Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) Inputsby the city

Transcription

1 Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) Background Status in 21 (Photo courtesy of PKK Surabaya) Replication of Surabaya s Practices: A main activity of the Kitakyushu Initiative ICA Kyushu, 3 une 211 Toshizo Maeda, IGES Kitakyushu Urban Centre Keputih Final disposal site was closed in 21 due to opposition by residents. Waste filled the streets and drains. Social and Economic Benefits of Organic Waste : Actions for 1% waste reduction New Benowo Landfill: 8 scavengers; 35km from city ; Surrounded ddby fish ponds; demand dfor waste reduction is highh Current Status 2 Waste Composition in Surabaya Others Plastic 8% Paper 8% 8% Social and Economic Benefits of Organic Waste : Prioritize reduction of Actions for 1% waste reduction organic waste Inputs by the city Sumber Rejo Romokalisari (Benowo) Bibis Karah Centre *Map copied from El Sena, Surabaya, Indonesia Figure 7 Location of composting s in Surabaya Kepturan 15 composting s in Surabaya City 13% Street sweeping 1% 55% Organic Promote composting A) at each household B) at composting s Wonorejo Sonokwijenan Putat aya Tenggilis Utara Menur Bratang Kejawan Putih Woods/bamboo Source: KITA (22) Gayungsari Tenggilis Timur PUSDAKOTA Rungkut Asri 3 Inputsby the city 4 35 Total number of household compost baskets distributed 3 for free by Surabaya City 25 2, Number of composting s Organic waste shares more than half (as much as 7-8%) of total amount of waste generation , (Data source: Cleansing and Landscaping Dept., Surabaya) 1, ,752 17, , 2, 15, 1, 5, -5, -1, -15, -2, 5 * Note: Benowo is the only final disposal site in Surabaya City. OUTPUT: WASTE REDUCTION (Data source: Cleansing and Landscaping Department, Surabaya) [t/day] Average daily amount of waste disposed at Benowo Landfill* in Surabaya, ,6 1,5t/day or more 1,3t/day (27) 1,15t/day (28) 1,4 1,t/day (29) 1,2 1, 8 6 2% reduction in 4 years! % reduction in 5 years!! an Feb Mar Apr May un ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec an Feb Mar Apr May un ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec an Feb Mar Apr May un ul F M A S N D F M A S N D F M

2 Output: waste reduction 2t/d 35t/d 235t/d 5t/d 35t/d 12t/d 1t/d 4t/d 7t/d 4t/d 45t/d 5t/d Reuse and Recycling of other dry waste (Data source: Cleansing and Landscaping Department, Surabaya)) 1 tonne of composting reduces additional 1 2 tonnes of dry waste. at each household: 17, units distributed for free by Surabaya City 27, cadres train 3 household each (=81, hhs) (assumption) 1,3 units of a communal type distributed by Surabaya City, which caters for about 5 households each (= 6,5 households) 1, households x 1kg/day/household 1t/day at 15 composting s: Cleansing Department: 14 composting s, 5t/d (= 1m 3 /d) PUSDAKOTA (NGO): 1 composting, 1.4t/d 1t/d reduction by household composting, 5t/d reduction at composting s, Remaining12t/d (27) 35t/d (29) capacity: 15t/day reduction by Reuse and Recycling. Social and environmental benefits Better household environment Greener and cleaner streets Environmental education tools 7 8 Social and environmental benefits Main Stakeholders Employment Production of herbsand vegetables using compost Waste segregation and promotion of recycling Income by selling compost 9 1 Surabaya ssuccessful successful solidwaste management Starting a project (photo courtesy of KITA) Step 1. Development of a community, from 24 to 26: Cooperation betweenkitakyushu International Techno cooperative Agency (KITA) and (a local NGO), Waste composition survey Shredding of waste Mixing with seed compost 11 Temperature measurement Fermentation and ph tests Explaining how to use baskets to residents 12

3 Development of a community ( (NGO) s activity) Achievements bykita s intervention (photo courtesy of KITA) Segregatedwaste collection from the community Shredding at the composting Fermentation PUSDAKOTA s compost : before and after KITA s intervention Household compost basket Selling compost Green streets using compost Surabaya ssuccessful successful solidwaste management andits positiveimpactsimpacts insurabaya (Photos cited from Sparking Parks in Surabaya, Cleansing Department, Surabaya City, 28) Step 2. Scaling up the project by the City Government, from : Setting up composting s Distributing compost baskets to residents Parks became greener using compost Streets became greener using compost Bratang Centre Sonokwijenan Centre Keputran Centre Activities of PKK (awomen s ) and Environmental Cadres Surabaya ssuccessful successful solidwaste management Program pokok ke-9 Organic-unorganic waste sorting KELESTARIAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP Waste segregation training VICE CHAIRMAN OF PKK DIRECTLY GIVING TRAINING 9th main program ENVIRONMENT Explaining PRESERVATION how to use compost baskets 9th main program ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION Recycling trainings Turn waste into blessing Manufacturing bags from waste Step 3. Organisng ga community clean up campaign, from : Cooperation with NGOs, private companies and the media Successful involvement of citizens in the waste management activities Meeting of Environmental Cadres Activities of Environmental Cadres Environmental Event (Photo courtesy of PKK Surabaya (top row) and Environmental Cadre of Tegalsari, Surabaya (bottom row) 17 18

4 and Private Sector Involvement Environmental Leaders (Cadres) Source: Surabaya City Award winning community (Photo courtesy of Uli Peduli) Green streets Campaign sponsors 8, 26,744 27, 3, Number of 23,195 There are 27, environmental 7, Environmental Cadres 2, Cadres (community 6, environmental leaders) 5,684 1, in Surabaya City 5, 317 1,5 4, Award winning housewives Entrance to a community Products made from waste 19 3, 2, 1, Number of RTs in Green & Clean Campaign ,774 1,797 1, More than 2% of communities 1, (RT) participate in the Green & Clean Campaign 2, 3, Number, of Environmental Cadres and participating communities in Green & Clean Campaign 2 Surabaya ssuccessful successful solidwaste management COMPOSTING METHODS Figure8 OperationalflowofTakakuraMethod of (Prepared by Maeda (29) with technical supervision by Kouji Takakura, Pec Co., Ltd.) Efficient Method High productivity (within 2 weeks) Using only local lmaterials No offensive smell, no leachate Fast, cheap and good quality! Features: 1. Fast and less space requirement 2. No foul smell (not rotting) 3. Low cost, low tech and easy operation 4. Ui Using only local l materials 5. Active microorganism in compost enriches the soil Options Surabaya ssuccessful successful solidwaste management Organic waste from households Organic waste from vegetable markets Location of composting Household compost baskets (17, baskets distributed) composting (PUSDAKOTA s case) Market waste composting (14 s under Cleansing Dept) methods Takakura Home Method (THM) Tkk Takakura Susun New Windrow Method (TSM)* Method New Windrow Method Financial Analysis ofpractices Is composting financially sustainable? Types of composting options in Surabaya 23 24

5 Costs of composting promotion Expenditure of Cleansing Department Surabaya, [ Rp. million] Promotion of composting and waste segregation 18, (only 1 2% of the total solid waste management expenditures) 16, Land procurement for a new landfill site 14, Management of final disposal site Procurement and maintenance of waste 12, management equipment and facilities 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Figure 5 Annual expenditures of Cleansing and Landscaping Department, Surabaya, (Data source: City Development Planning Department (BAPPEKO)Cleansing and Landscaping Department, Surabaya; prepared by Maeda (29)) Annual solid waste management costs: USD1 million per year Waste collection and transportation Park management Administrative expenses 25 How much is the solid waste management cost per tonne? Waste management cost in Surabaya: (collection and landfill management) USD1 million/year (27) Divided by 1,3t/day x 365days: USD21/t Landfill construction cost (27ha): USD6.5 million Divided by 1,5t/d x 365days x 5yrs & 1,3t/d x 365days x 2yrs USD2/t (not including cover soil) Waste management cost: USD23/t or more 26 Is operation of a composting financially sustainable? PUSDAKOTA (NGO) s composting : 14t/daycollection 1.4t/day 4t/month collection 1t/month of compost production Sales of compost: USD1/t Income USD1,/month Expenditure: USD65/month (incl. labor and utility costs) Profit: USD35/month = USD4,2/year Can purchase a new shredder!! (If all the compost is sold ) Plus, cost saved from waste reduction (4t/month) Hidden profit: 4t/month x USD23/t = USD9/month = USD11,/year City government may think about giving a subsidy for building a composting. 27 How muchdid the city save by reducing waste? Soil conditioners 14 composting s in Surabaya City: 5 t/day = 1,5 t/month Compost production: 3t/month (2% of input) Replacing the purchase of soil conditioners 3t/m x USD2/t = USD6,/month PLUS, cost saved from waste reduction: 1,5t/month x USD23/t = USD34,/month Profit: USD4,/month = USD48,/year 28 How much space is required for a composting? Area [m 2 ] 7 6 Necessary space for a composting (incl. the office space): 1t/day (3t/m) of waste input: 1m 2 Compost production: 6t/m (Income: USD6/month) 3/d 3t/day (9t/m) of waste input: 2m 2 18t/m (USD1,8/m) 5t/day (15t/m) of waste input: 3m 2 3t/m (USD3,/m) 5 Centre is 4 operational in a small space! 3 2 Fig. Area of composting s and Amount of processed organic waste 1 in Surabaya Organic waste input [t/day] Source: Cleansing and Landscaping Department Surabaya Does free distribution of compost baskets make business sense? Distribution of household compost baskets in Surabaya: 17, units distributed for free by the city in 5 years Distribution cost: USD1/basket x 17, = USD17, Campaign cost: USD1/basket x 17, = USD17, Total cost: USD34, Benefit: Waste reduction: 17t/day (= 17, households x 1 kg/day/household) Cost saved from waste reduction: 17t/d x 365days x USD23/t = USD14,/year Cost recovery in 2.5 years! Enlarged dbenefit: Cost recovery in 1 year!! Waste reduction: 4t/day (27) Cost saved from waste reduction: 4t/d x 365days x USD23/t = USD33,/year 29 3

6 Whypeoplepractice practice compostingathome? Household financial analysis: Organic waste: 1kg/day/household /h h 3kg/month Compost: 6kg/month (2% of input) Purchasing price: USD.7/kg (= USD7/t) Income: USD.42/month Purchased db by Not enough economic incentive. (NGO) Main driving forces are: improvement of kitchen environment & self use of compost for plants and gardens Dropping out rate is High! (only 2% continue practicing) Need a monitoring system (= environmental leaders) 31 Estimated GHG emissions avoided at landfills [t/year] Potential: 1,t CO2/year reduction Chances for USD1/t CO2 USD1,/year / Carbon Credit Reduction of organic 3, waste generation through composting: 25, 8t/day (= 6t/day of food waste and 2t/day of park and garden 2, waste) 15, 1, 5, Total CO 2 emissions avoided at the final disposal site and the future projection Figure 6 Reductions of organic waste generation and consequent greenhouse gas emissions in Surabaya (Prepared by Maeda (29), based on the first order decay from Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site (version 4), CDM Executive Board, UNFCCC) 32 Recommendations for other cities to achieve 1 2% waste reduction in 3 years eg e.g. Actions for 1 2% reduction in waste generation 1 2% reduction target Inputs in Surabaya: Waste generation: 1,5 t/day 1,3 t/day Centres: processing 4 t/day (= 2 3% of total waste) Population: 3 million (= 6, households) Household compost baskets: 17, units (= 2 3% of households) Inputs in Sibu, Malaysia (proposal): Waste generation: 13 t/day 11 t/day (15% reduction) Centres: process 5 t/day (= 4% of total t waste) t) Population: 2, (= 4, households) Compost tb baskets: 1, households h (= 2.5% 25% of households) h e.g. Possible actions in Sibu, Malaysia 1. Market waste composting s Process 2 t/day (= producing.4 t/day) Target 2t/dayreduction 13 t/day 11 t/day (5 t/day by composting & 15 t/day by recycling) 2. s in communities and schools 4 sites 2 t/day 3. Distribution of compost baskets to residents 1, households (2.5% of the total households) 1 t/day 4. Organising ga community clean up campaign Involve private companies, local newspapers and TV programmes 5. Compost purchasing scheme City starts purchasing the compost for park maintenance Free distribution to farmers; marketing of compost 6. Technical assistance by Kitakyushu City, KITA, IGES and ICA Results in Sibu, Malaysia Total amount of solid waste is not decreasing Population is increasing Economy is growing More consumption, more waste The scale of composting practices may not be large enough It requires a systematic and city wide approach to achieve total waste reduction. Commitment by the Mayor (leader) and responsible officers is a prerequisite

7 Spreading Surabaya s in other cities and countries INDONESIA Surabaya Semarang Medan Makassar Palembang Central akarta Balikpapan Tarakan Bago PHILIPPINES Cebu Cavite Bangkok Talisay THAILAND Sankamphaeng Puerto Princesa Sri Lacha NEPAL Lalitpur MALAYSIA Sibu Kuala Lumpur 37 Model 1: Replication by NGOs Roles of inter-mediators are essential for replicating/scaling g up good practices. NGO Inter mediator NGO (Surabaya) Pagtambayayong Foundation (Cebu) City boundary NGO NGO NGOs facilitate replication i of good practices to other NGOs and community s within and outside the city. But, they have difficulties inmobilizingresources from local governments. 38 Model 2: Scaling Up by Local Governments (NGO) s composting Pagtambayayong Foundation Inter mediator Surabaya City Government City boundary Local governments can scale up NGOs good practices within the city. (It usually does not go beyond the city boundary.) Model 3: Scaling Up by Local Governments and NGOs Surabaya City Government Financial and political supports Use of compost baskets at households Pagtambayayong Foundation A community where Pustakota is located PKK (women s ) and other NGOs Inter mediator City boundary Private companies and the media Support for the community cleanup campaign environment leaders Local governments can assist NGOs/community s in scaling up good practices to other NGOs/community s withinthe the city Model 4: Replication from City to City to Indonesia ICA Indonesia Office Surabaya s solid waste practices Financial supports ICA s Grassroots Grant CLAIR* apan Fund for Global Environmental Kitakyushu City Pagtambayayong Foundation KITA Kitakyushu Initiative (IGES) Inter mediators Semarang Medan Makassar Palembang UNESCAP Central akarta Balikpapan Tarakan External organizations can facilitate replication of good practices from cities to cities. Bangkok ICA Malaysia Office Thailand Sankamphhaeng Malaysia Sibu Kuala Lumpur APFED** Bago Sri Lacha ICA Nepal Office Nepal Lalitpur Philippines Cebu Talisay Cavite Puerto Princesa * CLAIR: Council of Local Authorities for International Relations ** APFED: Asia Pacific Forum for Environment and Development 41 Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environment (2-21) 21) cities, 1 countries 62 cities, 18 countries 174 cities, 18 countries A programme of UN ESCAP*; Supported by Kitakyushu City, MOE*, MoFA* and IGES; Information sharing of good practices * UN ESCAP: UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific * MOE: Ministry of Environment,; MoFA: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

8 KitakyushuInitiative Final Report Describes the outputs and achievements of the KI programme Provides recommendations to national and local governments, as well as managers of inter city programmes similar to KI Presented to the Ministers and delegates of the MCED 6*, Astana, in Sep/Oct 21 * MCED 6: 6 th Ministerial Conference on Economy and Development in Asia and the Pacific 43