Table of Contents PREFACE..... ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 ABBREVIATIONSANDACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. 2 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-5 WASTEGENERATION ...................................................................................................................................... 7-12 Municipal Solid Waste Industrial Hazardous Waste Infectious and Community Generated Hazardous Waste WASTEREDUCTION,REUSEANDRECYCLING ......................................................................................... 13-18 MUNICIPALSOLIDWASTE........................................................................................................................... 19-26 Collection and Transport Disposal HAZARDOUSWASTE .................................................................................................................................... 27-33 Industrial - Treatment and Disposal Infectious - Treatment and Disposal ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 35-44 Budget and Expenditure LegalFramework Institutions Plans Role of the NGOs CHALLENGES ................................................................................................................................................. 45-51 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 52-54 GLOSSARYOFTERMS....................................................................................................................................... 55 USEFULWEBSITES ............................................................................................................................................. 56 THAILANDATAGLANCE .................................................................................................................................. 57 The Pollution Control Department (PCD) of Thailand's Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE), the World Bank, the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership (USAEP), and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) contributed to the prepara- tion of this document. The World Bank Team consisted of John Morton (Team Leader), Sirinun Maitrawattana, Catalina Marulanda, Nat Pinnoi, Sutthana Vichitrananda, Patchamuthu Illangovan and Anjali Acharya. The team received guidance from Maria Teresa Serra, Sector Director; and Magda Lovei, Sector Manager of the Environment and Social Development Unit of the World Bank. Jack Kneeland and Saengroaj Kraisorn represented USAEP, Norio Saito represented JBIC, and Sopon Tatichotiphan, Paisarn Padungsirikul, Taweeporn Jung, and Suntorn Uppamarn represented the PCD. The municipal benchmarking survey was undertaken under the guidance of Jeff Bowyer (Louis Berger and USAEP) by a consortium of university professors led by Dr. Wanpen Wirojanagud and Dr.Somsak Pitaksanurat (Khon Kaen University) and included Dr. Tares Srisatit (Chulalongkorn University), Dr. Chatchai Ratanachai (Prince of Songkhla University), and Dr. Praphon Kemmadamrong (Chiang Mai University). Pornsri Kictham of the Municipal League of Thailand and Nonthaburi Municipality provided valuable assistance in testing the survey methodology in Nonthaburi. Analysis of landfill gas potential was undertaken in conjunction with Brian Guzzone (USEPA) and Alex Stege (SCS Engineers). The document was peer reviewed by World Bank Staff David Hanrahan, Dan Hoornweg, and Allan Rotman. Jack Fritz from the National Academy of Engineering (US) also peer reviewed the document. The cooperation of Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA), Department of Industrial Works (DIW) of the Ministry of Industry, Municipal League of Thailand (MLT) and the many municipalities surveyed as part of the preparation of the document helped enhance the quality and clarity of the data presented in the report and we gratefully acknowledge their patience and assistance. Sorachai Nuntawatcharaviboon and Kamolnat Nillachad were responsible for the cover design and layout. The views expressed in the Thailand Environment Monitor are entirely those of the authors and should not be cited without prior permission. They do not necessarily reflect the views of JBIC, USAEP, USEPA, and the World Bank Group, its executive directors, or the countries they represent. The material contained herein has been obtained from sources believed reliable but it is not necessarily complete and cannot be guaranteed. PREFACE The Thailand Environment Monitor series ­ initiated in The Thailand Environment Monitor 2003 assesses the 2000 ­ presents a snapshot of key environmental trends status, trends, lessons, and challenges of solid and haz- in the country. Its purpose is to engage and inform stake- ardous waste management in the country. The report is holders of environmental changes as they occur, in an in six sections. Section 1 reviews Waste Generation in easy-to-understand format. The first Environment Moni- the country. Section 2 outlines Waste Reduction and Re- tor, published in 2000, benchmarked trends in environmen- cycling practices. Sections 3 reviews Municipal Solid tal indicators covering a wide range of issues, including Waste, and Section 4 focuses on Industrial and Infec- those associated with environmental quality and natural tious Waste. Section 5 assesses Environmental Manage- resources conservation. Environmental changes, however, mentinrelationtotheLegalFramework,Institutions,Plans, occur over a period of time; therefore annual variations and current Expenditures. The concluding section of the are not easy to measure or assess, unlike economic indi- report outlines the Challenges faced by Thailand. cators. Thus, the series is designed to report general en- vironmental trends every five years and in the intervening The report is an outcome of a joint exercise among the years, the Monitor focuses on specific themes to highlight Pollution Control Department (PCD) of the Ministry of critical emerging problems. In 2001, the Monitor focused Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE), US-Asia on water quality and the theme for 2002 was air quality. Environmental Partnership (USAEP), Japan Bank for Solid and hazardous waste management is the focus of International Cooperation (JBIC), and the World Bank. the Thailand Environment Monitor 2003. Several surveys were also undertaken to obtain additional data and insights. A disposal practices survey of the 76 Solid and hazardous waste is a serious problem facing provincial capitals was undertaken by PCD and theWorld many of the urban and industrial areas of Thailand. Bank and this formed the basis of an analysis of disposal Considerable progress has been made in the past decade practices. The potential for landfill gas development was to improve waste management practices in the country, also assessed with the help of the US Environmental but the unfinished agenda, including the following issues, Protection Agency (USEPA). Additionally, USAEP, in remains challenging. In particular, there is a large untapped conjunction with a consortium of Thai university potential in recycling and waste reduction. Safe and professors and with the help of the Municipal League of effective municipal waste collection, treatment, and dis- Thailand, undertook a municipal benchmarking survey of posal systems are only just beginning to take shape in 13 small to medium-sized cities in Thailand. The results most areas of the country. Safe hazardous and infectious of these surveys and analyses are included in the report waste treatment and disposal systems need to be built to and are also available separately on the website and at- keep pace with the growth in waste generation. Sustain- tachedCD. TheotherinformationcontainedintheMonitor able financing for solid waste is still elusive and govern- has been compiled from a variety of sources, including ment agencies are challenged by staffing limitations. published and unpublished data and reports by govern- ment agencies, universities, nongovernmental organiza- tions, individuals, theWorld Bank, and international part- ners. H.E. Prapat Panyachatraksa Ian C. Porter Yasushi Negishi Winston Bowman Minister Country Director Chief Representative Regional Coordinator Ministry of Natural Resources East Asia and Pacific Region Japan Bank for International United States - Asia and Environment World Bank Cooperation Environmental Partnership 1 ABBREVIATIONANDACRONYMS BMA Bangkok Metropolitan Administration BMR Bangkok Metropolitan Region DEQP Department of Environmental Quality Promotion DIW Department of Industrial Works DoH Department of Health EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ESTs Environmentally SoundTechnologies EU European Union GDP Gross Domestic Product GENCO General Environmental Conservation (Public Company Limited) IEAT Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand ISO International Organization for Standardization JBIC Japan Bank for International Cooperation JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency Kg Kilograms MoIND Ministry of Industry MoInt Ministry of Interior MoNRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment MoPH Ministry of Public Health MSW Municipal SolidWaste MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management MW Megawatts NEQA National Environmental Quality Act NESDB National Economic and Social Development Board NGO Non Governmental Organization NIMBY Not in My Backyard Syndrome NSO National Statistical Office ONEP Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning PAO Provincial Administration Organization PCD Pollution Control Department PoNRE Provincial Office of Natural Resources and Environment REO Regional Environmental Office TAO TambonAdministration Organization TDRI Thailand Development Research Institute TECDA Thai Environmental and Community Development Association THB Thai Baht UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNESCAP United Nations Economics and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific USAEP United States-Asia Environmental Partnership USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 2 SUMMARY T Thailand currently produces nearly 22 million tons of waste from residences, industries, businesses, and hospitals. This is likely to increase in the coming years as the country is recovering from the financial crisis, and once again returning to a period of high growth, fueled by con- sumer spending and exports. For example, if current trends hold and recycling rates remain low, it is likely that by the end of the decade municipal waste generation would grow 25 percent and industrial hazardous waste would grow 35 percent. Management of this waste is a huge task that depends upon successful programs for recycling and re- use; providing safe and effective waste collection and dis- posal; the availability of sustainable financing; and, effec- tive contributions from government, the public, and civil society. Thailand has made great progress in addressing many of these issues and at the same time has further op- portunities to make real progress in improving the health and environment for future generations through better waste management. Reducing and Recycling Waste - Untapped Potential! While industries have effectively harnessed the market for recyclables such as glass, paper, metal and plastic, annually more than 4.5 million tons of recyclables valued at Thai Baht (THB) 16 billion (nearly US$400 million) are thrown away by households and businesses. With improved recy- cling, a portion of this potential market could be tapped. Despite an active group of approximately 25,000 informal recyclers in the country who profitably collect and trade this waste the limited number of formal recycling programs and low levels of public participation have kept recycling rates low in Thailand. Taking advantage of this opportunity will hinge upon developing effective incentives and awareness of the people to separate and recycle waste in their homes; and developing private sector and community-led recycling programs while protecting the welfare of the informal recyclers who depend upon recycling for a living. Municipal Solid Waste - Providing Safe and Cost-effective Collection and Disposal! Much of the efforts in municipal solid waste management in Thailand have focused on establishing the core infrastructure and services to properly collect and dispose waste. These efforts have improved the alarming level of littering found in urban areas in the 1980s and have established modern disposal facilities in many areas. In order to reach the goal of proper collection and safe disposal in urban areas nationwide several key challenges remain. · Building on Gains in Collection. The last decade saw significant spending by the national and local governments to upgrade and improve collection systems and today Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) collects nearly all of the municipal solid waste generated by its population of eight million people and collection in other cities and smaller urban areas averages between 75 and 90 percent. Building on these accomplishments, municipalities will need to strive to improve their services by addressing underserved areas better and ensuring the sustainability of their collection systems through better time and cost efficiency. 3 · Gaining Public Confidence through Safer Disposal, Public confidence in disposal facility operation is low with nearly half of the proposed sites in provincial capitals experiencing Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome, manifested in the outcry from the local people over the health and environmental risks currently posed in existing and future sites. The construction of more than 100 new disposal sites over the last 10 years has introduced many modern disposal practices. However, they comprise less than 10 percent of the estimated 1,000 or more municipal disposal sites in the country, and many lack well functioning environmental controls necessary for sanitary disposal. One of the key challenges is finding a cost-effective way of providing safe disposal facilities to more than 1,100 municipalities nation wide. The development of disposal sites that are shared within or among provinces provides great promise as it could make oversight easier and potentially could save over THB 180 billion (approximately US$ 4 billion) in investments and operation and maintenance costs over the next two decades. Incineration of municipal solid waste is a less attractive option as it is unlikely to be a cost-effective use of resources due to the high investment costs and the technical and operational difficulties this technology poses in Thailand. In addition to providing safe disposal sites, other major challenges include providing incentives for good disposal site operation by establishing an effective system for regulatory oversight and bridging the gap on NIMBY through education, consultation, and demonstrating good disposal. Industrial Waste-Plugging the Regulatory Gaps! Thailand has made strides in addressing industrial waste through the establishment of centralized treatment facilities and through the actions of the many Thai exporting firms who have voluntarily improved their environmental practices. However, the regulatory regime and enforcement for industrial waste treatment is not adequate to ensure safe disposal by more than 60,000 industries, and waste treatment and recycling operations. Additionally, cases of open dumping and improper disposal have been reported over the last several years, largely because there is no active oversight and licensing of waste haulers and buyers, and insufficient penalties for open dumping. With the introduction of new waste treatment operators as part of the recent liberalization of the sector, improving upon regulatory oversight will be the key to ensuring that the desired increase in treatment capacity also results in an increased level of safe treatment and disposal. The main challenges are to provide consis- tent and comprehensive enforcement of disposal regulations on industries and waste treatment operators and reducing the incentives for improper disposal and open dumping through stronger oversight of waste haulers and buyers and tougher penalties. Infectious and Community Generated Hazardous Waste - Establishing Safe Waste Management Systems! Currently, 140,000 tons of hazardous waste from households and small commercial establishments and 10,000 tons of infec- tious waste from hospitals is disposed with municipal solid waste, directly deposited into sewers or dumped indiscriminately. These practices compound the hazards of the many poorly operated landfills in the country. The immediate challenge will be to develop a program to improve existing hospital and municipal treatment practices. In the long term should focus on cost- effective approaches to establishing safer, more sustainable systems. Paying for Waste Management - Promoting User Fees! Amounting to THB 22 billion since 1994, capital investments in collection trucks and disposal facilities have been provided primarily through grants to municipalities from the national government budget and the Environmental Fund. The cost of operation and maintenance of these facilities is paid for by municipalities through user fees and municipal budget. While these national and local expenditures have made genuine improvements in solid waste management, neither are supported by a sustainable source of financing. The Environmental Fund has been draining its resources over the past 10 years with no mechanism for replenishment. Additionally, the operation and maintenance costs are not recovered, because fees charged by municipalities for waste collection have only been able to cover a portion of the costs of operating and maintaining the collection and disposal system. A more sustainable financing system needs to be established using a balance of replenishable national government financing and improved local cost recovery. This may include: mechanisms to replenish the Environmen- tal fund such as packaging or other solid waste related taxes; raising fee levels; improving fee collection; exploring other financing mechanisms; improving the cost-effectiveness of solid waste systems; and, building an environment conducive to private sector investment and operation. 4 SUMMARY Clarifying Roles and Confronting Capacity Constraints! Since enacting the Decentralization Act the roles for civil society, local governments, and national government have been evolving. It is expected, in the longer term, that public participation will expand, local governments will obtain relative independence in policy making, planning, and providing waste management services, while national government will play a supervisory and supporting role. · National Government- Providing effective outreach and oversight. With more than 60,000 industries and 1,000 municipalities, staffing remains a major constraint for national government agencies, which can only provide 1 solid waste officer per 142 municipalities and 1 inspector per 180 industries. The main challenge for these agencies is improving their ability to provide effective outreach and oversight through strong on-the-ground presence, while tar geting their activities in areas with the greatest impact and comparative advantage. · Local Government- Providing local services. Local governments have a limited number of staff and on average only 15 percent of the Staff are educated beyond high school. As a result municipalities have, in most cases, only been able to focus on the core tasks of collection and disposal. The major challenge for them will be to improve management and efficiency of their core services while building capacity to address new opportunities such as recycling, planning, and cost recovery. · Civil Society- Catalyzing grassroots initiatives. Civil society has been active for years in Thailand with several very successful NGOs playing key roles in encouraging participation in solid waste management. The challenge will be to further catalyze grassroots participation by taking advantage of partnerships with government, civil society, and the private sector. In summary, the main challenges for solid and hazardous waste management in Thailand are: CHALLENGES · Getting the incentives right · Taking awareness to the next level Reducing and RecyclingWaste · Separating the waste · Harnessing the market for waste · Protecting waste pickers and sa leng · Building on gains in waste collection MunicipalSolidWaste-ProvidingSafeandCost-Effective · Expanding and upgrading safe disposal CollectionandDisposal · Regulating solid waste facilities · Coming together on NIMBY · Encouraging safe practices in a liberalized industrial IndustrialWaste - Plugging the Regulatory Gaps hazardous waste treatment market · Taking on illegal dumping InfectiousandCommunityGeneratedHazardousWaste- · Improving treatment of infectious waste · Beginning to address community hazardous waste Establishing SafeWaste Management Systems · Investing in the future PayingforWasteManagement · Recovering operational costs · Improving private sector involvement · Providing local services Clarifying Roles · Providing effective outreach and oversight · Catalyzing grassroots initiatives 5 One of disposal sites in Tambon municipalities Glass collected by informal recyclers 6 Millions of tons of waste. Thailand produces nearly 22 Table 1: Waste Generation in Thailand in 2002 million tons of waste annually (Table 1). Municipal solid Waste Generation ('000th tons/yr) waste, which is made up of the everyday waste produced by households and businesses, makes up 67 percent of the Total Total mi- Largest-producing nus reuse provinces (% of total) total waste generation, while non-hazardous waste produced and recy- by industries accounts for 27 percent. The remainder of cling the waste, though produced in lower volumes, is poten- Municipal 14,400 12,800 Bangkok (27%) Solid Nakhon Ratchasima (3.3%) tially more dangerous due to its hazardous or infectious Waste Samut Prakan (2.3%) properties. This includes infectious waste from hospitals Khon Kaen (2.1%) and hazardous waste produced by industries and commu- Infectious 21.3 21.3 Bangkok (21%) Waste Chiang Mai (3.9%) nities, including households and small businesses such as Nonthaburi (3.4%) gas stations. Nakhon Ratchasima (3.0%) Industrial 963 788 Samut Prakan (19%) Hazardous Bangkok (18%) Bangkok Metropolis accounts for bulk of the waste. Waste Pathumthani (11%) Bangkok and the surrounding provinces1, produce 30 per- Samut Sakhon (7.0%) cent of the municipal solid waste, 40 percent of the infec- Industrial 5,890 1,271 Samut Prakan (13%) Non- Bangkok (11%) tious waste, and 43 percent of the industrial waste in the Hazardous Samut Sakorn (8.5%) Waste Patumthani (5.2%) country (Map 1 and Table 1). In the rest of the country, Community 372 Bangkok (34%), waste generation is more dispersed with larger production 182 Hazardous Nakhon Pathom (2.6%) in the more populated and industrialized provinces such as Waste Nonthaburi (1.4%) Pathun Thani (0.8%) Songkhla, Nakhon Ratchasima, Chon Buri and Chiang Mai. Sources: Based on studies and estimates described in methodology section. Note that an estimated 8.000 tons of infectious waste, 70,000 tons of community-gen- A small group of generators produce a large propor- erated hazardous waste, 79,000 tons of industrial hazardous waste, and 160,000 tons of industrial non-hazardous waste are disposed as municipal solid waste tion of the waste. Nearly two-thirds of the industrial haz- and included in the municipal solid waste figure above. ardous waste comes from metal and electronic industries, Table 2: Waste Composition in Thailand while more than half of the community hazardous waste is Type of Major Sources Major Constituents created by automotive service stations, and nearly all infec- Waste tious waste comes from hospitals. Municipal solid waste is Municipal Residential Kitchen waste (51%) produced by a combination of residential and other sources, Solid Waste Commercial/Tourism Plastic and Foam (22%) Agriculture Paper (13%) determined by the relative proportion of industrial, com- Glass (3%) mercial, or tourism activity in the area. (Table 2.) Infectious Hospitals (93%) Tissue samples Waste Educational and Blood and other liquids labs (7%) Surgical wastes and syringes Industrial Metals industries (33%) Filter materials, waste Hazardous Electronic industries (28%) sludge (35%) Waste Plastic industries (8%) Fuel, oil and grease (28%) Liquid organic compounds (8%) Chemicals and Petroleum industries (7%) Industrial Metals industries (36%) Metals and metal alloys (30%) Non- Food industries (13%) Parts of wood (16%) hazardous Furniture (7%) Animal parts (13%) Waste Community Automotive stations (54%) Recyclable waste oils (27%) Hazardous Residential (19%) Lead acid batteries (21%) Waste Agricultural (10%) Other toxic chemicals (8%) Other waste oils (6%) Gas stations (10% Foam and banana leaves collected from Chao Phraya River during Sources: Infectious and Community Hazardous Waste : PCD (Community haz- ardous waste study), 1998. Industrial Hazardous Waste: see methodology sec- the Loi Krathong Festival tion for details; Municipal Solid Waste composition based on 1999 data pro- vided through personal communication with JBIC. 1 Includes Bangkok, Pathun Thani, Nonthaburi, Samut Sakhon and Samut Prakan. 8 WASTE GENERATION 9 Each day over a half a kilogram of waste is produced per person. Nationally, the average amount of solid waste produced per person in 2002 was 0.65 kg per day, a num- ber that has grown an estimated 17 percent between 1994 and 20012 despite the reduced consumption during and immediately after the 1997 financial crisis (Table 3). On average, urban areas in Thailand produce up to three times more (0.5-1.7 kg/person/day) solid waste per person than in rural areas (0.4-0.6 kg/person/day).3 This is mostly due to the higher number of businesses and other activities in urban centers. For example, Bangkok has a per capita waste generation rate comparable to Tokyo and Hong Kong (1.3 kg/capita/day), due to the high quantity of waste from non- household sources such as stores, offices, and hotels. Tourists increase solid waste generation. Tourism ar- eas in Thailand produce some of the highest quantities of solid waste per capita due to the high influx of tourists and supporting businesses. For example, a tourist in Patong Beach, Phuket, produces 2.2 kg/day of solid waste.4 When the waste from tourism is added to the solid waste pro- duced by the resident population, per capita solid waste generation in Patong Beach is over three times higher than that of Bangkok. Up to 17 million tons of municipal waste may need to be disposed in 2010. Future growth of solid waste gen- eration will depend upon the population growth, consump- tion, and recycling and reuse in the country. With the cur- rent rate of growth in population and consumption, 17 mil- lion tons of waste will be need to be disposed in 2010 (Fig. 2). This could reach as high as 20 million tons if recycling and reuse rates remain constant and consumption levels grow rapidly enough to increase per capita solid waste gen- eration by 50 percent over this period. Recycling and Reuse can curb growth in waste gen- eration. If recycling and reuse increased from the current level of 11 percent5 to 25 percent, future growth in waste generation could be significantly curtailed, which would nearly stabilize or decrease waste generation in the short 2 Estimated based on PCD per capita waste generation rates and term (Fig. 2). correlated to statistics of consumption of semi-durable and durable goods. Consumption levels of these goods grew an average of 5% in the pre-crisis years (1994-1996), declined an average of 3% annually during the crisis (1997-1998) and grew an average of 2% annually in the post-crisis years (1999-2001). 3 5 PCD, 2001 data. Estimated based on municipal and non-municipal recycling rate 4 Ban Chang-BFI, 1995. presented in PCD (Recycling Study), 2001. 10 WASTE GENERATION Industrial HazardousWaste Industrial waste generation is fueled by growth in manufacturing. In the late 1980s and early 1990s indus- trial waste generation grew dramatically, resulting from an average annual growth in manufacturing of 10 percent. There was a dip in manufacturing production during the financial crisis, yet since then the manufacturing sector has rebounded, growing an average of 4 percent over the last several years.6 Industries producing hazardous waste are growing fast. The top four hazardous waste producing industries account for just under 29 percent of the industrial output of Thailand , but include some of the fastest growing sec- 7 tors. For example, electronics and electrical products, and metal products, account for just under half of the hazard- ous waste produced in the country. Since 2000, these sec- tors have grown 2-3 times faster than the manufacturing sector as a whole.8 Hazardous waste is likely to grow rapidly with a strong economy. Projections based on current manufacturing composition and waste practices indicate that, in the cur- rent decade, hazardous waste generation could grow any- where from 8 percent with low economic growth (1.5 per- cent annual GDP growth) to 70 percent with high eco- nomic growth (6 percent annual GDP growth) (Fig. 3). Thailand's GDP is expected to grow by 5.6 percent in 2003. Improved recycling, efficiency, and pollution preven- tion could reduce industrial hazardous waste genera- tion. While nearly 80 percent of non-hazardous industrial waste is recycled in Bangkok and vicinity, only 18 percent of industrial hazardous waste is reused or recycled.9 An increase in hazardous waste recycling and reuse from current levels to 30 percent by 2010 could significantly reduce the anticipated growth in hazardous waste, result- ing in cost savings both in production and treatment (Fig. 3). 6 Bank of Thailand figures for growth in manufacturing production index from 1988 to 1996 and 2000 through 2002. 7 Industrial output from DIW industry database for 2001. The top four hazardous waste producing industries account for 76 percent of the hazardous waste production nationally and are shown on Table 2. 8 Waste production estimates described in methodology section. Growth from Bank of Thailand data, 2000-2002 annual growth in manufactur- ing production index. 9 Kokusai Kogyo and Ex Corp for DIW and JICA, 2002. 11 Infectious and Community Generated HazardousWaste Community hazardous waste produced by households, in- cluding such items as batteries, light bulbs, spray cans and cleaning solvents, will roughly follow the increases in solid waste generation. However, the amount is also de- pendent on changes in particular consumption patterns such as recent increases in the use of cell phones and electronic equipment. Community hazardous waste not produced by households, but produced by gas stations and automotive repair shops, dry cleaners, and photo processing, is largely dependent upon the growth of the economy and to some extent on the inherent technologies and practices. Esti- mates of growth indicated from 2002 to 2012 community hazardous waste may grow 35 percent (Table 5). Infectious waste is primarily from hospitals, clinics and primary care units and depends upon the sophistication of the facility, visitation, and types of healthcare provided. Estimates in growth indicate that infectious waste could grow 28 percent from 2002 to 2012 (Table 5). Infectious waste in red plastic bag is co-disposed with municipal solid waste 12 Bangkok lags some East Asian cities in recycling. Bangkok recycles 15 percent of its waste, a value just above Beijing and Manila but much lower than cities such as Seoul, Hong Kong, and Singapore (Table 6). Nationally, more than 1.5 million tons of municipal solid waste is recycled each year in Thailand, amounting to 11 percent of the total amount of waste generated10. Municipal areas on average recycle 16 percent of their waste while non-municipal areas recycle between 5 and 8 percent11. (Fig. 4). Over one third of municipal waste could be commer- cially recycled. Roughly 42 percent of Thailand's mu- nicipal solid waste is comprised of glass, plastic, paper, and metal, which has the potential to be recycled commercially and then reused in various manufacturing and industrial activities. As a result, almost 4.5 million tons of commer- cially recyclable materials12 are discarded each year. The potential market value of these materials is THB 16 billion per year13. Metal and paper, in particular, have tremendous recycling potential and approximately two thirds of these recyclables are currently discarded (Fig. 5). Informal recyclers dominate. Of the recyclable materi- als that are collected, more than 70 percent is collected informally, by three main groups (Fig. 6). The most promi- nent are the sa leng, waste collectors who are easily recog- nized as they commonly use tricycles to collect waste. Additionally, municipal garbage collectors also sort and collect recyclables for sale on an informal basis to supple- ment their income. Finally, there are several thousand waste pickers or scavengers who collect waste from the landfill and sell it as a livelihood. 10 PCD (Recycling Study), 2001. Out of the 14.4 million tons of solid waste produced nationally, Bangkok and municipal areas recycle 1.28 million tons per yr while non municipal areas recycle between 0.3 and 0.5 million tons per yr. 11 Municipal areas from PCD (Recycling Study), 2001 and non muinicipal areas from PCD (Recycling Study), 1998 as cited in 2001 study. 12 Based on percentages from PCD (Recycling Study), 2001 applied to 2001 waste production estimates. 13 Estimated based on the amount of glass, metal, paper and plastic that is disposed with waste and the sale price of these recyclable materials. See methodology section for more details. 14 Ibid. 14 WASTE REDUCTION, REUSE, AND RECYCLING Households do little separation of waste. Separation of recyclables by households is currently limited to that which is encouraged through Garbage Banks and the relatively small quantities of paper and glass that households store for sale or donation to sa leng or recycling shops. Composting is still not widespread but has a large potential. Composting involves the decomposition of the organic portion of municipal solid waste and using the product as a soil conditioner. There is a large potential use for this material, however, only 2,700 tons of waste per is processed each year in the 113 composting operations found in municipal areas of Thailand15 and in Bangkok plans were abandoned to develop a composting plant. Studies indicate that the major use for compost in the Bangkok and vicinity in public parks and green areas. Besides reducing the amount is by farmers cultivating tree crops, vegetables, and of waste for landfills, composting also helps to reduce flowers, and amounts to 1.4 million tons of compost, Thailand's greenhouse gas emissions as envisioned under valued at THB 4.5 billion annually16. Additionally, another the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 150,000 tons of compost could be used by BMA each year Change (UNFCCC). Box 1: Encouraging Recycling Through Garbage Banks Garbage banks were conceived as initiatives to encourage recycling activities at the community level, through which participants receive goods or money in exchange for their recyclable waste. Following the success of the first garbage bank in Dan Khun Tod, these types of banks have been replicated around the country. As of 2001 there were 87 of them in the municipal areas of Thailand that process a total of 2,500 tons of recyclables a year. School garbage banks are typically set up in local schools, where students can bring recyclable waste for collection. Students receive either cash or a certain number of reward points in exchange for their waste, depending on the volume and the type of material presented. Reward points can be redeemed to procure sports equipment, stationary, and other goods, the purchase of which is funded with profits from the sale of the recyclable materials. Garbage banks are typically managed by students, with support from teachers and parents. Community garbage banks are variations of the school banks, run by communities and municipalities. In Phitsanulok, a commu- nity garbage bank is profitably managed by local youth, with the support of the municipality and of a private waste trading firm. In Phicit, profits generated from a garbage bank were used to set up a communal convenience store, where goods are sold to members at a lower price. In Udon Thani province, members of the garbage bank receive shares of proceeds from the sale of all the collected recyclable waste The "garbage-for-eggs" project was instituted in one of Bangkok's poorest residential areas by Klong Toey Environmental Protection Group. The primary objective of the project was to solve yearly flooding problems faced by the community, due to the blocking of canals and sewerage systems by improperly discarded waste. Residents were encouraged to collect recyclable materials and to exchange them for eggs. Within six months of the program's start-date, the amount of waste in the community was reduced by 161 tons. The project is now operating in 23 communities within Bangkok and other provinces. Note: Data on number of Banks and garbage for eggs projects from PCD (Recycling Study), 2001. 15 PCD (Recycling Study), 2001. 16 Data provided through personal communication with JBIC. 15 Box 2: Improving the Lives of Informal Recyclers It is common for the informal sector to participate in solid waste management activities in developing countries. This is due primarily to inadequate municipal services, which create a large need for informal waste collection, and the consequent opportunity it provides for income among the poor. The size of the informal recycling sector varies significantly from country to country. It has been estimated, for instance, that around 2 percent of Mexico's population live off recycling-related activities, including 30,000 people in the metropolitan area of Mexico City alone. In Colombia, 300,000 people, roughly 1 percent of the country's population, are involved in scavenging activities. The informal waste collection sector in Thailand is considerably smaller, with an estimated 25,000 people involved in informal recycling. This includes more than 15,000 sa leng waste collectors, 2,000 waste agents, and just under 4,000 scavengers who collect waste from disposal sites and transfer stations. In addition, over 3,000 municipal collectors in the country supplement their income by selling recyclables on an informal basis. Moreover, in Thailand, the income gap between formal and informal sectors is not as significant as in other countries. For example, at the On-nuch transfer station in Bangkok, scavengers earn between 150 and 400 baht per day while municipal collection workers earn an average of 700 baht per day. At the same time, informal recyclers, especially scavengers, are truly marginalized groups in Thailand that are subject to dangerous and unsani- tary working conditions. The majority have no benefits such as medical insurance and pension plans; they have limited job stability and few educational and other job opportunities. The following initiatives, implemented in Colombia and the Philip- pines, may provide some innovative ideas to help these people: Colombia, various cities - The support of government agencies and local NGOs has greatly contributed to the improve- ment of working conditions for waste pickers throughout Colombia. Recycling organizations started to emerge during the early 1990s, and progressively became small-scale enterprises and regional cooperatives. These cooperatives have gradually given their members employment benefits that are typical in the formal sector, such as subsidized health care, paid vacations, and pensions. Membership improves overall behavioral traits because recyclers have access to training, and they participate in meetings, social activities, and community life. Working conditions of recyclers typically improve after joining cooperatives because they are provided stable access to sources of recyclable materials (away from the landfills), as well as equipment and uniforms. The Philippines, Quezon City - In 1993, the community of scavengers that lives in Metro Manila's Payatas dumpsite established the Payatas Scavengers Association. This initiative has considerably improved the living standards of its mem- bers by filling some of the typical voids found in the informal sector. TheAssociation has promoted programs, among others, that aim at stabilizing the monthly incomes of scavengers through: 1) the establishment of home-based solid waste microenterprises, where recyclable materials are processed and subsequently resold at a profit, on a steady basis; and 2) the creation of a communal savings fund that provides access to loans for members of limited and uncertain monthly incomes. Sources: Hoyos, E., 2000; International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs) for Municipal Solid Waste Manage- ment (MSWM); The Philippines Environment Monitor 2001, The World Bank; PCD (Recycling Study), 1998; TDRI, The State of the Environment in Thailand, 2000; Data on earnings at On-nuch provided through personal communication with JBIC; Earnings of municipal workers at On-nuch include their base salary, income from selling recyclables, and other income from holiday work and collection fees from households.. 16 WASTE REDUCTION, REUSE, AND RECYCLING Incentives forWaste Reduction in Municipali- manufacturers can increase their competitiveness through ties and Industries reduced import fees and in many cases also through re- Municipalities are encouraging participation in recy- duced production costs20. cling. Bangkok, as well as most small to medium-sized regional cities, is undertaking some public awareness cam- paigns for recycling and waste separation17. While partici- pation in recycling is crucial, only modest success has been reported in most of these programs. For example, a recent program by BMA resulted in an increase the amount of recyclables collected but still only accounts for 0.3 percent of the total waste recycled in Bangkok and vicinity18. Incentives for waste reduction and recycling could save money on disposal. The introduction of packaging taxes and other economic incentives for reducing waste and encouraging recycling in many countries have had a larger impact on recycling and waste reduction in these countries than just public awareness and organized recycling programs alone. Implementing such measures in Thailand could have a significant impact both on waste generation and disposal costs. For example, with a modest 25 percent reduction in paper and plastic waste, garbage production could be reduced by over 1 million tons annually, resulting in an estimated savings of THB 500 million per year on collection and disposal19. Reduced packaging waste could improve export com- petitiveness. Packaging laws in the EU and other countries, including Japan, can reduce the competitiveness of Thai exports. These countries charge fees on excess packaging of products, including those imported from Thailand. As many Thai companies have not adapted their packaging to these laws and are commonly not aware of the fees, the price of using Thai products is higher than for companies that have adapted to packaging laws. By reducing packaging waste in Thai products, Thai 17 12 of the 13 cities surveyed in the municipal benchmarking survey, 2003 were undertaking these programs. Other municipalities are undoubtedly undertaking similar programs also, however, the data was not available. 18 Department of Public Cleansing, BMA, 2000. 19 World Bank estimates based on typical operation and maintenance and personnel costs for collection and disposal costs as reported by a 20From PCD, Research and Development on Waste Minimization and sample of 8 municipalities. Utilization Technology. 17 Recycling of Industrial and CommunityWaste The majority of industrial non-hazardous waste is re- cycled. According to a survey of industries in Bangkok and its vicinity, 78 percent of non-hazardous industrial waste is recycled (Table 7), mostly offsite by waste buyers and private companies. Annually, this amounts to 590,000 tons of metals; 140,000 tons of plastics; 90,000 tons of paper; and 65,000 tons of glass. Industrial hazardous waste recycling is being encour- aged. In Bangkok and vicinity less than 20 percent of industrial hazardous waste is recycled or reused21 (Table 7). Fuel oil and grease, along with organic compounds account for 30 percent of the total recyclables. Waste ex- change programs are currently being piloted in Thailand to further encourage industrial recycling. In these programs, companies match their waste disposal and raw material needs through a computerized database and subsequently exchange wastes. These types of transactions avoid disposal costs for the waste supplier, while the user can purchase used raw materials at lower prices than new materials. Some generators of community hazardous waste un- dertake extensive recycling. Approximately 51 percent Informal recyclers play a major role in recycling in Thailand of community generated hazardous waste is recycled or re-used. The largest generators are auto-repair shops and gas stations, which recycle 80 percent and 68 percent of their hazardous waste respectively. Households are the next largest generators, however, they only recycle or reuse approximately 2 percent of their waste22 . Various decorating products made from garbage by school kids in Pattani 21Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd and Ex Corporation for DIW and JICA, 2002. 22PCD (Community Waste Study), 1998. 18 Collection and Transport Solid waste collection is generally better in urban areas. Bangkok collects almost 100 percent of its munici- pal solid waste (Box 4). Outside Bangkok collection efforts are more variable, with larger cities (Muang municipalities) typically having more efficient collection than smaller towns (Tambon municipalities). Collection rates in rural areas are estimated to be between 20 and 30 percent23 (Table 8). Effective use of collection trucks is a challenge. While investments made in collection trucks are sufficient for most municipalities, many report maintenance problems; com- plain of spillage of garbage and leachate from trucks; and have problems accessing congested, narrow, or disorga- nized roads24. Some municipalities have begun to address these issues. For example, specially adapted collection trucks can access all areas and night collection can avoid traffic congestion. Collection truck modified from a "Tuk-Tuk" in order to be access narrow roads 20 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE Disposal Over 100 new disposal facilities have been con- structed. Of the estimated 1,000 or more disposal sites nationwide, only 104 have been constructed to appropriate standards through national government funding. Many of these new disposal facilities are located in the 76 provincial capitals and as a result 57 percent of these municipalities have engineered or sanitary landfills (Fig. 7). In contrast, only 4 percent of the more than 1,000 smaller, Tambon municipalities have landfills, with the remainder relying on dumps that are often located in abandoned or disused land where garbage is indiscriminately tossed (Fig. 8). Disposal sites commonly lack environmental controls. Only 5 provincial capital sites, truly operate with all the operational practices and environmental controls and conditions expected of a sanitary landfill25 (Table 9 and Map 2). The remaining sites incorporate some but not all of these practices and most commonly lack environmental controls. In particular, only 21 percent of the sites have leachate treatment, monitoring wells, and gas ventilation systems, and only 14 percent of the sites operate with effective environmental controls (see Fig. 9) Box 5: Protecting Natural Treasures- The Challenge of Solid Waste Disposal in National Parks Tourists commonly produce more than twice the amount of waste of households and managing this waste is cru- cial to maintaining the natural beauty of tourist attrac- tions such as National Parks and beaches. National Parks, unlike municipalities, are not well positioned to manage solid waste as they have limited expertise and budget re- sources. For National Parks in Thailand, this problem is leading to the accumulation of waste due to poor waste collection and the existence of open dump sites in what should be a natural protected areas. Through a JBIC funded program, the National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department is currently addressing this issue by encouraging waste reduction and recycling in National Parks and developing cooperative waste management arrangements among the Park and the adja- cent local governments. Open and controlled dumps are the predominant disposal Source: Personal communication with JBIC. practice in Tambon Municipalities 25 These include Songkhla, Rayong, Si Sa Ket, Bangkok- Ratchathewa, and Mukdahan. 21 Table 9: Safe and Unsafe Disposal Practices Operational Procedures Environmental Controls UN OpenDump No formal operational procedures. No environmental controls. Scavengers are com- SAFE monly living on site. Controlled Some basic waste accounting, placement Limited or no environmental controls.Waste pick- Dump and compaction procedures, limited fa- ers are commonly living on landfill. cilities such as fencing and staff on site. Engineered Some basic waste accounting, placement, Some environmental monitoring and environmen- Landfill cover, and compaction procedures, fenc- tal controls such as liner, drainage, leachate treat- ing and staff on site. Waste pickers may ment, and gas ventilation. Controls may be dys- SAFE be living on landfill. functional or not operated. Sanitary Waste accounting, placement, cover and Regular environmental monitoring. Environmen- Landfill compaction procedures, fencing and staff tal controls, including liner, drainage, leachate on site. No scavengers living on landfill. treatment, and gas ventilation that are able to maintain sanitary environmental conditions. Note: Also see methodology section. 22 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE Disposal 23 Unsafe disposal practices are putting communities and waste pickers at risk. Currently, many of the pro- vincial capital disposal sites are experiencing environmental problems that pose health risks to people in the surrounding area. Disease can be spread through insect and rodent vec- tors and through drinking and bath water that has been pol- luted by solid waste. The health risks are compounded by the fact that each year an estimated 70,000 tons of com- munity generated hazardous waste and 8,000 tons of infec- tious wastes are disposed in combination with municipal wastes26. Table 10: Provincial Capital Disposal Sites Reporting Environmental Problems Issue # sites % of sites Leachate contamination 26 34% Fires 12 13% Rodents and birds 26 34% Source: Survey of disposal sites in provincial capitals, 2003 Public pressure is mounting. A poor record of safe disposal practices is contributing to low public confidence in the disposal facilities. Half of the provincial capital municipalities reported that there was public opposition to landfill siting. Of those, a third had to abandon or postpone plans to establish a new landfill due to the strong resistance from people living near the proposed site (Fig. 10). Box 6: NIMBY - Bridging the Gap Between Communities and Waste Managers What the Residents Want. A recent survey of residents of Bangkok and vicinity revealed that only 15% of the people would not allow a munici- pal or industrial waste facility to be built in their district. Additionally, when asked what conditions would have to be met in order for them to accept a plan to construct a municipal or industrial waste treatment and disposal facility in their district, the most common answers were that they would require that they participate in the planning process and that the location be based on environmental and health considerations. Demonstrating Safe Disposal: In response to public opposition to siting a landfill in Bak Praek, the municipality has constructed a demon- stration landfill that is designed to educate the people on how a landfill operates and that it can be done safely. The landfill, which is designed to last only a few years, is intended to accommodate tours to educate the public. Sources:: Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd., EX Corporation for DIW and JICA, 2002. Based on survey of 410 residents of BMA, Pathun Thani, Nonthaburi, Samut Prakan, and Samut Sakhon.. Personal communication, Bak Praek Municipality. 2001. 26PCD (Community Waste Study), 1998 and MOPH, 2002 24 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE Disposal Most sites in provincial capitals have enough disposal capacity for more than a decade. Almost 70 percent of the disposal sites used by provincial capitals have an ex- pected lifetime of greater than 10 years and just under 40 percent are expected to last 20 years or more (Fig. 11). With investments in upgrading, these sites could provide safe, long-term disposal for these areas. Shared facilities could reduce the costs of disposal site improvement. The costs of upgrading the 1,000 dumps and landfills is high. Instead of upgrading the indi- vidual sites to sanitary landfills, it would be less costly to send all the waste from a province or portion of a province to a single facility (Table 12). Nationwide, shared facilities would result in a savings of over THB 20 billion in invest- ments, and, over 20 years there would be a savings of THB 160 billion in operations and maintenance (Also see Box 17). Incinerators are not likely to be cost-effective at this time in Thailand. Incineration of municipal solid waste is a costly and operationally complex alternative to landfills as congested urban centers and islands, due to the ability to (Table 13). It is often considered where land is scarce, such reduce waste volume by approximately 80 percent. In these Table 13: Is Bangkok Ready for Incineration? Minimumprerequisiteforincineration Status There is a mature well-functioning waste management system in place Functioning collection and disposal system. No effective household for a number of years segregation, recycling, or composting and fee collection system. Disposal of solid waste is done at controlled and well-operated Ratchathewa landfill has the operational and environmental practices in landfills. place. Kampangsean landfill has a history of environmental complaints but is upgrading practices and controls. There is a stable supply of combustible waste amounting to at least Bangkok produces 3.6 million tons of waste a year. 50,000 metric tons/yr. Waste composition allows combustion without supplementary fuel Average: 6.9 MJ/kg (average> 7 MJ/kg; never below 6 MJ/kg in any season). Minimum: 4.9 MJ/kg. Community is willing to absorb increased treatment cost through Fees have just increased from THB 4 to 40 per 20 litres. To cover the management charges, tipping fees, and tax-based subsidies costs of incineration, Bangkok residents would have to pay an equiva- lent of THB 150-200 per 20L or THB 300-400 per /household per month through fees, taxes, or other mechanisms. Skilled staff can be recruited and maintained. Local skills for environmental monitoring and operation of incinerators are limited. The Planning environment is stable enough to allow a planning horizon BMA uses a 5 year Development Plan that functions as an action plan of 15 years or more. and suffers from frequent changes and political interference. Prerequisites from Municipal Solid Waste Incineration, A Decision Makers Guide, World Bank, 1998. Calorific values represent 13 samples taken from transfer stations in Bangkok in 1996 and 1999 (Fichtner, 1996 and Collection Improvement Plan, 1999) but do not represent a systematic assessment of the seasonal fluctuations. A preliminary assessment based on the ash, moisture, and volatile solids content of these samples indicate that many of the samples taken are out of the range that can be combusted without supplementary fuel (personal communication, JBIC). Costs based on current collection costs and capital and operations and maintenance cost for incineration of 10,000 tons/day using numbers from World Bank, 1998.; BMA planning assessment based on COWI-EP&T Associates, 2000. 25 areas, a decision on whether to pursue incineration should Technology to produce electricity from garbage is first consider the following issues: the composition of the being introduced to Thailand. Both landfills in Bangkok waste; performance record of the municipality; and avail- are currently developing systems to produce energy by us- ability of staff and equipment for operation, oversight, and ing "landfill gas," the flammable gas produced by garbage environmental monitoring. All of these pose barriers in when it degrades in landfills (Box 6). Work by Kasesart Thailand. Additionally, Thai municipalities currently only University at the Kampangsean landfill has been successful recover a portion of operation and maintenance costs of at adapting the technology to the high moisture found in landfill-based systems. Consequently, municipalities would Thai landfills, which would otherwise inhibit collection of not be able to recover the additional costs of incinerators. the gas. After piloting the new design, they have recently Given this potential and the option for transporting waste begun producing electricity for use by the Kasesart Univer- to landfills outside of land-limited urban areas and islands, it sity Campus. Using the lessons of this project, a facility is is likely that investments in recycling and landfill-based dis- also under development at the Ratchathewa Landfill. posal systems will be a more cost effective investment than incurring the large cost of incineration. 26 Factories opt for less regulated and lower cost alter- natives to centralized treatment. Only 24 percent of the hazardous waste produced in Bangkok and vicinity is treated by licensed centralized treatment facilities and as a result only a portion of the capacity of these facilities are being utilized. The remainder is managed using a combination of lower cost and often times less regulated practices. Ap- proximately 14 percent of the waste is managed off-site through disposal by other unlicensed treatment and disposal operators, waste buyers and private recycling firms. In addition, 56 percent of hazardous waste is managed on the factory site which, due to the large numbers of factories, is difficult to regularly monitor. Non-hazardous waste is often disposed on site. While most of the non-hazardous industrial waste produced in the country is recycled, a large quantity, almost 1.3 million tons of waste, still needs to be disposed each year. Of that, an estimated 940,000 tons is stored or disposed on the factory Box8:OpeningUporClosingDown? TheGrowing site, while 160,000 tons is disposed off-site in municipal Pains of IndustrialWaste Market Liberalization landfills and 150,000 tons by private operators27. General Environmental Conservation (GENCO) was created ten years ago and has provided treatment of Will more operators mean safer disposal? With the hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste in its two recent liberalization of the waste treatment industry in locations in Samae Dam and Map Tha Phud. It was the Thailand, more firms are entering the waste treatment only centralized industrial hazardous waste treatment market and as a result capacity for centralized treatment is service in the country up until 2002, when the Department expanding. It is not clear this will result in an increase in of Industrial Works began issuing licenses to other waste safe disposal. There is a risk that unlicensed operators and treatment companies. The liberalization has led to a 30 to unsafe on-site practices will force licensed firms to go out 40 percent decrease in the level of the waste treatment of business or to make sacrifices in disposal safety fees charged to industries. Not able to keep up with the standards in order to provide a lower treatment price. price changes, GENCO is now reporting losses for 2003, forcing it to undergo a drastic restructuring plan, including a reduction in personnel and other cost saving measures. Source: Data from Bangkok Post, June-July, 2003 27 Based on national production estimates in methodology section and disposal practices for Bangkok and vicinity. from Kokusai Kogyo and Ex Corp for DIW and JICA, 2002. 28 INDUSTRIAL WASTE Treatment and Disposal Cases of improper disposal and open dumping have been reported. Although surveys of industries typically indicate all waste is treated or disposed, 12 cases of dump- ing were reported to PCD in 200028 and more have been reported in the media in the past several years (Table 15). Some have endangered the health of local residents, includ- ing schools and local villages29 , while others have been contained with no apparent harm. More than 80 percent of the respondents in a recent survey were aware that illegal dumping causes serious problems and more than half of the same respondents demanded better controls, including imposition of higher penalties by the government (Box 9). Open dumping can be done without knowledge and little punishment. With limited regulatory oversight and licensing for waste haulers and buyers, these groups are not held accountable for any improper disposal or dump- ing. Although rarely imposed, the largest fine for illegal dumping is THB 2,000 on the transporter, while factories are not fined30. Box 9:What PeopleThink of Industrial Waste Disposal A survey in 2002 of 410 residents of Bangkok and vicinity revealed that people are aware of the problems of poor disposal of industrial waste. Additionally, the majority believe that better control and higher penalties on industries by government is the most effective solution to control the illegal dumping of industrial waste. Fig.A:PublicOpinionofIndustrialHazardousWaste Fig.B:PublicOpinionontheMostEffectiveSolutionto IllegalDumpingofIndustrialWaste %of respondents Source: Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd., Ex Corporation for DIW and JICA, 2002. Based on survey of 410 residents of Bangkok, Pathun Thani, Nonthaburi, Samut Prakan, and Samut Sakhon. 28 Over a period between April 2000 and March 2001. 29 Examples include the Bampen Nua School near Ban Chang Industrial Estate and the Mab Tha Phud Phan Pittyakhan School in Rayong. 30 Open dumping activities can be enforced through several laws, how ever the largest fine of THB 2,000 is under the Public Order and Cleanliness Act. 29 Large amount of operations makes regulation diffi- cult. There are over 60,000 industries, central treatment operators, and recycling enterprises whose waste manage- ment practices are regulated under the Factory Act. Regulatory oversight of these groups is handled by the Department of Industrial Works (DIW) by only 332 inspec- tors. Similarly, oversight of nearly an additional 1,800 industries in 28 industrial estates is performed by 17 staff of Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand (IEAT). Non-regulatory incentives provide additional motiva- tion for exporting firms. Concerns about corporate image and environmental expectations placed on export industries have motivated more and more companies in Thailand to improve their environmental management systems (Fig. 12). For example, certification of Thai firms under the International Organization for Standardization 14001 (ISO14001) environmental management standard has risen seven fold to 700 firms since 1998. Approximately 60 percent of the certified firms surveyed reported that the amount of hazardous waste pollution was reduced as a result of the certification process31. Providing secure drums is important to providing safe industrial hazardous waste disposal 31 Survey from TEI, 1999. 30 INDUSTRIAL WASTE Speacial Focus : Trade and Environment Box 10: Improving Export CompetitivenessThrough BetterWaste Management With increasing integration of international trade, exporting industries in Thailand have been positioning themselves to be competitive in response to the evolving rules and trade environment. Described here are opportunities for Thai industries to increase their competitiveness through improved industrial waste management. CertifyingEnvironmentalManagement Producer Responsibility For ElectronicWaste Eco-labeling is an environmental performance certification EU Directives on Electronic Waste: The European Commis- that is practiced in more than 30 countries around the world. sion has recently issued two new directives: Waste Electrical It allows ecologically concerned consumers to recognize en- and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and Restriction of the vironmentally friendly products and reward them through Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Elec- their purchasing habits. Many countries have developed tronic Equipment (ROHS). They aim to provide incentives their own ecolabel including Japan (Ecomark), US (Green Seal), for producers to take environmental and waste management and Germany (Blue Angel). The certification is typically un- aspects into account when designing electrical and electronic dertaken by an independent third party based on criteria that equipment. Both apply to all electrical and electronic equip- commonly relate to life-cycle assessment of the product's ment available in the EU, including those from Thailand. Elec- environmental impact. Thailand initiated its own ecolabel tronics is Thailand's leading export, accounting for 20 percent known as Green Label, which was launched in 1994, and now of all manufacturing exports from the Kingdom. These manu- awards over 30 product categories. Efforts to harmonize facturers will be expected to design more environmentally ecolabels, particularly among the North American and Euro- friendly electronic equipment, both to reduce fees associated pean countries, are likely to further increase the role of the with their product and to comply with restrictions on use of labels in international trade. hazardous substances in electronic equipment. ISO 14000 refers to a series of voluntary environmental stan- Electronic Waste in Thailand: Consumption of electronic dards developed by the International Standards Organiza- goods has grown steadily since the financial crisis. These tion (ISO), which serves as a tool to help organizations dem- products and their waste (e.g., batteries, etc) often include onstrate good environmental management. It also can en- toxic substances that, when recycled by informal recyclers or hance corporate image, improve the working environment, improperly disposed, can increase health risks. Recently there and increase efficiency which leads to cost savings. ISO has been interest in introducing laws similar to the EU. This 14000 certifications are becoming a prerequisite to do busi- effort could increase competitiveness of Thai industries and ness in many markets because certified corporations com- prevent dumping of used electronics in Thailand from coun- monly require their suppliers to be certified. In Thailand, the tries with more stringent electronic waste laws. Some of the largest representation of the 712 certified companies is from major obstacles to implementation include proper separation the large exporting industries, including electronics and mo- of these products and the establishment of recycling facilities tor vehicles. specifically for electronic waste, including the technology appropriate to Thailand. Fig. A: Electronics Consumption in Thailand Source: Bank of Thailand, 2003 using 2003 prices. 2003 consump- tion based on projection of year to date consumption. Personal communication with FTI provided insight into the challenges of estab- lishing facilities for electronic waste recycling in Thailand based on their discussions with interested companies. 31 Community Generated HazardousWaste and municipal-run incinerators, while over a third is co- disposed with municipal solid waste (Fig. 13). The remain- A management system for most community generated der of the waste is mostly disposed with municipal sewer hazardous waste does not exist. While over half of the or released to the environment35. waste generated from community sources such as house- holds, gas stations, and dry cleaners is recycled, only 1 Conditions of incinerators vary. Incinerators in hospi- percent of the remainder is treated. As a result, each year tals and primary care units are commonly either broken, an estimated 140,000 tons of this waste is either co-dis- operated improperly, and/or lack pollution control equip- posed with municipal solid waste or discharged to the sewer ment. The condition of the eight municipal infectious waste or directly to the environment32. These practices increase incinerators in the country depends on the municipality. In the risk of exposure to the general public, collection work- the largest municipalities (Nakorn and Muang) most of the ers, and scavengers, and can contribute to groundwater incinerators are in good condition, while in smaller Tambon contamination. municipalities most are broken or otherwise not in use36. Household hazardous waste is a major problem. Current practices present health and environmental Households produce less than one quarter of the commu- threats. The approximately 10,000 tons per year of infec- nity generated hazardous waste in the country, but account tious waste disposed in the environment, sewer or with for half of the community hazardous waste disposed in land- municipal solid waste presents significant health risks, es- fills33. Although there have been attempts in Bangkok to pecially to municipal waste workers and scavengers who improve household waste management, there is currently are in direct contact with the waste on a daily basis. Addi- limited segregation at the source; limited awareness among tionally, operating the incinerators at insufficient tempera- the public and collection workers; and limited systematized ture and without air pollution control equipment can result disposal practices. in the emission of dioxins and other air pollutants, increas- ing the likelihood of respiratory illness and cancer in people Infectious Waste living in the vicinity. Waste management practices are dependent upon the type of medical facility. There are over 1,400 hospitals in Thailand. Approximately 75 percent of hospitals treat and dispose of their infectious waste on site, primarily via incineration, while only 17 percent rely on the local govern- ment. For more than 24,000 clinics in the country, infectious waste is primarily disposed with the general waste and thus ends up co-disposed with municipal solid waste. Primary care units dispose of their infectious waste typically by open burning or using small incinerators34. Nationwide, almost half of infectious waste is inciner- ated. Nearly half of all infectious waste in the country is incinerated or burned using predominantly small hospital 32 PCD (Community Waste Study), 1998. 33 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 34 MOPH, 2002. 36 Based on a survey by MOPH, 2002. 32 INFECTIOUS AND COMMUNITY HAZARDOUS WASTE Treatment and Disposal Exploring other potential practices. There are many proper separation can result in improvements in the safety other alternative treatment and disposal options that may be and effectiveness of collection and disposal of infectious effective for certain types of wastes and facilities (Box 11). waste. In addition to exploring these options, waste reduction and Box 11:Treatment and Disposal Options for InfectiousWaste Incineration: Waste is burned under controlled conditions. To be effective and safe, it must be operated at specific temperatures and conditions. Advantages include its ability to eliminate the health risks associated with all types of infectious wastes, and reduce the volume of the waste. Its disadvantages include high costs, sophisticated operation, and production of air pollution, including dioxins, that become more severe if operated at an insufficient temperature. The capital costs range from THB 5 to 10 million for each ton/day of capacity. Autoclaving: Waste is heated by steam in an enclosed container at high pressure. The output is non-hazardous material that can normally be safely placed in a landfill with municipal waste. Advantages include the ease and familiarity of its operation. Its disadvantages include the high cost of operation, production of air emissions and wastewater, and its inability to treat special medical waste such as tissues and body parts. The capital costs range from THB 2 to 6 million for each ton/day of capacity. Microwave and radiowave irradiation: Waste is disinfected using a high-energy electromagnetic field that causes high frequency oscillation of the liquid portions of the cell material. The output is considered non-hazardous and can be disposed in a landfill with municipal waste. Its main advantages are the reduction in volume and its minimal production of toxic pollutants. Its disadvantages include cost and sophistication and its ineffectiveness in treating special medical waste such as tissues and body parts. The capital costs range from THB 5 to 10 million for each ton/day of capacity. Chemical disinfection: Waste is shredded and chemicals are added to kill or inactivate pathogens. The output needs to be disposed using techniques such as safe landfilling. The advantage of this process is the reduction of waste volume resulting from shredding. However, the disadvantage of chemical disinfection includes cost and sophistication of operation, its inability to treat wastes such as tissues and body parts, and its production of a toxic waste stream. Safe landfilling: Waste is placed in a pit excavated in mature municipal waste or in a special area constructed in the landfill and covered immediately with soil or fresh municipal waste. For added health protection and odor suppression, lime can be spread over the waste. The area should also be fenced off to prevent access by waste pickers or scavenging animals. The capital costs are low as it uses an existing municipal landfill. The advantages of these methods are simplicity and low cost. This is a next best alternative to incineration for the effective management of body parts and tissues. However, unlike incineration, a major disadvantage is that the waste remains infectious, and therefore can be very dangerous if not managed extremely carefully. Source: Adapted from Johannessen, et al., Healthcare Waste Management Guidance Note, The World Bank, 2000. 33 Signboard to educate kids on solid waste reduction and management Municipal solid waste incinerator on Ko Si Chang, Chonburi 34 Over THB 22 billion has been invested in solid waste management. Local governments have relied on national government investments in solid waste management through both the Environmental Fund and the national budget. Since 1994, THB 22 billion has been spent predominantly on land- fills and trucks37. In 2003, the budget allocation for solid waste management amounted to THB 1.6 billion or 37 per- cent of the annual budget for environmental quality man- agement (Fig. 14), and 0.2 percent of the total national bud- get allocation. Most of these investments are directed to- wards the populous provinces in the central region. Municipalities allocate less than 25 percent of their budget. Each municipality is expected to operate and main- tain their own solid waste systems. Based on reported ex- penditures from a sample of 8 municipalities, budgets for solid waste collection, disposal and street sweeping typi- cally account for between 5 and 25 percent of the total municipal budget and amount to between THB 100 and 500 per capita per year38. Private sector involvement is limited. In a few munici- palities, collection or disposal of waste is undertaken by private companies (Table 17). In these cases, municipali- ties normally contract the company to operate the collec- tion and/or disposal systems. However, the funding for the major infrastructure, such as disposal sites or transfer sta- tions, has been funded by government. Revenues are limited to solid waste collection fees. The Public Health Act provides the basis for charging fees on solid waste collection, but does not include other activi- ties such as disposal. In addition to the need to cover these other costs, other revenue generating mechanisms, such as surcharges on electricity bills, levies on excessive packag- ing, and tourist taxes, represent unexplored opportunities in Thailand to improve cost recovery (Table 18). 37 Thailand has made large investments in landfills and trucks From Draft National Solid Waste Strategy, 2003. 38 Based on operation and maintenance and personnel costs reported by 8 small to medium sized municipalities. 36 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Budget and Expenditure User fees are not providing adequate revenues. Municipalities typically charge fees for collection of solid Table18:CommonlyUsedMechanismstoFund waste based on the amount of waste produced. While the SolidWasteManagementWorldwide fees generate revenue, they typically can only cover between 2 and 50 percent of the operations and mainte- nance costs of collection and disposal in major cities in Thailand39. This is due to a combination of low fee levels and inefficient fee collection, especially in residential areas. Bangkok raises fees ten-fold. Bangkok currently recovers only 3 percent of its solid waste expenditures through user fees and has only been able to collect fees from approximately 20 percent of their customers40. The monthly fee of THB 4 per 20 L/day was recently increased to THB 40, a level that, if collected from 70-80 percent of customers, could recover the costs of operation and maintenance of solid waste in Bangkok. Table 19: SolidWaste Collection Fees Charged in Selected Municipalities More efficient waste collection could reduce costs. Cost recovery could be improved by improving the efficiency of collection. Common problems that could be improved in Thai municipalities include better route selection and im- proving upon slow collection, which occurs as a result of informal sorting of recyclables by the municipal collection crews. Better route selection could improve the efficiency of collection 39 Estimated range from 8 medium sized municipalities and Bangkok based on reported fee revenues and operation and maintenance and personnel costs for solid waste collection and disposal. 40 Collection rate is from 1998 data provided through personal commu nication with JBIC. 37 Multiple Laws: The legal framework for solid waste man- laws are summarized in Tables 20 and 21. These laws are agement is based on a series of laws designed primarily for supported by enabling regulations, guidelines, and standards other purposes but include provisions governing solid and issued by the relevant line agencies and municipalities, listed hazardous waste management. The most important of these in Box 11. Table20:MajorLawsGoverningMunicipalSolidWasteManagement Key Legislation Relevance Enhancement and Conservation of Na- This act is the basic environmental protection law for the country and establishes the role of tional Environment Quality Act MoNRE in environmental planning, standard setting, and monitoring. It specifies the role of (NEQA), 1992 the municipality in: managing solid waste management, contracting out solid waste manage- ment services to the private sector where needed, and charging fees in accordance with ministerial regulations. It also establishes the Environmental fund, which can be used to finance solid waste investments proposed by local governments. Public Health Act, 1992 This is the most comprehensive of the laws dealing with solid waste management. It reiter- ates the roles of the municipality in solid waste management described in NEQA. In addition, it specifies the role of the municipality in licensing private solid waste operators and in creating local by-laws that define methods of collection, transport, and disposal, as well as hygiene standards and requirements for buildings. Public Order and Cleanliness Act, 1992 Among other things, this act specifies how households should store solid waste and place it for collection. The act is one of several that prohibit dumping of solid waste and littering. Building Control Act, 1992 This act specifies the method by which large buildings should store and place refuse for collection. Table21:MajorLawsGoverningIndustrialandInfectiousWasteManagement Key Legislation Relevance Enhancement and Conservation of Na- Generally applies to industrial and infectious waste management through environmental tional Environment Quality Act (NEQA) planning and environmental quality standards and monitoring. Also establishes EIA system, 1992 which applies to industrial waste disposal sites. Factory Act, 1992 Authorizes the Department of Industrial Works (DIW) to issue standards and specify meth- ods for the control, handling, and disposal of waste by a factory and to license, permit, and inspect factory operations, including waste management. It also governs the licensing, per- mitting, and inspection of waste treatment, disposal, and recycling facilities. Hazardous Substance Act, 1992 Governs a broad range of hazardous materials, including hazardous and infectious waste. Allows the handling, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste to be specified in a ministerial decree. Industrial Estate Act, 1979 Governs the powers of the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand, including enforcement of regulations and taking action on hazardous waste practices within industrial estates. Public Health Act, 1992 Specifies that local government must provide disposal facilities for infectious and industrial non-hazardous waste and that health-care facilities can treat and dispose of infectious waste with approval from the local government. 38 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Institutions All levels of governments are involved. The respon- Box 12: How is Decentralization Expected to sible national-level ministries are the Ministry of Natural Re- Change Waste Management? sources and Environment (MoNRE), the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH), Ministry of Industry (MoIND), and Minis- · More budget available to local governments that could try of Interior (MoInt). They primarily set the national policy be used for waste management. and the departments and agencies under the ministries are · Improved skills and capability for local governments to raise revenues including user fees, taxes, and other responsible for implementing the provisions of the law mechanisms to fund solid waste management. through regulations and technical guidelines. These agen- · New local government functions including: cies include the PCD, DIW, Industrial Estate Authority of - Licensing, supervision, and monitoring of factories Thailand (IEAT), Office of Natural Resources and Envi- with local impacts. ronmental Policy and Planning (ONEP), and the Local Ad- - Receipt of complaints of factory violations and ministration Office. problems. - Monitoring, compliance, and enforcement of The local governments - provincial administrative organi- environmental standards. zations (PAO), municipalities (Nakorn, Muang, and - Issuing waste-related fines. Tambon), and Tambon Administrative Organization - Provincial authorities taking the lead in developing (TAO) - are primarily responsible for waste collection, trans- shared disposal facilities. port, treatment, and disposal. These local governments can · Increased public participation in solid and hazardous contract the private sector to undertake some of the ser- waste management. · Enhanced national government supervision, standards, vices. Civil society groups and non-government organiza- and outreach. tions are active in awareness raising and recycling programs. · Greater local government mandate and ability to The roles of key institutions are outlined in Box 13. undertake planning. Decentralization will increase the role of local Source: Adapted from Decentralization Action Plan, 2002. governments and regional and provincial offices. The Decentralization Action Plan details the ongoing process of transferring functions, budget, and personnel from the central government to nearly 8,000 local govern- ments. Through this plan it is envisioned that local Civil society will be needed to help increase public governments will obtain relative independence in setting participation. Both the Decentralization Action Plan and policies and managing public services in response to the the 1997 Constitution mandate greater public participation needs of the local people. The central government's role in environmental planning and implementation of environ- will evolve into providing support, advice, and supervision mental services. Effective waste management will rely upon to the local governments. In addition to giving local active involvement of the public in activities such as report- governments a larger role in waste management, the ing open dumping of industrial waste, disposal site planning importance of MoNREs regional (REOs) and provincial as well as recycling and composting. Civil society organi- offices (PoNRE), as well as the provincial offices of other zations will continue to play a key role in bringing about this agencies, is increasing with more staffing and responsibili- involvement through awareness building and encouraging ties for outreach and monitoring. grass root initiatives. 39 40 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Institutions Table22:CapacityIndicatorsofNationalAgencies Staffing in Selected National Agencies Function Staffing Indicator Unit Solid Waste Solid Waste Management 8 PCD officers 142 municipalities per Management officer Control, supervision, and inspection of 332 DIW officers 180 industries per officer Industries, industries. central treatment and Planning, outreach, and environmental 79 DIW officers 770 industries per officer disposal monitoring facilities, and Issuing permits to transport waste out of 10 DIW officers 6,064 industries per officer recycling the factory operations. Control, supervision, and inspection and is- 17 IEAT officers 105 industries per officer suing permits for transport of waste for in- dustries in industrial estates. Box 14: Building Successful Outreach Programs in National agencies are overwhelmed and extended. SolidWaste Monitoring and outreach by national government agencies MoNRE has just begun to take a more active role in outreach to is limited by the low number of staff relative to the indus- municipalities by providing them help in improving solid waste tries, municipalities, and disposal sites they need to cover skills, planning, and operations. The two programs below repre- (Table 22). These agencies have adapted their programs to sent examples of programs that have been implemented: focus on the most important issues and industries and have developed some local presence through regional and pro- Planning in Si Sa Ket municipality: Ledbyanactivemayor, vincial offices. However, a lack of human resources and Si Sa Ket municipality has successfully operated one of the only sanitary landfills in the country and has taken actions such as on-the-ground presence in many regions is a major barrier establishing garbage banks in schools and "NoWaste Bin" roads to to effectively fulfilling their national supervisory and out- keep the main commercial area clean and to reduce littering. Build- reach role. ing on these initiatives, ONEP and the regional and provincial offices of MoNRE, together with experts brought in by JBIC, were able to provide assistance to the municipality in developing a strategic plan that includes targets for reduction of solid waste generation by 20 percent, setting up more garbage banks, and im- proving fee collection efficiency to 50 percent. Certification program for landfill operators: ThePollution Control Department is in the process of developing a solid waste certification program. The program aims to improve solid waste management and practices by developing a series of training and certification programs for landfill operators and managers in the country. Through assistance from USAEP, a network of trainers, primarily in universities, is being established throughout the coun- try in order to provide municipal staff with the opportunity to learn the necessary skills for certification as landfill operators. Sources: Personal communication with JBIC; USAEP website. Site visit by PCD staff 41 Municipalities focus on delivery of core services. Many local governments are beginning to reach out Currently, municipalities have allocated their staff primarily to the public. In order to encourage general public aware- to provide the core services of collection and street ness on solid waste issues, as well as increase involvement sweeping. Staffing for disposal varies depending on the in activities such as recycling and litter removal, many local municipality and the category of the disposal facility. Only governments have undertaken active public outreach pro- a few municipalities have allocated significant staff to grams. Additionally, to be responsive to the needs of the public outreach and there are no staff dedicated to recy- people, many municipalities have set up service complaint cling. Autonomous planning by local governments is still systems and undertaken consultation with the public on is- limited; most planning activities that revolve around the sues such as landfill siting. provincial action plans are undertaken with the direct support of the national agencies. Industrial licensing and Staff skills need strengthening. There are few staff with oversight is handled by DIW officials residing in the advanced education and training programs are limited (Table provincial government offices. 23). As local governments begin to take on further respon- sibilities, providing training and hiring new staff will be a major challenge (also see Box 14). 42 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Plans Using the National Economic and Social Development Plan (2002-2006) and National Environmental Quality Policy and Plan (1997-2016), general goals have been arrived at for waste management including targets for solid and hazardous waste reduction, collection, planning, and construction of treatment and disposal facilities. From this basic framework, national waste management plans are currently under development for municipal solid waste and industrial waste. The draft contents of the plans are shown below: Municipal SolidWaste Management The National SolidWaste Management Strategy is in the process of finalization and the strategy focuses on practical approaches to increase the efficiency of solid waste management with the involvement and responsibility of the local governments, and the public and private sectors. It envisions management of solid waste at all stages, including: production and sale; consumption and at-source recycling and reuse; collection and second-stage recycling; and disposal and treatment. The strategy, which focuses on the reduction and management of waste, covers such issues as public awareness, investment, taxes, legal issues, and capacity building programs. Production and sale: Includes the establishment of laws and a system for manufacturer responsibility for recovery of recyclable products and packaging; encourages reduction of packaging waste during production and sale through tax incentives; encourages the reuse of raw materials in the production process through tax incentives for reuse of materials and avoiding the underpricing of raw materials through strict conditions on concessions for extractive industries; and encourages cleaner production through investment in research and development for technologies and introducing a waste exchange program. Consumption and at-source reuse and recycling: Includes increasing public awareness of current rising consumption patterns and ways to reduce, reuse, and recycle waste; regulates informal waste buyers and sorters; encourages waste buying and sorting enterprises through tax incentives; and encourages capacity building in waste sorting for local governments. Collection and second-stage recycling: Includes government investment and encourages private sector involvement in collection and sorting systems; encourages increased local government involvement in collection and sorting; develops guidelines for transfer stations; and outlines adjustment of fees to be more consistent with costs of collection, transfer, and sorting. Treatment and disposal: Includes support in the development along with government and private sector investment in provincial disposal and treatment centers; establishes regulations for disposal sites; establishes disposal fees; encourages increased public participation in siting of treatment and disposal facilities; and encourages the development of composting, waste reuse, and landfill gas utilization systems through awareness and capacity building, research and development, and incentives for private sector investment. Source: Draft National Solid Waste Management Strategy IndustrialWaste Management The Department of Industrial Works is in the process of developing an industrial hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste master plan for BMA and vicinity. The draft contents of the plan includes: Hazardous waste Reuse and Recycling Promotion: Includes promotion of reuse and recycling methods for hazardous waste, including use of cement kilns in recycling, and supports waste analysis and blending industries. Waste Exchange: This ongoing program aimed to match factories that can use certain types of waste as raw materials with factories that produce that waste would be promoted further through broader dissemination and programs to get industries together to arrange exchanges. Waste Minimization: Includes implementation of a waste manifest system to track the amount of waste produced and its destination; undertakes waste audits to promote better management of waste and segregation of recyclables; encourages zero emissions in industrial estates ; and formulates industrial waste management for individual industrial sectors. Non-Hazardous Waste The proposed goal of this plan is to promote waste reduction by factories; improve the quality of recycling and maintenance of the current recycling level; and encourage a shift from on-site final disposal to safer off-site disposal facilities. Proposed initiatives promote: the establishment of industrial waste management systems in factories; improved waste reduction and recycling; improved regulation of on-site waste management in recycling industries; establishment of treatment facilities; improvement of regulation of treatment facilities, buyers, and transporters; and improvement of monitoring and data control. Source: Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd., Ex Corporation for DIW and JICA, 2002. 43 Effective waste management cannot be successfully accomplished through the efforts of the public sector alone. In fact, each citizen has an important role. The following examples demonstrate the growing efforts of Thai civil society in successful environmental management through citizen participation. Motivating Citizen Responsibility - Magic Eyes Promoting Waste Recycling in Industries and Businesses ".Ah! Ah! Don't Litter! The Magic Eyes see you." - This famous Material Exchange Center. From their extensive experience in work- quote was popularized by the Thai Environmental and Community ing closely with private sector, government, and local communities, Development Association (TECDA), or better known to Thai citi- Thailand Environment Institute (TEI) has recognized the high po- zen as the 'Magic Eyes,' which worked magic by reducing prolific tential of industrial waste recycling. However growth in recycling is littering in Bangkok in the early 1980s and pioneering citizen respon- very much constrained by economic, informational, technological, sibility in taking care of the environment. Established in 1984, TECDA regulatory, attitudinal, and physical barriers. Lack of information is brings together 23 prominent corporate partners that put their social the most significant barrier. In response to this, the Material Ex- responsibility into action, employing innovative social marketing and change Center (MEC) has been established within TEI to serve as a community-based participatory approaches. The group works with neutral body linking organizations that have recyclable materials to government agencies, private corporations, schools, media, commu- those that are in need of such materials. It also acts as an informa- nities, and NGOs, to build environmental awareness and responsibil- tion center to provide knowledge resources and transfer waste recy- ity, conveying a clear message that the individual citizen can make a cling technologies to industrial factories and other interested parties. difference. Today, the Magic Eyes logo - two will-powered eyes in a Their focus on dissemination of information is making a positive bright green circle - is widely recognized in Thailand as the eyes that difference in industrial recycling. are watching the environmental behavior of the people. The program has evolved over time to be responsive to the changing lifestyle of Encouraging Office Paper Recycling. Big brown boxes with a green Thai citizens, and the changing face of waste problems. From the tree logo are making their way into corporate offices as part of the initial anti-littering campaign, Magic Eyes has expanded its scope to effort of Media Center for Development Foundation (MCDF) to cover general environment conservation, solid waste reduction and encourage paper recycling. Through their 'Recycling Paper for Trees recycling, Chao Phraya River conservation, and energy conservation. Project,' MCDF is reaching out to offices to introduce a more eco- Magic Eyes program offers practicable green alternatives and places nomical way to use paper based on the principle of Reuse, Reduce, the responsibility to adapt and sustain these practices on the indi- and Recycle. Offices are encouraged to donate recyclable paper by vidual citizen. placing it in the provided brown boxes, which are collected regularly by the MCDF staff for transport to recycling centers. Revenue Protecting the Island of Phuket. One of Thailand's most attractive generated from this activity will be put into a fund set up for envi- tourist destinations faces an overwhelming amount of solid waste, ronmental conservation purposes. Reports of the fund activities are generated by tourism as well as its own residents. In response to the regularly provided to donors to show that their contribution makes serious environmental pressures on Phuket, as well as the increased a difference in saving the environment. energy usage associated with the development of an incinerator to manage solid waste, the 'Beautiful Phuket through Recycling' initia- tive was launched. The partnership was led by the NGO TECDA, or 'Magic Eyes,' with financial support from the National Energy Policy Office (NEPO). Forty-three schools, 26 hotels, the Provin- cial Governor's Office, and 19 Tambon Administration Offices and municipalities joined this effort to reduce waste and separate waste for recycling. It included a program in which Phuket's major superstore 'Big C' partnered with local waste dealers to set up a 'recycling mar- ketplace' to encourage residents to separate waste and sell their recyclables. Over a two-year period, the program reduced over 9,000 tons of garbage, resulting in an energy savings of over THB 50 mil- lion. The program brought about other benefits, including income generation, which helped fuel replication and scaling up of other project activities. Sources: Personal communication with TECDA, TEI and MCDF. Waste for eggs program in Pattani 44 Over the past decade, Thailand has made impressive strides Getting the incentives right: The effective introduction in addressing the massive task of managing the 22 million of economic and other incentives for waste recycling and tons of waste it produces each year. The country has es- reduction has the potential to cause dramatic reduction in tablished solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities, im- the amount of waste disposed. Choosing the taxes, fees, proved municipal management of waste nationwide, and or other incentives that can be implemented in Thailand, cleaned up a littered Bangkok. These successes and the and effectively encouraging recycling and waste reduction current interest among government, the general public and will be of paramount importance. Among the approaches the private sector, positions Thailand to take decisive steps with the most promise is the development of incentives to to address the unfinished agenda by focusing on: reducing reduce packaging waste, both in production and in the many and recycling waste; improving treatment and safe disposal department stores and shops in the country. The main chal- of solid and hazardous wastes; enhancing the supporting lenge of the program is to ensure that the monetary incen- institutional, regulatory, and financing framework; and ex- tives are large enough and enforceable. Additionally, by panding public and civil society participation. first focusing on the "low hanging fruit," such as the major sectors or stores that can be effectively regulated and those 1. Reducing and recycling waste. that could benefit from improved export competitiveness, the impact and lessons can be defined immediately. With only 11 percent of the municipal solid waste in the country being recycled, there is a huge untapped potential Taking awareness to the next level: Changing consump- in recycling that could both reduce disposal costs and pro- tion and waste generation patterns among the general popu- vide revenues for recycling operators. Taking the first steps lation is a long-term process that requires a steady but ag- toward reaching Thailand's goal of tapping this potential by gressive effort. Much progress has already been made achieving municipal solid waste recycling rates of 30 per- through ongoing programs in Thailand such as the aware- cent will require a concerted effort to address the following ness developed through Magic Eyes and government cam- key gaps in the system. paigns. The key priority will be to expand the size and public profile of these programs with the goal of raising the issues of wasteful consumption and recycling to a major priority in the national conscience. Box 15: Solid Waste Management Strategy Source: (i) production rates: Bangkok, personal communication with JBIC; Other derived from PCD 2001 data. Note: high value under Tambon Muncipality is Tourist area Patong Beach, Phuket and similarly under Muang municipalities the high value is the industrial area of Pra Pradang, Samut Prakan; (ii) total amount: World Bank estimates based on PCD and NSO data; (iii) recycling rate: Based on numbers reported in PCD, 2001 (Recycling study). 46 Box 16: Potential For Waste Reduction and Recycling Reaching the national waste reduction and recycling targets could have significant benefits by both reducing the quantity of waste disposed and allowing more recyclables such as glass, paper, metal and plastic to be recovered from municipal solid waste and sold. Source: See Methodology Section Separating the waste: Participation of households in sepa- could be collected by 2020 (Box 16). Currently, solid waste rating recyclables and non-recyclables will be necessary to recycling is run predominantly through a private market achieve the desired recycling rates. Currently, only some composed of a relatively small group of informal waste households separate a portion of their recyclable and non- scavengers, collectors, and agents. Additionally, there are recyclable waste for the purposes of selling to sa leng or to some formal recycling programs run by the private sector lesser extent garbage banks. Additionally, in areas outside and community-based garbage banks. Considering the large of Bangkok, programs to encourage household segregation potential for private and community-led recycling and the of recyclables are commonly either non-existent or under- danger of over-investing in government run facilities, the resourced. The challenge will be to establish convenient role of the government should in the short-term to provide systems, the right incentives, and a strong marketing pro- proper incentives to support recycling operations run by gram. Effective training, support, and increased staffing at private, community, and NGO-led initiatives. the municipal level may also be necessary to fill the gaps in recycling activities found in many areas of the country. Protecting waste pickers and saleng: Informal collec- tion and recycling not only accounts for most of the recy- Harnessing the market for waste: Each year, more than cling in the country but provides a source of income for 4.5 million tons of commercially usable materials valued at approximately 25,000 poor Thais. Increased regulation of THB 16 billion are thrown out with municipal solid waste.. the market and the introduction of larger players may fur- With improved recycling programs a portion of this poten- ther marginalize this group, potentially forcing them further tial market could be tapped. In particular, if recycling rates into poverty. As the recycling market expands and under- increase such that the government's targets for 30 percent goes increased regulation, it should explore ways to build recycling is reached by 2015, almost 100 billion baht in on the role played by this group and improve their working revenues from recyclables that were previously thrown out conditions, income, and opportunities. 47 2. Municipal solid waste - providing safe and eas and improve the quality of collection services through cost-effective collection and disposal. improved cost efficiency and waste collection rates. While collection and disposal systems have improved sig- Expanding and upgrading safe disposal: There are nificantly over the last 10 years, most of the solid waste in more than 1,000 sites nationwide, with just over 100 of the country is disposed without adequate environmental them properly designed and even fewer operating with controls. These poor disposal practices are putting local proper environmental controls. Ensuring safe disposal us- communities at risk to disease and pollution and increasing ing this large quantity of small disposal sites would not be NIMBY by reducing the confidence of the people in safe cost-effective relative to establishing facilities shared by a disposal. province or portion of a province (Box 17). Development of large shared landfills as envisioned under the SolidWaste Building on gains in waste collection: Management Strategy may be possible, in the short term in As a result of investments in collection infrastructure and up to 21 provinces, by upgrading existing large sites and services, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration is currently establishing correspondingly good institutional and finan- able to collect nearly all of the municipal solid waste gener- cial mechanisms for financing, operation, collection, and ated by its population and waste collection in other cities transfer. In other provinces it may be more practical to and smaller urban areas averages between 75 and 90 per- consolidate disposal to a group of the better operated and cent. With most of the major collection infrastructure in larger landfills in the short term and develop plans for a place, the challenge ahead is to expand to underserved ar- provincial or multi-provincial site in the future. Box 17: Ensuring Safe Disposal Nationwide: The Potential of Shared Facilities Ensuring safe disposal in the over 1,000 small, dispersed sites currently found nationwide will be costly and will frustrate oversight and outreach. In contrast, plans to ensure safe disposal nationwide by developing larger facilities shared by a portion or an entire province could save THB billions in disposal facility construction and operation. IncrementalCapitalInvestments Incremental Operational Maintenance INVESTMENTS NECESSARY FOR NATIONWIDE SAFE DISPOSAL New Sanitary Landfill Upgrading Sanitary Safe Closure of Collection, Transfer Construction Landfills Other Sites and Transport Municipal 348 Tambon and Muang sites 891 Tambon and Muang 348 Tambon and Muang Existing collection system landfills and 14 provincial capital sites sites and 63 provincial sites and 14 provincial would be used. would be constructed to replace capital sites would need capital sites would be expired sites. to be upgraded. closed. Construction of shared 21 provincial capital 55 provincial capital sites Existing collection system Shared landfills sites could be upgraded as and 1049 Tambon and would be used along with landfills (55 provincial sites). shared landfills. Muang sites would be new transfer and transport closed. facilities. Notes: Shows the incremental capital and operation and maintenance costs relative to today and covers only greater municipal areas. See methodology for details 48 Regulating solid waste facilities: Currently there is no Bangkok and vicinity. Further, due to gaps in regulatory regulatory oversight of municipal landfills because landfills oversight, lower cost and unsafe options are likely prac- are not considered a pollution source under NEQA. Bring- ticed by some licensed and unlicensed operators. To en- ing landfills under the purview of NEQA would provide the sure the development of a market for hazardous waste treat- mandate to PCD for oversight for environmental control, ment that is both safe and cost-effective, consistent and and with active enforcement would significantly increase enforced standards for treatment facility operation, envi- the incentives for better disposal practices. Beyond this ronmental controls, and accounting for waste need to be regulatory reform, the challenge would be to provide the ensured. properly targeted regulatory oversight complemented by training. For example, large municipalities with engineered Taking on illegal dumping: Complaints of open dump- landfills may need more intense oversight complemented ing of hazardous waste have been reported in Thailand over by capacity building. However, smaller municipalities with the past several years. Currently, there is no licensing and open dumps might be better served by developing simple no oversight of waste haulers and buyers, and the fines for practices to improve the management of the dump while at illegal dumping are insufficient. A licensing system and the same time planning for its closure, with the goal of tough penalties for illegal dumping need to be implemented. disposing waste in a provincial landfill in the future. The authority for licensing is already provided to the local governments through the Public Health Act and to the Min- Coming together on NIMBY: This is now a common istry of Transport under the Land Transport Act. Imple- barrier to siting new landfills in Thailand and has prevented mentation of a licensing system, with adequate penalties, the development of regional landfills. The challenge is to through local governments with support from the Ministry explore ways to find common ground on this issue. Waste of Transport could be an effective approach. Similarly, the operators will need to build trust with the local people through authority for charging fees for illegal dumping lies with lo- assurances of proper waste management, allowing local cal governments under a variety of acts, while PCD has the people to participate in the siting of the landfill, and explor- mandate to respond to complaints and prepare a clean-up ing ways the facility revenues can provide benefits to the plan. By charging large fines for dumping and enforcing local population. At the same time, information and educa- this through local governments with support from PCD, tion would be helpful in allowing the local people to make the incentive for illegal dumping could be decreased signifi- informed decisions and participate meaningfully in plans and cantly. decisions on solid waste disposal. 4. Infectious and community generated hazardous 3. Industrial waste -plugging the regulatory gaps. waste - establishingsafe waste management systems. While Thailand has successfully developed centralized treat- ment facilities and many exporting firms are taking proac- Improving treatment of infectious waste: Much of the tive measures to address environmental issues, cases of infectious waste produced in the country is disposed with open dumping of industrial waste have been reported in the municipal solid waste under unsanitary conditions that pose last several years and its safe treatment cannot be ensured health risks. Additionally, the condition and operation of with the current level of treatment capacity, regulatory over- many of the hospital and municipal incinerators used to treat sight, and enforcement. infectious waste is poor, increasing the risk of air pollution and ineffective treatment. As the government moves for- Encouraging safe practices in a liberalized industrial ward on developing a long-term plan for establishing the hazardous waste treatment market: In 2001, licensed necessary treatment capacity, the major challenge will be to centralized industrial hazardous waste treatment facilities improve practices in the short term. Potentially effective only treated 24 percent of the industrial hazardous waste in approaches include training of hospital personnel in segre- 49 gation, pollution prevention and if cost-effective, use of al- revenues from packaging and other taxes for solid waste ternative approaches such as autoclaving for certain types investments, may provide answers to this. of waste. Additionally, training and regulatory oversight for incinerator operation should be more aggressively pur- Recovering operational costs: Currently, the fees sued along with simple procedures to reduce exposure charged by municipalities for solid waste collection and dis- through separate "safe landfilling" in municipal landfills. posal are too low to cover the costs of operation and main- tenance of collection and disposal. Funding therefore Beginning to address community hazardous waste: comes from the municipal budget, yet often times it is inad- Outside of the program in Bangkok, there are no formal equate to properly maintain and monitor the environmental collection and disposal arrangements for community gen- controls. The challenge will be to explore options for in- erated hazardous waste including waste oils from gas sta- creasing fees or imposing new financing and collection tions and household waste such as light bulbs and batteries. mechanisms to ensure costs can be recovered in a fair, The first and most difficult challenge will be to develop a transparent manner. Also a major related challenge will be program for household and commercial hazardous waste the necessity to provide visible improvements in solid waste segregation that includes the proper awareness building and service combined with public awareness to convince people relies on effective incentives. At the same time, disposal that higher fees are in their interest. can be improved through integration of disposal with in- dustrial hazardous waste treatment facilities and improving Improving private sector involvement: Under the right landfill disposal practices of hazardous waste (e.g. using conditions, the private sector can provide a supplemental separate secure areas). source of financing for solid waste investments. While there has been some success in the provision of hazardous 5. Paying for waste management. waste treatment facilities, involvement in solid waste has been most commonly limited to contracts for collection and To meet Thailand's goal of establishing sanitary landfills in disposal. The main challenges for developing effective pri- all provinces by 2011, over THB 40 billion will need to be vate sector involvement include streamlined regulatory pro- spent on landfill upgrading and construction and the costs cedures that are enforced consistently; adequate and col- of operation and maintenance will increase by THB 4 billion lectable fees or other cost recovery mechanisms; and strong per year as a result of the new facilities. The long-term contractual arrangements. The potential financial attrac- improvement of the solid waste sector will depend on find- tiveness of the planned establishment of provincial landfills ing a more sustainable source of financing both for invest- provides an excellent opportunity for private sector involve- ments and operational costs. ment. Investing in the future: Establishing sanitary landfills to 6. Clarifying roles cover each province would require an increase in annual expenditures on landfill construction from THB 1.1 billion Under the Decentralization Plan, public participation will in 2003 to an average of THB 5 billion over the next 8 years. increase, the national government will provide outreach and In addition, other priority investments such as recycling oversight to over 1,000 municipalities and 60,000 indus- centers and capacity building of municipalities will be tries, and local governments will assume many more re- needed. Currently, the investments are almost entirely fi- sponsibilities with limited staff and skills. In order to play nanced through grants from a combination of the Environ- their respective roles effectively, capacity and skills need to mental fund and the national budget. With the large future be built for: investment requirements, the major challenge will be to sus- tain this source of financing over the long term. The intro- duction of cost-recovery mechanisms, such as earmarking 50 Providing local services: Currently, local governments primarily focus on providing the core waste services of street sweeping, collection, and disposal, with little or no staffing for recycling activities or public awareness. Plan- ning is predominantly handled through national agencies. The challenge for municipalities will be to build on their experience to improve management and service delivery while beginning to address new opportunities like recycling and cost recovery. Addressing the capacity constraints of the large number of municipalities will necessitate a long-term national program for training that is comprehen- sive enough to reach even the smallest municipalities. A core element of the strategy should be highlighting emerg- ing best practices in municipalities in order to provide Onnuch transfer station in Bangkok incentives for good performance while disseminating successful practices. Providing effective outreach and oversight: Currently, there is only one solid waste officer for every 142 munici- palities and one inspector for every 180 industries. As national agencies will increasingly be expected to play a supervisory and support role at the local level, they will need to increase their staffing and presence by strengthen- ing the regional and provincial offices. The challenge will not only be to provide effective on-the ground presence but also to target their activities in areas with the greatest impact and comparative advantage. Catalyzing grassroots initiatives: Effective solid waste management needs the involvement of people at all levels. Community-led initiatives and community work led by operational NGOs and civil society organizations should be encouraged and supported. By providing support and developing partnerships with civil society for initiatives such as garbage banks, community clean-ups, and grassroots advocacy campaigns, solid waste management could be improved in ways government cannot do alone. Garbage Bank Program on Ko Lan, Chonburi 51 Landfill survey and categorization: A survey was developed on landfill practices and sent to the local governments in charge of disposal of solid waste from Thailand's 76 provincial capitals. The survey contained questions about the disposal site facilities, operational practices, environmental controls and conditions, and size and filling history. After receiving the surveys, follow-up phone calls were made to a portion of the municipalities to clarify and verify the survey responses. Cross checks of some of the data were also made using existing reports and data provided by PCD. The results were collated and the categorization of the disposal sites was done based on the following criteria: Table 24. Minimum Characteristics for Different Types of Disposal Sites Basic practices Staffing Environmental Controls Operation of Environmental environmental Conditions controls. Compaction Fencing On-site Leachate Leachate Leachate treatment Leachate contami- and cover. and waste staff liner Drainage,leachate system and regular nation, fires, accounting treatment, gas monitoring. more than ventilation, and occasional rodents monitoring wells and birds, and scavengers living on site. Open dump - - - - - - - Controlled Both one or both Yes - - - - dump Engineered Both one or both Yes Clay or one or more - - landfill plastic Sanitary Both Both Yes Clay or all both functional. None of the condi- landfills plastic tions exist. The survey also provided a basis for estimating the remaining lifetime of the landfill This was done based on estimates of filling history from either municipal estimates of waste volume in landfill (area and depth) combined with number of years open or municipal estimates of filling rates. Municipal benchmarking survey: Through USAID grant executed by USAEP, a survey of 13 municipalities was under- taken to better understand the current status of collection, disposal, recycling practices; financial performance; human re- source and infrastructure capacity and public participation and outreach in these municipalities. The survey was undertaken between December 2002 and April 2003 by a team led by Dr. Wanpen Wirojanagud of Khon Kaen University and comprised of well-known environmental specialists from four leading universities in different regions of Thailand: Khon Kaen (Northeast- ern), Chulalongkorn (Central), Chiang Mai (Northern), and Prince of Songkhla (Southern). The surveys were carefully designed in cooperation with the Municipal League of Thailand and were conducted in a collaborative process with the survey team undertaking multiple visits to the municipalities to help clarify data questions and collect the necessary data. Special attention was made to ensure consistency in the types of data collected in the different municipalities. After all the data was collated and analysis was undertaken, extensive additional quality assurance and quality control was undertaken, including verification of the data with the municipalities, published reports and data from national agencies. The outcome is presented in the Monitor and data is available in the accompanying CD. 52 Estimates of waste production: The estimates of waste production presented in this report included some estimates made by the World Bank using existing data and other estimates made in recent studies and reports. Table 25. Basis for Waste Generation Estimates Waste Generation rates Historical Future Recycling Comparison with Sources production production other estimates Municipal Solid Population based PCD, 2001 data Historical Scenarios based Recycling rate of Estimates for 2001 Waste on NSO consisting of population data on: stable 11 percent based are consistent with provincial-level data provided by and generation generation rates on PCD (Recycling PCD data. data and growth municipalities rates correlated to (low); current study), 2001 which Estimates for the rates for 2000. and estimates consumption of rate of growth of indicates 1990s are also based on size of durable and non- generation rates each year 1.28 comparable to municipality. durable goods in (medium); linear million tons of available data. 2001 prices. 50% growth waste is recycled in of generation municipal areas rates by 2010 and 0.3-0.5 million (high) tons is recycled in other areas. Industrial Waste DIW database of 2001 survey of DIW industry data Scenarios (1.5%, An 18 percent The estimates for all industries 215 industries in (1997-2001) and 3% and 6% GDP recycling rate for 2001 are within 25 (including those BMA and unit generation growth) based on hazardous waste percent of DIW in industrial vicinity41. rates from survey correlation of and 80 percent and PCD esti- estates). of 215 industries sector growth recycling rate for mates. in BMA and rates with non-hazardous was Considering the vicinity42. economic growth used based on a likely error in the Not done for non- rates using 1999- survey of 215 data, these hazardous waste 2001 data. industries in BMA numbers are Not done for in vicinity. basically the same. non-hazardous waste. Infectious waste Taken from surveys and estimates made in MOPH, 2002. Community Taken from surveys and estimates made in PCD (Community Waste Study), 1998 subtracting the infectious waste generation Generated estimates. Hazardous Waste Costs of shared waste facilities: Using the data from the landfill survey, estimates were made of the costs of sanitary disposal nationwide under 2 scenarios: (i) shared, provincial or half provincial facilities; (ii) existing municipal level disposal sites. The shared landfill scenario assumed that all existing landfills that could support the waste from the greater municipal population of at least half the province would be converted to sanitary landfills, while the remainder would be closed and provincial sanitary landfills will be constructed in its place. The municipal landfill scenario assumed that all landfills with a lifetime greater than 5 years would be upgraded to a sanitary landfill while the remainder would be closed and replaced by sanitary landfills of comparable size. The lifetime of the disposal site was estimated using the waste filling history based on either physical measurements of waste volume in landfill or reported filling rates. Costs of upgrading were done for each disposal site in provincial capitals based on its existing infrastruc- 41 Kokusai Kogyo and Ex Corp for DIW and JICA, 2002. 42 Ibid 53 ture and unit costs for infrastructure obtained from feasibility studies and upgrading studies for Thai landfills. For other disposal sites, four percent are known to be engineered landfills and assumed to have the associated infrastructure. For the remainder it was assumed two thirds had the infrastructure of an open dump and remainder controlled dumps. Unit costs for each infrastructure item, for the construction of a new sanitary landfill and for disposal site closure were based on numbers from PCD studies (Regional Landfill Study and Disposal Site Rehabilitation Studies). Transport costs for each of the scenarios was based on the assumption that the same local collection system would be used but the shared facility would utilize transfer stations including the associated hauling costs. The costs for hauling were estimated using a correlation between population density and the cost difference between shared and individual hauling costs from PCD (Landfills in pollution control zones) developed for the 7 provinces in BMA and vicinity. Capital and operation and maintenance costs for the transfer stations were also based on estimates from this study. Benefits of waste reduction and recycling: The benefits of waste reduction and recycling in terms of revenues from recycling sales and savings on disposal costs were estimated assuming the government targets were reached by 2006 as proposed in the Ninth National Economic and Social Development Plan and alternatively in 2015. Savings on disposal costs are based on average annualized capital costs for disposal based on PCD studies and typical operation and maintenance costs reported by municipalities. Recycling revenues were based on the amount of glass, paper, plastic and metal in Thailand's waste that is commercially recyclable (PCD Recy- cling Study, 2001) which amounts to 42 percent of the total municipal waste generation. Future waste production was taken from the medium growth scenario (see waste production estimates) and prices for different types of recyclables are based on current market values (Wongpanit Co. Ltd.). The recyclables were assumed to maintain the same relative composition over time and the overall recycling rate waste was assumed to increase linearly until the government target was reached. Data was not available for the composition of metal in waste and therefore did not delineate the more valuable aluminum from other metals. The sale price for metal used assumes a large non-aluminum content and therefore likely represents a conservative estimate. Estimates of the total market value of recycled waste that is thrown away was estimated similarly. Based on the total recyclable content of 42 percent and the current recycling rate of 11 percent, approximately 31 percent of the total municipal solid waste generation or just over 4.5 million tons annually consist of recyclable materials that are thrown away. The composition of these recyclables was estimated using recycling rates and waste compositions data provided in PCD (Recy- cling Study), 2001. This amounted to an annual total of 1.5 million tons of paper; 1.9 million tons of plastic; 0.4 million tons of metal ; and, 0.75 million tons of glass. The potential market value of these recyclables (THB 16 billion annually) was estimated by multiplying these production numbers by the above mentioned prices for these materials. Foam to be recycled at Wongpanit Co. Ltd recycling company. Paper mache made from recycled paper 54 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Biodegradable: Capable of decomposing rapidly by microorgan- Industrial waste: Hazardous and non-hazardous materials generated isms under natural conditions. Most organic materials, such as food during an industrial operation. scraps and paper, are biodegradable. Infectious waste: Hazardous waste with infectious characteristics, Collection: The process of picking up wastes from residences, busi- including contaminated animal waste, human blood, and blood prod- nesses, or a collection point, loading them into the vehicle, and trans- ucts, isolation waste, pathological waste, and discarded needles and porting them to a processing site, transfer station, or landfill. medical instruments. Commercial waste: All municipal solid waste emanating from busi- Landfill gas (LFG): A gas produced by the degradation of organic ness establishment such as stores, markets, office buildings, restau- matter in waste disposed in landfills. It is made up of approximately rants, shopping centers, and entertainment centers. 50% of the flammable gas methane and is commonly collected from landfills for use as a fuel gas or for the production of electricity. Community Generated Hazardous Waste: Hazardous waste pro- duced by households and commercial establishments such as hotels, Leachate: Wastewater that collects contaminants as it trickles through airports, gas stations, photo processors, universities and dry cleaners. MSW disposed in a landfill. Leaching may result in hazardous sub- For the purposes of the analysis in this document, infectious medical stances entering surface water, ground water, or soil. waste from hospitals is categorized separately. Materials recovery facility: Facility that processes residentially col- Composting: The controlled biological decomposition of putrescible lected mixed recyclables into new products. fraction of MSW in the presence of air to form a humus-like material. Moisture content: The fraction or percentage of a substance that is Controlled dump: A waste disposal site that has no environmental water. controls but undertakes basic waste management practices such as correct placement of the waste in thin layers and compaction and Municipal solid waste (MSW): Includes non-hazardous waste gen- cover. erated in households, commercial and business establishments, insti- tutions, agricultural wastes, and sewage sludge. In Thailand portion of Decomposition: The breakdown of matter by bacteria and fungi chang- other types of waste (infectious, industrial and community hazardous ing the chemical makeup and physical appearance of MSW. waste) are also collected and disposed with municipal solid waste. Disposal: The final placement of waste that is not salvaged or re- NIMBY: Acronym for "Not In My Backyard"; an expression of resi- cycled. dent opposition to the siting of a municipal solid waste management facility based on the particular location proposed. Engineered landfill: A disposal site that has been designed with at least some controls to minimize environmental and health hazards Open dump: A site used to dispose of waste without any manage- including water pollution from runoff and leaching. MSW is spread in ment and/or environmental controls. thin layers, compacted, and covered with a fresh layer of soil each day. These environmental control systems are not necessary complete or Recycling: Separation physical/mechanical process by which sec- operating properly. ondary raw materials (paper, metal, glass, plastics) are obtained from MSW. The process could be accomplished manually, or by simple and Generation rate: The amount of waste that is generated over a given /or sophisticated equipment. period of time Resource recovery: The process of obtaining matter or energy from Groundwater: The supply of freshwater that is found beneath the MSW Earth's surface, usually in aquifers, which supplies wells and springs. Because groundwater is a major source of drinking water, there is Sanitary landfill: Waste disposal site that is designed and operated growing concern about contamination from disposal sites. to minimize environmental and health hazards including water pollu- tion from runoff and leaching. MSW is spread in thin layers, com- Hazardous waste: Waste generated during production and other ac- pacted, and covered with a fresh layer of soil each day. tivities by society that can pose a substantial or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed. Transfer station: A facility at which municipal solid waste from collection vehicles is consolidated into loads that are transported in Household waste (domestic waste): MSW composed of garbage and larger trucks or other means to more distant disposal sites. rubbish, which is generated as a consequence of household activities. In developing countries, up to two-thirds of this category consist of Waste picking: A process of extraction of recyclables and reusable putrescible wastes. materials from a mixed MSW for further use and /or processing. Incineration: A treatment technology involving destruction of MSW Source : Adapted from "Planning Guide for Strategic Municipal Solid by controlled burning at high temperatures. The main objective of this Waste Management in Major Cities in Low-income Countries," Draft process is to reduce volume of MSW so that landfill life span can be Planning Guide, February 1998, Environment Resources Management, extended. London. 55 56 THAILAND AT A GLANCE ENVIRONMENT/GEOGRAPHY ECONOMY/SOCIETY Environment Geography (CONT.) Forest: Terrain: central plain; Khorat Plateau in the east; mountains else- forest cover: 172,050 sq km (2001) or where 33.5 percent of land area Elevation extremes: Protected areas: lowest point: Gulf of Thailand 0 m protected areas: 90,506 sq km (2001) or highest point: Doi Inthanon 2,576 m 17.64 percent of land area Mineral resources: number of protected areas: 341 units (2001) tin, natural gas, tungsten, tantalum, timber, lead, fish, Water quality: gypsum, lignite, fluorite. Percentage of river basins with water quality: Environment-international agreements: good: 40 percent (2002) party to: Climate Change, Endangered Species, Hazardous moderate: 25 percent (2002) Wastes, Marine Life Conservation, Nuclear Test Ban, poor: 32 percent (2002) Ozone Layer Protection, Tropical Timber 83, Tropi very poor: 3 percent (2002) cal Timber 94 and Biodiversity. Air quality: Ambient - Bangkok Economy TSP (24 hrs): 0.1 mg/m3 (2002) GDP: 5,433 billion baht (2002) PM (24 hrs): 49.4 ug/m3 (2002) 10 CO (8 hrs): 0.9 ppm (2002) GDP growth rate: 5.2 percent (2002) Ozone (1 hr): 13.7 ppb (2002) GDP-composition by sector: SO (24 hrs): 5.2 ppb (2002) 2 agriculture: 9.9 percent NO (1hr): 23.9 ppb (2002) 2 industry: 45.2 percent Solid and hazardous waste: services: 44.9percent (2002) solid waste: 14.4 million tons (2002) Inflation rate-consumer price index: 0.7 (2002) industrial hazardous waste: 0.96 million tons (2002) industrial non-hazardous waste: 5.9 million tons (2002) Unemployment rate: 2.2 percent (2002) community hazardous waste: 0.38 million tons (2002) Exports of good and services/GDP: 64.7 (2002) infectious waste: 21,300 tons (2002) Industrial production growth rate: 7.5 percent (2002) Natural disaster: Flood: Agricultural production growth rate: 0.5 percent (2002) number of occurrences: 14 (2001) value of assets loss: 3,666.3 million baht (2001) Agriculture-products: rice, cassava (tapioca), rubber, corn, Typhoon: sugarcane, coconuts, soybeans. number of occurrences: 1,061 (2001) Exports: total value: 2,955.7 billion baht (2002) value of assets loss: 501 million baht (2001) Imports: total value: 2,778 billion baht (2002) Drought: population affected: 18.9 million persons (2001) Gross Domestic Investment/GDP: 23.9 (2001) value of assets loss: 72 million baht (2001) Gross national savings/GDP: 29.3 (2001) Forest fire: Total forest fire area: 933.3 sq km (2000) Society Geography Population: 63.4 million (2002) Area: 515,113.6 sq.km Population growth rate: 0.82 percent (2002) Land boundaries: Labour force: 34.2 million (2002) total: 4,863 km Birth rate: 14 births/1,000 population (2002) border countries: Myanmar 1,800 km, Cambodia 803 km, Laos 1,754 km, Malaysia 506 km Death rate: 6 deaths/1,000 population (2002) Coastline: 3,219 km Infant mortality: 20 deaths/1,000 live births (2002) Maritime claims: Access to safe water (percent of population): 92.6 (2000) continental shelf: 200-m or to depth of exploitation Access to sanitation (percent of population): 97.8 (2000) exclusive economic zone: 200 nm territorial sea: 12 nm Life expectancy at birth: Male 69.9 years, Female 74.9 years (2002) Climate: tropical; rainy, warm, cloudy southwest monsoon Literacy: 95.5 percent (2002) (mid-May to September); dry, cool northeast monsoon National capital: Bangkok (November to mid-March); southern isthmus always hot Administrative divisions: 76 provinces (changwat) and humid. Independence: 1238 (traditional founding date; never colonized) Source: PCD, DIW, MoPH, NSO, NESDB, Royal Forest Department, and Ministry of Education 57 December 2003 Thailand Environment Monitor 2000 presented a snapshot of general environmental trends in the country Thailand Environment Monitor 2001 Assessed the status of water quality management in the country Thailand Environment Monitor 2002 Assessed the status of air quality management in the country Thailand Environment Monitors are available in both English and Thai online at : http://www.worldbank.or.th/monitor