, and food wastes. By separating waste, such as green food and yard garbage from other trash, (newspapers, aluminum, and plastic), and properly processing the organic mix, rich compost can be created to improve soil fertility and biological activity, both essential for sustaining soil productivity. Likewise, wastewater can also be safely applied to land when heavy metals and other toxins are either removed or prevented from entering the system.

Modern existing systems built in the US, Canada, Europe and elsewhere are designed to safely manage urban wastes. Currently every community is doing something with their collected


wastes, it may be receiving no treatment, partial treatment or full treatment. Most of the existing systems were not specifically designed at the outset to produce a product safe for agriculture reuse. The proposed approach will add treatment processes on both the solids and liquids sides. The goal is to improve handling of valuable organic materials from both municipal solid wastes and wastewater to ensure it is safe and maximize its use for agricultural purposes. Innovative, appropriate technologies exist that can be used to provide cost effective treatment and stabilization.

Figure 1 shows in a very concise, general and stylistic manner the risks of current practices in developing countries. Figure 2 and the adjoining text describes the benefits of integrating solid and liquid organic wastes in a closed loop for agricultural reuse.

As illustrated in Figure 1, municipal waste management and agricultural production are typically separate and independent activities. These systems are single-use, open, and over the long run wasteful and unsustainable. If poorly operated and managed, they can be harmful to ground water, rivers, soil and the atmosphere. Straight-line, independent, single-use systems, common to urban communities and shared by nearby rural areas can contribute to environmental problems.

In cities with poorly designed and operated facilities these systems may result in:

• A loss of 30 to 50 per cent of urban organic material in landfills;

• Many landfills approaching capacity;

• Disposal costs which can run as much as $30 to $50/ton; and

• Higher costs for cleaning contaminated groundwater, treating related illnesses, and controlling emissions that contribute to global warming.

In rural agricultural communities, the current approach causes:

• Decreased soil fertility and reduced crop yields;

• Loss of topsoil;

• Increased demand for agrochemicals to increase yield, manage pests, and control; and

• Increased pollution problems from farm runoff and excessive agrochemical use.


Figure 1: Independent, Once-Through Systems

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��

��"��

��##��

$��

��

%��#��&��

��

$��

"��

�� '

$��((

��((

��

��

��!�)

��!�)

��*

* Sewage and solid waste are ordinarily collected, treated, and transported separately. They are shown together

here in order to simplify the diagram

By comparison, Figure 2 illustrates a different approach. By purposefully developing a linked, closed system an ongoing sustainable “loop” of natural resources can be recycled from cities to productive and safe use on the farm for food production. Recycle systems are closed with most adverse environmental impacts ameliorated, if not eliminated.

Closed-loop systems can be designed to address many of the problems faced by open systems. In cities, integrated, sustainable waste disposal and recycling systems provide:

• Smaller landfills and lower solid waste and waste water disposal costs;

• Reduced methane emissions;

• Reduced health care and water processing costs from decreased groundwater contamination and spread of disease; and

• "Biominerals" that are safe for land application.


Figure 2: Linked, Closed and Sustainable System

��

��

��

��

��

��#��!�

��

$��*

��

��

��' ��

��

��

��+ ��,

$��!-��

�� *

��

��

��

��

��

.��*��

��

��

* Sewage and solid waste are ordinarily collected, treated, and transported separately. They are shown together

here in order to simplify the diagram

On farms and in the agriculture areas, integrated systems:

• Reduce the cost of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides;

• Improve soil fertility, as well as increased crop yield and value;

• Decrease contamination of groundwater and surface water from farm runoff; and

• Improve irrigation efficiency through increases in water retention and improved water use.

Closing the loop by returning nutrients, in particular phosphorus and nitrogen, in organic matter from cities to farm soils can help alleviate many urban and rural problems. Urban organic wastes will not displace industrial agro-chemical use entirely, but they will reduce excessive reliance. Recycling organic matter will also ease the pressure on costly waste disposal facilities.

There are several examples and field studies addressing environmental challenges and demonstrating the benefits of reusing solid waste and biosolids for agriculture. Projects in


Egypt, India and Israel are noteworthy. The Cairo Sludge Disposal Study was developed to show the beneficial effects of biosolids on the yields and quality of field and fruit crops and their significant nitrogen fertilizer replacement value. The Ganga Action Plan in India was implemented to rid the Ganga River of municipal and industrial waste, while at the same time making available treated wastewater and sludge for agricultural use. Irrigation systems in Israel use recycled wastewater for irrigation, demonstrating the importance of partnerships between farmers and municipalities. For more details and other case studies, please refer to Appendix A.

1.3 QUALITY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Existing technical knowledge and long-term field practices in the United States and other countries such as China, Egypt and Israel indicate that sludge can be used safely, provided appropriate measures are taken to prevent disease transmission and the excessive accumulation of potentially toxic elements in soil. But most developing countries lack regulations and guidelines for the use of such organics for agriculture.

In order to avoid disease, it is essential to put in place standards and management practices to reduce the level of pathogens. Land use restrictions are also required. According to a U.S. National Research Council Report, “Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production,” treated municipal wastewater and sludge can be used safely on food crops if existing federal regulations and guidelines are followed. The US approach is described in more detail in Appendix B. Similar guidelines can be adopted internationally. Worldwide experiences have shown that sludge treatment such as lagoon storage, air drying, composting and other stabilization technologies combined with management practices minimize pathogen problems.

The US approach has defined two classes of organic materials depending on final product characteristics. Both classes take pathogens, metals and vectors into consideration. Products from both classes are considered safe. The significant difference between the two classes are the characteristics of the final product and whether they are considered products for further use or wastes.

• Products meeting Exceptional Quality (EQS) standard are considered products and are not regulated as wastes by the USEPA.

• Non EQS products are considered wastes and require compliance with strict site regulations and management practices, cradle to grave, with subsequent legal liability and risks.

In Santiago, Chile, for instance, uncontrolled irrigation of vegetables with raw sewage was implicated as a major cause of typhoid fever. As a result, a pilot project was supported by the World Bank to provide wastewater treatment for the main vegetable irrigation areas surrounding Santiago. This project addressed many of the problems that can be solved by applying successful standards and management practices.


1.4 AGRICULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

Enriching soil is an important component to sustain farmland. Urban organics, including biosolids, compost, and biominerals should be viewed as a supplement to chemical fertilizers. Compost not only helps reduce waste but also builds soil. It contains pores that allow the humus to shelter nutrients and provide extensive surface area to which nutrients can bond. Humus traps three to five times more nutrients, water, and air than soil matter does, therefore keeping nutrients from being leached or eroded. In addition, biosolids have very good characteristics for soil improvement since they are good sources of nitrogen and other nutrients and of organic matter.

Organic matter is bulkier, less uniform, requires relatively large application rates, and is difficult to store and apply. Expensive, specialized equipment must often be supplied by the organic producer as a service in order to market the product.

With the exception of the organic farming community (a very small segment of global agriculture), there is little recognition in modern agriculture (or even in traditional agriculture in some developing countries) of the value of organic matter for enhancing soil productivity and protecting against erosion by wind and water. This is exacerbated by the poor recognition by some technical assistance agencies of the value of building soil organic matter content by organics recycling. While returning crop residues to the soil is routinely advocated, agricultural agencies have taken weaker stands on the benefits of using other organic materials.

Until very recently, the agrochemical industry has not encouraged the complementary use of organics in agriculture and has fought it effectively in many instances. This opposition takes many forms: effective lobbying of policy makers; financial support of research, development and education in national institutions that excludes support for work on organics; and a lack of cooperation at the field level in the integration of organics with use of agrochemicals.

Rural acceptance of urban organics as fertilizer is an ongoing challenge. The Water Environment Federation points out that one of the agricultural community’s major objections to using biosolids is that it will cause disease. In addition, farmers are becoming more dependent upon chemical fertilizers and required application equipment. According to Terry Logan of Ohio State University, the use of animal manure, sewage sludge and nightsoil as soil enhancements has declined in the last 50 years. The attendant odor is an issue between nearby urban and rural communities; often where the greatest opportunities for recycling occur. Urban organic materials, meanwhile, are generally viewed as being contaminated by industrial chemicals. There is growing concern of the potential risks of pathogens in animal and urban organic wastes.

Change is now underway. Most progressive actors, including fertilizer companies, are beginning to recognize and agree on the key role of organic matter, in improving soil conditions and agricultural productivity. They are now, slowly becoming advocates.


1.4.1 Rural Economic Considerations

Economic barriers exist to waste recycling. However, the value of urban waste to farms can be significant. Sludge is valuable to arid countries in the Middle East and North Africa, where the availability of traditional animal manure is declining, the cost of fertilizers is increasing, and there is a need to expand agriculture into the outlying desert areas to feed a rapidly growing population. For these reasons, farmers there are willing to pay for any form of organic material.

The amount of organic material generated by a city of 1 million people and its nutritional value is significant. For a million people, The World Bank estimates that there are sufficient nutrients to flood irrigate 4,500 ha of arid land or fertilize 2,500 ha of fishponds annually. In terms of nutrient composition, the sludge has the potential to provide 4,500 tons of nitrogen, 2,250 tons of potassium and 2,250 tons of phosphorous.

Studies show that the market demand for sludge will depend on the marginal productivity of sludge, the cost of alternative sources of nutrients or soil amendments, and regulatory and permitting costs. The marginal productivity of sludge varies with the soil and type of crop. Crop yields show greater increases on sludge applications for soils that are poor in nutrients and low in organic matter.

One crucial factor in the agricultural community’s willingness to pay for organic fertilizers is its understanding and awareness of the benefits of using them to enrich the soil. In order to define the potential acceptance, and therefore the market for compost and biosolids, the following local rural factors should be examined:

• Availability and quality of compost, biosolids, or biominerals;

• Condition and fertility of soils;

• Government policies towards import of chemical fertilizers;

• Cost/application comparison of inputs including urban organics, animal manure and agro-chemicals;

• Seasonal variations in waste stream, especially organic waste;

• Cropping patterns, rainfall, and irrigation; and

• Prices and markets for crops.

The availability of low-cost commercial fertilizers will generally be a limiting factor on farmers' willingness-to-pay for organic nutrients. According to the National Research Council (NRC), the nitrogen content of sludge usually ranges between one and four per cent, and has an approximate value of $6 to $24 per dry ton, given 1994 prices for commercial bulk nitrogen fertilizers. Other nutrients in sludge, such as phosphorus, also contribute to its value. From D.S. Taylor and M. Northouse, Metrogro, the sewage sludge agricultural use program in Wisconsin, estimates an average fertilizer value of $15 per dry ton.


Farmers will also be concerned about the mix of nutrients in the sludge relative to the crop's needs. While sewage sludge could supply all crop nitrogen requirements, application rates are not as easily controlled as with commercial products. In most instances, supplemental fertilizer may still be needed to meet the crop's needs.

Increasing the organic content of soil has other important benefits. According to a 1984 EPA report, studies using eight dry tons per acre of biosolids applied to sandy irrigated soils near Yuma, Arizona, showed that only about one-fourth as much chemical fertilizer was needed after the first year of application. By the third year of biosolids application, no supplemental chemical fertilizer was required. For soils that are low in organic matter, biosolids provide benefits that are not available from chemical fertilization. The biosolid's organic matter enhances the soil's rooting media, provides for better water retention, improves air exchange around plant roots, and increases the ability of the soil to hold nutrients in a plant-available state.

Beyond the supply of important nutrients, the Yuma field trials showed that biosolids reduce the need for pesticides and herbicides. Though the fields that were previously weed-free contained more weeds, the plants became more vigorous and better able to compete with weeds and withstand damage from insect pests. These changes decreased expenditures for fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides by approximately $170 on each acre of the 12,000-acre farm. Total savings were about $2 million annually.

Finally, other economic considerations for the farmer include the cost of applying biosolids and the additional monitoring, record keeping, and management required by federal, state, and local regulations.

1.5 URBAN PERSPECTIVE

Closing the organic loop can save money for the urban centers by providing alternatives to landfills, dumping, and incinerators. This is one way to meet the current demand for urban services, in turn cutting costs by reducing pollution, environmental degradation and disease, especially in the developing world.

Waste management is capital and labor-intensive, consuming as much as 20 to 50 per cent of municipal operational budgets. The high costs generally result in cities failing to meet minimum acceptable standards. Both capital and operational cost savings can be realized by effectively managing waste that would otherwise wind up in rivers, lakes, or landfills, and using treated wastewater and sludge for irrigation and aquaculture.

The major cost components of conventional wastewater systems include collection, treatment, wastewater discharge, and disposal of sludge. Direct-cost factors include the characteristics of the wastewater, type of treatment, size of facility, location and type of sludge treatment, and disposal or reuse method. The expense of performing these functions includes capital for building the facility, and annual operation and maintenance costs.


New bio-mineral and compost technologies are designed without digesters (i.e., vessels in which substances are decomposed), thus greatly reducing up-stream capital and operating costs while increasing the market value of sludge products by conserving organic nitrogen. The January issue of Worldwatch states: “Indeed, using a digester to recycle sewage is akin to firing up an incinerator to recycle newspapers.”

According to the NRC report, biosolids and sludge transportation can be a significant cost of land application. Transportation prices depend primarily on the quantity of water in the sludge and the distance transported. Thickening, dewatering, conditioning and drying, can reduce sludge volume, therefore reducing transportation costs. A 1981 study discussed this trade-off, and found that the major costs depend upon the distance the sludge is transported, the mode of transportation, and the cost of reducing sludge volume.

1.5.1 Conversion Technologies

Conversion is perhaps the most important issue facing biosolids reuse in the developing world. Some proven technologies from the developed world may not be effective or affordable in the developing regions of the world. Composting and use of alkaline byproducts with biosolids is broad, as they combine many different processing techniques into one category. The menu of options needs careful assessment with regard to applicability in developing countries. A matrix of areas and options is necessary.

Several suppliers of composting and biomineral technologies are available. Information collected and provided in Appendix C is indicative and is in no way exhaustive; the study team is looking for additional information on technologies provided by others currently operating in developing countries.

Composting takes place in a number of processing systems including static pile, aerated static pile and in-vessel systems. Static pile systems are basic and require minimal capital; aerated static piles require at least twice the capital; in-vessel systems, meanwhile, require ten to twenty times the capital. Due to the relative complexity of the equipment used for in-vessel systems, the reliability can be poor. Including co-composting of solid waste along with biosolids is an even greater challenge. Solid waste co-composting systems can be complicated due to raw materials source separation. In most cases, source separation is labor intensive. Tramp materials, including glass and plastics are hard to separate from the final product. As a result, the quality of the final product can vary.

According to a 1998 USDA report entitled, “Agricultural Uses of Municipal Animal, and Industrial Byproducts”, good management of biosolids consists of pathogen destruction and organic matter stabilization. For composting, biological (microbial) activities generate destructive heat, ammonia, and consequent drying. On the other hand, purely chemical exothermic reactions generate the destructive heat, drying and pH that occur with alkaline stabilization processes.


The USDA study also points out that blending alkaline byproducts has been successfully used as an alternative to composting. Alkaline byproducts such as cement kiln dust, lime kiln dust, and coal combustion ash contain a large amount of free lime and can be mixed with dewatered biosolids at a rate of 25 to 50 per cent (wet weight basis). These mixtures have a pH of 12 or greater. The fine particle size and low moisture content contribute significantly to successful stabilization of raw primary, waste-activated, or digested biosolids. Total solids range from 18 to 40 per cent (wet weight dewatered biosolids basis). The product is a soil-like, granular material that can be processed further to assure thorough destruction of pathogens and organic matter stabilization and to increase solids content to 65 per cent by weight.

Agriculture has not been the primary market for co-composted materials, traditionally, most clean compost is used as mulch for horticulture. The actual composting process may take several months to produce a final product that can be used for agriculture. The biggest issue is the degradation of the organics to meet appropriate carbon/nitrogen ratios. If the compost has not matured long enough and the carbon content is high, the carbon in the compost competes for nitrogen in soil. No farmer will use a product that competes for nitrogen in his or her fields.

By recycling organics from wastewater in addition to solid wastes, initial capital investments will need to increase. Initial capital investment costs to build a conventional wastewater facility is $5 to $6 million for a throughput of a million-gallon/day or $500 million for a city of one million people. The incremental costs for modifying a wastewater plant or a sanitary landfill to enable effective agriculture reuse is a small percentage of the total costs.

Most existing composting systems that are up and running produce reasonable quality compost of 100 to 300 tons per day. These facilities are suitable for communities of 200,000 to 300,000 people and can produce 300 t/d of compost, are usually co-located with a landfill and an initial capital investment cost $2 to $3 million excluding land costs. In many cases the product is given away, but it can be sold for between $30 and $100 per ton.

For a city of one million people, capital investment costs for a simple integrated waste to agriculture system for solid wastes producing 800 – 1000 t/d of product may be as little as $5 to $6 million. For more sophisticated systems investment costs can be much higher.

The investment opportunity is significant. Looking at solid wastes only, for the 300 cities globally, with more than one million people, investments of about $1.5 billion could be required. By the year 2025, there will be almost 600 cities of over one million, increasing the investment required to as much as $3 billion. These costs could drop as recycling urban wastes for agriculture becomes widely accepted and as technology improves.


2.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR WASTE RECYCLING

2.1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

In 1997, a World Survey of Mayors conducted by the University of Delaware identified waste collection and waste disposal a “severe” problem. Of the 151 cities surveyed from seven world regions, 41 per cent of the mayors classified the problem of insufficient solid waste disposal being “severe” and over 30 per cent of them classified insufficient solid waste collection as being “severe.” Although problems were reported most frequently in cities in Africa and Central America, waste disposal was identified as being very severe in some Asian-Pacific cities as well. Half of all respondents from these regions agreed that waste problems are among the top three obstacles their cities must overcome.

In their report, "Recycling Urban Waste for Agriculture - Creating the Linkages", Eitrem and Tornqvist identified projects currently underway, success criteria for future projects and three potential projects which could be developed into models for replication. The three model projects proposed were for Stanza Bopape in South Africa, Accra in Ghana and Chennai in India. The work was based on a detailed survey of over 70 individuals from 20 organizations including the World Bank, UNDP, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Inter American Development Bank, bilateral institutions, and the private sector.

Table 1 on the following page extracted from the Eitrem and Tornqvist report summarizes experience in 10 projects currently operating in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. The table provides the city, stakeholders, and success criteria for each of the projects. For success, it is essential that projects are pulled by meeting the needs of the agricultural sector and are pushed with support from local authorities and other stakeholders. This will involve effective communications and partnerships with farmers, local authorities, private sector and NGOs.

Clearly, there are numerous opportunities for communities to undertake waste recycling projects for both solid wastes and wastewater. Technology exists that can address these issues in cost-effective ways. Most notably, these projects can make significant contributions to society by recognizing organic wastes as a resource, increasing food production, reducing pollution, and improving the environment and public health. However, waste recycling, a seemingly pragmatic approach, requires a boost.

One such boost is the implementation of demonstration waste recycling projects that can be used as models for future initiatives. It is recommended that three projects be identified and started as soon as possible. These demonstrations can provide credible information over the next one to two years on the economics, crop yield, major policy issues and problems related to waste recycling. The initial projects could be followed by the full-scale implementation of 17 additional projects designed to benefit from the lessons learned during the initial pilots.


Table 1: Success Criteria and Stakeholder Participation for Urban Waste to Ag Projects

Region Location Stakeholders Success Criteria

Asia Jakarta, Indonesia Private sector, local government, NGOs

Local participation, interdisciplinary approach, agriculture link

Petchaburi Province, Thailand

Government, local government, NGOs, Farmers Associations.

Appropriate technology, research and training, awareness, market for product

Colombo, Sri Lanka Local authority, World Bank/MEIP - Colombo, private sector

Clear participation of farm leaders, demand for organic compost

Middle East Cairo, Egypt Private sector, World Bank, Local government, NGO

Appropriate technology, demand for compost, replication potential, effective marketing

Africa Nakiwa Parish, Uganda

Municipality, NGO Local participation, appropriate technology, defined market, link to agriculture

Kano, Nigeria Local government, farmers

Appropriate technology, willingness to pay, market for waste, link to agriculture

Ouahigouya, Burkina Faso

Local government, NGO supported by DIAKONIA, farmers

Appropriate technology, quality waste, strong link to agriculture, farmers participation

Tohoue, Benin NGO, Local government, private sector

Defined market, link to agriculture, local participation

Thies, Senegal Rodale, UNDP/LIFE, private sector

Defined local market, quality control

Latin America Olinda, Brazil NGO, Local government Local participation, cost recovery, resource recovery

Source: Eitrem and Tornqvist


2.1.1 Identifying Demonstration Projects

It is recommended that the demonstrations be chosen through an open competitive project selection process. The request for proposals should in particular encourage public/private partnerships.

All submitted proposals should follow a predetermined format and provide the critical information necessary to determine the required investment for implementation. They should include, at a minimum, economics, financing, local partners, a description of the present facilities for urban waste management, as well as present conditions and challenges of nearby rural agriculture. This would be followed by a summary of the anticipated facilities and procedures needed to improve waste management systems and to recycle treated waste products for agriculture. An estimate should be made of the anticipated costs and the qualitative as well as quantitative benefits. Proposals should also include a discussion of the barriers to broad adoption and how these might be addressed when replicating the experience in other cities and regions.

2.1.2 Pre-investment Feasibility Studies

Once a limited number of demonstration project proposals are selected, feasibility studies need to be conducted. The projects will require the creation of locally driven public-private partnerships able to create enabling market conditions and public support in addition to designing, constructing and maintaining the improved facilities.

The pre-investment feasibility studies would be designed to identify:

• Engineering, technology, construction and/or operating companies that would attempt to structure a public-private sector operation that is creditworthy and financially sustainable;

• Individual farmers or agricultural cooperatives (or the potential to create such cooperatives) who would commit to utilize the recycled products;

• Non-governmental stakeholders who will commit to support the project for environmental or health reasons, e.g., save the rivers, estuaries, beaches, etc.;

• Preliminary estimates of the cost of the completed project and a detailed cost proposal for the full scale pilot project;

• Project elements, time frames, and schedules for full implementation of the demonstration project;

• Financial support offered by commercial banks, national development banks, or multilateral financial institutions for the long term operation of the project;

• Organizational structure of the partners, background and experience, curricula vitae of key personnel who will manage the project, and the financial stability of the firms or organizations involved; and


• Discussion of replication potential and identification of barriers and means of alleviating them.

2.1.3 Demonstration Project Selection Criteria

The final selection of demonstration projects should be based on the quality of the proposal, the credibility and experience of those submitting it and the merits of the specific project. A "performance-based” rather than a cost-based selection process, is recommended.

Criteria for the selection of demonstration projects, discussed in greater detail in Appendix D, include:

• Projects that will produce early success in all aspects of recycling urban waste to agriculture;

• Projects that are replicable and can deliver convincing results in a 1-2 year time frame;

• Target regions that are currently struggling with critical waste problems and/or food security issues;

• Municipalities having populations of approximately 500,000 to 1,000,000;

• Geographic diversity; and

• The presence of an active World Bank recycling project with a link to agriculture.

To assist in the identification of candidate regions for demonstration projects, a survey by Eitrem and Tornqvist of more than 70 people was conducted including a review of available literature and interviews. The survey included:

• World Bank staff in the environment, infrastructure, and rural development networks in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe;

• Research institutions;

• NGOs, such as The Urban Agriculture Network, the National Wildlife Federation, International Fertilizer Research Institute, and Integrated Waste Management Consulting; and

• The private sector, including Bedminster, CH2M Hill, Montgomery-Watson, N-Viro, Rondeco, Waste Management International, and others.

A number of potential projects were identified from interviews and literature reviewed during this survey. They were roughly ranked and the most promising projects are briefly described in Appendix E.

In addition, examples of ongoing projects throughout the world, and existing case studies were examined. These projects are discussed in Appendix A.


3.0 IMPLEMENTATION

Broadly, this report proposes a program that would be supported by a small secretariat to act initially as a coordinating body and focal point for executing three pilot demonstration projects. In a subsequent phase the secretariat will be used to coordinate an additional series of up to 17 projects and to disseminate information on “best practices”.

Based on a user survey, it is anticipated that one to two dozen projects exist that could pass the feasibility tests usually employed during project identification and appraisal. Figure 3 projects a total of 20 projects, beginning in Phase 2 with the launch of three pre-investment feasibility studies in 1998. In order to launch the effort, initial studies will be carefully chosen to deliver and document detailed near term replicable results over the one to two year time horizon.

Based on a two to three year development period for most projects — from identification through feasibility study, design and implementation — it is estimated that the first three projects can be fully implemented and show sustainable impact on crop production during 2001 – 2003, with additional projects coming on line in successive years.

With support from UNDP, the World Bank has taken the lead in highlighting the need for a focused effort in addressing this issue. Given the significant leadership and involvement of the World Bank, they make a logical institutional anchor for continued effort.

Until a Consultative Group for Recycling Waste is formed and to ensure the proposed program activities are incorporated into active projects, an interest group in waste recycling is being formed at the World Bank. The intention is for the interest group to cover several sectors (the Rural Development Network partnered with the Infrastructure Network). Until the Interest Group is fully active, the effort will operate under the umbrella of the official World Bank Waste Management Thematic Group. The Group's purpose is to identify waste recycling projects and obtain internal and external support for the projects. In turn, the group will serve as a support and resource group for others interested in advancing the practice of waste recycling. See Appendix F for the mandate and membership of the Waste Management Thematic Group.

A step toward implementation is the selection of demonstration projects initiated through a Request for Proposals. Proposals submitted would be pre-screened based on the criteria set out above to select three projects for which in-depth pre-investment feasibility studies would be conducted. The pre-investment feasibility studies will provide sufficient detail to enable proponents to make “go/no go” decisions, revise the project proposals as necessary, and attract funding by the World Bank, other donors and/or the private sector.

The Consultative Group and its advisors, with support of the Secretariat, will develop the screening criteria and determine the three projects to be funded. In turn, the Consultative Group for Recycling Waste and its Secretariat will manage the request for proposals and selection of demonstration projects. The proposals will be submitted jointly by local authorities in partnership with the private sector, NGOs and CBOs to the Consultative Group. The request for


proposal, preparation of proposals, and decisions to fund three specific studies could be accomplished in 6 to 9 months.

The pre-investment feasibility studies for the demonstration projects, funded by the Secretariat, will be conducted by the partnership created by the private sector/local authority team submitting the winning proposals. The estimated time to complete the envisioned pre-investment studies is one year.

Based on the results of the completed pre-investment feasibility study, the demonstration projects will be ready for subsequent investment by the World Bank and/or private sector. Estimated time to complete the project design and full implementation is 2 to 3 years.

Figure 3: Six-Year Program for the Implementation of 20 Projects

1999 2000 2001 2002 20031998

Key

2

1

3

4

5

6

2

1

3

7

8

9

10

3

11

12

13

14

15

4

5

6

2

1

3

7

8

9

10

16

17

18

19

20

Feasibility Study Project Design Implementation Crop Production


3.1 SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES FOR PHASE 2

The following outlines the key objectives for the next two years for Phase 2 of the proposed program:

1. Identify a Champion and a Program Manager dedicated to leading the initiative forward over the next five years. The Champion and Project Manager will be different individuals working cooperatively as a team. The Champion will likely emerge, from a donor institution, based on his/her belief in the program, and willingness to commit time and resources to ensure its success. The Champion must have the clear endorsement by the major partners and have the credibility, visibility, financing and freedom to operate effectively. The individual must be a dynamic leader who can motivate and work with a broad range of stakeholders.

2. Establish a Consultative Group for Recycling Waste to supercede the existing Council of Convenors (currently co-chaired by Maurice Strong and Hank Hatch). Define priorities, key tasks and a work program.

3. Develop the process to solicit and deliver the initial three demonstration projects. The projects selected should deliver credible and replicable results in the next two years involving the major global players and address the most pressing food security and environmental problems in their respective regions.

4. Develop policy guidelines based on the experience gained from the demonstration projects for government decision-makers and financial institutions to facilitate replication, innovation and catalyze the use of urban waste for agriculture.

5. Provide support to UNDP, bilateral trust funds, foundations, non-governmental organizations and private sector firms and World Bank Task Managers interested in pursuing waste recycling projects.

6. Develop a Web site as a primary communications vehicle and information clearinghouse and a global information network to facilitate widespread acceptance and full-scale adoption for follow-on activities. Identify a forum manager expert on waste for agriculture to manage the Web site and moderate discussion.

7. Organize regional workshops meeting local and World Bank needs as a vehicle for highlighting the core training needs and issues and developing opportunities for bank staff.

3.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

A simple structure driven by function is envisioned that is cost effective, small and efficient. Much of what is envisioned already exists and has been operating in some form over the last several years supported by UNDP, World Bank, private sector and WEPSD.


This program should be administered and implemented by three institutional components (see Figure 4), made up of representatives of international financial institutions, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations:

• A voluntary Consultative Group for Recycling Waste Group

• A voluntary Technical Advisory Group

• A funded Secretariat

Together, these groups will facilitate the implementation of 20 waste recycling projects – three demonstration projects and 17 additional projects - over a five-year period.

Figure 4: Organization – Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Rural-Urban Connection

Secretariat

Technical Advisory GroupTechnical Representatives of Stakeholders

Project Assistant Research Assistant

Program ManagerDay-to-day Program Implementation

Consultative Group for Recycling WastePublic/Private Sector Members Include: The World Bank,

UNDP, IFC, FAO, WHO, Agriculture, Engineering, Waste Management and Nongovernmental Organizations

3.2.1 Consultative Group for Recycling Waste

Prior to the 1996 World Bank Conference on “Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Urban-Rural Connection,” a Council of Convenors was formed to provide broad direction and approve the plan for holding the conference. The Council of Convenors, co-chaired by Maurice Strong, Senior Advisor to the President of the World Bank, and Henry Hatch, President of the World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development, included representatives from the UNDP, World Bank, FAO, WHO, agriculture, engineering, government, private sector and several other stakeholder groups. See Appendix J for a list of the current members of the Council of Convenors.


It is recommended that the existing Council of Convenors be superseded by a Consultative Group for Recycling Waste with no more than 12 members. It would consist of sponsoring members representing the broad and diverse interests of all stakeholders. Beyond those providing financial support, the Consultative Group would include representatives of important constituencies such as farmers groups and local authorities. Key tasks of the Consultative Group as the primary decision-making body, are to set strategic direction, provide the financial resources, and evaluate and monitor progress of the program.

In order to complement and support the activities by other organizations, the Consultative Group for Recycling Waste would work in close collaboration with existing interest groups and thematic groups in the World Bank, as well as corresponding groups in the UNDP.

3.2.2 Technical Advisory Group

The Consultative Group for Recycling Waste and the Secretariat will receive technical advice from its constituent organizations, through experts from a voluntary Technical Advisory Group. The Group will provide ongoing technical assistance to projects being implemented, conduct evaluations of projects and advise the Consultative Group.

3.2.3 Secretariat

The Secretariat, consisting of a Program Manager, Research Assistant and Administration Assistant, would support the Consultative Group for Recycling Waste, provide day-to-day management of the initiative for the sponsors, and serve as the program focal point. Some of the assistant staff time could be part-time. The Program Manager and staff would be responsible for the timely delivery of all products on schedule and within budget. The specific tasks of the secretariat are outlined above in section 3.1 Short Term Objectives for Phase 2.

The primary task of the Secretariat is to administer the selection and execution of the initial demonstration projects determined by the members of the Consultative Group for Recycling Waste. An important secondary task for the Secretariat and its staff will be to synthesize policy guidelines from the demonstration projects and to serve as a clearinghouse for information on success stories and “best practices”. Policy guidelines and key stakeholders supportive of waste recycling are briefly introduced in Appendix G. As part of the current initiative, a Web site has been created for this purpose. The features of this Web site and suggestions for further development are illustrated in Appendix H.

3.3 RESOURCES

3.3.1 Phase 2 Budget

A budget for the Consultative Group for Recycling Waste and the Secretariat should be established for a minimum of two years. To keep funding simple, budget, resources and advocacy should be coordinated by the World Bank, UNDP and a few other dedicated


organizations. It is assumed that the services by the Consultative Group for Recycling Waste and its Technical Consultative Group for Recycling Waste will be provided on a voluntary basis. The costs of meeting, travel and lodgings will be picked up by Consultative Group members themselves. It may be necessary to reimburse the costs of some essential non-profit members of the Technical Advisory Committee.

3.3.2 Feasibility Study Cost

Local agency participation, partnering, coordination and communications must be emphasized for successful implementation of the project. Ownership by the local community is essential for project success. For this reason, these studies will be best pursued under the leadership of a public/private partnership. By using local subcontractors costs could be reduced considerably.

The cost of a typical pre-investment feasibility study for a demonstration project is estimated to vary from $300,000 to $400,000 depending on the size of the region, its complexity, and other factors which cannot be determined at this time. This estimate does not include the cost of implementation. Implementation cost and financing, however, will be a major component of the study. The stylized work plan and budget shown in Table 2 in Appendix I, is generally applicable for any urban and peri-urban region in the target range, i.e., population of 100,000 to one million or more.

For purposes of projecting the cost for the entire program, a nominal figure of $400,000 has been used for each of the initial three pre-investment feasibility studies for a total of $1.2 million.

3.3.3 Implementation Costs

It is envisioned that a large proportion of the costs of implementation, not included in the projected budget, will come from development sources such as the World Bank and the private sector.

Public sources of funding will be targeted to assist in advancing projects where the economics appear marginal but where significant potential social benefits exist. For example, helping to achieve health and agriculture externalities, to provide advocacy, and to establish appropriate guidelines and regulation.

Cost of implementation is very difficult to estimate at this stage. Each project will be unique, as local conditions and needs will dictate the project scope. For a town of 500,000 to 1 million population in India, capital costs may be in the range of $5 to 6 million for bio-solids stabilization and $3 to 4 million for sewage treatment enhancements for agricultural reuse. Total implementation costs could range from $10 to $50 million or more depending technology chosen, size and complexity. These costs are initial capital investment costs and do not include recurrent operating costs.


3.3.4 Program Management Costs

Estimated costs for management of the proposed program are $800,000 over two years or $400,000 per year.

• Program Manager salary and benefits - $150,000, overhead - $15,000.

• Research and Administrative Assistant (part-time); salary and benefits - $50,000.

• Intern - $20,000.

• Travel and workshops - $50,000.

• Miscellaneous expenses - $50,000.

• Support to NGOs and other key stakeholders - $65,000.

Overall program costs for this $15 to 20 million investment program for administration and the three pre-investment feasibility studies is estimated to be $2 million over 2 years.

3.3.5 Phase 3 Budget Years 3, 4 and 5

Estimated costs for Phase 3 will be determined during Phase 2. It is anticipated that the program administration costs could be reduced somewhat to $200,000 to $300,000/year. Initial costs are higher because of one time program development and start-up costs. Additionally, the costs of the feasibility studies would likely be reduced as well since parameters of the studies will be better understood and experiences of consultants can be duplicated rather then generated new.

Phase 3 will continue to develop investment opportunities and to catalyze broad support for use of urban organic waste for agriculture, initiated in Phase 2. The main task will be to identify and develop 17 additional urban waste disposal projects producing urban and rural benefits.


4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report completes the first phase of a three-phase program and summarizes the outcome of work and discussions over the last several years dating to the September 1996 World Bank meeting. The following outlines the major conclusions and recommendations:

4.1 CONCLUSIONS

1. Organic materials can be safely made available for agriculture, effectively addressing mounting waste problems in large cities and improving soil productivity and crop yields. It has been shown that urban organics can be applied to farm crops, reducing dependency on industrial fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. By removing organics from the waste stream for beneficial agricultural use, landfill volume can be reduced by up to 40% with a commensurate reduction in ground water contamination and landfill gas production.

2. Case studies exist which highlight the benefits of biosolids and compost use for food production. These include several projects in the US and developed countries. Few studies provide detailed economic assessment of overall costs and benefits to the farmer, in terms of crop yield, reduction in purchased industrial fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.

3. Although the direct costs of operating conventional landfills and wastewater facilities in developing countries are known, the environmental degradation, health problems, and costs of ground water contamination are known only qualitatively. The true total costs of current waste disposal taking into account health and environmental impacts are not known with precision.

4. The overall costs of an integrated urban organic waste to agriculture system will be less than the current practice of burying organics in landfills and disposing of wastewater and then separately using fertilizers and agrochemicals for agriculture. At this time, insufficient information exists to compile a detailed summary of the costs and benefits for each of the stakeholders involved in an urban organic waste to agriculture system.

5. Initial capital investment costs for full-scale implementation of urban organic waste to agriculture systems could be as little as $5 to $6 million for a city of 1 million people. The cost is incremental to the costs for a conventional landfill or municipal wastewater treatment facility. Costs could be higher depending on what infrastructure exists and the technologies chosen. This program represents an immediate investment opportunity of $15 to $20 million. Over the longer term, for the 300 cities of 1 million or more, investments of about $1.5 billion may be required. Cost estimates do not include ongoing operating costs.

6. Several governmental, private sector and not-for-profit organizations are actively pursuing various narrow aspects of urban waste to agriculture activities. No single organization currently exists to introduce and promote integrated solutions for urban waste disposal and loss in soil fertility and crop yield for food production. This provides an outstanding opportunity for the UNDP, World Bank, and the private sector to take leadership.


4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. This report should be circulated and reviewed by representatives of various organizations concerned with urban waste, environment, public health and agricultural production.

2. The World Bank and UNDP have led the significant effort to prepare this report. In order to maintain focus and momentum, they are in the best position to facilitate further support and action. The next step is to establish a Consultative Group for Recycling Waste organized under the auspices of UNDP’s Food Security/Urban Agriculture or Public/Private Partnership Programs and the World Bank’s Waste Management Interest Group or Rural Sector Board. The Consultative Group would be charged to proceed with implementation of Phase 2.

3. Membership in the Consultative Group for Recycling Waste can be selected in part from the existing Council of Convenors. It should represent all groups that have a vital interest in projects related to urban waste management, agriculture, the environment, public health and the challenges of providing increased food supplies on a sustainable basis. Members must be prepared to make a significant financial or in-kind contribution.

4. To be successful, senior level support is required from the UNDP, World Bank, International Organizations, Foundations and the private sector.

5. A Champion and a Program Manager need to be identified to lead the initiative forward. The two individuals must be given the mandate, resources and freedom to implement the recommendations over the next five years. In earlier discussions, UNDP suggested locating the Program Manager outside of multilateral/bilateral institutions and placed at a neutral location capable of engaging and maintaining multi-institutional alliances with the private sector and other key stakeholders.

6. A budget of $2 million over two years should be established to fund the initial pre-investment studies and provide administrative costs associated with the program. The UNDP and the World Bank should coordinate advocacy and initial financial support in order to catalyze the process. They and their partners should be prepared to fund at least three demonstration projects in Phase 2 that will demonstrate the practicality and economics of reusing treated organic wastes for agriculture under conditions where the benefits exceed the costs. The demonstration projects from Phase 2 should be followed by a third phase to include pre-investment studies and implementation of 17 additional projects over the next five years.

7. In Phase 2, the Consultative Group for Recycling Waste and the Secretariat will develop the program for successful reuse of urban waste and recommend approaches for the selection of demonstration projects. This organization and its staff will provide broad support and advice as follows:

• Plan to implement an international competition for demonstration projects; • Deliver three feasibility studies through an open competition; • Provide a focal point for the Recycling Waste for Agriculture activity; • Policies, guidelines and requirements for successful waste recycling projects; • Develop a database of “Best Practices” case studies.


5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. "Document Long-Term Experience of Biosolids Land Application Programs-Project 91-ISP-4." (1993, Water Environment Research Foundation)

2. "Servicing Innovative Financing of Environmentally Sustainable Development." (1995, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.)

3. "A Strategy for Managing Water in the Middle East and North Africa" Directions in Development Series (July 1994, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development)

4. "Biosolids Recycling: Beneficial Technology for a Better Environment." (U.S. EPA, Office of Water, June 1994)

5. "Cairo sludge reuse study." World Water and Environmental Engineering ( Volume 19 Issue 6, June 1996)

6. "Chile - Managing Environmental Problems: Economic Analysis of Selected Issues." (Report No. 13061-CH; December 1994, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.)

7. "Compost Today for a Better Tomorrow" Novon (1992 Channing L. Bete Co., Inc.)

8. "Harnessing Organic Wastes - From Sludge to Soil." (Fertilizer International No. 352 May/June 1996).

9. "Urban Agriculture - Foods, Jobs and Sustainable Cities" (United Nations Development Program)

10. Agricultural & Natural Resources Department, Brochure (September 1995, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.)

11. Agriculture Technology Notes - Sustainable Agriculture (The World Bank, December 1995)

12. Aquasan, L.L.C., "The Aquasanitation Process: Wastewater Treatment, Food Production and Water Reclamation."

13. Bartone, Carl; "International Perspective on Water Resources Management and Wastewater Reuse - Appropriate Technologies." (Infrastructure and Urban Development Department, The World Bank)

14. Bartone, C. and Arlosoroff, S.; "Irrigation Reuse of Pond Effluents in Developing Countries." (Applied Research and Technology Unit, Water Supply and Urban Development Department, The World Bank, 1987)

15. Bartone, Carl; Bernstein, Janis and Wright, Frederick; "Investments in Solid Waste Management - Opportunities for Environmental Improvement." (Infrastructure and Urban Development Department, The World Bank, April 19

16. Bartone, Carl; Moscoso, Julio; and Nava, Hugo; "Peruvian experiment proves reuse benefits aquaculture." (WWI, October 1990)

17. Beijing Environmental Sanitation Administration, "Options for Domestic Solid Waste Treatment in Beijing." (January 1996, Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program Boyd, Vicky, "Mining the Digesters for Black Gold. " (Environmental Protection, March 1996)

18. Blaensdorf, E. and Hoornweg, D., “The Use of Compost in Indonesia: Proposed Compost Quality Standards.” (World Bank Infrastructure Operations, County Department III, East Asia and Pacific Regions, Washington, D.C., 1997)

19. Brown, L.R., “The Agricultural Link: How Environmental Deterioration Could Disrupt Economic Progress.” (Worldwatch Paper 136, August 1997)


20. Cointreau, Sandra Johnson, "Aquaculture With Treated Wastewater: A Status Report on Studies Conducted in Lima, Applied Research and Technology (WUDAT)-Technical Note No. 3, Integrated Resource Recovery Project. (The World Bank-Water Supply and Urban Development Department, Washington, 1987)

21. Cointreau, Sandra; "Aquaculture with Treated Wastewater: A Status Report on Studies Conducted in Lima, Peru." (Water Supply and Urban Development Department, 1987)

22. Cointreau, Sandra Johnson; Gunnerson, Charles G.; Huls, John M. and Seldman, Neil N., World Bank Technical Paper Number 30, Integrated Resource Recovery, "Recycling from Municipal Refuse: A State-of-the-Art Review and Annotated Bibliography." (UNDP - Project Management Report Number 1, 1984, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.)

23. Committee on the Use of Treated Municipal Wastewater Effluents and Sludge in the Production of Crops for Human Consumption, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Environment, and Resources and National Research Council, "Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production." (National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1996)

24. Composting Council Research and Education Foundation, “A Watershed Manager’s Guide to Organics: The Soil and Water Connection.”(The Composting Council, Alexandria, VA, 1997)

25. Department of Energy Defense Programs, Integrated Contracts, "Waste Minimization Program Accomplishments-Fiscal Years 1990, 91 & 92." (Los Alamos National Laboratory)

26. Edwards, P. and Pullin, R. S. V., UNDP - World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program "Waste-Fed Aquaculture" (1990, Environmental Sanitation Information Center, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok Thailand)

27. Edwards, Peter, "Reuse of Human Wastes in Aquaculture." (UNDP - World Bank Water and Sanitation Program; 1992, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.)

28. Eitrem, G. and Tornqvist, A., “Recycling Urban Waste for Agriculture: Creating the Linkages.” (World Bank Swedish Consultant Trust Fund, Washington, D.C., 1997)

29. Environmentally Sustainable Development Proceedings Series No. 11, Environmentally Sustainable Development Proceedings Series No. 7, "The Business of Sustainable Cities." (1994, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.)

30. EPA, “Biosolids Recycling: Beneficial Technology for a Better Environment.” (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1994)

31. Forno, Douglas, Presentation made for the session: The Way Forward: Implementation and Bank Support, Consultative Meeting on Environmentally Sustainable Development - “Recycling Waste for Agriculture - The Rural-Urban Connection: The Challenge in Wasting Waste”, World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development, World Bank, Washington, D.C., September 1996.

32. Gardner, Gary, "Shrinking Fields: Croplands Loss in a World of Eight Billion." (Worldwatch Paper 131, July 1996)

33. Gardner, Gary, "Recycling Organic Waste: From Urban Pollutant to Farm Resource.” (Worldwatch Paper 135, August 1997)

34. Goldstein, Nora and Steuteville, Robert, "Biocycle Survey - Biosolids Composting Maintains Steady Growth." (Biosolids Report, December 1995, pg. 49-60)

35. Hall, J. E., and Shehata, E. R., “Reuse of Biosolids in Warm Climate Irrigated Agriculture: The Cairo Sludge Disposal Study.” (Beneficial Reuse of Water and Biosolids, Water Environment Federation, 1997)

36. Hang, Andrew C.; Page, Albert L. and Asano, Takashi, "Developing Human Health-Related Chemical Guidelines for Reclaimed Wastewater and Sewage Sludge Applications in Agriculture." (World Health Organization, Geneva 1995)


37. Hart, D., and Pluijmers, J., “Waste Agriculture – The Use of Compost in Urban Agriculture” (WASTE, Urban Waste Expertise Programme, Netherlands, 1996)

38. Idelovitich, E., “Israel: A Case Study in Integrated Water Resources Development.” (Fourth Annual Irrigation and Drainage Seminar, The World Bank, 1987)

39. Idelovitich, E., “Treated Municipal Wastewater Nurtures Crops in Israel’s Dan Region.” (Agribusiness Worldwide, November-December, 1986)

40. Integrated Waste Management and Resource Recovery 1981-1990. (UNDP Terminal Report, August 1994)

41. IULA Office of Research and Training, “Report on Responses from Mayors to Questions about Severity of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal.” (UNDP Survey of Mayors, University of Delaware, October 1997)

42. International Maritime Organization, "Global Waste Survey - Final Report." (1995)

43. Khouri, Nadim; Kalbermatten, John and Bartone, Carl, "Reuse of Wastewater in Agriculture: A Guide for Planners." (UNDP - World Bank Water and Sanitation Program; 1994, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.)

44. Lalta, Stanley, "Analysis of Investment Process in the Environment and Health in Jamaica-Studies Series No. 19." (May 1994, Pan American Health Organization and World Health Organization)

45. Lankoski, Jussi; "Controlling Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution: The Case of Mineral Balances." (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development - Discussion Papers No. 116, June 1996)

46. Logan, Terry J., "Beneficial Use of Organic By-Products in Agriculture.” (Ohio State University, 1997)

47. Logan, Terry J., "Gaining Public Acceptance for Beneficial Use of Biosolids." (Biosolids Report, December 1995, pg. 61-64)

48. Mahin, Thomas D., "Draft Regulations - Odor Policy for Composting Facilities." (Biosolids Report, December 1995, pg. 65-68)

49. Melloan, George, "Developing Nations are Getting of the Dole." The Wall Street Journal Europe, Tuesday, October 4, 1994, pg. 9.

50. Nair, Santha Sheela, and Selvam, Paneer, "India: Madras - Renovated Sewage for Agriculture, Industry and Groundwater Recharge." (Conference on Recycling Waste for Agriculture: The Rural-Urban Connection, September 23-24, Washington, D.C., 1996)

51. Nicholson, P. J., “Sustainable Air, Land and Water Quality: Mankind’s Magnificent Challenge and Opportunity for the 21st Century.” (N-Viro International Corporation, Ohio, 1998).

52. O’Connel, P. and Schillhorn, T., “Urban Waste and Rural Soil Management: The Connection.” (World Bank ESD Conference on Waste Reuse, 1996)

53. Obeng, Letitia A. and Wright, Frederick W., "Integrated Recovery-The Co-composting of Domestic Solid and Human Wastes." UNDP Project Management Report Number 7. (March-1987, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.)

54. Office of International Studies and Programs at the University of Florida, "The Green Initiative-Global Research on the Environmental and Agricultural Nexus for the 21st Century." (June 1995, The University of Florida)

55. Melia, Charles. R., "Environmental Engineering - Proceedings of the 1990 Specialty Conference." (American Society of Engineers, July 8-11, 1990)

56. Pescod, M. B., "Wastewater treatment and use in Agriculture." FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 47 (1992, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome)

57. Rondeco Scandinavia AB, “ A Brief Description of Rondeco and the Rondeco System, The Natural Eco Cycle.”


58. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 4 - Nos.1-2, "The Bled Symposium," (Pergamon Press, 1990)

59. Selvam, P. “A Review of Indian Experiences in Composting of Municipal Solid Wastes and a Case Study on Private Sector Participation.” (World Bank ESD Conference on Waste Reuse, 1996)

60. Shuval, Hillel I.; "Wastewater Irrigation in Developing Countries - Health Effects and Technical Solutions." Summary of World Bank Technical Paper Number 51. (UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program 1990)

61. Steuteville, Robert, "Landfill Diversification-Expanding Into Biosolids Utilization." (Biosolids Report, December 1995, pg. 69-70)

62. Stix, Gary "Urbanculture" Science and the Citizen (June 1996, Scientific America, pg.18-20)

63. Stukenberg, John R., Carr, Scott, Jacobs, Lee W. and Bohm, Steve, The Joint Academics Committee on the Mexico City Water Supply, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources; National Research Council and Academia National de la Investigacion Cientifica, A.C., Academia National de Ingenieria, A.C. "Mexico City’s Water Supply - Improving the Outlook for Sustainability." (National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1995)

64. UNDP-World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program, Annual Report 1995.

65. Waste Management International plc, Annual Environmental Performance Report 1994.

66. Waste Management International plc, Annual Report and Accounts 1995.

67. Water Science and Technology, Volume 33; Issue number 10-11

68. Watson, Gabrielle, "Good Sewers Cheap? Agency-Customer Interactions in Low-Cost Urban Sanitation in Brazil." (1995, UNDP-World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program)

69. WHO Scientific Group, "Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture." (1989 World Health Organization, Geneva)

70. Wright, R. J., Kemper, W. D., Millner, P. D., Power, J. F., and Korcak, R. F., “Agricultural Uses of Municipal, Animal, and Industrial Byproducts”, (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Services, Conservation Research Report Number 44, January 1998, Washington, D.C.)

71. World Economic Development Congress 1995, Water Supply & Wastewater Treatment Summit Publicity Package, (October 4-6, 1995, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington D.C.)

72. World Watch Institute, “State of the World 1998.” (1998, Washington, D.C.)

73. www.bedminster.com (Bedminster Bioconversion Corporation)

74. www.nviro.com (N-Viro International Corporation)

75. www.wef.com (Water Environment Federation)


6.0 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF REUSE AND FIELD STUDIES

Senegal

Urban waste composting has become very popular in Senegal. Since 1988, the Rodale Institute has had an ongoing program of soil regeneration in Senegal. The institute is disseminating several techniques throughout the country after four years of collaborative research with the Senegalese Institute for Agronomic Research. In rural areas of Senegal, composting animal manure with crop residue has substantially increased crop yield and over the past several years, reasonable millet and sorghum yields have been harvested from farmers’ fields near cities. These fields were fertilized with urban waste collected by municipalities. The Rodale Institute in Senegal has two programs in urban waste composting and home gardening in eight cities. These programs train people to make compost for their own gardens or to start small compost producing enterprises which market compose to horticulturists or gardeners around or in major cities.

Since, 1990, a project in Thiès supported by French and Senegalese government agencies has demonstrated significant economic and environmental benefits by channeling slaughterhouse wastes into continuous methane and compost generation. Despite the project’s nearly 25 per cent annual return on a $25,000 investment, creating the public/private partnership necessary to operate on a commercial basis faces institutional and management constraints. The key challenge is coordination of the slaughterhouse production of compost with companies skilled in growing high-value crops such as tomatoes and melons from compost ball seedlings. Another current challenge is to apply the lessons learned in the pilot project in Thiès to larger abattoirs. Source: The Rodale Institute

Israel

Agriculture in Israel, where both land and water are scarce, is wholly dependent on irrigation. The country irrigates high value crops such as citrus, cotton, vegetables, fodder crops, groundnuts, potatoes, and flowers. The Israel Sewerage Project in the 70s, supported by the World Bank, incorporated appropriate least-cost technologies and the provision of sewage disposal and reuse facilities. The project resulted in major environmental improvements and significant supplementary source of water for irrigation. One of the important features of the project were cost-sharing and division of responsibility between municipalities that wanted to dispose of their waste and farmers that wanted to use it. Source: Idelovitich, E., “Israel: A Case Study in Integrated Water Resources Development.” (Fourth Annual Irrigation and Drainage Seminar, The World Bank, 1987)


Tunisia

Irrigation with treated wastewater has been implemented since the early 1960s in Tunisia, where the reuse of all treated wastewater is a matter of national policy. Tunisia, along with other Arab countries, is testing agricultural reuse of municipal wastewater by wide variety of processes. Increased large-scale reuse in the region is expected over the next years. During the last decade, more than 1,000 ha of agricultural land in Tunisia received treated wastewater and an ambitious plan was executed to irrigate an additional 6,000 ha, which is 95 per cent of the treated municipal wastewater produced. Source: Bartone, Carl; "International Perspective on Water Resources Management and Wastewater Reuse - Appropriate Technologies." (Infrastructure and Urban Development Department, The World Bank)

Egypt

The Cairo Sludge Disposal Study, funded through the European Investment Bank, and promoted by the Cairo Wastewater Organization, began in 1995. It consisted of three phases over 42 months. Phase 1 was a review and planning stage involving a world-wide survey of information and the development of sludge sampling and field trials programs, to be carried out over three years during phase 2. Phase 3 would involve designing a practical guide for the use of sludge, the structure of an operational organization for running a sludge reuse program, and a master plan.

The study established seven field trial sites including traditional farms on the delta and reclaimed desert land. Sludge from all of Cairo’s wastewater treatment plants is being used, as well as composted sludge from the pilot composting plant in Alexandria. The trials included detailed statistical analysis to determine the fertilizer values of different types of sludge in various cropping situations, and simple large-scale trials to demonstrate the practicality and value of using sludge. Each trial monitors crop production and quality, efficiency of nutrient use and uptake of toxic elements. All the data from the sludge sampling programs will contribute to the development of agricultural extension information, which will be used during the implementation of sludge reuse in agriculture. In addition, the data will contribute to the scientific basis for managing sludge reuse and the development of pragmatic regulations.

One year of cropping was completed in 1997, and data collected thus far show:

• Beneficial effects of biosolids measured on the yields and quality of field and fruit crops, notably wheat, berseem, forage maize, and grapevine.

• A synergistic effect on crop yields, particularly with digested biosolids.

• Digested biosolids appear to offer significant nitrogen fertilizer replacement value.

• The nitrogen equivalency of a single application of raw biosolids was approximately 20 per cent compared with inorganic fertilizer on clay soil.


• A single application of raw biosolids increased crop yields on newly reclaimed soils. But the magnitude of crop responses were moderated by management practices at the sites. Yield benefits were less when there was reduced water supply, low quality irrigation water (salinity), and poor soil fertility.

• The benefits of spreading biosolids on newly reclaimed soils are expected to increase with cumulative applications to build up soil fertility.

• No harmful effects of biosolids on crops. Sources: "Cairo sludge reuse study." World Water and Environmental Engineering ( Volume 19 Issue 6, June 1996)

Hall, J. E., and Shehata, E. R., “Reuse of Biosolids in Warm Climate Irrigated Agriculture: The Cairo Sludge Disposal Study.” (Beneficial Reuse of Water and Biosolids, Water Environment Federation, 1997)

India

India, the world’s second highest-populated country, and one of the fastest urbanizing countries undertook an ambitious wastewater management program to minimize surface and groundwater pollution. Major cities in India have had sewer collection systems for several decades with or without sewage treatment facilities. The majority of small- to medium-size cities have been dependent on septic tanks and dry conservative systems. The lack of adequate sewage systems, combined with the fast growth of these cities due to migration of rural people, has created severe water, air and ground pollution problems, especially in rivers. Pollution of the Indian river system has had a detrimental effect on the quality of surface and ground water, and the tourist industry. Use of contaminated water from rivers for human and agricultural purposes has been the main cause of health problems.

In 1985, India began the Ganga Action Plan to rid the sacred River Ganga of municipal and industrial waste. The action plan was a collaborative program among the Indian central and state governments with several international agencies. This action program included laying a thousand kilometers of sewer lines and constructing several wastewater treatment plants, making available a large quantity of treated wastewater and sludge for agricultural use to supplement irrigation and fertilizer needs. The Ganga Action Plan’s success led to a much larger, national-level program, the National River Action Plan, which will help rid 19 rivers throughout the country of industrial and municipal waste.

United States

In western Washington State, the Wegner farm has been applying sludge from Spokane since 1988 at 4.5 dry tons/acre. The sludge, in the form of wet cake, is incorporated into the soil before the growing season. Wegner reports 35 per cent increases in yields (and increased protein content) of barley and wheat and a fertilizer savings of $12 to $25 per acre. Source: Committee on the Use of Treated Municipal Wastewater Effluents and Sludge in the Production of Crops for Human Consumption, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Environment, and Resources and


National Research Council, "Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production." (National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1996)

A study by the Iberia, Louisiana, Research Station concluded that compost and sugarmill waste can be safely and effectively used in growing sugarcane. Sugarcane research with composted municipal waste in Louisiana was initiated in 1990 in cooperation with the Bedminster Bioconversion Corporation. The study showed that applying 10 tons per acre of composted municipal waste at planting increased sugar yield by 2,010 pounds per acre over four years on a clay-loam soil. At $0.22 per pound for raw sugar, this is an increase in value of $442.20 per acre. Source: http://www.bedminster.com/basic/librarycontents/CongressionalStatement.html, "Waste Application for Sugarcane Production".


APPENDIX B: QUALITY STANDARDS

In order to avoid health affects, it is essential to put in place standards and management practices for the reduction of pathogens to acceptable levels. Land use restrictions are also required for sludge not meeting acceptable standards. The technical merit, market feasibility, and public health risks of each potential project should be carefully reviewed before it is implemented.

The National Research Council in its report provided the bases for the US regulations for safe use of wastewater and biosolids for agriculture. The same considerations apply internationally.

Essentially, the US approach has defined two classes of organic materials depending on final product characteristics; both take pathogens, metals and vectors into consideration. Both options are considered safe.

The significant differences between the two options are the characteristics of the final product and whether the are considered products or wastes.

• Products meeting Exceptional Quality (EQS) standard are considered products and are not regulated as wastes by the USEPA.

• Non EQS products are considered wastes and requires compliance with strict site regulations and management practices cradle to grave, with subsequent legal liability risks.

For Exceptional Quality EQS products, conversion processes must reduce pathogen levels to below detectable limits, limit fecal coliform, limit concentrations of 9 metals and one of eight stabilization processes is required for vectors. Most EQS processes for compost and biominerals provide long-term stability as well as pathogen destruction. These processes destroy pathogens to below detectable levels and meet World Health Organization requirements. Many of these processes are designed without digesters thus reducing plant capital costs and increasing the availability of nutrients and organics in the final product. Additionally, technologies exist that can significantly fixate toxic wastes and/or immobilize nutrients and organics to provide “slow release” fertilization.

For products not meeting the Exceptional Quality EQS Standard for land application, pathogens, metals and vectors are controlled. Indicator fecal coliform must be below 2,000,000 MPN per 1-gram dry weight solids, metals level must meet EQS standards or require rigid standards of site monitoring and one of eight vector control strategies must be applied.


APPENDIX C: EXISTING CONVERSION FACILITIES

Excel Industries

Excel Industries Ltd. has set up several centralized composting plants in India, with capacities ranging from 35 to 500 tons per day. Most of these plants run on a "build-own-operate" basis or as joint ventures with local or state agencies. These plants have been successful in marketing their compost and have been able to sustain their production. During the same period, several NGOs have also started promoting waste recycling through community-based/involved decentralized backyard composting plants.

Farmers from Gujarat, Maharastra are using the product, marketed in the name of "Celrich bio-organic soil enricher," and Madhya Pradesh States. Excel Industries Ltd., is now planning to set up a few more municipal (Calcutta, Jaipur, Jallundhar, Pondicherry, etc.) and industrial (vegetable processing industries) organic waste composting plants in the near future.

Excel has a nationwide distribution and sales network for its agro-chemicals, which confers a distinct advantage in marketing its Celrich compost, as it can reach farmers easily. According to Excel Industries, about 95 per cent of Celrich is bought by farmers for growing sugarcane, grapes and bananas. These farmers cut their chemical fertilizer consumption by more than 25 per cent.

According to the company’s own estimates, a 500 tpd plant will require a capital investment of Rupees (Rs.) 60 million (or about US $1.7 million), excluding the land cost. This amount includes a five per cent turnkey fee and commission charges and approximately eight to ten per cent toward working capital. Normally, about 35 per cent is spent on developing the site and for constructing office, etc.

The overall production cost is estimated to be in the range of Rs. 1200 to 1400 per ton or compost. Typically a 500-tpd plant employs about 50 skilled staff and 20 unskilled workers and the direct operating costs are estimated as Rs. 500 to 600 per ton of compost. The interest and depreciation on capital investment arc estimated to be about Rs, 400 to 600. Depending upon transportation distance and other local overheads, the selling price varies between Rs. 1,600 to 2,000 per ton of compost.

N-Viro

N-Viro has 42 facilities producing over 1,000,000 tons of biomineral product annually. Facilities are now located in the US, Canada, England, Belgium and Australia. N-Viro’s largest facility, which is the largest biosolids recycling facility in the world, is the Middlesex County Utility Authority in Sayerville, New Jersey, near New York City. The facility produces over 1,000 tons of product a day, 300 days a year. As reported in the January issue of the Worldwatch Institute, Middlesex shut down existing digesters when the N-Viro facility came on line. This resulted in operating cost savings of about $2,000,000, a 50% improvement in


dewatering of sludge and a much-improved product with higher concentrations of organic nitrogen and other organics and lower concentrations of ammonia and heavy metals.

The N-Viro process uses mineral by-products and alkaline materials to pasteurize (i.e. destroy pathogens while providing for a surviving micro-flora population) sludge or other waste organics such as animal manure. Mineral by-products include coal ash, cement kiln dust, line kiln dust, limestone fines, spent lime, wood ash and flu gas de-sulferization materials (FGD). The FGD materials used are important, as there is a worldwide need to find markets for this growing mass of materials. Moreover, the process has been modified to include green waste, which reduces initial compost odors, reduces compost process time, and increases product value and markets.

Large-scale agronomic studies show an economic value of the product in agricultural markets of $30.00 to $50.00 per ton. N-Viro facilities normally cost between $500,000 (25-50 wet tons daily) and $5,000,000 (>500 wet tons daily). Toledo, Ohio, with a 300 wet ton daily capacity, cost $4,000,000, while Syracuse, New York, with comparable capacity, cost $2,500,000. Syracuse uses off-site storage. The total operating cost in Toledo, including capital amortization is less than $18.00 per ton of product. Most N-Viro facilities process raw, undigested sludge. Without digestion, the product has greater value, the capital and operating costs of the wastewater treatment plant are greatly reduced, and the dewaterability of the sludge, a key cost and marketing consideration, is greatly increased.

Bedminster

Bedminster has six reference facilities operating globally. The largest produces 450 tons per day (300 tons per day municipal solid waste, plus 150-tons/day sludge). Twelve projects total are currently under development in Peru, Hong Kong, Sweden, Australia, Chili, Canada, Germany and China; the largest producing 1,000 tons per day municipal solid waste. The organic product from these facilities is currently being used for field crops and horticultural potting soil.

In the United States, a 300 t/d facility would cost $25 to $30 million, and cost $100,000/design ton. Built for developing countries, the same facility would cost $18 million in South America. In Cairo, a 600 tpd, low-tech facility would cost about $25 million. The value of the product would be $40 to $50/ton for horticulture based on improvement in crop yield, such as sugar cane, could get up to $200/ton.

A facility for a developing country city of 300,000 people will generate approximately 1,000 tons per day of municipal solid waste; 500-t/d compost could be produced in a facility that would cost between $50 to $60 million. The output will supply sufficient organic nutrients to support 25 acres of land/day at 20-tons/acre application. The composted product value depends on soil conditions and crops. It is estimated to be worth in excess of $150 per ton in a South America coffee plantation.


Rondeco System

The Rondeco System consists of two parts that are patented in several countries. The first is a co-composting system that produces high-quality compost from organic waste. The second is a process to produce organic fertilizer in pellet form from compost. The core of the technology is the Eweson digester, biomechanical pre-processing and composting device that accomplishes size reduction, homogenization, microbial acclimation/colonization and biomechanical separation. Only the biodegradable fraction is converted to compost. A Rondeco designed facility is designed to recover ferrous metals, aluminum and plastic for recycling.

The system undergoes a quality program that that gives low levels of heavy metals as Rondeco has to compete with the hardest environmental rules in the world in Sweden. The systems consist of pelleting to transform the compost into a stable, storable, transportable and long-term workable product. The pellets are given its nutrients to the soil slowly and in a natural way. The farmer can use the pellets as a soil fertilizer by plowing it in the soil. After 4-5 years, the fertilizer turns into humus.

Rondeco also has a solution by transforming waste to energy, which can be used to run a composting facility. This allows the set up of a composting facility in an area without electricity.

The value of the Rondeco product is US $100 to $120/ton pellets. Smaller bags cost US $250.


APPENDIX D: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Waste Management Criteria

• Helps to promote an efficient waste collection system (apart from recycling) • Recyclable materials are sortable/separable from other waste streams • Incentives can be provided for cost recovery • Proximity between composting plant/site and waste source

Compost Product and Process Criteria

• Compost product and process criteria • Quality standards exist or can be created and enforced • Product must be clean (no pathogens, glass, plastics, heavy metals, etc. • Strict quality control to ensure product consistency • Efficiency of the composting management system • Although started as small-scale with appropriate technology, is suitable for scale-up to

large numbers (100,000 - 1,000,000+) of users • Established proximity between composting site/plant and market

Urban-Agriculture Linkage

• Defined market for compost for agriculture; regular supply of raw product possible • Properties and quality of the product must be understood by producer (e.g., urban

municipal plant manager) and user (farmer), and should be tailored to the users • Identified and defined long-term perspective

Appropriate Institutional Setting

• Enthusiastic task manager has project under way • Existing project has a composting component with link to agriculture • Identified local institutional catalysts to introduce composting activities • Region is currently struggling with critical waste problems and/or food security issues • Established local participation and ownership • Other significant stakeholder involvement – CBO, NGO, private sector • Grassroots interest, support from local authority • Developed cost-sharing/public-private partnerships

Geographic Diversity, Scale and Location

• Different regions of the world • Community of 100,000 to one million people or more • Land is designated for composting site municipality or community with user rights


APPENDIX E: OPPORTUNITY COUNTRIES

South Africa

There is an opportunity to establish composting in Stanza Bopape, a fast-growing urban community of 50,000 to 80,000 people with a clear linkage to urban and peri-urban agriculture. The community has no appropriate waste collection service. Maize, vegetable crops and few fruit trees are grown in and around Stanza Bopape. The crops are usually cultivated in backyard gardens and in open-space plots in peri-urban areas. The crops are grown for home consumption. There are several NGOs and CBOs in Stanza Bopape that are interested in improved waste collection and resource recovery, including composting. The potential for transforming the existing informal system of collection and disposal in uncontrolled dumps into an organized collections system based on a sanitary landfill, with composting facilities is great, and could be an expansion to the project started in October 1997 under the auspices of the European Union. Source: L. Korentajer - Soil, Climate and Water Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.

Kenya

The shores of Lake Victoria, bordered by sub-Saharan African states, provide the setting for a challenging project in the collection, treatment and recycling of domestic and farm waste. In this tropical setting, the problems of soil erosion from numerous small farms surrounding the lake, combined with the effects of municipal sewage, are adding nutrients and pollutants to the Lake at a rate far exceeding its assimilative capacity. As a result, the Lakes unique ecological balance is in danger, with consequent damage to fisheries, health and environmental values. A project to collect and treat wastewater, with recycling of effluents and residuals to the land will help to retard erosion and loss of soil fertility, protect health, and help restore Lake Victoria to a more pristine condition. An existing project could be supplemented with a waste-recycling component. Source: Informal discussions with P. O'Connell RDV - World Bank

Peru

A project proposal has been received at the Bank to develop irrigation systems for the reforestation of phreatofites (e.g., algarrobol by upgrading and proper operation of oxidation ponds at San Martin and at four other lagoon sites in Piura, Peru. Approximately 1,000 hectares would be irrigated, and the stakeholders to be benefited include 544,000 people in urban-marginal and rural communities as well as the Municipality itself.

Piura’s wastewater reduces the aeration capacity of the soil, and dump chlorides and sodium into the soil profile. Soil rehabilitation can be achieved through good irrigation practices using large volumes of water in soils of high transmissibility. As a natural phenomenon, rainfall from mild El Niños which occur every five to six years leach and rehabilitate the soil. The current (1997-98) El Niño is an exceptional event. Algarrobo and other phreophite trees can stand on their own


once they have reached the water table, which in the project area is about four meters deep. Wastewater can then be shifted to irrigate a new reforestation zone, and so on. The project will require an agreement with the Municipality of Piura to manage the oxidation pools over a complete biological cycle, with suitable retention times and the prevention of anaerobic processes that destroy algae.

Source: E. A. Loayza - Sealand Advisory Services Inc., Washington, DC.

Ghana

A World Bank project in solid waste management in Accra, Ghana provides an excellent opportunity for introduction of composting components for agriculture. More detailed information about the project needs to be received prior to preparation of such a proposal. Source: J. Mercier - Coordinator AFTE1 & A. Carroll - Task Manager AFTU2 - World Bank.

India

Chennai Solid Waste Composting

There is an opportunity to provide a sound basis for composting municipal solid waste as part of a much-needed general improvement program for solid waste management in Chennai. Currently, 2,300 tons per day of municipal solid waste is disposed of in an open uncontrolled dump. It is unlikely that a major solid waste composting system can be installed and successfully operated until basic improvements to provide a controlled dump/engineered landfill at the current dumpsite. Coordinated with this improvement program, a modest composting project should be started to process and distribute 100-250 tons per day of municipal solid waste. A feasibility study should be undertaken, to include: a survey of nearby farms that might accept the compost; other aspects of market identification and development including the regulatory environment; as well as analysis of the technical and economic feasibility of a composting operation. Following successful implementation, consideration should be directed to the scaling up of the project.

Source: P. Selvam - Field Office New Dehli, India & P. Blanchet - SASIN - World Bank

Hyderabad Treated Wastewater Effluent Reuse

Currently, an estimated 200 MLD of primary-treated municipal wastewater (most of which is derived from domestic sewage) is produced at Amberpet in Hyderabad. A small portion of the effluent is pumped from the discharge canal by individual farmers who use it to irrigate fields for the production of paragrass, which is harvested and used as fodder for buffalo. There is currently a proposal to upgrade the treatment of the wastewater with an “upflow anaerobic sludge blanket” process. This type of plant (with which The World Bank has little experience) could be difficult to operate, expensive, and will diminish the nutrient value of the effluent. Alternatively, a proposal should be encouraged to retain, expand and improve the current primary treatment system and centrally pump the effluent to an elevated distribution basin, whence it would be distributed to a larger area of potentially irrigable land in this perennially water-deficient region.


A feasibility study should be undertaken to cover the technical, economic, environmental, and marketing factors. Source: P. Blanchet - SASIA - World Bank


APPENDIX F: RECYCLING WASTE INTEREST GROUP

A “Recycling Waste for Agriculture Interest Group” at the World Bank has been active informally for several months, and is in the process of becoming officially established. The Interest Group’s purposes are to:

• establish a knowledge base related to waste recycling for agriculture

• identify and assist in the definition of recycling projects

• leverage internal and external support for recycling projects

The group is intersectoral, and represents a “think tank” on sustainable development, urban waste and agricultural organics. Once official, it will be on parallel footings in the Urban Family of the Finance, Private Sector and Infrastructure Network, and the Rural Family of the Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (ESSD) Network.

In Finance, Private Sector and Infrastructure Network the Interest Group is linked to the Urban Family’s official Urban Waste Management Thematic Group (Carl Bartone, Chairman). A parallel footing is envisioned in ESSD’s Rural Family, where the group may be linked to either the Land Management Thematic Team and/or the Sustainable Crop Intensification Thematic Team. This linkage is likely to provide a “first” at the Bank in terms of cross-networking initiatives.

Presently, the following Bank staff provides core membership:

Carl Bartone/TWURD Paul Blanchet/SASIN Gabriela Boyer/TWURD Jack Fritz/EASUR Toru Hashimoto/EASUR

Daniel Hoornweg/EASUR Paul O’Connell/RDV Christian Pieri/RDV Tjaart Schillhorn/ECSRE Eugene Terry/RDV

Dan Hoornweg is the lead from the urban side. A parallel lead is to be selected from the rural side; it is intended that main activity be driven from the agriculture side of the house. Until recently, WEPSD (David Burack) has been designated as the support staff for the Interest Group, and serves as the link between the rural and urban membership working closely with the lead members. A larger group is also on a mailing list to receive periodic information and news items related to waste recycling.

Rather than meeting as a whole, the leadership is endeavoring to focus the Interest Group on projects, and is sharing information and ideas via e-mail list, fax, phone and one-on-one meetings among interested task managers with potential recycling projects (or recycling components of existing projects) and technical staff and outside resources. Several of the opportunity projects described elsewhere in this report have come to light as a result of this informal one-on-one interaction.


APPENDIX G: POLICY GUIDELINES AND ROLES OF THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Policy Guidelines and Role of Federal and Municipal Governments

In the affected countries, policies must be developed for waste management that will encourage resource recovery. Critical policy is needed to require the separation of industrial wastes and stormwater from organic waste streams. Enhanced quality standards for processed waste are typically best addressed at the national, regional, and local government levels.

On the supply side, dumping of organic matter can be discouraged through taxes or regulations. Related measures (and countries actually instituting these measures) include:

• Landfill tax designed to discourage landfill use (UK and Sweden);

• Mandated reductions in organic inflows to landfills, or bans on particular kinds of organic matter, such as grass clippings (Germany and several states in the U.S.); and

• Ban on ocean dumping of sludge (U.S. now, and European Economic Community (EEC) perhaps later).

Policies in both the urban and rural sectors can have significant effect on the acceptance of urban waste for agriculture. Schillhorn and O’Connell suggest the following among policies that may influence the use of waste in agriculture:

Multisectoral:

• Integrated multisectoral policies and framework for waste and water management;

• Well defined reuse priorities and strategies recognizing the need to protect human health; and

• Linkages among urban waste management providers to agriculture, especially to fertilizer and other input suppliers.

Urban Policy:

• Promotional and support activities such as public education, voluntary or mandatory recycling targets liaison with the private sector, etc.;

• Incentives for engaging in resource recovery such as technical assistance, tax credits, surcharge taxes of landfills, sound environmental regulations, etc.; and

• Incentives to stimulate marketing of recovered material through information dissemination tax credits, etc.


Rural/Agricultural Policy:

• Direct or indirect economic benefits of the use of waste water, sludge and compost;

• Incentives for use of urban waste provided by cities, off-setting dumping costs; and

• Research and extension policies that embrace the concept of waste use in agriculture, and support user awareness.

Counter Productive Policy

The following polices should be discouraged and are detrimental to promoting the use of urban waste for agriculture:

• Subsidization of landfills and incineration;

• Lack of or below cost water charges;

• Lack of clean water laws and regulations of sewage treatment and disposal; and

• Subsidization of the use of chemical fertilizers and agrochemicals.

• Subsidization of irrigation

• Regulations restricting the processing, use or transportation of waste water, sludge or compost such as odor restriction.

Multilateral/Bilateral Agencies

These include the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, as well as the bilateral assistance or funding agencies from interested countries. These include those agencies interested in urban waste issues and food security such as the Swedish International Development Agency, the Canadian International Development Agency, the International Development Research Center, United States Agency for International Development, the US Trade and Development Agency and the Dutch, German and Japanese development agencies.

Their roles would include:

• Adapting their existing protocols, policies and standards so as to encourage the inclusion of waste recycling and other sustainable development components in projects that they propose, evaluate, or finance. At the policy level, World Bank staff and counterparts should evaluate whether agriculture, environmental and urban policies are generally conducive to recycling, as well as to recycling waste for agriculture. Perhaps an operational directive stating that recycling alternatives should be at least considered during project identification would force the issue onto the table. This approach will likely require building bridges between sectors and fostering cooperation.

• Providing grant support to the selected demonstration projects • Recognition of benefits that are difficult to quantify such as health, environmental

externalities, global environmental benefits, etc. • Serving on the governing bodies for the delivery of demonstration projects


The Private Sector

Successful applications of urban organic waste projects for agriculture exist, driven in part by the private sector. Wastewater treatment plants, distributors, applicators, and private processors (as well as major chemical companies and major agricultural interests) must demonstrate that compliance with good land application principles is occurring through public participation, self-monitoring and reporting and education campaigns.

The waste management industry needs to adopt quality standards. These include; homogeneity and value of the product, odor control and prevention of air and groundwater contamination, as well as, control of pathogens and toxic materials in land application products.

A key to the development of sustainable waste management and agriculture is the marketing of recycled urban waste. There are a number of companies specializing in the treatment and sales of urban waste for agriculture. In certain countries, the organic material is directly marketed by municipal waste management facilities.

Shifting the public’s perception on using urban waste for agriculture requires that policy makers and citizens learn to manage organic matter in ways that facilitate its reuse. Processors of organic matter will need to tailor their products to the diverse needs of different soils and crops. Farmers will need to understand how organic matter saves costs, increases yield, reduces environmental damage, improves soils, and reduces overuse of chemical fertilizers.

Public Health and Regulatory Agencies

These include the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the implementers of the ISO 14000 protocols and national environmental protection. In all cases, policies and regulations encouraging proper land application methods need to be promulgated.

Non-Governmental Organizations

These include agricultural associations and universities, professional engineering and other technical societies and conventional environmental organizations, as well as a wide range of international and national civic groups that are dedicated to community resources management. These groups must provide technical support and advice and are, moreover, important sources of ideas or have initiated grass roots projects and programs that are examples to others.


APPENDIX H: RECYCLING WASTE FOR AGRICULTURE WEB SITE

Figure 5: Recycling Waste for Agriculture home page at http://aoss.engin.umich.edu/recycling/wepsd/

Objectives

1. Create a resource base for information dissemination on organic waste for agriculture.

2. Convert the current site from a single support system to an interactive information resource used internationally by anyone interested in the topic of Recycling Waste for Agriculture.

3. Create an environment for:

• Announcing past/present/future conferences and maintain a historical and comprehensive record of the proceedings;

• Links to key players in the area;

• Links to relevant publications; and

• Case studies.


Phase 1 (Completed December 1997)

Redesign Main Page to reflect objectives and accommodate present and future conferences:

• Restructure links;

• Remove extraneous material;

• Create search mechanism to identify resources

• Update search engine for bibliography

• Relocate content as appropriate for the new objectives;

• Update and upgrade Net Forum; and

• Standardize and troubleshoot final web site.

Phase 2

1. Solicit comments from select stakeholders such as Dan Hoornweg and his Urban Waste Thematic Team, to clearly establish user needs, site content and structure.

2. Link the existing site to the World Bank’s “Land and Water Knowledge Management System.”

3. Identify an organization or association that would act as the editorial board of the Website and filter content according to the World Bank staff needs. World Federation of Engineering Organization’s (WFEO) ComTech Committee (Committee on Transfer, Sharing and Assessment of Technology) could take on this responsibility. ComTech was established to provide leadership and guidance to the engineering profession worldwide on the promotion, application and dissemination of sustainable technology.

4. Develop functionality consistent with the Wold Bank’s model for its Websites, activate the Discussion Forum to provide an on-line discussion space for the conferences, incorporate additional bibliography and links as requested by client, end users, and stakeholders, and enhance the interactive search mechanisms for the web site.

5. Identify an individual/organization to act as Content Manager for the Recycling Waste for Agriculture site.

Wor

ld E

ngin

eeri

ng P

artn

ersh

ip fo

r Sus

tain

able

Dev

elop

men

t

51

APP

EN

DIX

I: T

AB

LE

2 -

PRE

-IN

VE

STM

EN

T F

EA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TU

DY

- SC

OPE

OF

WO

RK

N

o.

Key

Sco

pe It

ems

Lab

or (p

erso

n da

ys)

Cos

t ($U

S)

Prin

cipa

l Se

nior

Ju

nior

Su

ppor

t T

otal

L

abor

T

rave

l O

ther

T

otal

1 C

ondu

ct p

relim

inar

y si

te v

isits

3

33

211

7,36

010

,000

868

18,2

282

Dev

elop

mem

oran

dum

of u

nder

stan

ding

1

22

53,

600

180

3,78

03

Col

lect

and

revi

ew th

e ex

istin

g in

form

atio

n 1

23

39

4,72

023

64,

956

4 C

ondu

ct p

artn

erin

g w

orks

hop

22

2 6

4,80

010

,000

740

15,5

405

Dev

elop

dra

ft w

ork

plan

2

3

54,

800

240

5,04

06

Dis

cuss

and

revi

ew w

ith th

e pa

rtner

ing

agen

cies

and

fina

lize

the

wor

k pl

an

11

2

2,00

010

02,

100

7 Ev

alua

te th

e ex

istin

g sy

stem

4

66

420

12,9

6064

813

,608

7.1

Cha

ract

eriz

e th

e w

aste

- Q

uant

ity &

Qua

lity

12

2 5

3,60

018

03,

780

7.2

Ana

lyze

the

exis

ting

was

te c

olle

ctio

n, tr

ansp

orta

tion,

pro

cess

, ut

iliza

tion/

disp

osal

syst

em

46

2 2

1410

,880

10,0

001,

044

21,9

24

8 A

sses

s pro

blem

s and

con

cern

s with

the

exis

ting

syst

em

11

2

2,00

010

02,

100

9 D

evel

op u

nder

stan

ding

of f

utur

e w

aste

cha

ract

eris

tics a

nd

plan

ned

proj

ects

1

1

22,

000

100

2,10

0

10

Ass

ess l

ocal

agr

icul

tura

l con

ditio

ns a

nd fe

rtiliz

ing

prac

tices

1

1

22,

000

100

2,10

011

D

evel

op d

eman

d - A

gron

omic

con

side

ratio

ns

58

5 6

2415

,840

792

16,6

3212

Ev

alua

te so

cio-

econ

omic

al c

onsi

dera

tions

4

62

214

10,8

8054

411

,424

13

Eval

uate

pot

entia

l con

cern

s on

the

use

of b

ioso

lids

22

4

4,00

020

04,

200

14

Eval

uate

tech

nolo

gies

for w

aste

col

lect

ion,

tran

spor

tatio

n, a

nd

stab

iliza

tion

(was

te to

bio

-sol

ids c

onve

rsio

n)

812

6 6

3223

,040

1,15

224

,192

14.1

Sc

reen

the

avai

labl

e te

chno

logi

es a

nd sh

ort l

ist t

he a

ppro

pria

te

tech

nolo

gies

2

41

18

6,24

031

26,

552

14.2

D

evel

op a

nd e

valu

ate

alte

rnat

ives

4

84

218

13,2

8066

413

,944

14.3

C

ondu

ct th

e al

tern

ativ

e re

view

wor

ksho

p w

ith th

e pa

rtner

ing

agen

cies

3

33

312

7,92

010

,000

896

18,8

16

14.4

A

sses

s tan

gibl

e an

d in

tang

ible

ben

efits

of t

he p

roje

cts

11

1 1

42,

640

132

2,77

215

D

evel

op im

plem

enta

tion

plan

4

64

418

12,1

6060

812

,768

16

Proj

ect m

anag

emen

t 10

208

846

33,1

205,

000

1,90

640

,026

16.1

C

omm

unic

atio

n an

d m

eetin

gs

612

12

333

22,3

201,

116

23,4

3616

.2

Inst

itutio

nal a

nd o

rgan

izat

iona

l iss

ues

46

6 2

1812

,480

624

13,1

04

Wor

ld E

ngin

eeri

ng P

artn

ersh

ip fo

r Sus

tain

able

Dev

elop

men

t

51

16.3

Fi

nanc

ial a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

issu

es

22

4

4,00

020

04,

200

17

Dra

ft an

d fin

al re

port

4060

60

4020

012

9,60

010

,000

6,98

014

6,58

0

TO

TA

L

117

180

132

8951

835

8,24

055

,000

20,6

6243

3,90

2


APPENDIX J: COUNCIL OF CONVENORS

Co-Chairs:

Mr. Maurice F. Strong Senior Advisor to the President The World Bank, USA Members:

Ms. Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel Director, Industry and Environment United Nations Environmental Programme France Dr. Christina E. Amoako-Nuama Minister of Environment, Science & Technology Ghana

Ms. Alicia Barcena Senior Advisor Global Environmental Citizenship Program United Nations Environment Programme Mexico Mr. Amigo Bob Cantisano President, Organic Ag Advisors, USA

Ms. Julia Carabias Minister of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries, Mexico Mr. Ed Falkman Chairman Waste Management International, U.K. Mr. John Haberern President Rodale Institute

Mr. Phil Hall Chairman CH2MHill International, Ltd., USA

Mr. Henry J. Hatch President World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development, USA Mr. Samir F. Kawar Minister of Water and Irrigatio, Jordan Mr. Caio Koch-Weser Managing Director The World Bank, USA Dr. Wilfried Kreisel Executive Director World Health Organization, Switzerland Mr. Robert Marini President Camp, Dresser & McKee, USA Mr. Alex McCalla Director, Ag. and Natural Resources Dept. The World Bank, USA Mr. Aldo Hector Mennella CEAMSE, Argentina Dr. Roberta Miller President & CEO CIESIN, USA Ms. Sankie D. Mthembi-Nkondo Minister for Housing, South Africa Mr. Wally N'Dow Assistant Secretary General UNCHS (Habitat), Kenya


Ms. Shanta Sheela Nair Chairperson and Managing Director Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Madras, India Mr. Gunter Pauli Director, Zero Emissions Research Initiative Zero Emissions Research Institute United Nations University, Japan Dr. Abdoulaye Sawodogo Assistant Director General Food & Agriculture Organization Italy Mr. Ismail Serageldin Vice President - ESD The World Bank, USA

Ex-Officio:

Mr. Douglas A. Forno Chief, Agriculture & Forestry Division - Agriculture & Natural Resources Department The World Bank, USA

Ms. Joan C. Martin-Brown Advisor to the Vice President - ESD The World Bank, USA

Ms. Faton Sow Universite Cheik Anta Diop de Dakar Institutee Fondamental d'Afrique Noir Senegal Mr. Murli Tolaney PE President and CEO Montgomery Watson, USA Mr. Jack Whelan Director of External Relations External Relations, France Ms. Ann Whyte Mestor Associates, Canada Mr. Anders Wijkman Assistant Administrator Director United Nations Development Program USA Mr. Donald V. Roberts Chairman World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development, USA Mr. Michael Sanio Executive Director World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development, USA

Documents

Reuse of Urban Waste for Agriculture An Investment Program for Progressive Action