Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Institutional Arrangements for Solid Waste Management in Metropolitan Areas Carl R. Bartone Course on Urban and City Management Toronto, May 2-14, 1999.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Institutional Arrangements for Solid Waste Management in Metropolitan Areas Carl R. Bartone Course on Urban and City Management Toronto, May 2-14, 1999."— Presentation transcript:

1 Institutional Arrangements for Solid Waste Management in Metropolitan Areas Carl R. Bartone Course on Urban and City Management Toronto, May 2-14, 1999

2 Why Special Arrangements? u Large cities and metropolitan areas generally include multiple municipalities u Responsibility for MSWM in most countries is municipal, but impacts are “regional” u Solving many MSWM problems requires inter-municipal cooperation and cost- sharing u However, the metropolitan governance structures needed for effective inter- municipal action often are missing

3 Metropolitan Governance Structures u Core city and surrounding municipalities eg, Sao Paulo City (11 million) surrounded by 37 municipalities (8 million), makes up the SPMA eg, Mexico City MA comprises the Federal District (10 million) and 12 contiguous municipalities in the State of Mexico (7 million) eg, Chennai City Corporation (5 million) is surrounded by 50 small muncipalities or “outside bodies” (2 million) The core city often subdivided administratively Sao Paulo has 32 administrative regions Mexico City has 16 delegaciones Chennai has 10 zones, each of about 15 wards

4 Metro Governance Structures (cont.) u Large number of relatively small municipalities with no core city as such eg, Santiago Metropolitan Region with originally composed of 23 comunas, now 32 comunas u Additional metropolitan authority superimposed over municipalities often limited powers and specific functions eg, Metro Manila Development Authority (11 million) with broader set of functions eg, SIMEPRODE Solid Waste Authority in Monterrey, Mexico (3.5 million) serving the 8 constituent municipalities

5 Metro Governance Structures (cont.) u 2-level system of local government metropolitan-wide functions concentrated in Greater Municipality local functions carried out by municipalities referred to as District Municipalities relatively common in Europe recently introduced in Turkey

6 Solid Waste Management and Institutional Models u Whatever the institutional form adopted, the overall goal should be the same: “…to collect, treat and dispose of solid wastes generated by all population groups in an environmentally and socially satisfactory manner using the most economical means available.”

7 Form Follows Function u Collection responsibility should be at local jurisdictional level: essential function of most municipalities and, in spite of low status, important part of local political power base no economies of scale in collection systems can better monitor service quality locally u Transfer operations can be at local municipality level or by a metropolitan authority transfer stations should be considered when travel time exceeds 30 minutes

8 Form Follows Function (cont.) u Treatment and disposal facilities are better planned and operated by metropolitan authority local priority is to keep neighborhoods clean and healthy -- ie, get waste out from “underfoot” “out of sight, out of mind” attitude common most impacts are externalities NIMBY attitude to having landfill nearby considerable economies of scale requires system-wide viewpoint and specialization when locating, sizing and scheduling such facilities

9 Inter-municipal Cooperation u No single model for all types of metropolitan governance structures u Requires negotiating a binding agreement between participating municipalities exact nature of agreement depends on local circumstances and legal system should specify: composition and duties of Board of Directors voting mechanisms for joint decision making cost-sharing agreement and payment mechanisms compensation for host communities?

10 Case Studies u Sao Paulo City -- core city headaches u SPSA, Virginia -- a model regional authority u SIMEPRODE, Monterrey -- a special metropolitan authority u Santiago -- successful voluntary cooperation u Turkey -- toward a 2-tiered approach

11 Core City with Problems: Sao Paulo (10,000 tpd) u Neighboring municipalities in SPMA won’t accept Sao Paulo City wastes have passed local ordinances 9by-laws) prohibiting import of waste from other municipalities in SPMA u Current system running out of capacity 3 landfills with leachate and gas problems 2 obsolete incinerators & 2 composting plants new landfill sites not available only option is expensive waste treatment on large scale costs skyrocketing

12 Sao Paulo City (cont.) u Given impossibility of regional MSWM plan, Sao Paulo City has formulated its own strategic solid waste plan source separation of organic waste for composting (twin chamber collection trucks) 4000 tpd composting plant produce 1500 tpd high quality compost potential for 300,000 Nm 3 /day of CH 4 3 modern incinerators with energy recovery, each 1250 tpd 2 enlarge landfills for final disposal of ash and rejects

13 Sao Paulo City (cont.) u Institutional and financial aspects of strategic solid waste plan by BOT concessions, 2 already awarded difficulty getting incinerator environmental operating license from State Environment Secretary cost recovery through user fees US$700 million investment required proposed incinerator tipping fees (net of energy sales) US$ 103/ton

14 Regional Authority Model: SPSA, Virginia (2000 tpd) u Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia (SPSA) public corporation created in 1973 to finance, build and operate transfer & disposal system serves 8 member local government each with member on Board of Directors 8 transfer stations, 84 transfer vehicles, regional sanitary landfill, RDF & recycling plant, ash landfill, HHH transfer facility 225 staff uniform tipping fee $26.50 (in 1989) investments financed by sale of bonds


16 Metropolitan Authority Model: Monterrey, Mexico (3000 tpd) u SIMEPRODE (Monterrey Metropolitan Processing and Disposal System) public company created in 1987 serves 8 municipalities that directly contract collection Board comprises governor, 3 mayors and representatives from industry and the unions operates 3 transfer stations, 28 transfer vehicles, sanitary landfill, weighbridges tipping fee NP$52/ton at transfer stations and NP$32.50/ton at landfill (1995, 6.4NP$/US$) financed by World Bank loan

17 Independent Municipality Model: Santiago (3700 tpd) u Each of the 32 communes responsible for both its own collection and disposal collection mostly contracted out by communes u In the case of disposal, service is provided by means of voluntary cooperation 14 communes created EMERES in 1986 essentially a private corporation offering state-of-the-art disposal services to its 14 shareholders and 6 additional communes full cost recovery through tipping fees decisions taken by Board of Mayors -- 9 serve on rotating basis

18 Santiago (cont.) u EMERES has awarded landfill BOTs and concessions for landfill gas (LFG) recovery state-of-the-art landfills with composite liners for leachate management leachate recirculation for pollution control and greater LFG production recover 100 m3 LFG per ton of solid waste deposited recover 200,000 million Kcal per year concessionaire pays EMERES 1/6 of energy sale value closed landfills converted to municipal parks

19 2-tier Metropolitan Governance: Turkey u Cities of 1 million or greater have 2 levels of municipal adminstration u Recent National Strategy for Waste Management in Turkey recommended: collection should remain at District Municipality level treatment and disposal should be centralized to Greater Municipality level regional transfer and disposal systems for clusters of intermediate cities need to reform national user fee policy to promote sustainability

20 In Conclusion: u Significant operational and environmental benefits to consolidated disposal approach u Models vary, but should study SPSA u Cooperation and good will essential u Need agreement on shared decision making and cost sharing u Develop institutions that can: contract out, monitor and supervise operations be self-financing regulate uncontrolled dumping/disposal by others

Download ppt "Institutional Arrangements for Solid Waste Management in Metropolitan Areas Carl R. Bartone Course on Urban and City Management Toronto, May 2-14, 1999."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google