What A Waste - A Global Review of Solid Waste Management

Public Disclosure Authorized
!"#$%&'(&)*+*&,-
68135
WHAT A WASTE
A Global Review of Solid Waste Management
Cover photo on right and on this page: Conakry landll, Guinea (Charles Peterson photographer). Cover photo on far left: separate containers for recyclables and non-recyclables, Barcelona, Spain (Perinaz Bhada-Tata photographer).
!"#$%&'(&)*+*&,-
WHAT A WASTE
A Global Review of Solid Waste Management
Daniel Hoornweg and Perinaz Bhada-Tata March 2012, No. 15
Urban Development Series

Produced by the World Banks Urban Development and Local Government Unit of the Sustainable Development Network, the Urban Development Series discusses the challenge of urbanization and what it will mean for developing countries in the decades ahead. The Series aims to explore and delve more substantively into the core issues framed by the World Banks 2009 Urban Strategy Systems of Cities: Harnessing Urbanization for Growth and Poverty Alleviation. Across the ve domains of the Urban Strategy, the Series provides a focal point for publications that seek to foster a better understanding of (i) the core elements of the city system, (ii) pro-poor policies, (iii) city economies, (iv) urban land and housing markets, (v) sustainable urban environment, and other urban issues germane to the urban development agenda for sustainable cities and communities.
Copyright World Bank, 2012 All rights reserved
Urban Development & Local Government Unit World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA www.worldbank.org/urban This publication is a product of the staff of the World Bank Group. It does not necessarily reect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. This note is provided for information only. The World Bank has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs and citations for external or third-party sources referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword vii Acknowledgements viii Executive Summary ix Abbreviations and Acronyms xi Country Classication According to Region xii Country Classication According to Income xiii 1. Introduction 1 2. Global Waste Management Practices 4 3. Waste Generation 8 4. Waste Collection 13 5. Waste Composition 16 6. Waste Disposal 22 7. Waste and the Environment 25 A Note on the Reliability of Solid Waste Data 32
Maxim Tupikov /Shutterstock.com
iv
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES KNOWLEDGE PAPERS
Annexes
A. Map of Regions 36 B. Map of Income Distribution 38 C. Availability of MSW Data by Country 40 D. Countries Excluded for Lack of Data 45 E. Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs 46 F. MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100,000 47 G. MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100,000 63 H. MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100,000 71 I. MSW Composition Data for Cities Over 100,000 78 J. MSW Generation by Country Current Data and Projections for 2025 80 K. MSW Collection Rates by Country 84 L. MSW Disposal Methods by Country 87 M. MSW Composition by Country 90 N. IPCC Classication of MSW Composition 93 O. The Global City Indicators Program 94
References 95
WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
List of Tables
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Comparison of solid waste management practices by income level 5 Generators and types of solid waste 7 Current waste generation per capita by region 9 Waste generation projections for 2025 by region 10 Current waste generation per capita by income level 10 Waste generation projections for 2025 by income 11 Sources for 2025 projections of solid waste generation 12 Average MSW generation rates by income 12 Types of waste and their sources 16 Types of waste composition by income level 19 MSW disposal by income 23 MSW disposal in two contrasting regions 24 Landll classications 29 Landll methane emissions and total GHG emissions for selected countries 30 Technical GHG mitigation opportunities by waste management component 31
List of Figures
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Waste generation by region 9 Waste generation by income level 11 Urban waste generation by income level and year 12 Waste collection rates by income 15 Waste collection rates by region 15 Waste composition in China 17 Global solid waste composition 17 Waste composition by income 19 Solid waste composition by income and year 20 Waste composition by region 21 Total MSW disposed of worldwide 22 Low-income countries waste disposal 24 Upper middle-income countries waste disposal 24 Waste hierarchy 27
List of Boxes
1. 2. 3. 4. What a Waste 1999: Whats changed (and what hasnt) in the last decade 2 Denitions of Municipal Solid Waste 4 Components of an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan 25 Integrated Sustainable Waste Management Framework 26
FOREWORD
Solid waste management is the one thing just about every city government provides for its residents. While service levels, environmental impacts and costs vary dramatically, solid waste management is arguably the most important municipal service and serves as a prerequisite for other municipal action. Currently, world cities generate about 1.3 billion tonnes of solid waste per year. This volume is expected to increase to 2.2 billion tonnes by 2025. Waste generation rates will more than double over the next twenty years in lower income countries. Globally, solid waste management costs will increase from todays annual $205.4 billion to about $375.5 billion in 2025. Cost increases will be most severe in low income countries (more than 5-fold increases) and lower-middle income countries (more than 4-fold increases). The global impacts of solid waste are growing fast. Solid waste is a large source of methane, a powerful GHG that is particularly impactful in the short-term. The recycling industry, with more
Photo: Simone D. McCourtie/World Bank
than two million informal waste pickers, is now ITC landll and a global business with international markets and recycling center, extensive supply and transportation networks. Ankara, Turkey Locally, uncollected solid waste contributes to ooding, air pollution, and public health impacts such as respiratory ailments, diarrhea and dengue fever. In lower income country cities solid waste management is usually a citys single largest budgetary item. The report you have before you is an important one that provides a quick snapshot of the state of todays global solid waste management practices. A credible estimate is made for what the situation will look like in 2025. The ndings are sobering. Improving solid waste management, especially in low income countries, is an urgent priority. Hopefully, this report will contribute to the dialogue that leads to much-needed action. Rachel Kyte Vice President and Head of Network, Sustainable Development The World Bank
Ghabawi landll, Amman, Jordan

Photo: Perinaz Bhada-Tata
Acknowledgements
This report was written by Daniel Hoornweg and Perinaz Bhada-Tata; and managed by Abha JoshiGhani, Manager of the Urban Development and Local Government Unit and Zoubida Allaoua, Director of the Finance, Economics and Local Government Department. The Waste and Climate Change section is from Charles Peterson. The authors would like to thank Christa Anderson, Julianne Baker Gallegos, Carl Bartone, Marcus Lee, Catalina Marulanda, John Norton, Charles Peterson, Paul Procee, and Sintana Vergara for their useful feedback and comments. The report was also discussed and reviewed by the World Banks Waste Management Thematic Group. Adelaide Barra, Xiaofeng Li, Jeffrey Lecksell and Claudia Lorena Trejos Gomez provided support and research assistance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the world hurtles toward its urban future, the amount of municipal solid waste (MSW), one of the most important by-products of an urban lifestyle, is growing even faster than the rate of urbanization. Ten years ago there were 2.9 billion urban residents who generated about 0.64 kg of MSW per person per day (0.68 billion tonnes per year). This report estimates that today these amounts have increased to about 3 billion residents generating 1.2 kg per person per day (1.3 billion tonnes per year). By 2025 this will likely increase to 4.3 billion urban residents generating about 1.42 kg/capita/day of municipal solid waste (2.2 billion tonnes per year). Municipal solid waste management is the most important service a city provides; in low-income countries as well as many middle-income countries, MSW is the largest single budget item for cities and one of the largest employers. Solid waste is usually the one service that falls completely Poorly managed waste has an enormous impact on health, local and global environment, and economy; improperly managed waste usually results in down-stream costs higher than what it would have cost to manage the waste properly in the rst place. The global nature of MSW includes its contribution to GHG emissions, e.g. the methane from the organic fraction of the waste stream, and the increasingly global linkages of products, urban practices, and the recycling industry. This report provides consolidated data on MSW generation, collection, composition, and disposal by country and by region. Despite its importance, reliable global MSW information is not typically available. Data is often inconsistent, incomparable and incomplete; however as suggested in this report there is now enough MSW information to estimate
Photo: Ron Perry/Oki Golf
within the local governments purview. A city that Golf course: cannot eectively manage its waste is rarely able post closure use to manage more complex services such as health, of landll site education, or transportation.

global amounts and trends. The report also makes projections on MSW generation and composition for 2025 in order for decision makers to prepare plans and budgets for solid waste management in the coming years. Detailed annexes provide available MSW generation, collection, composition, and disposal data by city and by country. Globally, waste volumes are increasing quickly even faster than the rate of urbanization. Similar to rates of urbanization and increases in GDP, rates of MSW growth are fastest in China, other parts of East Asia, and parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Municipal planners should manage solid waste in as holistic a manner as possible. There is a strong correlation between urban solid waste generation rates and GHG emissions. This link is likely similar with other urban inputs/ outputs such as waste water and total energy use. Reviewing MSW in an integrated manner with a more holistic approach, focusing on urban form and lifestyle choice may yield broader benets.
Pollution such as solid waste, GHG emissions and ozone-depleting substances are by-products of urbanization and increasing auence. Improving MSW is one of the most eective ways to strengthen overall municipal management and is usually a prerequisite for other, more complicated, municipal services. Waste workers, both formal and informal, have a signicant impact on overall MSW programming. While in more auent countries ageing workers are a growing challenge, the eective integration of waste pickers, particularly in low-income countries, is critical. This report is a follow-up to What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia, a Working Paper Published by the East Asia and the Pacic Region Urban and Local Government Sector of the World Bank in 1999. The report has been expanded to include the entire world, given data availability and increased inter-dependence between nations and linkages in global trade, particularly that of secondary materials.
Photo: Alejandro Lipszyc/World Bank
Men pick up used cardboard boxes to sell for recycling in the San Joaquin open-air market in Salvador, Brazil
xi
Abbreviations and Acronyms

AFR C&D CDM EAP ECA GDP GHG HIC ICI IPCC ISWM Africa region Construction and demolition Clean Development Mechanism East Asia and Pacic region Europe and Central Asia region Gross Domestic Product Greenhouse gas High-income country Industrial, commercial, and institutional Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Integrated solid waste management
Kg/capita/day kilograms per capita per day LCR LIC LMIC MENA METAP MRF MSW mtCO2e OECD PAHO RDF SAR SWM tCO2e UMIC Latin America and the Caribbean region Low-income country Lower middle-income country Middle East and North Africa region Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program Materials recovery facility Municipal solid waste Million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Pan-American Health Organization Refusederived fuel South Asia region Solid waste management Tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Upper middle-income country
xii
Country Classication According to Region

Africa (AFR) Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Cote dIvoire Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Kenya Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe East Asia & Pacic (EAP) Brunei Darussalam Cambodia China Fiji Hong Kong Indonesia Lao PDR Macao, China Malaysia Marshall Islands Mongolia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Solomon Islands Thailand Tonga Vanuatu Vietnam Eastern & Central Asia (ECA) Albania Armenia Belarus Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Estonia Georgia Latvia Lithuania Macedonia, FYR Poland Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovenia Tajikistan Turkey Turkmenistan Latin America & the Caribbean (LAC) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Bahamas, The Barbados Belize Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay Venezuela, RB Middle East & North Africa (MENA) Algeria Bahrain Egypt, Arab Rep. Iran, Islamic Rep. Iraq Israel Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Malta Morocco Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Syrian Arab Republic Tunisia United Arab Emirates West Bank and Gaza Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Andorra Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea, South Luxembourg Monaco Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States South Asia (SAR) Bangladesh Bhutan India Maldives Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka
xiii
Country Classication According to Income

Lower Income (LI) Lower Middle Income (LMI) Upper Middle Income (UMI) High Income (HIC)
Chad Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Ghana Guinea Haiti Kenya Lao PDR Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mongolia Mozambique Nepal Niger Rwanda Senegal Serbia Sierra Leone Tanzania Togo Uganda Vanuatu Vietnam Zambia Zimbabwe
Bulgaria Cameroon Cape Verde China Congo, Rep. Cote d'Ivoire Ecuador Egypt, Arab Rep. El Salvador Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Rep. Iraq Jordan Lesotho Macedonia, FYR
Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Nicaragua Nigeria Pakistan Paraguay Philippines Sao Tome and Principe Solomon Islands Sri Lanka Sudan Swaziland Syrian Arab Republic Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan West Bank and Gaza
Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Fiji Gabon Georgia Grenada Jamaica Latvia Lebanon Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Myanmar Namibia Panama
Peru Poland Romania Russian Federation Seychelles South Africa St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname Tajikistan Uruguay Venezuela, RB
Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong, China Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea, South Kuwait Luxembourg Macao, China Malta Monaco Netherlands New Zealand Norway Oman Portugal Qatar Saudi Arabia
Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Trinidad and Tobago United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States
Introduction
In 1999 the World Bank published What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia (Hoornweg and Thomas 1999), with an estimate of waste quantities and composition for Asia. In the intervening decade more accurate and comprehensive data became available for most regions of the world. OECD-country estimates are typically reliable and consistentadded to these were comprehensive studies for China and India and the Pan-American Health Organizations study for Latin America. Therefore a global update of the 1999 report is possible, and timely. Municipal solid waste managers are charged with an enormous task: get the waste out from underfoot and do so in the most economically, socially, and environmentally optimal manner possible. Solid waste management is almost always the responsibility of local governments and is often their single largest budget item, particularly in developing countries. Solid waste management and street sweeping is also often the citys single largest source of employment.1 Additionally, solid waste is one of the most pernicious local pollutants uncollected solid waste is usually the leading contributor to local ooding and air and water pollution. And if that task were not large enough, local waste management ocials also need to deal with the integrated and international aspects of solid waste, and increasingly with demographic change in the work force, employment generation, and management of sta both formal and informal. Managing municipal solid waste is an intensive service. Municipalities need capacities in procurement, contract management, professional and often unionized labor management, and ongoing expertise in capital and operating budgeting and nance. MSW also requires a strong social contract between the municipality and community. All of these skills are prerequisites for other municipal services. The original What a Waste Report provided waste estimates for South and East Asia. This waste stream represents about 33% of the worlds total quantities. Most growth predictions made in What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia were reasonably accurate and in most cases, even taking into account the recent economic contraction, waste growth estimates were conservative. This is especially true in China. In 2004, China surpassed the US as the worlds largest waste generator. In 2030, China will likely produce twice as much municipal solid waste as the United States. The main objective of this updated What a Waste Report is to provide current municipal solid waste
Solid waste management formal and informal represents 1% to 5% of all urban employment. As formality increases so do issues of labor organization, health and safety, ageing demographics (solid waste workers tend to be younger), the friction between sanctioned and unsanctioned recycling, and producer pay arguments and apportioning costs and responsibilities.
Ferry men parking their boats on Buriganga River, Dhaka. Photo taken as part of Development 360 project.
Photo: Scott Wallace Illustration: Brian Fray
BOX 1
What a Waste 1999: Whats Changed (and What Hasnt) in the Last Decade
What a Waste (1999) predicted that by 2025 the daily MSW generation rate in Asia would be 1.8 million tonnes per day. These estimates are still accurate. At present, the daily generation rate in South Asia and East Asia and the Pacic combined is approximately 1 million tonnes per day. Low-income countries continue to spend most of their SWM budgets on waste collection, with only a fraction going toward disposal. This is the opposite in high-income countries where the main expenditure is on disposal. Asia, like much of the world, continues to have a majority of organics and paper in its waste stream: The combined totals are 72% for EAP and 54% for SAR. Growth in waste quantities is fastest in Asia. There is a greater emphasis on labor issues: in highincome countries, demographics and immigration are critical factors; in low-income countries working conditions and integration of waste pickers has gained in importance. Rates of recycling are increasingly inuenced by global markets, relative shipping costs, and commodity prices.
Lisbon, Portugal, used aluminum cans are deposited into a container for recycling
Bigstock Photo
generation, composition, collection, and disposal data by country and by region. Both developing and developed countries are included. This report makes projections on MSW generation and composition on a country and regional level for 2025. This should provide decision makers with a sucient foundation on which to base waste management policy decisions. In most cases further local analysis will be needed, but this report is intended to provide a broad global review. For a summary on the main dierences between the data presented in the 1999 publication and this publication, please refer to Box 1. Solid waste is inextricably linked to urbanization and economic development. As countries
urbanize, their economic wealth increases. As standards of living and disposable incomes increase, consumption of goods and services increases, which results in a corresponding increase in the amount of waste generated. This report estimates that at present almost 1.3 billion tonnes of MSW are generated globally every year, or 1.2 kg/capita/day. The actual per capita rates, however, are highly variable, as there are considerable dierences in waste generation rates across countries, between cities, and even within cities. Solid waste is generally considered an urban issue. Waste generation rates tend to be much lower in rural areas since, on average, residents are usually poorer, purchase fewer store-bought
items (which results in less packaging), and have higher levels of reuse and recycling. Today, more than 50 percent of the worlds population lives in cities, and the rate of urbanization is increasing quickly. By 2050, as many people will live in cities as the population of the whole world in 2000. This will add challenges to waste disposal. Citizens and corporations will likely need to assume more responsibility for waste generation and disposal, specically, product design and waste separation. Also likely to emerge will be a greater emphasis on urban mining as the largest source of materials like metal and paper may be found in cities. Waste is mainly a by-product of consumer-based lifestyles that drive much of the worlds economies. In most cities, the quickest way to reduce waste volumes is to reduce economic activitynot
generally an attractive option. Solid waste is the most visible and pernicious by-product of a resource-intensive, consumer-based economic lifestyle. Greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and endocrine disruptors are similar by-products to our urban lifestyles. The long term sustainability of todays global economic structure is beyond the scope of this paper. However, solid waste managers need to appreciate the global context of solid waste and its interconnections to economies and local and global pollution. This report makes projections for MSW generation in 2025, based on expected population and economic growth rates. As countries, particularly India and China, continue their rapid pace of urbanization and development, global solid waste quantities are projected to increase considerably.
Illustration: Brian Fray
Global Waste Management Practices

At a Glance:
In solid waste management there is no throwing away. The organic fraction of waste, collection vehicles, and waste disposal methods contribute to GHG emissions. The last two decades have brought a new challenge for waste management: the growing vagaries of global secondary materials markets.
In solid waste management there is no away. When throwing away waste, system complexities and the integrated nature of materials and pollution are quickly apparent. For example, waste incineration is expensive and poses challenges of air pollution and ash disposal. Incineration requires waste placed outside for collection to be
containerized to stay dry, and much of the waste stream is not combustible. Landlls require land availability, and siting is often opposed by potential neighboring residents. Solving one problem often introduces a new one, and if not well executed, the new problem is often of greater cost and complexity.
BOX 2
Denitions of Municipal Solid Waste

By OECD: Municipal waste is collected and treated by, or for municipalities. It covers waste from households, including bulky waste, similar waste from commerce and trade, ofce buildings, institutions and small businesses, yard and garden, street sweepings, contents of litter containers, and market cleansing. Waste from municipal sewage networks and treatment, as well as municipal construction and demolition is excluded. By PAHO: Solid or semi-solid waste generated in population centers including domestic and, commercial wastes, as well as those originated by the small-scale industries and institutions (including hospital and clinics); market street sweeping, and from public cleansing. By IPCC: The IPCC includes the following in MSW: food waste; garden (yard) and park waste; paper and cardboard; wood; textiles; nappies (disposable diapers); rubber and leather; plastics; metal; glass (and pottery and china); and other (e.g., ash, dirt, dust, soil, electronic waste).
ITC landll and recycling center, Ankara, Turkey
Photo: Simone D. McCourtie/World Bank
TABLE 1
Comparison of Solid Waste Management Practices by Income Level (adapted from What a Waste 1999)
Activity Low Income Middle Income Some discussion of source reduction, but rarely incorporated into an organized program. Improved service and increased collection from residential areas. Larger vehicle eet and more mechanization. Collection rate varies between 50 to 80%. Transfer stations are slowly incorporated into the SWM system. Informal sector still involved; some high technology sorting and processing facilities. Recycling rates are still relatively high. Materials are often imported for recycling. Recycling markets are somewhat more regulated. Material prices uctuate considerably. High Income Organized education programs emphasize the three Rs reduce, reuse, and recycle. More producer responsibility & focus on product design. Collection rate greater than 90%. Compactor trucks and highly mechanized vehicles and transfer stations are common. Waste volume a key consideration. Aging collection workers often a consideration in system design. Recyclable material collection services and high technology sorting and processing facilities are common and regulated. Increasing attention towards long-term markets. Overall recycling rates higher than low and middle income. Informal recycling still exists (e.g. aluminum can collection.) Extended product responsibility common. Becoming more popular at both backyard and large-scale facilities. Waste stream has a smaller portion of compostables than low- and middle-income countries. More source segregation makes composting easier. Anaerobic digestion increasing in popularity. Odor control critical. Prevalent in areas with high land costs and low availability of land (e.g., islands). Most incinerators have some form of environmental controls and some type of energy recovery system. Governments regulate and monitor emissions. About three (or more) times the cost of landlling per tonne.
Source Reduction No organized programs, but reuse and low per capita waste generation rates are common. Collection Sporadic and inefcient. Service is limited to high visibility areas, the wealthy, and businesses willing to pay. High fraction of inerts and compostables impact collectionoverall collection below 50%. Although most recycling is through the informal sector and waste picking, recycling rates tend to be high both for local markets and for international markets and imports of materials for recycling, including hazardous goods such as e-waste and ship-breaking. Recycling markets are unregulated and include a number of middlemen. Large price uctuations. Rarely undertaken formally even though the waste stream has a high percentage of organic material. Markets for, and awareness of, compost lacking.
Recycling
Composting
Large composting plants are often unsuccessful due to contamination and operating costs (little waste separation); some small-scale composting projects at the community/ neighborhood level are more sustainable. Composting eligible for CDM projects but is not widespread. Increasing use of anaerobic digestion. Some incinerators are used, but experiencing nancial and operational difculties. Air pollution control equipment is not advanced and often by-passed. Little or no stack emissions monitoring. Governments include incineration as a possible waste disposal option but costs prohibitive. Facilities often driven by subsidies from OECD countries on behalf of equipment suppliers. Some controlled and sanitary landlls with some environmental controls. Open dumping is still common. CDM projects for landll gas are more common.
Incineration
Not common, and generally not successful because of high capital, technical, and operation costs, high moisture content in the waste, and high percentage of inerts.
Landlling/ Dumping
Low-technology sites usually open dumping of wastes. High polluting to nearby aquifers, water bodies, settlements. Often receive medical waste. Waste regularly burned. Signicant health impacts on local residents and workers.
Sanitary landlls with a combination of liners, leak detection, leachate collection systems, and gas collection and treatment systems. Often problematic to open new landlls due to concerns of neighboring residents. Post closure use of sites increasingly important, e.g. golf courses and parks. Collection costs can represent less than 10% of the budget. Large budget allocations to intermediate waste treatment facilities. Up front community participation reduces costs and increases options available to waste planners (e.g., recycling and composting).
Costs (see Annex E)
Collection costs represent 80 to 90% of the municipal solid waste management budget. Waste fees are regulated by some local governments, but the fee collection system is inefcient. Only a small proportion of budget is allocated toward disposal.
Collection costs represent 50% to 80% of the municipal solid waste management budget. Waste fees are regulated by some local and national governments, more innovation in fee collection, e.g. included in electricity or water bills. Expenditures on more mechanized collection eets and disposal are higher than in low-income countries.
Locally, waste collection vehicles are large sources of emissions and both incineration and landlling contribute GHG emissions. Uncollected waste can provide breeding areas and food to potentially disease carrying vectors such as insects and rodents, with their associated health and nuisance issues. Waste management cannot be eectively managed without due consideration for issues such as the citys overall GHG emissions, labor market, land use planning, and myriad related concerns. Despite progress in solid waste management practices in the decade since the original What a Waste Report was published, fundamental institutional, nancial, social, and environmental problems still exist. Although each country and city has their own site-specic situations, general observations can be made across low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as delineated in Table 1. The average citys municipal waste stream is made up of millions of separate waste items. For a compilation of the dierent denitions for Municipal Solid Waste, please refer to Box 2. In many cases, items in a citys waste stream originated from other countries that have countless factories and independent producers. Some of the larger waste fractions, such as organics (food and horticultural waste) and paper are easier to manage, but wastes such as multi-laminates, hazardous (e.g. syringes), and e-waste, pose disproportionately large problems. Industry programs, such as voluntary plastic-type labeling, are largely ineective (no facilities exist to dierentiate containers by numbers, either mechanically or by waste-worker) and deposit-return systems often meet industry and consumer resistance. Hybrid, ad hoc, and voluntary take-back programs are emerging, however they are generally inecient
and municipalities are often forced to subsidize the disposal costs of these items. In the last ten to twenty years an additional challenge has emerged for the waste manager: the growing global vagaries of secondary materials markets. Many municipal recycling programs in Europe and North America were started with the recycling markets relatively close to source. More recently, marketing of secondary-materials has emerged as a global business. The price paid per tonne of waste paper in New York City is often based on what the purchase price is in China. The majority of waste recycled in Buenos Aires, for example, is shipped to China. The volatility of secondary materials prices has increased, making planning more dicult. The price is often predictive of economic trends, dropping signicantly during economic downturns (when a city is least able to aord price drops). There are some hedging opportunities for materials pricing, however secondary materials marketing does not have the same degree of sophistication as other commodities (largely due to issues of reliability, quality, externalities, and the sheer number of interested parties). In the years that have passed since the original What a Waste report was released, two comprehensive World Bank studies on India and China have been prepared (Hanrahan et al 2006 and Hoornweg et al 2005). Additionally, OECD and PAHO have released MSW data for Latin America and the Caribbean. This version of What a Waste includes the data presented by these reports. MSW, as dened in this report, encompasses residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, municipal, and construction and demolition (C&D) waste. Table 2 gives sources and types of waste generated.
Source Residential
Typical Waste Generators Single and multifamily dwellings
Types of Solid Wastes Food wastes, paper, cardboard, plastics, textiles, leather, yard wastes, wood, glass, metals, ashes, special wastes (e.g., bulky items, consumer electronics, white goods, batteries, oil, tires), and household hazardous wastes (e.g., paints, aerosols, gas tanks, waste containing mercury, motor oil, cleaning agents), e-wastes (e.g., computers, phones, TVs) Housekeeping wastes, packaging, food wastes, construction and demolition materials, hazardous wastes, ashes, special wastes Paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, food wastes, glass, metals, special wastes, hazardous wastes, e-wastes Same as commercial Wood, steel, concrete, dirt, bricks, tiles Street sweepings; landscape and tree trimmings; general wastes from parks, beaches, and other recreational areas, sludge
TABLE 2
Generators and Types of Solid Waste (adapted from What a Waste 1999)
Industrial
Light and heavy manufacturing, fabrication, construction sites, power and chemical plants (excluding specic process wastes if the municipality does not oversee their collection) Stores, hotels, restaurants, markets, ofce buildings Schools, hospitals (non-medical waste), prisons, government buildings, airports New construction sites, road repair, renovation sites, demolition of buildings Street cleaning, landscaping, parks, beaches, other recreational areas, water and wastewater treatment plants
Commercial
Institutional Construction and Demolition Municipal Services
All of the above should be included as municipal solid waste. Industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) wastes are often grouped together and usually represent more than 50% of MSW. C&D waste is often treated separately: if well managed it can be disposed separately. The items below are usually considered MSW if the municipality oversees their collection and disposal. Process Heavy and light manufacturing, reneries, chemical plants, power plants, mineral extraction and processing Hospitals, nursing homes, clinics Industrial process wastes, scrap materials, off-specication products, slag, tailings Infectious wastes (bandages, gloves, cultures, swabs, blood and body uids), hazardous wastes (sharps, instruments, chemicals), radioactive waste from cancer therapies, pharmaceutical waste Spoiled food wastes, agricultural wastes (e.g., rice husks, cotton stalks, coconut shells, coffee waste), hazardous wastes (e.g., pesticides)
Medical waste
Agricultural
Crops, orchards, vineyards, dairies, feedlots, farms
Waste Generation
At a Glance:
MSW generation levels are expected to double by 2025. The higher the income level and rate of urbanization, the greater the amount of solid waste produced. OECD countries produce almost half of the worlds waste, while Africa and South Asia regions produce the least waste.
Current global MSW generation levels are approximately 1.3 billion tonnes per year, and are expected to increase to approximately 2.2 billion tonnes per year by 2025. This represents a significant increase in per capita waste generation rates, from 1.2 to 1.42 kg per person per day in the next fteen years. However, global averages are broad estimates only as rates vary considerably by region, country, city, and even within cities. MSW generation rates are inuenced by economic development, the degree of industrialization, public habits, and local climate. Generally, the higher the Collecting paper economic development and rate of urbanization, to be recycled, the greater the amount of solid waste produced. Mumbai, India Income level and urbanization are highly correlated
and as disposable incomes and living standards increase, consumption of goods and services correspondingly increases, as does the amount of waste generated. Urban residents produce about twice as much waste as their rural counterparts.
Waste Generation by Region

Waste generation varies as a function of auence, however, regional and country variations can be signicant, as can generation rates within the same city. Annex A. Map of Regions illustrates the regional classication used in this report. Throughout the report, when Africa is mentioned as a region, we refer to Sub-Saharan Africa. Data are particularly lacking for Sub-Saharan Africa. Waste generation in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 62 million tonnes per year. Per capita waste generation is generally low in this region, but spans a wide range, from 0.09 to 3.0 kg per person per day, with an average of 0.65 kg/capita/day. The countries with the highest per capita rates are islands, likely due to waste generated by the tourism industry, and a more complete accounting of all wastes generated. The annual waste generation in East Asia and the Pacic Region is approximately 270 million tonnes per year. This quantity is mainly inuenced by waste generation in China, which makes up 70% of the regional total. Per capita waste generation ranges from 0.44 to 4.3 kg per person per day for
Photo: Jeroo Bhada
Waste Generation Per Capita (kg/capita/day) Region AFR EAP ECA LAC MENA OECD SAR Lower Boundary 0.09 0.44 0.29 0.11 0.16 1.10 0.12 Upper Boundary 3.0 4.3 2.1 14
2
TABLE 3 Average 0.65 0.95 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.2 0.45
Current Waste Generation Per Capita by Region (see Annex J)
5.7 3.7 5.1
the region, with an average of 0.95 kg/capita/day (Hoornweg et al 2005). In Eastern and Central Asia, the waste generated per year is at least 93 million tonnes. Eight countries in this region have no available data on waste generation in the literature. The per capita waste generation ranges from 0.29 to 2.1 kg per person per day, with an average of 1.1 kg/capita/day. Latin America and the Caribbean has the most comprehensive and consistent data (e.g. PAHOs Regional Evaluation of Solid Waste Management, 2005). The total amount of waste generated per year in this region is 160 million tonnes, with per capita values ranging from 0.1 to 14 kg/capita/ day, and an average of 1.1 kg/capita/day. Similar to the high per capita waste generation rates on islands in Africa, the largest per capita solid waste generation rates are found in the islands of the Caribbean. In the Middle East and North Africa, solid waste generation is 63 million tonnes per year. Per capita waste generation is 0.16 to 5.7 kg per person per day, and has an average of 1.1 kg/capita/day. The OECD countries generate 572 million tonnes of solid waste per year. The per capita values range from 1.1 to 3.7 kg per person per day with an average of 2.2 kg/capita/day.
In South Asia, approximately 70 million tonnes of waste is generated per year, with per capita values ranging from 0.12 to 5.1 kg per person per day and an average of 0.45 kg/capita/day. Table 3 shows current waste generation per capita by region, indicating the lower boundary and upper boundary for each region, as well as average kg per capita per day of waste generated within each region.2 Figure 1 illustrates global waste generation per region, where OECD countries make up almost half
Figure 1. Current Waste Generation by Region
2
This table is not corrected for extraneous outliers, such as the 14.40 kg/ capita/day upper bound in Latin America and the Caribbean [Trinidad and Tobago].
SAR 5% MENA 6% ECA 7%
AFR 5%
FIG. 1
Waste Generation by Region
OECD 44%
LAC 12%
EAP 21%
10
TABLE 4
Waste Generation Projections for 2025 by Region
Current Available Data Region Total Urban Population (millions) 260 777 227 399 162 729 426 2,980 Urban Waste Generation Per Capita (kg/capita/day) 0.65 0.95 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.2 0.45 1.2 Total (tons/day) 169,119 738,958 254,389 437,545 173,545 1,566,286 192,410 3,532,252
Projections for 2025 Projected Population Total Population (millions) 1,152 2,124 339 681 379 1,031 1,938 7,644 Urban Population (millions) 518 1,229 239 466 257 842 734 4,285 Projected Urban Waste Per Capita (kg/capita/day) 0.85 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.43 2.1 0.77 1.4 Total (tons/day) 441,840 1,865,379 354.810 728,392 369,320 1,742,417 567,545 6,069,703
AFR EAP ECA LCR MENA OECD SAR Total
TABLE 5
Current Waste Generation Per Capita by Income Level
Income Level High Upper Middle Lower Middle Lower
Waste Generation Per Capita (kg/capita/day) Lower Boundary 0.70 0.11 0.16 0.09 Upper Boundary 14 5.5 5.3 4.3 Average 2.1 1.2 0.79 0.60
of the worlds waste, while Africa and South Asia gure as the regions that produce the least waste. Table 4 shows estimates of waste generation for the year 2025 as expected according to current trends in population growth in each region.
Waste Generation by Country Income Level 3

High-income countries produce the most waste per capita, while low income countries produce the least solid waste per capita. Although the total waste generation for lower middle income countries is higher than that of upper middle income countries, likely skewed as a result of Chinas inclusion in the lower middle income
3
group, the average per capita waste generation amounts for the various income groups reect the income level of the countries (see Figure 2). The high, upper-middle, lower-middle, and low income designations are somewhat inaccurate as these classications are country-wide, and in several countries average national auence can be very dierent from average auence of the urban populations. Only the auence of urban residents is important in projecting MSW rates. For example, India and especially China have disproportionately high urban waste generation rates per capita relative to overall economic status as they have large relatively poor rural populations that tend to dilute national gures. Annex B. Map of Income Distribution illustrates the global classication for income used in this report. Table 5 shows current waste generation per capita by income level, indicating the lower
Countries are classied into four income levels according to World Bank estimates of 2005 GNI per capita. High: $10,726 or above; Upper middle: $3,466-10,725; Lower middle: $876-3,465; and Lower: $875 or less.

Figure 2. Waste Generation by Country Income
11
boundary and upper boundary for each region, as well as average kg per capita per day of waste generated within each group according to country income level. Figure 2 presents global waste generation by country per income level, showing decreasing average rates of per capita waste generation according to income level. Table 6 shows estimates of waste generation for the year 2025 as expected according to current trends in population growth as determined by country income level.
Lower Income 6%
FIG. 2
Waste Generation by Income
Lower Middle Income 29%
High Income 46%
Methodology for collecting current data:

MSW generation data by country were collected from ocial government publications, reports by international agencies, and articles in peerreviewed journals. Where possible, this report has used the same source for a group of countries so that the data are relatively standardized by methodology and year. For example, MSW generation data for high-income countries are from OECD publications; countries in Latin America and the Caribbean from PAHO studies; and some Middle Eastern countries from METAP data. In cases where only per capita waste generation rates were available, the total urban population for that year (World Bank, World Development Indicators) was used to calculate the total urban MSW generation.
Current Available Data Region Total Urban Population (millions) 343 1,293 572 774 2,982 Urban Waste Generation Per Capita (kg/capita/ day) 0.60 0.78 1.16 2.13 1.19 Total (tons/day) 204,802 1,012,321 665,586 1,649,547 3,532,256
Upper Middle Income 19%
Where only total MSW generation numbers were available, total urban population for that year was used to calculate per capita waste generation, assuming that most of the waste generated is in urban areas and only a small fraction comes from rural areas. For several African countries, data were not readily available. Hence, a per capita amount of 0.5 kg/ capita/day is assumed for urban areas for 2005. This estimate is based on the USAID 2009 publication on Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa (EGSSAA), 2nd Ed. and World Bank studies. For further information on MSW generation rates by country, please see Annex J. When reviewing
Projections for 2025 (from Annex J) Projected Population Total Population (millions) 1,637 4,010 888 1,112 7,647 Urban Population (millions) 676 2,080 619 912 4,287 Projected Urban Waste Per Capita (kg/capita/ day) 0.86 1.3 1.6 2.1 1.4 Total (tons/day) 584,272 2,618,804 987,039 1,879,590 6,069,705 TABLE 6
Waste Generation Projections for 2025 by Income
Lower Income Lower Middle Income Upper Middle Income High Income Total
12
TABLE 7
Sources for 2025 Projections of Solid Waste Generation
Variable Current GDP (current US$, 2005) GDP Projections by Region Urban Population Projections
Data Source World Development Indicators IEA Annual Energy Outlook (2005) United Nations World Urbanization Prospects (2007)
TABLE 8
Average MSW Generation Rates by Income
Income Level Low-Income Middle-Income High-Income
Average MSW Generation (kg/cap/day) 0.6 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.1 4.5
the values presented in this report, its important to keep in mind that values for waste generation at a regional level can dier markedly because of the inuence from a single country, such as the US, China or India.
GDP (high-, middle-, or low-income) and an average range of MSW generation based on that income level. Modest adjustments for current experience and waste generation practices were made where appropriate. Similar to energy intensity urban residents also exhibit waste intensity.
Methodology for calculating 2025 projections:
For further information on the sources used for the 2025 projections please refer to Table 7. Projections for urban municipal solid waste generation in 2025 were made by factoring expected Figure 3. Urban Waste Generation Table 8 illustrates the range of MSW based on growth in population and GDP and estimated country income level. These values are supported per capita waste generation. Projections for each by Table 6. country were made based on the level of expected
1,200
Waste Generated (millions tons/day)
FIG. 3
1,000 800 600 400

213 369
956
Urban Waste Generation by Income Level and Year
686 602 360 243
200 0
75
343 219 676 343 1,293 2,080 288 344 573 423 619 628 774 777 912 840
Urban Population (millions) Waste (kg/capita/year) Country Income Group
Lower Income
Lower Middle Income 2010
Upper Middle Income Projected 2025
High Income
13
Waste Collection
At a Glance:
MSW collection is an important aspect in maintaining public health in cities around the world. The amount of MSW collected varies widely by region and income level; collection within cities can also differ greatly. Collection rates range from a low of 41% in low-income countries to a high of 98% in high-income countries.
Waste collection is the collection of solid waste from point of production (residential, industrial commercial, institutional) to the point of treatment or disposal. Municipal solid waste is collected in several ways: 1. House-to-House: Waste collectors visit each individual house to collect garbage. The user generally pays a fee for this service. 2. Community Bins: Users bring their garbage to community bins that are placed at xed points in a neighborhood or locality. MSW is picked up by the municipality, or its designate, according to a set schedule. 3. Curbside Pick-Up: Users leave their garbage directly outside their homes according to a garbage pick-up schedule set with the local authorities (secondary house-tohouse collectors not typical). 4. Self Delivered: Generators deliver the waste directly to disposal sites or transfer stations, or hire third-party operators (or the municipality). 5. Contracted or Delegated Service: Businesses hire rms (or municipality with municipal facilities) who arrange collection schedules and charges with
customers. Municipalities often license private operators and may designate collection areas to encourage collection eciencies. Collected MSW can be separated or mixed, depending on local regulations. Generators can be required to separate their waste at source, e.g., into wet (food waste, organic matter) and dry (recyclables), and possibly a third stream of waste, or residue. Waste that is un-segregated could be separated into organic and recycling streams at a sorting facility. The degree of separation can vary over time and by city. Separation can be False Creek, a misnomer as waste is not actually separated Vancouver, Canada
iStockphoto.com/brytta
14
Separate garbage containers, Singapore
Photo: Cyrus Tata
but rather is placed out for collection in separate containers without rst being mixed together. Often, especially in developing countries, MSW is not separated or sorted before it is taken for disposal, but recyclables are removed by waste pickers prior to collection, during the collection process, and at disposal sites. The degree of source separation impacts the total amount of material recycled and the quality of secondary materials that can be supplied. Recyclables recovered from mixed waste, for example, tend to be contaminated, reducing marketing possibilities. However, source separation and separate collection can add costs to the waste collection process. Collection programs need to be dierentiated by type of generator. Often more attention is devoted to residential waste even though this is usually less than 50% of the total waste stream. Waste generated by the ICI sector tends to be collected better, because of more ecient containerization and purpose-built vehicles, and benets from the collection of fees. Residential waste collection, on the other hand, tends to be more expensive to collect per tonne as
waste is more dispersed. Annex G provides data for MSW collection in cities over 100,000. The percent of MSW collected varies by national income and by region. Higher income countries tend to have higher collection eciency although less of the solid waste management budget goes towards collection. In low-income countries, collection services make up the bulk of a municipalitys SWM budget (as high as 80 to 90% in many cases), yet collection rates tend to be much lower, leading to lower collection frequency and eciency. In highincome countries, although collection costs can represent less than 10% of a municipalitys budget, collection rates are usually higher than 90% on average and collection methods tend to be mechanized, ecient, and frequent. While total collection budgets are higher, they are proportionally lower as other budget items increase. For further information on estimated solid waste management costs according to income level, please refer to Annex E. The degree and sophistication of waste picking inuences overall collection. In cities like Buenos Aires, waste pickers tend to remove recyclables
15
after the waste is placed curbside. The resulting scattered waste is more costly to collect: in some cases the value of recyclables are less than the extra costs associated with collecting the disturbed waste. In some cities informal waste pickers have strong links to the waste program and municipally sanctioned crews can be prevented from accessing the waste as informal waste pickers process the waste. Waste pickers can be formally or informally organized into groups or unions with varying degrees of autonomy and political voice. Containerization is an important aspect for waste collection, particularly from residential generators. If waste is not set out for collection in closed containers it can be disturbed by vermin such as dogs and rats, and it can become water-logged, or set are. Frequency of collection is an important aspect readily under a municipalitys control. From a health perspective, no more than weekly collection is needed. However in some cities, largely because of culture and habituation, three-times per day residential collection is oered (e.g. Shanghai). Good waste collection programming requires an ongoing iterative approach between collection crews and generators (usually households). Therefore, waste generators should be aware of the true costs of collection, and ideally be charged for these directly.
MSW Collection by Region

Figure 5 shows MSW collection eciency by region. Regions with low-income countries tend to have low collection rates. South Asia and Africa are the lowest with 65% and 46% respectively. Not surprisingly, OECD countries tend to have the highest collection eciency at 98%.
Figure 4. Waste Collection by Income
FIG. 4
Waste Collection Rates by Income

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% High Income Upper Middle Income Lower Middle Income Lower Income
Figure 5. Waste Collection by Region
FIG. 5
Waste Collection Rates by Region

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% OECD MENA LAC ECA EAP SAR AFR
MSW Collection by Income

The data show that the average waste collection rates are directly related to income levels. Low-income countries have low collection rates, around 41%, while high-income countries have higher collection rates averaging 98%. Figure 4 shows the average collection percentage by income. Annex K details MSW collection rates by country.
16
Waste Composition
At a Glance:
Waste composition is inuenced by factors such as culture, economic development, climate, and energy sources; composition impacts how often waste is collected and how it is disposed. Low-income countries have the highest proportion of organic waste. Paper, plastics, and other inorganic materials make up the highest proportion of MSW in highincome countries. By region, EAP has the highest proportion of organic waste at 62%, while OECD countries have the least at 27%, although total amount of organic waste is still highest in OECD countries. Although waste composition is usually provided by weight, as a countrys afuence increases, waste volumes tend to be more important, especially with regard to collection: organics and inerts generally decrease in relative terms, while increasing paper and plastic increases overall waste volumes.
In the municipal solid waste stream, waste is broadly classied into organic and inorganic. In this study, waste composition is categorized as organic, paper, plastic, glass, metals, and other. These categories can be further rened, however, these six categories are usually sucient for general solid waste planning purposes. Table 9 describes the dierent types of waste and their sources. An important component that needs to be considered is construction and demolition waste (C&D), such as building rubble, concrete and masonry. In some cities this can represent as much
TABLE 9
as 40% of the total waste stream. However, in this report, C&D waste is not included unless specically identied. A separate case-by-case review is recommended for specic cities. Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) waste also needs further local renement. Many industrial processes have specic wastes and by-products. In most cities this material, with its relatively easier ow and quality control, is the rst material to be recycled. Some industrial process waste requires specic treatment. For most MSW management plans industrial by-products are not
Types of Waste and Their Sources
Type Organic Paper Plastic Glass Metal Other
Sources Food scraps, yard (leaves, grass, brush) waste, wood, process residues Paper scraps, cardboard, newspapers, magazines, bags, boxes, wrapping paper, telephone books, shredded paper, paper beverage cups. Strictly speaking paper is organic but unless it is contaminated by food residue, paper is not classied as organic. Bottles, packaging, containers, bags, lids, cups Bottles, broken glassware, light bulbs, colored glass Cans, foil, tins, non-hazardous aerosol cans, appliances (white goods), railings, bicycles Textiles, leather, rubber, multi-laminates, e-waste, appliances, ash, other inert materials
Figure 6. Waste Composition in China
17
2000: Population Using Coal Glass 2% Plastic 13% Others 47% Organic 41% Paper 9% Paper 5%
Metal 1%
Others 10%
2000: Population Using Gas
FIG. 6
Waste Composition in China

Organic 65%
Metal 1%
Glass 2%
Plastic 4%
Source: Hoornweg 2005
Municipal Waste Genereated from Population Using Coal for household heating = 49,500,000 tons Municipal Waste Genereated from Population Using Gas for household heating = 100,500,000 tons Total Municipal Waste Generation in 2000 = 150,000,000 tons
included in waste composition analyses, however household and general waste should be included since it is usually disposed at common facilities, and in most cities waste from the ICI sector represents the largest fraction of the waste collected. Waste composition is inuenced by many factors, such as level of economic development, cultural norms, geographical location, energy sources, and climate. As a country urbanizes and populations become wealthier, consumption of inorganic materials (such as plastics, paper, and aluminum) increases, while the relative organic fraction decreases. Generally, lowand middle-income countries have a high percentage of organic matter in the urban waste stream, ranging from 40 to 85% of the total. Paper, plastic, glass, and metal fractions increase in the waste stream of middle- and high-income countries. For data on MSW composition in cities with a population of over 100,000, please refer to Annex I. Figure 8 illustrates the dierences between low- and high-income countries: organics make up 64% of the MSW stream for low-income countries and paper only 5%, whereas in high-income countries it is 28% and 31% respectively. The IPCC uses its own classi-
cation of MSW composition based on region (See Annex N). In high-income countries, an integrated approach for organic waste is particularly important, Figure 7. Global Solid Waste Composition as organic waste may be diverted to water-borne sewers, which is usually a more expensive option. Geography inuences waste composition by determining building materials (e.g. wood versus steel), ash content (often from household heating), amount of street sweepings (can be as much as 10% of a citys waste stream in dry locations), and horticultural waste. The type of energy source
Other 18%
FIG. 7
Metal 4% Glass 5% Plastic 10% Organic 46%
Global Solid Waste Composition
Paper 17%
18
in a location can have an impact on the composition of MSW generated. This is especially true in low-income countries or regions where energy for cooking, heating, and lighting might not come from district heating systems or the electricity grid. For example, Figure 6 shows the dierence in waste composition in China between a section of the population that uses coal and another that uses natural gas for space heating. The other category is clearly higher: 47% when coal is used, and an ash residue is included, as opposed to 10% when natural gas is used for home heating. Climate can also inuence waste generation in a city, country, or region. For example, in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, ash makes up 60% of the MSW generated in the winter, but only 20% in the summer (UNEP/GRID-Arendal 2004). Precipitation is also important in waste composition, particularly when measured by mass, as un-containerized waste can absorb signicant amounts of water from rain and snow. Humidity also inuences waste composition by inuencing moisture content.
countries. The total waste composition gures by income and by region were then aggregated. Figure 7 shows the MSW composition for the entire world in 2009. Organic waste comprises the majority of MSW, followed by paper, metal, other wastes, plastic, and glass. These are only approximate values, given that the data sets are from various years.
Waste Composition by Income

As Figures 8 a-d show, the organic fraction tends to be highest in low-income countries and lowest in high-income countries. Total amount of organic waste tends to increase steadily as auence increases at a slower rate than the non-organic fraction. Low-income countries have an organic fraction of 64% compared to 28% in high-income countries. The data presented in Figure 9 illustrates solid waste composition by income as compared between current values and values projected for 2025. Annex J provides data for MSW projections for 2025 by income level. Table 10 represents a compilation of composition values of current day data presented in Annex M, and specic reports for larger countries such as China and India. Estimates for waste composition in 2025 are based on trends observed in OECD countries and authors projections.
Methodology
This report includes waste composition data that was available for 105 countries from various sources. Please see Annex M for further information on MSW composition data by country. Waste composition data is generally available as percentages of the various waste streams, commonly divided into the categories shown in Table 10. In some cases, other wastes are further disaggregated into textiles, rubber, ash, etc. However, for the purposes of standardization and simplication the other category in this report includes all of these wastes. Although the denitions and methodologies for determining composition are not always provided or standardized in the waste studies referenced, the compositions for MSW are assumed to be based on wet weight. Each waste category was calculated using waste generation gures from individual
Waste Composition by Region

MSW composition by region is shown in Figures 10 a-g. The East Asia and the Pacic Region has the highest fraction of organic waste (62%) compared to OECD countries, which have the least (27%). The amount of paper, glass, and metals found in the MSW stream are the highest in OECD countries (32%, 7%, and 6%, respectively) and lowest in the South Asia Region (4% for paper and 1% for both glass and metals). Annex J provides data for MSW projections for 2025 by region.
Figure 8. Waste Composition by Income
19
a. Waste Composition in Low-Income Countries
b. Waste Composition in Lower Middle-Income Countries
Other 17% Metal 3% Glass 3% Plastic 8% Paper 5% Organic 64%
Other 15% Metal 2% Glass 3% Organic 59%
FIG. 8
Waste Composition by Income
Plastic 12%
Paper 9%
c. Waste Composition in Upper Middle-Income Countries
d. Waste Composition in High-Income Countries
Other 13% Metal 3% Glass 5% Plastic 11% Organic 54% Metal 6% Glass 7%
Other 17% Organic 28%
Paper 14%
Plastic 11% Paper 31%
CURRENT ESTIMATES* Income Level Low Income Lower Middle Income Upper Middle Income High Income
Source:
TABLE 10 Glass (%) 3 3 5 7 Metal (%) 3 2 3 6 Other (%) 17 15 13 17
Organic (%) 64 59 54 28
Paper (%) 5 9 14 31
Plastic (%) 8 12 11 11
Types of Waste Composition by Income Level
2025 ESTIMATES** Income Level Low Income Lower Middle Income Upper Middle Income High Income Organic (%) 62 55 50 28 Paper (%) 6 10 15 30 Plastic (%) 9 13 12 11 Glass (%) 3 4 4 7 Metal (%) 3 3 4 6 Other (%) 17 15 15 18
*Source year: varies, see Annex C on Data Availability. **Source: By author from global trends, and Annex J.
20
Figure 9. Solid Waste Composition
FIG. 9
Solid Waste Composition by Income and Year
CURRENT
Metal Other 17% Organic 64%
2025
Low Income
Other Metal 17% 3% Glass 3% Plastic 9% Paper 6%
Glass 3% 3% Plastic 8% Paper 5%
Organic 62%
75 MT*
Other 15% Metal 2% Glass 3% Plastic 12% Paper 9% Other 15%
201 MT
Lower Middle Income

Organic 59%
Metal 3% Glass 4% Organic 55%
Plastic 13%
Paper 10%
369 MT
Other 15%
956 MT
Metal 3% Glass 5% Plastic 11%
Other 13%
Upper Middle Income

Organic 54%
Metal 4% Glass 4% Plastic 12% Paper 15%
Organic 50%
Paper 14%
243 MT High Income

Organic 28% Metal 6% Glass 7% Plastic 11%
426 MT
Others 17% Metal 6% Glass 7% Plastic 11% Paper 31%
Other 18% Organic 28%
Paper 30%
602 MT
Source: Current data vary by country. *Total annual waste volume in millions of tonnes
686 MT
21
Figure 10. Global Solid Waste Composition a. AFR Waste Composition Other 13% Metal 4% Glass 4% Plastic 13% Paper 9% Organic 57% Metal 2% Glass 3% Plastic 13% b. EAP Waste Composition Other 10%
FIG. 10
Waste Composition by Region
Organic 62%
Paper 10%
c. ECA Waste Composition Other 19% Metal 5% Glass 7% Plastic 8% Paper 14% Other 37% Organic 47
d. SAR Composition
Organic 50% Metal 1% Glass Paper 1% Plastic 4% 7% g. LAC Waste Composition Metal 2% Glass 4% Plastic 12% Organic 54% Other 12%
e. MENA Waste Composition Other Metal 10% 3% Glass 3% Plastic 9% Organic 61%
Paper 14%
Paper 16%
f. OECD Waste Composition Other 17% Metal 6% Glass 7% Plastic 11% Paper 32% Organic 27%
22
Waste Disposal
At a Glance:
Landlling and thermal treatment of waste are the most common methods of MSW disposal in high-income countries. Although quantitative data is not readily available, most low- and lower middle-income countries dispose of their waste in open dumps. Several middle-income countries have poorly operated landlls; disposal should likely be classied as controlled dumping.
Waste disposal data are the most dicult to collect. Many countries do not collect waste disposal data at the national level, making comparisons across income levels and regions dicult. Furthermore, in cases where data is available, the methodology of how disposal is calculated and the denitions used for each of the categories is often either not known or not consistent. For example, some countries only give the percentage of waste that is dumped or sent to a landll, the rest falls under other disposal. In other cases, compostable and recyclable material is removed before the waste reaches the disposal site and is not included in waste disposal statistics. Please refer to Annex H for MSW disposal data for cities with populations Figure 11. Total MSW Disposed Worldwide over 100,000.
FIG. 11
Methodology
Waste disposal data was available for 87 countries through various sources. Annex L presents MSW disposal methods data by country. Waste disposal data sets are generally available as percentages of the various waste disposal options, commonly divided into the categories shown in Table 10. Although the denitions and methodologies for calculating waste disposal methods and quantities are not always provided or standardized in waste studies, the disposal of MSW is assumed to be based on wet weight. Each waste disposal category was calculated using waste generation gures for the individual country. The total waste disposal gures by income and by region were then aggregated. Figure 11 shows current annual global MSW disposal for the entire world. These are only approximate values, given that the data is from various years.
Total MSW Disposed of Worldwide

400
Amount Disposed (millions tons/year)
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Landfill Recycled WTE Dump Compost Other
MSW Disposal by Income

Table 11 shows in further detail how MSW disposal varies according to country income level. Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the dierences in MSW disposal methods according to country income level, in particular low-income and upper middle-income countries.
Disposal Options

23
High Income Dumps Landlls Compost Recycled Incineration Other Low Income Dumps Landlls Compost Recycled Incineration Other 0.47 2.2 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.97 Dumps Landlls Compost Recycled Incineration Other 0.05 250 66 129 122 21 Dumps Landlls Compost Recycled Incineration Other
Upper Middle Income 44 80 1.3 1.9 0.18 8.4 Lower Mid dle Income 27* 6.1 1.2 2.9 0.12 18
*This value is relatively high due to the inclusion of China.
TABLE 11
MSW Disposal by Income (million tonnes)
24
Table 12 contrasts the worlds richest (OECD) and poorest (Africa) regions. Populations in the two regions are roughly equal, yet the OECD region produces about 100 times the waste of Africa (these disparities are parallel to regional dier-
ences in GHG emissions). Africas collected waste is almost exclusively dumped or sent to landlls, while more than 60% of OECDs waste is diverted from landll.
FIG. 12
Figure 12. Low-Income Countries Waste Disposal Low-Income Countries Waste Disposal
FIG. 13
Figure 13. Upper Middle-Income Countries Waste Disposal Upper Middle-Income Countries Waste Disposal
Other 26%
Dumps 13%
Compost 1% Recycled 1%
Income 0% Other 6% Dumps 33%
Income 1% Recycled 0% Compost 1% Landfills 59%
Landfills 59%
TABLE 12
MSW Disposal Dumps Source: Hoornweg 2005 in two contrasting regions (million Landlls tonnes) Compost
Recycled Incineration Other
AFR 2.3 2.6 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.11

Source: Hoornweg 2005
OECD Dumps 242 66 125 120 20 Landlls Compost Recycled Incineration Other
25
Waste and the Environment

Integrated Solid Waste Management
Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) reects the need to approach solid waste in a comprehensive manner with careful selection and sustained application of appropriate technology, working conditions, and establishment of a social license between the community and designated waste management authorities (most commonly local government). ISWM is based on both a high degree of professionalism on behalf of solid waste managers; and on the appreciation of the critical role that the community, employees, and local (and increasingly global) ecosystems have in eective SWM. ISWM should be driven by clear objectives and is based on the hierarchy of waste management: reduce, reuse, recycle often adding a fourth R for recovery. These waste diversion options are then followed by incineration and landll, or other disposal options. Please refer to Box 3 for a detailed list describing the components of an ISWM Plan.
Components of an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan

An integrated Solid Waste Management plan should include the following sections: All municipal policies, aims, objectives, and initiatives related to waste management; The character and scale of the city, natural conditions, climate, development and distribution of population; Data on all waste generation, including data covering both recent years and projections over the lifetime of the plan (usually 15-25 years). This should include data on MSW composition and other characteristics, such as moisture content and density (dry weight), present and predicted; Identify all proposed options (and combination of options) for waste collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal of the dened types and quantities of solid wastes (this must address options for all types of solid waste arising); Evaluation of the Best Practical Environmental Option(s), integrating balanced assessments of all technical, environmental, social, and nancial issues; The proposed plan, specifying the amount, scale, and distribution of collection, transportation, treatment and disposal systems to be developed, with proposed waste mass ows proposed through each; Specications on the proposed on-going monitoring and controls that will be implemented in conjunction with facilities and practices and ways in which this information will be regularly reported; Associated institutional reforms and regulatory arrangements needed to support the plan; Financial assessment of the plan, including analysis of both investment and recurrent costs associated with the proposed facilities and services, over the lifetime of the plan (or facilities); All the sources of nance and revenues associated with developing and operating the plan including estimated subsidy transfers and user fees; The requirements for managing all non-MSW arisings, what facilities are required, who will provide them and the related services, and how such facilities and services will be paid for;
The proposed implementation plan covering a period of at least 5-10 years, with an immediate action plan detailing actions set out for the rst 2-3 years; Outline of public consultations carried out during preparation of the plan and proposed in future;
Outline of the detailed program to be used to site key waste management facilities, e.g. landlls, compost plants, and transfer stations.
An assessment of GHG emissions and the role of MSW in the citys overall urban metabolism.
BOX 3
26
Integrated Sustainable Waste Management Framework
BOX 4
Stakeholders: include individuals or groups that

have an interest or roles. All stakeholders should be identied and where practical involved in creating a SWM program.
y ilit
Local/Regulatory Authorities NGOs/CBOs Service Users Informal/Formal Sector Donor Agencies
Elements (Process): include the technical aspects

of solid waste management. All stakeholders impact one or more of the elements. The elements need to be considered simultaneously when creating an SWM program in order to have an efcient and effective system.
Sus tai na b
Stakeholders Elements
Generation and Separation Collection Transfer Treatment and Disposal Recovery 3 Rs
Aspects
Aspects (Policies and Impacts): encompass

the regulatory, environmental and nancial realities in which the waste management system operates. Specic aspects can be changeable, e.g. a community increases inuence or environmental regulations are tightened. Measures and priorities are created based on these various local, national and global aspects.
Environmental Political/Legal Institutional Socio-Cultural Financial/Economic Technical and Performance
Adapted from van de Klundert and Anschtz 2001. Adapted from van de Klundert and Anschtz 2001.
As outlined by the Dutch NGO, WASTE, ISWM is based on four principles: equity for all citizens to have access to waste management systems for public health reasons; eectiveness of the waste management system to safely remove the waste; eciency to maximize benets, minimize costs, and optimize the use of resources; and sustainability of the system from a technical, environmental, social (cultural), economic, nancial, institutional, and political perspective (van de Klundert and Anschtz 2001). There are three interdependent and interconnected dimensions of ISWM, which need to be addressed simultaneously when designing a solid waste management system: stakeholders, elements, and aspects. Please refer to Box 4 for further details on the interconnected dimensions of ISWM. An alternative framework is provided by UN-HABITAT, which identies three key system elements in ISWM: public health, environmental protection, and resource management (UN-Habitat 2009).
Public Health: In most jurisdictions, public health concerns have been the basis for solid waste management programs, as solid waste management is essential to maintaining public health. Solid waste that is not properly collected and disposed can be a breeding ground for insects, vermin, and scavenging animals, and can thus pass on air- and water-borne diseases. Surveys conducted by UN-Habitat show that in areas where waste is not collected frequently, the incidence of diarrhea is twice as high and acute respiratory infections six times higher than in areas where collection is frequent (UN-Habitat 2009). Environmental Protection: Poorly collected or improperly disposed of waste can have a detrimental impact on the environment. In low- and middle-income countries, MSW is often dumped in low-lying areas and land adjacent to slums. Lack of enforced regulations enables potentially infectious medical and hazardous waste to be mixed with MSW, which is harmful to waste pickers and the environment. Environmental threats include contamination of groundwater and surface water
27
by leachate, as well as air pollution from burning of waste that is not properly collected and disposed. Resource Management: MSW can represent a considerable potential resource. In recent years, the global market for recyclables has increased signicantly. The world market for post consumer scrap metal is estimated at 400 million tonnes annually and around 175 million tonnes annually for paper and cardboard (UN-Habitat 2009). This represents a global value of at least $30 billion per year. Recycling, particularly in low- and middleincome countries, occurs through an active, although usually informal, sector. Producing new products with secondary materials can save significant energy. For example, producing aluminum from recycled aluminum requires 95% less energy than producing it from virgin materials. As the
cost of virgin materials and their environmental impact increases, the relative value of secondary materials is expected to increase.
Waste Disposal Options

The waste management sector follows a generally accepted hierarchy. The earliest known usage of the waste management hierarchy appears to be Ontarios Pollution Probe in the early 1970s. The hierarchy started as the three Rs reduce, reuse, recycle but now a fourth R is frequently added recovery. The hierarchy responds to nancial, environmental, social and management considerations. The hierarchy also encourages minimization of GHG emissions. See Figure 14 for the waste hierarchy.
Most preferred option
FIG. 14
Reduce Reuse
Waste Diversion
Waste Hierarchy
Recycle
(digestion, composting)
Recover
(with energy recovery)
Landfill Incineration
Waste Disposal
Controlled Dump*
Least preferred option
*As a minimum, waste should be disposed at a controlled dump, which includes site selection, controlled access, and where practical, compaction of waste. Incineration requires a complimentary sanitary landfill, as bottom ash, non-combustibles and by-passed waste needs to be landfilled.
28
Photo: Eric Miller/World Bank
Maputo Fapel, paper mill and paper recycling factory
1. Waste Reduction: Waste or source reduction initiatives (including prevention, minimization, and reuse) seek to reduce the quantity of waste at generation points by redesigning products or changing patterns of production and consumption. A reduction in waste generation has a two-fold benet in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions. First, the emissions associated with material and product manufacture are avoided. The second benet is eliminating the emissions associated with the avoided waste management activities. 2. Recycling and Materials Recovery: The key advantages of recycling and recovery are reduced quantities of disposed waste and the return of materials to the economy. In many developing countries, informal waste pickers at collection points and disposal sites recover a signicant portion of discards. In China, for example, about 20% of discards are recovered for recycling, largely attributable to informal waste picking (Hoornweg et al 2005). Related
GHG emissions come from the carbon dioxide associated with electricity consumption for the operation of material recovery facilities. Informal recycling by waste pickers will have little GHG emissions, except for processing the materials for sale or reuse, which can be relatively high if improperly burned, e.g. metal recovery from e-waste. 3. Aerobic Composting and Anaerobic Digestion: Composting with windrows or enclosed vessels is intended to be an aerobic (with oxygen) operation that avoids the formation of methane associated with anaerobic conditions (without oxygen). When using an anaerobic digestion process, organic waste is treated in an enclosed vessel. Often associated with wastewater treatment facilities, anaerobic digestion will generate methane that can either be ared or used to generate heat and/or electricity. Generally speaking, composting is less complex, more forgiving, and less costly than anaerobic
29
digestion. Methane is an intended by-product of anaerobic digestion and can be collected and combusted. Experience from many jurisdictions shows that composting source separated organics signicantly reduces contamination of the nished compost, rather than processing mixed MSW with front-end or back-end separation. 4. Incineration: Incineration of waste (with energy recovery) can reduce the volume of disposed waste by up to 90%. These high volume reductions are seen only in waste streams with very high amounts of packaging materials, paper, cardboard, plastics and horticultural waste. Recovering the energy value embedded in waste prior to nal disposal is considered preferable to direct landlling assuming pollution control requirements and costs are adequately addressed. Typically, incineration without energy recovery (or non-autogenic combustion, the need to regularly add fuel) is not a preferred option due to costs and pollution. Open-burning of waste is particularly discouraged due to severe air pollution associated with low temperature combustion.
5. Landll: The waste or residue from other processes should be sent to a disposal site. Landlls are a common nal disposal site for waste and should be engineered and operated to protect the environment and public health. Landll gas (LFG), produced from the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter, can be recovered and the methane (about 50% of LFG) burned with or without energy recovery to reduce GHG emissions. Proper landlling is often lacking, especially in developing countries. Landlling usually progresses from open-dumping, controlled dumping, controlled landlling, to sanitary landlling (see Table 13).
Waste and Climate Change

GHG emissions from MSW have emerged as a major concern as post-consumer waste is estimated to account for almost 5% (1,460 mtCO2e) of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Solid waste also includes signicant embodied GHG emissions. For example, most of the GHG emissions associated with paper occur before it becomes MSW. Encouraging waste minimization through MSW programs can therefore have signicant up-stream GHG minimization benets.
Operation and Engineering Measures Semi-controlled Dumps Few controls; some directed placement of waste; informal waste picking; no engineering measures Registration and placement/compaction of waste; surface water monitoring; no engineering measures Registration and placement/compaction of waste; uses daily cover material; surface and ground water monitoring; infrastructure and liner in place Registration and placement/compaction of waste; uses daily cover; measures for nal top cover and closure; proper siting, infrastructure; liner and leachate treatment in place and post-closure plan.
Leachate Management Unrestricted contaminant release Unrestricted contaminant release
Landll Gas Management None
TABLE 13
Landll Classications
Controlled Dump
None
Engineered Landll/ Controlled Landll
Containment and some level of Passive ventilation or aring leachate treatment; reduced leachate volume through waste cover Containment and leachate treatment (often biological and physico-chemical treatment) Flaring with or without energy recovery
Sanitary Landll
30
TABLE 14
Landll Methane Emissions and Total GHG Emissions for Selected Countries
Country Brazil China India Mexico South Africa

*EPA 2006a. **UNFCCC 2005.
Methane Emissions from Post-Consumer Municipal Waste Disposa* (MtCO2e) 16 45 14 31 16
Greenhouse Gas Emissions** (CO2, CH4, N2O) (MtCO2e) 659 3,650 1,210 383 380
% Methane from Disposal Sites Relative to Total GHG Emissions 2.4% 1.2% 1.1% 8.1% 4.3%
Methane from landlls represents 12% of total global methane emissions (EPA 2006b). Landlls are responsible for almost half of the methane emissions attributed to the municipal waste sector in 2010 (IPCC 2007).4 The level of methane from landlls varies by country, depending on waste composition, climatic conditions (ambient temperature, precipitation) and waste disposal practices. Table 14 highlights some examples. Organic biomass5 decomposes anaerobically in a sanitary landll. Landll gas, a by-product of the anaerobic decomposition is composed of methane (typically about 50%) with the balance being carbon dioxide and other gases. Methane, which
4 5
has a Global Warming Potential 21 times greater than carbon dioxide, is the second most common greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gas emissions from waste management can readily be reduced. Within the European Union, the rate of GHG emissions from waste has declined from 69 mtCO2e per year to 32 million tCO2e per year from 1990 to 2007 (ISWA 2009).
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Opportunities

Eorts to reduce emissions from the municipal solid waste sector include generating less waste, improving the eciency of waste collection, expanding recycling, methane avoidance (aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion with combustion
Wastewater management adds an equal amount of methane to the atmosphere. Organic biomass excludes organic waste such as plastics that are derived from fossil energy sources.
A transfer station in Amman, Jordan
31
Waste Management Component Waste Reduction Waste Collection Recycling/Materials Recovery
Technology Options Design of longer-lasting and reusable products; reduced consumption. Use of alternative, non-fossil fuels (bio-fuel, natural gas). Materials recovery facility (MRF) to process source separated materials or mixed waste, although source separated is the preferred option as the materials would have less contamination from other discards. MRFs use a combination of manual and mechanical sorting options. Waste pickers could be used as a source of labor for manual sorting stages.
TABLE 15
Technical GHG Mitigation Opportunities by Waste Management Component
Composting/Anaerobic Digestion
Institute composting programs ideally with source separated organics. As with recyclables source separated materials reduce the contamination associated with recovery from mixed waste. Compost the organic material after digestion to produce a useful soil conditioner and avoid landll disposal. Finished compost applied to soils is also an important method to reduce GHG emissions by reducing nitrogen requirements and associated GHG emissions.
Incineration/Waste-to-energy/ RefuseDerived Fuel (RDF) Landll
Use the combustible fraction of waste as a fuel either in a dedicated combustion facility (incineration) with or without energy recovery or as RDF in a solid fuel boiler. Capture the methane generated in disposal sites and are or use as a renewable energy resource.
of produced methane and capture, treatment and use of landll gas). Energy generated from methane combustion can displace other fossil fuels either as a process energy resource or as electricity. Suitable technology options by waste management component are provided in Table 15.
when they buy the product. The fees collected would be directed to municipalities relative to the waste generated. An example of this economic mechanism is an excise tax on tires assessed by most states in the US. Product charges are a policy mechanism often better implemented by regional or national governments. Another pricing mechanism well suited to urban areas is user charges tied to quantity of waste disposed. Consumers who separate recyclables pay a lower fee for waste disposal. This pricing policy can work well in locations where waste collection is from individual households so that waste quantities for disposal can be readily monitored. However, it may not be practical in many areas in developing countries, particularly in those where there are communal collection points associated with multi-unit households (such as apartment user charges tied to quantity or volume). Preferential procurement policies and pricing to stimulate demand for products made with recycled post-consumer waste. Use of compost in public parks and other property owned by cities.
Policy Recommendations for Reducing GHG Emissions

Governments have a range of policy options to encourage waste management practices that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Practical approaches that could be applied in most cities include: Public education to inform people about their options to reduce waste generation and increase recycling and composting. Pricing mechanisms, such as product charges can stimulate consumer behavior to reduce waste generation and increase recycling. A product charge is a cost assessment added to the price of a product and is tied to the cost of the desired waste management system. Consumers would pay for the waste management service
32
A Note on the Reliability of Solid Waste Data

Solid waste data should be considered with a degree of caution due to global inconsistencies in denitions, data collection methodologies, and completeness. The reliability of the data is inuenced by: Undened words or phrases Inconsistent or omitted units Dates, methodologies, or sources of data not indicated Estimates made without basis Incomplete or inconsistent data (please see Annexes C and D for further information on available data) Information collected at a non-representative moment In most low- and middle-income countries, the reliability of solid waste data is further compromised by large seasonal variations (e.g. seasonal rains and un-containerized waste, horticultural variations), incomplete waste collection and disposal (e.g. a signicant level of waste is disposed directly through local burning or thrown in waterways and low lying areas), and a lack of weight scales at landll sites to record waste quantities. Rarely is it disclosed at what stage the waste generation rates and composition were determined, and whether they were estimated or physically measured. The most accurate method measures the waste generated at source before any recycling, composting, burning, or open dumping takes place. However, the generation rate and composition are commonly calculated using waste quantities arriving at the nal disposal site. This method of measurement does not fully represent the waste stream because waste can be diverted prior to nal disposal, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the informal sector removes a large fraction of recyclables. Additionally, in most low- and middle-income countries, waste collection rates are low and formal service does not extend to all communities, thereby reducing the quantities of waste delivered to nal disposal sites. Measuring waste quantities for nal disposal is practical for municipal purposes. Large variation in waste quantity and composition can be observed if the economic situation changes, yet growing waste quantities associated with increasing GNP are not necessarily a true reection of increased waste; they might be changes in the relative recoverable value of the secondary materials and improvements in overall collection eciency. Waste composition species the components of the waste stream as a percentage of the total mass or volume. The component categories used within this report are: organics (i.e. compostables such as food, yard, and wood wastes) paper plastic glass metal others (includes ceramics, textiles, leather, rubber, bones, inerts, ashes, coconut husks, bulky wastes, household goods) Others wastes should be dierentiated into two categories: other-residue and other-consumer products. Other-residue is made up of ash, inerts, dirt, and sweepings and is a signicant component of the waste stream in low- and middle-income countries. Other-consumer products consist of
33
bulky wastes, household appliances, electronics, and multi-material packaging (e.g., tetrapaks and blister packaging). This waste stream is much more signicant in high-income countries and diers from other-residue in that the volumes are much higher per kilogram of waste and are generally combustible. It is important to cite whether the percentages are given on a dry or wet basis, because component percentages will dier markedly depending on moisture content. Rarely is it indicated within a waste study whether the percentage is on a wet or dry basis, or based on volume or mass. It is assumed that the composition was determined on a wet basis. Probably both mass and volume measurements were used depending upon the country. Low- and middle-income countries would be more inclined to use volume since it does not require sophisticated measuring equipment and can be estimated. High-income countries usually use mass as a basis since they have greater funding resources and support to complete a more accurate waste characterization.
Another major inconsistency among the various waste studies is the use of imperial units versus metric units. Frequently the imperial ton and the metric tonne are interchanged when reporting waste quantities. Data are also denoted by the letter t to denote the unit, causing the true value to be unknown. Within this report, all of the units are metric, unless clearly noted. Waste densities and moisture contents are needed to convert data to a common frame of reference for comparison (e.g. from mass to volume and from wet to dry). Usually the higher the percentage of organic matter, the higher the moisture content and often the higher the density of the waste stream. There are major eorts being done to correct data inconsistencies at the city level. So far, there is no single standard or comprehensive system to measure and monitor city performance and urban quality of life. In response to this need, the Global City Indicators Program (GCIP), based in Toronto, has been developed. The GCIP (please see Annex O) provides a practical means for cities to collect credible information on MSW.
Bangalore, India
Photo: Cyrus Tata
A couple salvage old bricks from an area demolished for renovation in Saigon
Photo: Tran Thi Hoa
ANNEXES
36
ANNEX A
Map of Regions
Greenland (Den)
Iceland
Faeroe Islands (Den)
The Netherlands Canada

Isle of Man (UK)
Ireland
Channel Islands (UK)
Unite Kingdo
Luxembourg Liechtenstein Switzerland Andorra United States

Bermuda (UK)
F Spain
Portugal
Gibraltar (UK)
Morocco
Former Spanish Sahara
A The Bahamas Mexico

Cayman Is.(UK)
Cuba Belize Jamaica Guatemala Honduras El Salvador Nicaragua Costa Rica Panama Colombia Ecuador Haiti
Mauritania Cape Verde The Gambia Guinea-Bissau Senegal Guinea Liberia Mali Burkina Faso
R.B. de Venezuela
Guyana Suriname
French Guiana (Fr)
Sierra Leone
Cte Ghana dIvoire
To Equatorial G So Tom and Pr
Kiribati
Samoa
American Samoa (US)
Peru
French Polynesia (Fr)
Brazil
Bolivia
Fiji
Tonga Paraguay Dominican Republic
Puerto Rico (US)
St. Martin(Fr) St. Maarten(Neth)
1
Chile Uruguay Argentina
Germany
Poland
U.S. Virgin Islands (US)
Antigua and Barbuda St. Kitts and Nevis

Guadeloupe (Fr)
Czech Republic Slovak Repu Austria Hungary
Dominica
Martinique (Fr)
Aruba Bonaire Curaao (Neth) (Neth) (Neth)
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
St. Lucia Barbados Grenada Trinidad and Tobago
Slovenia Croatia Bosnia and Italy Herzegovina Serb San Marino Montenegro Koso
R.B. de Venezuela
Vatican City
Mac Albania G
ANNEX
37
IBRD 39177 MARCH 2012
Norway Sweden Finland Russian Federation
Estonia Denmark Russian Latvia Fed. Lithuania ed Germany Poland Belarus om Belgium Ukraine Moldova Romania France Italy
Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Rep. Tajikistan
Mongolia
Monaco
2
Tunisia Malta
Bulgaria Greece Turkey
Georgia Armenia Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan Turkmenistan
Dem.Peoples Rep.of Korea China Rep.of Korea
Cyprus Lebanon Israel Arab Rep. of Egypt
Syrian Arab Rep. Jordan
Japan
Iraq
Algeria
West Bank and Gaza
Islamic Rep. of Iran Kuwait Bahrain Qatar
Afghanistan Pakistan Bhutan Bangladesh India
Libya
Nepal
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates Oman
Myanmar
Niger
Lao P.D.R. Vietnam Cambodia
Chad
N. Mariana Islands (US) Guam (US)
Sudan
Eritrea
Rep. of Yemen Djibouti
Thailand
Philippines
Benin
Federated States of Micronesia
Nigeria Cameroon
Central African Republic
South Sudan Uganda
Ethiopia Somalia Kenya Seychelles Comoros
Sri Lanka Maldives
Marshall Islands
ogo Guinea ncipe
Brunei Darussalam Malaysia Singapore
Palau Nauru Solomon Islands Tuvalu Kiribati
Gabon
Congo
Rwanda Dem.Rep.of Burundi Congo Tanzania
Indonesia Timor-Leste
Papua New Guinea
Angola Zambia Zimbabwe Namibia Botswana
Malawi
Mayotte (Fr)
Vanuatu Mauritius
Runion (Fr)
Fiji
Mozambique
Madagascar
Swaziland South Africa Lesotho
Australia
New Caledonia (Fr)
Ukraine ublic New Zealand
Romania
bia
The world by region

Classified according to World Bank analytical grouping Low- and middle-income economies East Asia and Pacific Europe and Central Asia Latin America and the Caribbean Middle East and North Africa South Asia
Antarctica
ovo Bulgaria FYR cedonia
Greece
High-income economies OECD Other No data
Sub-Saharan Africa
38
ANNEX B
Map of Income Distribution
Greenland (Den)
Iceland
Faeroe Islands (Den)
The Netherlands Canada

Isle of Man (UK)
Ireland
Channel Islands (UK)
Unite Kingdo
Luxembourg Liechtenstein Switzerland Andorra United States

Bermuda (UK)
F Spain
Portugal
Gibraltar (UK)
Morocco
Former Spanish Sahara
A The Bahamas Mexico

Cayman Is.(UK)
Cuba Belize Jamaica Guatemala Honduras El Salvador Nicaragua Costa Rica Panama Colombia Ecuador Haiti
Mauritania Cape Verde The Gambia Guinea-Bissau Senegal Guinea Liberia Mali
Burkina Faso
R.B. de Venezuela
Guyana Suriname
French Guiana (Fr)
Sierra Leone
Cte Ghana dIvoire
To Equatorial G So Tom and Pr
Kiribati
Samoa
American Samoa (US)
Peru
French Polynesia (Fr)
Brazil
Bolivia
Fiji
Tonga Paraguay Dominican Republic
Puerto Rico (US)
St. Martin(Fr) St. Maarten(Neth)
1
Chile Uruguay Argentina
Germany
Polan
U.S. Virgin Islands (US)
Antigua and Barbuda St. Kitts and Nevis

Guadeloupe (Fr)
Czech Republic Slovak Repu Austria Hungary
Dominica
Martinique (Fr)
Aruba Bonaire Curaao (Neth) (Neth) (Neth)
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
St. Lucia Barbados Grenada Trinidad and Tobago
Slovenia Croatia Bosnia and Italy Herzegovina Ser San Marino Montenegro Koso
R.B. de Venezuela
Vatican City
Mac Albania
ANNEX
39
IBRD 39176 MARCH 2012
Norway Sweden Finland Russian Federation
Estonia Denmark Russian Latvia Fed. Lithuania ed Germany Poland Belarus om Belgium Ukraine Moldova Romania France Italy
Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Rep. Tajikistan
Mongolia
Monaco
2
Tunisia Malta
Bulgaria Greece Turkey
Georgia Armenia
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan Turkmenistan
Dem.Peoples Rep.of Korea China Rep.of Korea
Cyprus Lebanon Israel Arab Rep. of Egypt
Syrian Arab Rep. Jordan
Japan
Iraq
Algeria
West Bank and Gaza
Islamic Rep. of Iran Kuwait Bahrain Qatar
Afghanistan Pakistan Bhutan Bangladesh India
Libya
Nepal
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates Oman
Myanmar
Niger
Lao P.D.R. Vietnam Cambodia
Hong Kong SAR, China N. Mariana Islands (US) Guam (US)
Chad
Sudan
Eritrea
Rep. of Yemen Djibouti
Thailand
a Benin Nigeria Cameroon Central African Republic South Sudan Uganda Gabon Congo
Philippines
Federated States of Micronesia
Ethiopia Somalia Kenya Seychelles Comoros
Sri Lanka Maldives
Marshall Islands
Togo Guinea ncipe
Brunei Darussalam Malaysia Singapore
Palau Nauru Solomon Islands Tuvalu Kiribati
Rwanda Dem.Rep.of Burundi Congo Tanzania
Indonesia Timor-Leste
Papua New Guinea
Angola Zambia Zimbabwe Namibia Botswana
Malawi
Mayotte (Fr)
Vanuatu Mauritius
Runion (Fr)
Fiji
Mozambique
Madagascar
Swaziland South Africa Lesotho
Australia
New Caledonia (Fr)
nd
Ukraine ublic New Zealand Romania
rbia
ovo Bulgaria FYR cedonia Greece
As of July 2011, South Sudan is shown independent from Sudan. However, the income data shown on this map is dated 2008, and applies to the former united Sudan.
The world by income

Classified according to World Bank estimates of 2008 GNI per capita Low ($975 or less) Lower middle ($976$3,855) Upper middle ($3,856$11,905) High ($11,906 or more)
Antarctica
No data
40
ANNEX C
Availability of MSW Data by Country

Country Income Level LMI UMI HIC LMI HIC UMI LMI HIC HIC HIC HIC LI HIC UMI HIC LMI LI LMI LMI UMI UMI HIC LMI LI LI LI LMI HIC LMI LI LI UMI LMI UMI LI LI LMI UMI LMI HIC UMI Region Gen- Year of eration Data x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2006 2002 2007 2005 2001 2001 2007 1999 2006 2001 2000 2004 2001 2005 2006 2001 2005 2007 2003 1998 2001 2006 2007 2005 2005 Source Denmark Ministry of Foreign Affairs METAP (2004) UNSD (2009) USAID (2009) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) UNESCWA (2007) Bangladesh Department of Environment (2004) PAHO (2005) Belarus Ministry of Natural Resources (2006) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) USAID (2009) Phuntsho (2008) Business News Americas (2004) Kgathi and Bolaane (2001) PAHO (2005) Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) European Environment Agency (2008) USAID (2009) USAID (2009) Collection x x x x x x Urban or Total T U T T T T Year of Data 2005 2002 2007 2007 2007 2007 Source Disposal Year of Data Source Composition x x 2002 METAP (2004) x x x x x x 2007 2007 2003 2004 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) x x x x 2001 2007 2005 2004 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) Year of Data 2005 2002 2005 Source
Albania1 Algeria Andorra Angola2 Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Bahamas, The Bahrain3 Bangladesh4 Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin2 Bhutan Bolivia Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso2 Burundi2 Cambodia5 Cameroon Canada Cape Verde2 Central African Republic2 Chad2 Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep.2 Congo, Rep. Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire2 Croatia6 Cuba
ECA MENA OECD AFR LCR LCR ECA OECD OECD LCR MENA SAR LCR ECA OECD LCR AFR SAR LCR AFR LCR EAP ECA AFR AFR EAP AFR OECD AFR AFR AFR LCR EAP LCR AFR AFR AFR LCR AFR ECA LCR
UNSD (2009) METAP (2004) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009) METAP (2004) UNSD (2009)
2004
UNSD (2009)
x x x x
T T T T
2007 2007 2005 2000
UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009)
x x x
2005 2003 2005
Belarus Ministry of Natural Resources (2006) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009)
x x x x x x
2004 2003 1997 2002 2008 1999
UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) Phuntsho (2008) UNSD (2009)
2007
UNSD (2009)
x x
2006 2006
UNSD (2009) Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009)
2002
UNSD (2009)
2007
UNSD (2009)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2000 1990 2005 2005 2005 2001 2004 2001 2003 2005 2005 2001 2005 2008 2001 Parrot et al. (2009) OECD (2008) USAID (2009) USAID (2009) USAID (2009) PAHO (2005) Hoornweg et al. (2005) PAHO (2005) Payet (2003) USAID (2009) USAID (2009) PAHO (2005) USAID (2009) Vego (2008) PAHO (2005) x x x
2000
Kum et al. (2005)
x x
2004 2001 2004
1996
UNSD (2009)
Kum et al. (2005) Parrot et al. (2009) OECD (2008)
x x x
2000 2006 2004
Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008)
2006
UNSD (2009)
1998
UNSD (2009)
x x
T T
2001 2003
PAHO (2005) Payet (2003)
2005
PAHO (2005)
2005
UNSD (2009)
T T T
2001 2005 2005
PAHO (2005) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009)
x x x
2001 2006 2005
PAHO (2005) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009)
x x x
2005 2000 2005
UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009)
ANNEX
41
ANNEX C (continued)

Country Income Level HIC HIC HIC UMI UMI LMI LMI LMI LI HIC LI UMI HIC HIC UMI LI UMI HIC LI HIC UMI LMI LI LMI LI LMI HIC HIC HIC LMI LMI LMI LMI HIC HIC HIC UMI HIC LMI LI HIC HIC Region Gen- Year of eration Data x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2007 2006 2006 2001 2001 2001 2000 2001 2005 2007 2006 1994 2006 2006 2005 2005 2007 2006 2008 2006 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2008 2006 2006 2006 2008 2005 2005 2006 1996 2006 2001 2005 2001 2002 2005 2009 Source European Environment Agency (2008) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) METAP (2004) PAHO (2005) USAID (2009) European Environment Agency (2008) Tadesse et al. (2008) McIntyre (2005) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) USAID (2009) USAID (2009) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) Asase et al. (2009) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) Shekdar (2009) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) Hanrahan et al. (2006) Shekdar (2009) Damghani et al. (2008) UNESCWA (2007) OECD (2008) Israel Ministry of the Environment (2000) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) OECD (2008) METAP (2004) Kenya Ministry of Environment (2002) OECD (2008) Personal communication Collection Urban or Total Year of Data Source Disposal Year of Data 2007 2004 2003 2005 2001 2001 2000 2001 Source Composition x x x x Year of Data 2001 1996 2005 2000 Source
Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador3 Egypt, Arab Rep. El Salvador Eritrea2 Estonia Ethiopia7 Fiji Finland France Gabon2 Gambia2 Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong, China Hungary Iceland India Indonesia8 Iran, Islamic Rep.9 Iraq10 Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica3 Japan Jordan Kenya Korea, South Kuwait
ECA OECD OECD LCR LCR LCR MENA LCR AFR ECA AFR EAP OECD OECD AFR AFR ECA OECD AFR OECD LCR LCR AFR LCR LCR LCR EAP OECD OECD SAR EAP MENA MENA OECD MENA OECD LCR OECD MENA AFR OECD MENA
x x x x x x x x T T T T T U T 2007 2007 2005 2001 2001 2000 2001 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) METAP (2004) PAHO (2005) x x x x x x x
UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) METAP (2004) PAHO (2005)
UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009)
2000
METAP (2004)
2001
UNSD (2009)
2007
UNSD (2009) x 1995 1994 2000 2005 2001 2007 2005 2008 1997 2006 2007 2000 McIntyre (2005) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) Asase et al. (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009)
x x
T T
2007 2007
UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009)
x x
2004 2005
OECD (2008) OECD (2008)
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x
T T U T T T T T T T T T
2007 2007 2008 2007 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2007 2003 2007
UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) Asase et al. (2009) UNSD (2009) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009)
x x x x x x x x x x
2004 2008 2003 2001 2001 2001 2001 2007 2003 2004
OECD (2008) Asase et al. (2009) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) OECD (2008)
x x x x
2008 2005 2003 2004 2000 2005 2005 2005 2005 2007 2008 2001
Shekdar (2009) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) Damghani et al. (2008) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) Shekdar (2009) METAP (2004)
2006
Pasang et al. (2007)
x x
x x
T T
2005 2005
UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009)
x x
2005 1996 2005 2001 2003 2001
x x x x
T T T U
2007 2001 2003 2001
UNSD (2009) PAHO (2005) UNSD (2009) METAP (2004)
x x x x
OECD (2008) Israel Ministry of the Environment (2000) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) OECD (2008) METAP (2004)
x x x x x x
2002
UNSD (2009)
2004
OECD (2008)
2005
OECD (2008)
42
ANNEX C (continued)

Country Lao PDR Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia11
2
Income Level LI UMI UMI LMI LI UMI HIC HIC LMI LI LI UMI LMI LI HIC LMI LI UMI UMI HIC LI LMI
Region EAP ECA MENA AFR AFR ECA OECD EAP ECA AFR AFR EAP SAR AFR MENA EAP AFR AFR LCR OECD EAP MENA AFR EAP AFR SAR OECD OECD LCR AFR AFR OECD MENA SAR LCR LCR LCR EAP ECA OECD MENA
Gen- Year of eration Data x x x x 2008 2007 2000 2005
Source Shekdar (2009) European Environment Agency (2008) METAP (2004) USAID (2009)
Collection
Urban or Total
Year of Data
Source
Disposal
Year of Data
Source
Composition x
Year of Data 2000 2003 2000 2004
Source Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) Latvia Ministry of Environment (2006) METAP (2004) UNEP (2007)
x x
T U
1999 2000
UNSD (2009) METAP (2004)
x x
2003 2000
Latvia Ministry of Environment (2006) METAP (2004)
x x x
Lithuania Luxembourg Macao, China Macedonia, FYR Madagascar Malawi2 Malaysia12 Maldives Mali
13
x x x x x x x x x x
2007 2006 2003 2006 2003 2005 2002 1998 2007 2007
European Environment Agency (2008) OECD (2008) Jin et al. (2006) Hristovski et al. (2007) Payet (2003) USAID (2009) Saeed et al. (2009) UNEP (2002) Samake et al. (2009) European Environment Agency (2008) USAID (2009) Payet (2003) OECD (2008) Mongolia Ministry of Nature (2001) METAP (2004) Grest (2008) IPCC (2006) USAID (2009) Shekdar (2009) per cap OECD (2008) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) USAID (2009) Solomon (2009) OECD (2008) Al-Yous Batool and Nawaz (2009) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) Shekdar (2009) European Environment Agency (2008) OECD (2008) UNESCWA (2007) Alam et al. (2008) UNSD (2009) PAHO (2005) x T 2002 METAP (2004) x x T T 2007 2007 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009)
x x x
2003 2003 2007
Lithuania Ministry of Environment (2005) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009)
x x x
2005 2007 1996 2007 2000
OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) Macedonia (1996) UNSD (2009) Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) UNSD (2009)
2007
UNSD (2009)
2007
UNSD (2009)
x x
x x x
T T T T T T 2007 2007 2007 2007 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) x x x x x 2007 2007 2007 2006 2007 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009)
1995
Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania2 Mauritius Mexico Monaco Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia2 Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua3 Niger2 Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan15 Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar
14
x x x
2007 2007 2005
UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008)
x x x
2005 2003 2006
x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
2001 2002 2007 2000 2005 2008 2006 2006 2001 2005 2008 2006 1997 2009 2001 2001 2001 2008 2007 2006 2004
2002
METAP (2004)
x x x
2000 2007 2000
UNSD (2009) Grest (2008) Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) Shekdar (2009) OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) Imam et al. (2008) OECD (2008) Batool and Nawaz (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008)
LI UMI UMI LI HIC HIC LMI LI LMI HIC HIC LMI UMI LMI UMI LMI UMI HIC HIC
x x x
U T T
2003 2007 2001
x x x x x x 2004 1999 2001 2005 2004 OECD (2008) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) x x x x x x
2008 2004 1995 2005 2008 2005 2009 2000 2001 2000 1990 2001
2004
UNSD (2009)
x x x
T T T
2001 2001 2001
PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005)
x x x
2001 2001 2001
PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005)
x x x
x x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x
2005 2005
OECD (2008) OECD (2008)
x x
ANNEX
43
ANNEX C (continued)

Country Income Level UMI UMI LI LMI HIC LI LI UMI LI HIC HIC HIC LMI UMI HIC LMI UMI UMI UMI LMI UMI LMI HIC HIC LMI UMI LI LMI LI LMI HIC LMI LMI Region Gen- Year of eration Data x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2007 2000 2005 2005 1997 2005 2006 2003 2007 2008 2006 2007 1994 2003 2006 2003 2001 2001 2001 2000 2001 2005 2006 2006 2002 2001 2005 2008 2005 1994 2001 2000 2006 Source European Environment Agency (2008) IPCC (2006) USAID (2009) USAID (2009) Al-Yous USAID (2009) Denmark Ministry of Foreign Affairs Payet (2003) Patriotic Vanguard (2007) Singapore (2009) OECD (2008) European Environment Agency (2008) McIntyre (2005) City of Cape Town (2008) OECD (2008) Perera (2003) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) IPCC (2006) PAHO (2005) USAID (2009) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) METAP (2004) CEROI (2001) Kassim and Ali (2006) Shekdar (2009) USAID (2009) McIntyre (2005) PAHO (2005) METAP (2004) OECD (2008) Turkmenistan Ministry of Nature Protection (2000) Bingh (2004) UNESCWA (2007) x x x T U T 2001 2000 2004 PAHO (2005) METAP (2004) Turan et al. (2009) x x x 2001 2000 2004 PAHO (2005) METAP (2004) Turan et al. (2009) x x x x x x x T T T T T T U 2001 2001 2001 2001 2007 2007 2002 PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) METAP (2004) Kassim and Ali (2006) x 2000 UNSD (2009) x x x x x x 2000 2007 1994 2003 2000 2008 Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) UNSD (2009) McIntyre (2005) UNSD (2009) METAP (2004) Turan et al. (2009) x x x x x x x T T T U T T T 2005 2006 2003 2007 2007 2007 2002 UNSD (2009) Denmark Ministry of Foreign Affairs Payet (2003) Patriotic Vanguard (2007) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) x x x 2007 2005 2003 UNSD (2009) OECD (2008) Slovenia Ministry of the Environment (2006) x x 2007 1999 UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) Collection x Urban or Total T Year of Data 2002 Source Disposal Year of Data 2007 Source Composition x Year of Data 2006 Source
Romania Russian Federation Rwanda2 Sao Tome and Principe2 Saudi Arabia Senegal2 Serbia1 Seychelles Sierra Leone16 Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia Solomon Islands South Africa17 Spain Sri Lanka St. Kitts and Nevis3 St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan Suriname Swaziland2 Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo2 Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey
ECA ECA AFR AFR MENA AFR ECA AFR AFR EAP OECD ECA EAP AFR OECD SAR LCR LCR LCR AFR LCR AFR OECD OECD MENA ECA AFR EAP AFR EAP LCR MENA ECA
UNSD (2009)
UNSD (2009)
Atudorei
x x x
2007 2000 2002
Patriotic Vanguard (2007) Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) OECD (2008)
1994
McIntyre (2005)
x x x x x x x x
2004 2001 2001 2001 2001 2005 2005 2002
OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) OECD (2008) OECD (2008) METAP (2004)
x x
2002 2008
OECD (2008) Shekdar (2009)
2002
UNSD (2009)
x x x
2005 2005 2002
OECD (2008) OECD (2008) METAP (2004)
2005
Turkmenistan
LMI
ECA
2000
Uganda18 United Arab Emirates3
LI HIC
AFR MENA
x x
2004 2000
2002
Bingh (2004)
2006
UNSD (2009)
2002
Bingh (2004)
44
ANNEX C (continued)

Country United Kingdom United States Uruguay Vanuatu Venezuela, RB Vietnam West Bank and Gaza Zambia19 Zimbabwe2 Income Level HIC HIC UMI LI UMI LI LMI LI LI Region OECD OECD LCR EAP LCR EAP MENA AFR AFR Gen- Year of eration Data x x x x x x x x x 2005 2006 2006 2001 1994 2001 2004 2001 Source OECD (2008) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) McIntyre (2005) PAHO (2005) World Bank (2004) METAP (2004) Environmental Council of Zambia (2004) USAID (2009) Collection x x x x Urban or Total T T T T Year of Data 2007 2005 2001 2001 Source UNSD (2009) UNSD (2009) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) Disposal x x x x Year of Data 2005 2005 2001 2001 Source OECD (2008) OECD (2008) PAHO (2005) PAHO (2005) x x x U T 2001 2005 METAP (2004) UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2001 METAP (2004) x 2000 2001 Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009) METAP (2004) Composition Year of Data Source
x x x
2005 2003 1994
OECD (2008) UNSD (2009) McIntyre (2005)
NOTES: 1 Year for generation data is assumed to be 2006 2 Generation rates calculated using a per capita rate of 0.5kg/cap/day 3 Generation value refers to domestic waste (household) only 4 Generation rates are for urban areas only 5 Collection and disposal values are for Pnom Penh only 6 Generation rate is for Dalmatia 7 Genearation value for Mekelle City 8 Collection value is for Jakarta only 9 Generation and composition values are for Tehran 10 Population values are for 1999, the most recent year available 11 Composition values for Monrovia only 12 Generation values are for Kuala Lumpur 13 Generation and composition values are for Bamako 14 Generation and composition values are for Maputo 15 Generation and composition values are for Lahore 16 All values are for Freetown 17 Generation values are based on Cape Town per capita values 18 All values are for Kampala city only 19 Generation values are from 1996; composition values are for Lusaka only
ANNEX
45
ANNEX D
Countries Excluded for Lack of Data

Country
Afghanistan American Samoa Aruba Azerbaijan Bermuda Bosnia and Herzegovina Cayman Islands Channel Islands Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Faeroe Islands French Polynesia Greenland Guam Guinea-Bissau Isle of Man Kazakhstan Kiribati Korea, Dem. Peoples Rep. Kosovo Kyrgyz Republic Libya Liechtenstein Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova Montenegro Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia Northern Mariana Islands Palau Papua New Guinea Puerto Rico Samoa San Marino Somalia Taiwan, China Timor-Leste Ukraine Uzbekistan Virgin Islands (US) Yemen, Republic of
Income level
LI UMI HIC LMI HIC UMI HIC HIC LMI HIC HIC HIC HIC HIC LI HIC UMI LMI LI LMI LI UMI HIC UMI LMI LMI UMI HIC HIC HIC LMI LMI HIC LMI HIC LI HIC LMI LMI LI HIC LI
Region
SAR EAP OECD ECA OECD ECA OECD OECD MENA OECD OECD OECD OECD OECD AFR OECD ECA EAP EAP ECA ECA MENA OECD AFR EAP ECA ECA OECD OECD OECD EAP EAP OECD EAP OECD AFR EAP EAP ECA ECA OECD MENA
46
ANNEX E
Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs

Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs by Disposal Method 1 Low Income Countries Income (GNI/capita) Waste Generation (tonnes/capita/yr) Collection Efciency (percent collected) Collection2 Sanitary Landll Open Dumping Composting3 Waste -to-Energy Incineration4 Anaerobic Digestion5 <$876 0.22 43% 20-50 10-30 2-8 5-30 NA NA Lower Mid Inc Countries $876-3,465 0.29 68% 30-75 15-40 3-10 10-40 40-100 20-80 Upper Mid Inc Countries $3,466-10,725 0.42 85% 40-90 25-65 NA 20-75 60-150 50-100 High Income Countries >$10,725 0.78 98% 85-250 40-100 NA 35-90 70-200 65-150
Cost of Collection and Disposal (US$/tonne)
NOTE: This is a compilation table from several World Bank documents, discussions with the World Banks Thematic Group on Solid Waste, Carl Bartone and other industry and organizational colleagues. Costs associated with uncollected wastemore than half of all waste generated in low-income countriesare not included.
Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs 2010 and 2025 Country Income Group Low Income Countries
7 8
2010 Cost6 $1.5 billion $20.1 billion $24.5 billion $159.3 billion $205.4 billion
2025 Cost $7.7 billion $84.1 billion $63.5 billion $220.2 billion $375 billion
Lower Middle Income Countries Upper Middle Income Countries High Income Countries10 Total Global Cost (US$)
Source: Authors calculations with input from What a Waste report (Hoornweg and Thomas 1999) and the World Bank Solid Waste Thematic Group and Carl Bartone.
All values provided in the table are exclusive of any potential carbon nance, subsidies, or external incentives. Costs included are for purchase (including land), operation, maintenance, and debt service. Collection includes pick up, transfer, and transport to nal disposal site for residential and non-residential waste. Composting excludes sale of nished compost (which ranges from $0 to $100/ton). Includes sale of any net energy; excludes disposal costs of bottom and y ash (non hazardous and hazardous). Anaerobic digestion includes sale of energy from methane and excludes cost of residue sale and disposal. Cost of SWM (US$) = waste generated (tonnes) X percent of waste collected (%) X [cost of collection ($/ton) + cost of disposal ($/ton)] 2010: $1.5bil = 75,000,000 tonnes X 43% X ($30/ton + $15/ton); 2025: $7.7bil = 201,000,000 tonnes X 55% X ($45/ton + $25/ton) 2010: $20.1bil = 369,000,000 tonnes X 68% X ($50/ton +$30/ton); 2025: $84.1bil = 956,000,000 tonnes X 80% X ($65/ton + $45/ton)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2010: $24.5bil = 243,000,000 tonnes X 84% X ((0.9Landll ($65/ton + $50/ton)) + (0.1Incinerate ($65/ton + $100/ton))); 2025: $63.5bil = 426,000,000 X 92% X ((0.85Landll ($85/ton + $65/ton)) + (0.15Incinerate($85/ton +$145/ton)))
10 2010: $159.3bil = 602,000,000 tonnes X 98% X ((0.8Landll ($180/ton + $75/ton)) + (0.2 Incinerate ($180/ton + $150/ton))); 2025: $220.2bil = 686,000,000 tonnes X 98% X ((0.75Landll ($210/ton + $95/ton)) + 0.25Incinerate($210/ton + $185/ton)))
ANNEX
47
ANNEX F
MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100,000

City
Benin Parakou (UNSD 2009) Porto Novo (Achankeng 2003) Burkina Faso (UNSD 2009) Ouagadougou Burundi (Achankeng 2003) Bujumbura Cameroon (Achankeng 2003) Douala Yaounde Congo, Rep. (Achankeng 2003) Brazzaville Cote dIvoire (Achankeng 2003) Abidjan Egypt (Achankeng 2003) Cairo Gambia, The (Achankeng 2003) Banjul Ghana Accra (Achankeng 2003) Kumasi (Asase 2009) Guinea (UNSD 2009) Conakry Madagascar (Achankeng 2003) Antananarivo Mauritania (Achankeng 2003) Nouakchott Morocco (Achankeng 2003) Rabat Namibia (Achankeng 2003) Windhoek Niger Niamey (Achankeng 2003) Zinder (UNSD 2009) Nigeria (Achankeng 2003) Ibadan Lagos Rwanda (Achankeng 2003) Kigali Senegal (Achankeng 2003) Dakar Tanzania (Achankeng 2003) Dar es Salaam Togo (Achankeng 2003) Lome Tunisia (Achankeng 2003) Tunis Uganda (Achankeng 2003) Kampala Zambia (UNSD 2009) Lusaka Zimbabwe (UNSD 2009) Harare
Year
Urban Population
Africa
Generation Rate (kg/capita/day)
Total MSW Generated (kg/day)
Total Waste (tons/day)
2002 1993 2002 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 2006 2007 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 2006 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 2005 2005
148,450
0.59 0.50 0.79 1.40 0.70 0.80 0.60 1.00 0.50 0.30 0.40 0.60 0.24 0.30 0.90 0.60 0.70 1.00 0.29 1.10 0.30 0.60 0.70 1.00 1.90 0.50 6.00
87,671
88 693
876,200
692,635
1,610,867 3,000,000
966,520 725,274
967 725
242,800a
69,430
69
1,300,000 2,500,000
0.90 0.08
1,171,994 207,500
1,172 208
48
ANNEX F (continued)

City
China** (Hoornweg et al. 2005) Anshan, Liaoning Baotou, Inner Mongolia Beijing, Beijing Benxi, Liaoning Changchun, Jilin Changde, Hunan Changsha, Hunan Changzhou, Jiangsu Chengdu, Sichuan Chifeng, Inner Mongolia Chongqing, Chongqing Dalian, Liaoning Daqing, Heilongjiang Datong, Shanxi Dongguan, Guangdong Fushun, Guangdong Fuxin, Liaoning Fuyu, Jilin Fuzhou, Fujian Guangzhou, Guangdong Guiyang, Guizhou Handan, Hebei Hangzhou, Zhejiang Harbin, Heilongjiang Hefei, Anhui Hengyang, Hunan Heze, Shandong Huaian, Jiangsu Huaibei, Anhui Huainan, Anhui Huhehaote, Inner Mongolia Hunjiang, Jilin Huzhou, Zhejiang Jiamusi, Heilongjiang Jiaxing, Zhejiang Jilin, Jilin Jinan, Shandong Jingmen, Hubei Jining, Inner Mongolia Jinzhou, Liaoning Jixi, Liaoning Kaifeng, Henan Kunming, Yunnan Lanzhou, Gansu Leshan, Sichuan Linqing, Shandong Linyi, Shandong Liuan, Anhui Liupanshui, Guizhou Luoyang, Henan Mianyang, Sichuan Mudanjiang, Heilongjiang
Year
Urban Population
East Asia & Pacic 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 1,453,000 1,319,000 10,839,000 957,000 3,093,000 1,374,000 1,775,000 886,000 3,294,000 1,087,000 4,900,000 2,628,000 1,076,000 1,165,000 1,319,000 1,413,000 785,000 1,025,000 1,397,000 3,893,000 2,533,000 1,996,000 1,780,000 2,928,000 1,242,000 799,000 1,600,000 1,232,000 814,000 1,354,000 978,000 772,000 1,077,000 874,000 791,000 1,435,000 2,568,000 1,153,000 1,019,000 834,000 949,000 769,000 1,701,000 1,730,000 1,137,000 891,000 2,498,000 1,818,000 2,023,000 1,451,000 1,065,000 801,000 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1,307,701 1,187,101 9,755,101 861,301 2,783,701 1,236,600 1,597,501 797,400 2,964,600 978,301 4,410,000 2,365,200 968,400 1,048,501 1,187,101 1,271,701 706,501 922,501 1,257,301 3,503,701 2,279,701 1,796,400 1,602,000 2,635,200 1,117,800 719,101 1,440,000 1,108,800 732,600 1,218,600 880,200 694,800 969,301 786,600 711,901 1,291,501 2,311,200 1,037,701 917,101 750,600 854,101 692,101 1,530,901 1,557,000 1,023,301 801,901 2,248,200 1,636,200 1,820,701 1,305,901 958,501 720,901 1,308 1,187 9,755 861 2,784 1,237 1,598 797 2,965 978 4,410 2,365 968 1,049 1,187 1,272 707 923 1,257 3,504 2,280 1,796 1,602 2,635 1,118 719 1,440 1,109 733 1,219 880 695 969 787 712 1,292 2,311 1,038 917 751 854 692 1,531 1,557 1,023 802 2,248 1,636 1,821 1,306 959 721
ANNEX
49
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Nanchang, Jiangxi Nanjing, Jiangsu Neijiang, Sichuan Ningbo, Zhejiang Pingxiang, Jiangxi Qingdao, Shandong Qiqihar, Heilongjiang Shanghai, Shanghai Shantou, Guangdong Shenyang, Liaoning Shenzhen, Guangdong Shijianzhuang, Hebei Suining, Sichuan Suqian, Jiangsu Suzhou, Jiangsu Taian, Shandong Taiyuan, Shanxi Tangshan, Hebei Tianjin, Tianjin Tianmen, Hubei Tianshui, Gansu Tongliao, Jilin Wanxian, Chongqing Weifang, Shandong Wenzhou, Zhejiang Wuhan, Hubei Wulumuqi, Xinjiang Wuxi, Jiangsu Xian, Shaanxi Xiangxiang, Hunan Xiantao, Hubei Xianyang, Shaanxi Xiaoshan, Zhejiang Xinghua, Jiangsu Xintai, Hebei Xinyi, Jiangsu Xinyu, Guangdong Xuanzhou, Anhui Xuzhou, Jiangsu Yancheng, Jiangsu Yichun, Jiangxi Yichun, Jilin Yixing, Jiangsu Yiyang, Hunan Yongzhou, Hunan Yueyang, Hunan Yulin, Guangxi Yuyao, Zhejiang Yuzhou, Henan Zaoyang, Hubei Zaozhuang, Shandong Zhangjiagang, Jiangsu Zhangjiakou, Hebei Zhanjiang, Guangdong Zhaodong, Heilongjiang
Year
2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
Urban Population
1,722,000 2,740,000 1,393,000 1,173,000 1,502,000 2,316,000 1,435,000 12,887,000 1,176,000 4,828,000 1,131,000 1,603,000 1,428,000 1,189,000 1,183,000 1,503,000 2,415,000 1,671,000 9,156,000 1,779,000 1,187,000 785,000 1,759,000 1,287,000 1,269,000 5,169,000 1,415,000 1,127,000 3,123,000 908,000 1,614,000 896,000 1,124,000 1,556,000 1,325,000 973,000 808,000 823,000 1,636,000 1,562,000 871,000 904,000 1,108,000 1,343,000 1,097,000 1,213,000 1,558,000 848,000 1,173,000 1,121,000 2,048,000 886,000 880,000 1,368,000 851,000

0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

1,549,800 2,466,000 1,253,701 1,055,701 1,351,800 2,084,400 1,291,501 11,598,301 1,058,400 4,345,200 1,017,901 1,442,701 1,285,200 1,070,101 1,064,701 1,352,701 2,173,501 1,503,901 8,240,400 1,601,101 1,068,301 706,501 1,583,101 1,158,301 1,142,101 4,652,101 1,273,501 1,014,301 2,810,701 817,200 1,452,600 806,400 1,011,600 1,400,400 1,192,501 875,701 727,200 740,701 1,472,400 1,405,800 783,901 813,600 997,200 1,208,701 987,301 1,091,701 1,402,200 763,200 1,055,701 1,008,901 1,843,200 797,400 792,000 1,231,200 765,901

1,550 2,466 1,254 1,056 1,352 2,084 1,292 11,598 1,058 4,345 1,018 1,443 1,285 1,070 1,065 1,353 2,174 1,504 8,240 1,601 1,068 707 1,583 1,158 1,142 4,652 1,274 1,014 2,811 817 1,453 806 1,012 1,400 1,193 876 727 741 1,472 1,406 784 814 997 1,209 987 1,092 1,402 763 1,056 1,009 1,843 797 792 1,231 766
50
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Zhengzhou, Henan Zibo, Shandong Zigong, Sichuan China, Hong Kong SAR (UNSD 2009) Hong Kong China, Macao SAR (UNSD 2009) Macao Indonesia (UNSD 2009) Jakarta Philippines (UNSD 2009) Manila Quezon City Albania Tirana Belarus Minsk Croatia Zagreb Georgia Batumi Kutaisi Tbilisi Argentina Area Metropolitana Buenos Aires Bahia Blanca Neuquen Salta Capital Bahamas Nassau, Bahamas Barbados* Barbados Bolivia* Cochabamba El Alto La Paz Oruro Potosi Santa Cruz de la Sierra Sucre Tarija Brazil Abaetetuba Aguas Lindas de Goias Alagoinhas Alvorada Americana Ananindeua Anapolis Angra dos Reis Aparaceida de Goiania Apucarana Aracaju Aracatuba
Year
2000 2000 2000 2007 2007 2005
Urban Population
2,070,000 2,675,000 1,072,000 6,926,000 525,760 8,962,000

0.90 0.90 0.90 2.47 1.51 0.88

1,863,000 2,407,501 964,800 17,128,767 792,932 7,896,024 4,974,766 3,728,911

1,863 2,408 965 17,129 793 7,896 4,975 3,729
2007 1,660,714 3.00 2005 2,392,701 1.56 Eastern Europe & Central Asia (UNSD 2009) 2007 2007 2006 1,532,000 1,806,200 784,900 1.01 1.21 1.24
1,549,467 2,181,918 974,904 605,391 568,133 1,064,384
1,549 2,182 975 605 568 1,064
2007 303,200 2.00 2007 185,960 3.06 2007 1,300,000 0.82 Latin America and the Caribbean (PAHO 2005) 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 12,544,018 285,000 202,518 472,971 200,000 268,792 717,026 629,955 790,353 201,230 135,783 1,113,000 193,876 135,783 119,152 105,746 130,095 183,968 182,593 393,569 288,085 119,247 336,392 107,827 461,534 169,254 1.16 0.88 0.95 0.49 2.67 0.95 0.60 0.36 0.53 0.33 0.33 0.54 0.40 0.46 0.29 0.44 0.58 1.14 0.95 1.27 0.62 0.75 0.30 0.88 0.89 0.74
14,551,061 249,660 192,392 232,040 534,000 255,352 430,216 226,784 419,677 66,406 45,352 599,907 77,357 62,868 35,000 47,000 76,000 210,000 173,900 500,000 180,000 89,200 102,000 95,000 410,000 125,000
14,551 250 192 232 534 255 430 227 420 66 45 600 77 63 35 47 76 210 174 500 180 89 102 95 410 125
ANNEX
51
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Araguaina Araguari Arapiraca Araraquara Araras Atibaia Bage Barbacena Barra Mansa Barreiras Barretos Barueri Bauru Belem Belford Roxo Belo Horizonte Betim Blumenau Boa Vista Botucatu Braganca Paulista Brasilia Cabo de Santo Agostinho Cabo Frio Cachoeirinha Cachoeiro de Itapemirim Camacari Camaragibe Campina Grande Campinas Campo Grande Campos dos Goytacazes Canoas Carapicuiba Cariacica Caruaru Cascavel Castanhal Catanduva Caucaia Caxias Caxias do Sul Chapeco Colatina Colombo Contagem Cotia Crato Criciuma Cubatao Curitiba Diadema Dourados
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
113,143 101,974 186,466 182,471 104,196 111,300 118,767 114,126 170,753 131,849 103,913 208,281 316,064 1,280,614 434,474 2,238,526 306,675 261,808 200,568 108,306 125,031 2,051,146 152,977 126,828 107,564 174,879 161,727 128,702 355,331 969,396 663,621 406,989 306,093 344,596 324,285 253,634 245,369 134,496 105,847 250,479 139,756 360,419 146,967 112,711 183,329 538,017 148,987 104,646 170,420 108,309 1,587,315 357,064 164,949

0.53 0.88 0.99 0.87 0.72 1.49 0.42 0.83 0.76 1.76 0.76 1.87 1.39 1.57 0.81 1.43 0.49 0.84 0.57 1.41 1.03 0.76 0.92 1.58 1.17 1.03 0.99 1.01 1.35 1.69 0.75 0.73 0.68 0.73 1.05 0.79 0.59 0.40 0.94 0.73 0.76 0.92 0.49 0.71 0.39 1.86 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.85 0.75 0.79 1.33

59,500 90,000 185,000 158,400 75,000 165,700 50,000 95,200 130,000 232,200 79,200 390,000 440,000 2,012,000 350,000 3,201,800 150,000 220,000 115,000 153,000 128,500 1,556,700 140,000 200,000 125,400 180,000 160,000 130,000 480,000 1,641,000 496,400 296,000 207,000 250,000 340,000 200,000 145,000 54,000 100,000 183,000 106,600 330,000 72,200 80,000 72,000 1,000,000 116,700 35,000 96,000 92,000 1,186,700 281,600 219,000

60 90 185 158 75 166 50 95 130 232 79 390 440 2,012 350 3,202 150 220 115 153 129 1,557 140 200 125 180 160 130 480 1,641 496 296 207 250 340 200 145 54 100 183 107 330 72 80 72 1,000 117 35 96 92 1,187 282 219
52
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Duque de Caxias Embu Feira de Santana Ferraz de Vasconcelos Florianopolis Fortaleza Foz do Iguacu Franca Francisco Morato Franco da Rocha Garanhuns Goiania Governador Valadares Gravatai Guarapuava Guaratingueta Guaruja Guarulhos Hortolandia Ibirite Ilheus Imperatriz Indaiatuba Ipatinga Itaborai Itabuna Itajai Itapecerica da Serra Itapetininga Itapevi Itaquaquecetuba Itu Jaboatao dos Guararapes Jacarei Jaragua do Sul Jau Jequie Ji-Parana Joao Pessoa Joinville Juazeiro Juazeiro do Norte Juiz de For a Jundiai Lages Lauro de Freitas Limeira Linhares Londrina Luziania Macae Macapa Maceio
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
775,456 207,663 480,949 142,377 342,315 2,141,402 258,543 287,737 133,738 108,122 117,749 1,093,007 247,131 232,629 155,161 104,219 264,812 1,072,717 152,523 133,044 222,127 230,566 147,050 212,496 187,479 196,675 147,494 129,685 125,559 162,433 272,942 135,366 581,556 191,291 108,489 112,104 147,202 106,800 597,934 429,604 174,567 212,133 456,796 323,397 157,682 113,543 249,046 112,617 447,065 141,082 132,461 283,308 797,759

0.94 0.67 1.56 0.58 1.27 1.11 0.75 0.95 0.82 0.59 1.66 1.17 1.21 0.55 0.53 0.58 0.98 0.79 0.62 0.83 0.36 0.98 0.61 0.94 0.62 1.27 0.95 0.66 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.96 0.77 0.63 0.72 1.03 0.48 0.66 1.72 1.15 1.18 1.08 0.64 1.02 0.51 0.79 0.64 0.57 1.61 0.71 1.89 1.34 1.32

730,000 140,000 750,800 83,000 435,000 2,375,000 195,000 273,000 109,100 64,000 195,000 1,279,700 300,000 127,100 83,000 60,000 260,600 850,000 95,000 110,000 80,000 227,000 90,400 200,000 116,000 250,000 140,000 85,500 62,200 98,000 190,000 130,000 450,000 120,000 78,000 115,400 70,000 70,000 1,027,900 493,200 206,000 230,000 290,500 330,200 80,000 90,000 159,500 64,000 720,000 100,000 250,000 380,000 1,050,000

730 140 751 83 435 2,375 195 273 109 64 195 1,280 300 127 83 60 261 850 95 110 80 227 90 200 116 250 140 86 62 98 190 130 450 120 78 115 70 70 1,028 493 206 230 291 330 80 90 160 64 720 100 250 380 1,050
ANNEX
53
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Mage Manaus Maraba Maracanau Marilia Maringa Maua Mogi Guacu Moji das Cruzes Montes Claros Mossoro Natal Nilopolis Niteroi Nossa Senhora do Socorro Nova Friburgo Nova Iguacu Novo Hamburgo Olinda Osasco Palhoca Palmas Paranagua Parnaiba Parnamirim Passo Fundo Patos de Minas Paulista Pelotas Petrolina Petropolis Pindamonhangaba Pinhais Piracicaba Pocos de Caldas Ponta Grossa Porto Algre Porto Velho Pouso Alegre Praia Grande Presidente Prudente Queimados Recife Resende Ribeirao das Neves Ribeirao Pires Ribeirao Preto Rio Branco Rio Claro Rio de Janeiro Rio Grande Rio Verde Rondonopolis Sabara Salvador Santa Barbara D Oeste
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
205,830 1,405,835 168,020 179,732 197,342 288,653 363,392 124,228 330,241 306,947 213,841 712,317 153,712 459,451 131,679 173,418 920,599 236,193 367,902 652,593 102,742 137,355 127,339 132,282 124,690 168,458 123,881 262,237 323,158 218,538 286,537 126,026 102,985 329,158 135,627 273,616 1,360,590 334,661 106,776 193,582 189,186 121,993 1,422,905 104,549 246,846 104,508 504,923 253,059 168,218 5,857,904 186,544 116,552 150,227 115,352 2,443,107 170,078

1.04 1.55 0.31 0.64 0.98 0.98 0.64 0.67 0.63 1.51 0.71 1.72 1.63 1.47 0.38 0.81 0.75 0.66 1.05 0.87 0.24 0.59 1.10 0.94 0.40 0.60 0.66 0.76 0.56 0.64 1.05 0.99 0.58 0.73 0.66 1.03 0.98 0.58 0.84 0.93 0.53 0.53 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.71 0.89 0.56 0.74 1.20 1.29 0.87 0.55 0.52 1.08 0.83

215,000 2,180,000 52,000 115,000 192,500 284,000 232,700 83,000 208,100 462,000 151,500 1,223,000 250,000 675,300 50,500 140,000 693,900 155,000 385,600 570,000 25,000 81,000 140,000 125,000 50,000 101,300 82,000 200,000 180,000 140,000 300,000 125,000 60,000 239,700 90,000 280,900 1,340,000 193,400 90,000 180,900 100,000 64,500 1,376,000 101,000 240,000 179,000 450,000 141,200 125,100 7,058,700 240,000 101,300 82,000 60,200 2,636,500 141,000

215 2,180 52 115 193 284 233 83 208 462 152 1,223 250 675 51 140 694 155 386 570 25 81 140 125 50 101 82 200 180 140 300 125 60 240 90 281 1,340 193 90 181 100 65 1,376 101 240 179 450 141 125 7,059 240 101 82 60 2,637 141
54
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Santa Cruz do Sul Santa Luzia Santa Maria Santa Rita Santarem Santo Andre Santos Sao Bernardo do Campo Sao Caetano do Sul Sao Carlos Sao Goncalo Sao Joao de Meriti Sao Jose Sao Jose de Ribamar Sao Jose do Rio Preto Sao Jose dos Campos Sao Jose dos Pinhais Sao Leopoldo Sao Luis Sao Paulo Sao Vicente Sapucaia do Sul Serra Sete Lagoas Sobral Sorocaba Sumare Suzano Taboao da Serra Taubate Teixeira de Freitas Teolo Otoni Teresina Teresopolis Timon Uberaba Uberlandia Uruguaiana Varginha Varzea Grande Viamao Vila Velha Vitoria Vitoria da Conquista Vitoria de Santo Antao Volta Redonda Chile Antofagasta, Antofagasta Antofagasta, Calama Araucana, Temuco B.OHiggins, Rancagua Biobo, Chilln Biobo, Concepcin Biobo, Talcahuano
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
107,632 184,903 243,611 115,844 262,538 649,331 417,983 703,177 140,159 192,998 891,119 449,476 173,559 107,384 358,523 539,313 204,316 193,547 870,028 10,434,252 303,551 122,751 321,181 184,871 155,276 493,468 196,723 228,690 197,644 244,165 107,486 129,424 715,360 138,081 129,692 252,051 501,214 126,936 108,998 215,298 227,429 345,965 292,304 262,494 117,609 242,063 318,779 138,402 245,347 214,344 161,953 216,061 250,348

0.51 0.49 0.66 0.65 0.51 0.99 1.10 0.81 1.43 0.69 0.70 0.69 1.18 0.47 1.03 1.23 0.69 0.52 0.85 2.00 0.96 0.59 1.12 0.78 0.89 0.92 0.91 0.58 0.84 0.67 0.88 0.40 1.48 0.83 0.33 1.55 0.90 0.79 1.03 0.58 0.77 0.95 1.08 1.32 1.36 0.66 0.80 0.65 1.03 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.94

55,000 91,300 160,000 75,000 133,700 640,000 460,000 566,700 200,000 133,300 620,000 312,000 205,000 50,000 367,900 661,600 140,000 100,000 740,000 20,855,700 290,000 73,000 358,700 145,000 138,000 455,000 180,000 133,000 167,000 162,500 95,000 52,000 1,058,900 115,000 42,200 391,000 451,600 100,000 112,000 125,000 175,000 330,000 315,000 346,000 160,000 160,000 255,023 89,961 252,707 171,475 161,953 172,849 235,327

55 91 160 75 134 640 460 567 200 133 620 312 205 50 368 662 140 100 740 20,856 290 73 359 145 138 455 180 133 167 163 95 52 1,059 115 42 391 452 100 112 125 175 330 315 346 160 160 255 90 253 171 162 173 235
ANNEX
55
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Coquimbo, Coquimbo Coquimbo, La Serena Los Lagos, Osorno Los Lagos, Puerto Montt Los Lagos, Valdivia Magallanes, Punta Arenas Maule, Curic Maule, Talca Santiago, Cerro Navia Santiago, La Florida Santiago, La Pintana Santiago, Maip Santiago, Providencia Santiago, Recoleta Santiago, Santiago Tarapac, Arica Valparaso, Valparaso Valparaso, Via del Mar Colombia Armenia Barrancabermeja Barranquilla Bello Bogot Bucaramanga Buenaventura Buga Cali Cartagena Cartago Ccuta Dosquebradas Envigado Florencia Floridablanca Girardot Ibagu Itag Maicao Manizales Medelln Montera Neiva Palmira Pasto Pereira Popayn Santa Marta Sincelejo Soacha Sogamoso Soledad
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
163,036 160,148 145,475 175,938 140,559 120,874 120,299 203,231 148,312 365,674 190,085 468,390 120,874 148,220 200,792 185,268 275,982 286,931 293,000 183,000 1,276,000 353,000 6,558,000 543,000 230,000 113,000 2,181,000 854,000 129,000 644,000 166,000 145,000 116,000 232,000 117,000 403,000 246,000 115,000 345,000 1,909,000 256,000 317,000 234,000 349,000 401,000 206,000 382,000 234,000 285,000 114,000 310,000

0.90 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.42 0.80 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.68 1.01 1.40 1.21 1.63 0.71 1.00 0.96 0.58 0.60 0.80 0.49 0.72 0.55 0.65 0.61 0.77 0.87 0.44 0.46 0.40 0.31 1.04 0.50 1.02 0.63 0.62 0.60 0.72 0.81 0.60 0.80 0.66 0.61 0.58 0.67 0.72 0.51 0.88 0.38 0.60

146,732 152,141 145,475 175,938 59,035 96,699 120,299 193,069 148,460 365,674 129,258 472,137 169,224 179,346 327,893 131,540 275,982 275,454 169,940 109,800 1,020,800 172,970 4,721,760 298,650 149,500 68,930 1,679,370 742,980 56,760 296,240 66,400 44,950 120,640 116,000 119,340 253,890 152,520 69,000 248,400 1,546,290 153,600 253,600 154,440 212,890 232,580 138,020 275,040 119,340 250,800 43,320 186,000

147 152 145 176 59 97 120 193 148 366 129 472 169 179 328 132 276 275 170 110 1,021 173 4,722 299 150 69 1,679 743 57 296 66 45 121 116 119 254 153 69 248 1,546 154 254 154 213 233 138 275 119 251 43 186
56
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Tulu Tunja Valledupar Villavicencio Costa Rica Alajuela Desamparados San Jos Cuba Bayamo Camagey Ciego de vila Cienfuegos Ciudad de La Habana Guantnamo Holgun Manzanillo Matanzas Pinar del Ro Sancti Spritus Santa Clara Santiago de Cuba Tunas Ecuador* Quito Santo Domingo de los Colorados El Salvador La Libertad - Nueva San Salvador San Miguel, San Miguel San Salvador - Apopa San Salvador - Ilopango, San Salvador - Mejicanos San Salvador - Soyapango San Salvador, San Salvador Santa Ana, Santa Ana Grenada Grenada Guatemala Antigua Guatemala Guatemala Jutiapa Quetzaltenango San Benito San Pedro Carch Guyana Georgetown Haiti Cap-Hatien Carrefour Croix des Bouquets Delmas Dessalines
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
157,000 112,000 278,000 289,000 234,737 203,770 326,384 154,832 308,288 118,935 154,897 2,186,632 222,217 268,843 110,846 133,177 162,078 109,220 220,345 452,307 144,381 1,841,200 200,421 136,909 172,203 139,802 115,358 172,548 285,286 479,605 167,975 95,551 248,019 2,541,581 130,000 122,157 366,735 130,118 180,000 141,061 416,301 143,803 335,866 167,599

0.75 0.79 0.85 0.51 0.85 1.38 1.02 0.44 0.50 0.41 0.75 0.75 0.56 0.50 0.44 0.60 0.60 0.58 0.58 0.50 0.47 0.72 0.65 0.70 0.82 0.54 0.51 0.61 0.57 0.81 0.63 0.85 1.20 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.85 1.53 0.60 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.30

117,750 88,480 236,300 147,390 199,526 281,203 332,585 67,662 154,144 48,763 116,173 1,639,974 124,442 134,422 48,440 79,906 97,247 63,348 127,800 226,154 67,859 1,325,664 130,274 95,836 141,206 75,493 58,833 105,254 162,613 388,480 105,824 81,218 297,623 2,414,502 117,000 109,941 293,388 110,600 275,400 84,637 249,781 43,141 201,520 50,280

118 88 236 147 200 281 333 68 154 49 116 1,640 124 134 48 80 97 63 128 226 68 1,326 130 96 141 75 59 105 163 388 106 81 298 2,415 117 110 293 111 275 85 250 43 202 50
ANNEX
57
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Gonaves Jacmel Jean Rabel Logne Les Cayes Ption Ville Petit Gove Petite Rivire de lArtibonite Port de Paix Port-au-Prince Saint Marc Saint Michel Honduras Choloma Distrito Central La Ceiba San Pedro Sula Jamaica* North Eastern Wasteshed( Portland, St.Mary and St.Ann) Portmore Retirement(Westmoreland, Hanover,Trelawny & St.James) Riverton ( Kgn, St.And, St.Cath. Clarendon and St.Thomas) Southern(Manchester, St.Elizabeth) Mexico Acapulco, Guerrero Acua, Coahuila Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes Altamira, Tamaulipas Apatzingan, Michoacn Apodaca, Nuevo Len Atizapan de Zaragoza, Mxico Atlixco, Puebla Boca del Ro, Veracruz Campeche, Campeche Cancn, Benito Jurez, Quintana Roo Crdenas, Tabasco Carmen, Campeche Celaya, Guanajuato Chalco, Mxico Chetumal, Othon P. Blanco, Quintana Roo Chihuahua, Chihuahua Chilpancingo, Guerrero Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz Colima, Colima Comitn de Domnguez, Chiapas Crdoba, Veracruz Cuauhtemoc, Chihuahua Cuautla, Morelos Cuernavaca, Morelos Culiacn, Sinaloa Delicias, Chihuahua Dolores Hidalgo, Guanajuato
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
138,480 138,504 121,221 105,806 152,845 143,452 125,433 126,474 113,191 1,100,085 164,868 124,603 126,402 819,867 126,721 483,384 357,265 159,974 452,724 1,458,155 331,190 728,010 117,271 656,245 130,425 108,466 297,776 475,683 117,929 135,875 219,281 444,870 219,414 169,784 388,012 232,956 209,241 676,160 197,275 268,673 131,268 107,065 178,672 125,105 155,363 342,374 755,017 117,215 130,748

0.30 0.60 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.60 0.25 0.35 0.40 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.67 0.63 0.69 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.89 0.80 0.85 0.53 1.17 0.80 0.53 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.53 0.94 0.94 1.20 0.94 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.52 0.60 0.54 1.27 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.53

41,544 83,102 36,366 26,452 45,854 86,071 31,358 44,266 45,276 660,051 49,460 37,381 88,481 549,311 79,834 333,535 357,265 142,377 452,724 1,458,155 331,190 685,785 104,019 522,371 110,340 57,704 348,398 380,546 62,974 124,733 207,001 418,178 116,948 159,937 364,731 279,547 196,896 658,580 186,030 252,015 124,048 55,995 107,739 67,056 197,311 316,354 677,250 107,838 69,035

42 83 36 26 46 86 31 44 45 660 49 37 88 549 80 334 357 142 453 1,458 331 686 104 522 110 58 348 381 63 125 207 418 117 160 365 280 197 659 186 252 124 56 108 67 197 316 677 108 69
58
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Durango, Durango Ecatepec, Mxico Ensenada, Baja California Fresnillo, Zacatecas General Escobedo, Nuevo Len Gmez Palacio, Durango Guadalajara, Jalisco Guadalupe, Nuevo Len Guadalupe, Zacatecas Guanajuato, Guanajuato Guasave, Sinaloa Guaymas, Sonora Hermosillo, Sonora Hidalgo del Parral, Chihuahua Hidalgo, Michoacn Huixquilucan, Mxico Iguala, Guerrero Irapuato, Guanajuato Jurez, Chihuahua La Paz, Baja California Sur Lagos de Moreno, Jalisco Lzaro Crdenas, Michoacn Len, Guanajuato Lerdo, Durango Lerma, Mxico Los Cabos, Baja California Sur Los Mochis-Topolobampo, Ahome, Sinaloa Madero, Tamaulipas Mante, Tamaulipas Manzanillo, Colima Matamoros, Tamaulipas Mazatln, Sinaloa Mrida, Yucatn Metepec, Mxico Mexicali, Baja California Mxico, Federal District Minatitln, Veracruz Monclova, Coahuila Monterrey, Nuevo Len Morelia, Michoacn Naucalpan, Mxico Navojoa, Sonora Nezahualcoyotl, Mxico Nogales, Sonora Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas Oaxaca, Oaxaca Obregn, Cajeme, Sonora Orizaba, Veracruz Pachuca, Hidalgo Piedras Negras, Coahuila Poza Rica, Veracruz Puebla, Puebla Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco Quertaro, Quertaro Reynosa, Tamaulipas
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
495,962 1,655,225 381,747 183,941 246,166 276,085 1,650,776 679,230 109,179 144,166 279,878 129,236 619,185 101,390 106,922 198,564 125,395 445,778 1,264,121 199,712 128,407 174,205 1,153,998 113,705 103,909 113,727 362,442 184,289 111,671 127,443 427,966 385,047 714,689 197,699 779,523 8,615,955 144,574 194,458 1,112,636 628,801 861,173 141,412 1,223,180 164,819 317,877 259,343 357,857 119,405 249,838 130,398 152,318 1,372,446 191,424 657,447 438,696

0.93 1.28 0.93 0.53 1.18 0.94 1.20 1.18 0.95 0.92 0.94 1.05 0.99 0.76 0.54 1.13 0.93 0.95 1.22 1.42 0.54 0.92 1.10 0.85 1.13 0.50 1.00 0.85 0.54 0.95 0.98 0.94 0.99 1.13 0.94 1.38 0.54 0.98 1.19 0.89 1.20 0.94 1.28 0.94 1.47 0.92 0.94 0.98 0.80 0.94 1.05 1.38 0.71 0.83 0.76

461,245 2,118,688 355,025 98,041 289,245 258,139 1,980,931 801,491 103,174 132,921 263,925 135,698 615,470 76,752 57,310 224,377 116,994 423,489 1,543,492 283,591 68,955 160,965 1,269,398 96,649 117,417 56,864 362,442 155,908 59,967 121,071 419,407 361,944 705,398 223,400 733,531 11,890,018 78,070 190,569 1,324,037 556,489 1,033,408 132,927 1,565,670 154,930 467,279 237,818 336,386 117,256 198,621 122,574 159,934 1,893,975 135,528 542,394 333,409

461 2,119 355 98 289 258 1,981 801 103 133 264 136 615 77 57 224 117 423 1,543 284 69 161 1,269 97 117 57 362 156 60 121 419 362 705 223 734 11,890 78 191 1,324 556 1,033 133 1,566 155 467 238 336 117 199 123 160 1,894 136 542 333
ANNEX
59
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Ro Bravo, Tamaulipas Salamanca, Guanajuato Saltillo, Coahuila San Andrs Tuxtla, Veracruz San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas San Francisco del Rincn, Guanajuato San Juan Bautista de Tuxtepec, Oaxaca San Juan del Ro, Quertaro San Luis Potosi, San Luis Potosi San Luis Ro Colorado, Sonora San Martn Texmelucan, Puebla San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Len San Pedro Garza Garca , Nuevo Len Santa Catarina, Nuevo Len Silao, Guanajuato Soledad de Graciano, San Luis Potosi Tampico, Tamaulipas Tapachula, Chiapas Taxco, Guerrero Tecoman, Colima Tehuacn, Puebla Tepatitln, Jalisco Tepic, Nayarit Tijuana, Baja California Tlajomulco, Jalisco Tlalnepantla, Mxico Tlaquepaque, Jalisco Toluca, Mxico Tonal, Jalisco Torren, Coahuila Tulancingo, Hidalgo Tuxpan, Veracruz Tuxtla Gutirrez, Chiapas Uruapan, Michoacn Valle de Chalco Solidaridad, Mxico Valle de Santiago, Guanajuato Valles, San Luis Potosi Veracruz, Veracruz Victoria, Tamaulipas Villahermosa, Centro, Tabasco Xalapa, Veracruz Zacatecas, Zacatecas Zamora, Michoacn Zapopan, Jalisco Zitacuaro, Michoacn Nicaragua Chinandega Leon Managua Masaya Tipitapa Panama
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
104,620 228,239 587,730 143,235 135,731 100,805 134,895 184,679 678,645 147,912 123,072 138,393 497,078 127,254 231,809 134,539 185,063 298,063 276,743 100,889 101,049 233,807 121,076 307,550 1,262,520 128,339 722,279 480,844 687,969 350,648 533,457 124,461 126,257 443,782 268,208 330,885 130,553 147,086 463,812 266,612 531,511 404,788 124,722 161,425 1,018,447 139,514 124,107 147,845 952,068 115,369 108,861

0.76 0.62 0.86 0.54 0.92 0.54 0.53 0.50 0.97 0.94 0.80 0.52 1.20 1.10 1.20 0.53 0.53 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.53 0.91 0.53 0.84 1.22 1.05 1.04 1.17 1.16 1.18 0.94 0.92 0.54 1.05 0.94 1.20 0.54 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.87 0.80 0.95 0.71 1.20 0.53 0.61 0.62 0.71 0.61 0.43

79,511 141,508 502,509 77,060 125,008 54,031 71,899 92,340 658,286 139,037 98,458 71,964 596,494 139,979 277,012 71,306 97,528 252,161 259,862 94,836 53,556 212,998 64,049 256,804 1,537,749 134,756 749,726 562,587 798,044 413,765 502,516 115,002 67,926 463,752 252,920 397,062 70,107 137,967 425,779 251,415 462,415 323,830 117,862 113,966 1,222,136 73,942 75,085 90,925 676,920 70,029 46,266

80 142 503 77 125 54 72 92 658 139 98 72 596 140 277 71 98 252 260 95 54 213 64 257 1,538 135 750 563 798 414 503 115 68 464 253 397 70 138 426 251 462 324 118 114 1,222 74 75 91 677 70 46
60
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Arraijn Ciudad de Panam Coln La Chorrera San Miguelito Paraguay Asuncin Ciudad del Este Luque San Lorenzo Peru Callao, Callao Cercado Callao, Ventanilla Junn, El Tambo Junn, Huancayo Lima, Ate Lima, Carabayllo Lima, Chorrillos Lima, Comas Lima, El Agustino Lima, Independencia Lima, La Molina Lima, La Victoria Lima, Lima Cercado Lima, Los Olivos Lima, Lurigancho Lima, Puente Piedra Lima, Rmac Lima, San Borja Lima, San Juan de Lurigancho Lima, San Juan de Miraores Lima, San Martn de Porres Lima, San Miguel Lima, Santa Anita Lima, Santiago de Surco Lima, Villa El Salvador Lima, Villa Mara del Triunfo Piura, Castilla Ucayali, Callera Saint Lucia St. Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines* St. Vincent Suriname Greater Paramaribo Trinidad and Tobago Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo Diego Martin San Juan/Laventille Tunapuna/Piarco Uruguay
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
149,918 708,438 174,059 124,656 293,745 513,399 223,350 170,433 202,745 449,282 148,767 165,357 112,203 410,734 153,112 264,645 469,747 166,902 200,365 125,034 205,554 286,202 344,164 123,142 183,861 192,449 122,270 751,155 387,641 448,345 134,908 148,752 251,567 364,476 341,971 106,926 246,856 162,157 106,916 287,131 162,779 105,720 157,295 203,975

0.66 0.94 0.94 0.70 0.61 1.31 1.04 1.08 1.07 0.81 0.68 0.73 0.64 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.52 0.62 0.70 1.20 1.08 1.13 0.59 0.52 0.50 0.59 1.05 0.60 0.71 0.79 0.78 0.54 0.87 0.56 0.55 0.61 0.70 1.18 0.34 1.00 0.70 0.70 3.20 2.20

98,946 665,932 163,615 87,259 179,184 673,579 232,507 184,068 217,748 365,716 101,162 121,207 72,147 228,368 87,733 154,023 244,268 103,479 139,454 150,541 222,409 324,267 203,745 64,034 91,379 112,968 128,261 452,195 274,837 352,399 105,363 80,177 219,618 202,649 186,716 64,690 173,787 191,345 36,351 287,131 113,945 74,004 503,344 448,745

99 666 164 87 179 674 233 184 218 366 101 121 72 228 88 154 244 103 139 151 222 324 204 64 91 113 128 452 275 352 105 80 220 203 187 65 174 191 36 287 114 74 503 449
ANNEX
61
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Canelones Maldonado Montevideo Venezuela Distrito Capital Municipio Barinas Edo Barinas Municipio Caroni Edo Bolivar Municipio German Roscio Edo Guarico Municipio Girardot Edo Aragua Municipio Iribarren Edo Lara Municipio Lagunillas Edo Zulia Municipio Maracaibo Edo Zulia Municipio Pedraza Edo Apure Municipio Simon Rodriguez Edo Anzoategui Egypt (UNSD 2009) Cairo Iran (Damghani et al. 2008) Tehran Iraq (UNSD 2009) Baghdad India (CPCB 2005) Agartala Agra Ahmedabad Aizwal Allahabad Amritsar Asansol Banglore Bhopal Bhubaneswar Chandigarh Chennai Coimbatore Dehradun Delhi Dhanbad Faridabad Gandhinagar Greater Mumbai Guwahati Hyderabad Imphal Indore Jabalpur Jaipur Jammu Jamshedpur Kanpur Kochi
Year
2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
539,130 137,390 1,303,182

0.90 0.90 1.23 1.10 0.69 0.74 0.85 2.93 0.52 1.50 1.08 0.28 1.15

485,217 123,651 1,602,914 2,019,915 194,325 521,084 88,150 1,160,646 468,602 216,518 1,518,408 80,166 169,970

485 124 1,603 2,020 194 521 88 1,161 469 217 1,518 80 170
2001 1,836,286 2001 283,273 2001 704,168 2001 103,706 2001 396,125 2001 895,989 2001 144,345 2001 1,405,933 2001 283,273 2001 147,800 Middle East & North Africa 2007 2005 2005 7,765,000 8,203,666 6,784,000 South Asia 189,998 1,275,135 3,520,085 228,280 975,393 966,862 475,439 4,301,326 1,437,354 648,032 808,515 4,343,645 930,882 426,674 10,306,452 199,258 1,055,938 195,985 11,978,450 809,895 3,843,585 221,492 1,474,968 932,484 2,322,575 369,959 1,104,713 2,551,337 595,575
1.77 0.88 1.71
13,766,234 7,044,000 11,621,432
13,766 7,044 11,621
2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005
0.40 0.51 0.37 0.25 0.52 0.45 0.44 0.39 0.40 0.36 0.40 0.62 0.57 0.31 0.57 0.39 0.42 0.22 0.45 0.20 0.57 0.19 0.38 0.23 0.39 0.58 0.31 0.43 0.67
75,999 650,319 1,302,431 57,070 507,204 435,088 209,193 1,677,517 574,942 233,292 323,406 2,693,060 530,603 132,269 5,874,678 77,711 443,494 43,117 5,390,303 161,979 2,190,843 42,083 560,488 214,471 905,804 214,576 342,461 1,097,075 399,035
76 650 1,302 57 507 435 209 1,678 575 233 323 2,693 531 132 5,875 78 443 43 5,390 162 2,191 42 560 214 906 215 342 1,097 399
62
ANNEX F (continued)

City
Kolkata Lucknow Ludhiana Madurai Meerut Nagpur Nashik Patna Pondicherry Pune Raipur Rajkot Ranchi Shillong Simla Srinagar Surat Tiruvanantapuram Vadodara Varanasi Vijaywada Vishakhapatnam Nepal (Alam 2008) Kathmandu Sri Lanka (UNSD 2009) Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia Moratuwa
Year
2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2003 2007 2007
Urban Population
4,572,876 2,185,927 1,398,467 928,868 1,068,772 2,052,066 1,077,236 1,366,444 220,865 2,538,473 605,747 967,476 847,093 132,867 142,555 898,440 2,433,835 744,983 1,306,227 1,091,918 851,282 982,904 738,173 209,787 189,790

0.58 0.22 0.53 0.30 0.46 0.25 0.19 0.37 0.59 0.46 0.30 0.21 0.25 0.34 0.27 0.48 0.41 0.23 0.27 0.39 0.44 0.59 0.31 0.73 0.67

2,652,268 480,904 741,188 278,660 491,635 513,017 204,675 505,584 130,310 1,167,698 181,724 203,170 211,773 45,175 38,490 431,251 997,872 171,346 352,681 425,848 374,564 579,913 226,800 154,110 127,854

2,652 481 741 279 492 513 205 506 130 1,168 182 203 212 45 38 431 998 171 353 426 375 580 227 154 128
NOTES: * Denotes domestic waste data as MSW gures are unknown. PAHO denes municipal waste and domestic waste as follows: PAHO denitions: Municipal waste Solid or semi-solid waste generated in of population centers including domestic and commercial wastes, as well as those originated by the, small-scale industries and institutions (including hospital and clinics); markets street sweeping, and from public cleansing. Domestic waste Domestic solid or semi-solid waste generated by human activities a the household level. ** China cities have populations over 750,000 inhabitants
ANNEX
63
ANNEX G
MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100,000

City Year Africa
Benin (UNSD 2009) Parakou Burkina Faso (UNSD 2009) Ouagadougou Cameroon (Parrot et al. 2009) Yaounde Chad (Parrot et al. 2009) Ndjamena Cte dIvoire (Parrot et al. 2009) Abidjan Guinea (UNSD 2009) Conakry Kenya (Parrot et al. 2009) Nairobi Mauritania (Parrot et al. 2009) Nouakchott Niger (UNSD 2009) Zinder** Senegal (Parrot et al. 2009) Dakar Tanzania (Parrot et al. 2009) Dar es Salaam Togo (Parrot et al. 2009) Lome Zambia (UNSD 2009) Lusaka Zimbabwe (UNSD 2009) Harare China, Hong Kong SAR Hong Kong China, Macao SAR Macao Indonesia Jakarta Philippines Manila Albania Tirana Belarus Minsk Croatia Zagreb Georgia Tbilisi Batumi Kutaisi 2007 2,500,000 99 2005 1,300,000 18 2002 1,000,000 42 N/A 2,500,000 48 2003 1,708,000 30 - 40 2007 242,800 77 N/A 611,883 20 - 30 2006 2,312,000 30 - 45 2007 3,000,000 76 2002 2,777,000 30 - 40 2003 800,000 15 - 20 2005 1,720,000 43 1995 876,200 51 2002 148,450 10
Urban Population
MSW Collection Coverage (%)
East Asia & Pacic (UNSD 2009)

2007 2007 2004 2007 6,926,000 525,760 8,962,000 1,660,714 100 100 83 95
Eastern Europe & Central Asia (UNSD 2009)

2007 2007 2006 2007 2007 2007 1,532,000 1,806,200 784,900 1,300,000 303,200 185,960 90 100 100 100 62 95
64
ANNEX G (continued)

City Year Urban Population MSW Collection Coverage (%)
Latin America and the Caribbean (PAHO, 2005)

Argentina Area Metropolitana Buenos Aires Bahia Blanca Cordoba Neuquen Parana Rafaela Rio Cuarto Rosario Salta Capital Bahamas Nassau, Bahamas Barbados* Barbados Bolivia* Cochabamba El Alto La Paz Oruro Potosi Santa Cruz de la Sierra Sucre Tarija Chile Antofagasta, Antofagasta Antofagasta, Calama Araucana, Temuco B.OHiggins, Rancagua Biobo, Chilln Biobo, Concepcin Biobo, Talcahuano Coquimbo, Coquimbo Coquimbo, La Serena Los Lagos, Osorno Los Lagos, Puerto Montt Los Lagos, Valdivia Magallanes, Punta Arenas Maule, Curic Maule, Talca Santiago, Cerro Navia Santiago, La Florida Santiago, La Pintana Santiago, Maip Santiago, Providencia Santiago, Recoleta Santiago, Santiago Tarapac, Arica Valparaso, Valparaso Valparaso, Via del Mar 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 318,779 138,402 245,347 214,344 161,953 216,061 250,348 163,036 160,148 145,475 175,938 140,559 120,874 120,299 203,231 148,312 365,674 190,085 468,390 120,874 148,220 200,792 185,268 275,982 286,931 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 717,026 629,955 790,353 201,230 135,783 1,113,000 193,876 135,783 90 76 87 92 88 88 85 93 2001 268,792 100 2001 200,000 100 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 12,544,018 285,000 1,283,396 202,518 245,677 100,000 154,127 906,004 472,971 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
ANNEX
65
ANNEX G (continued)

City
Colombia Armenia Barrancabermeja Barranquilla Bello Bogot Bucaramanga Buenaventura Buga Cali Cartagena Cartago Ccuta Dosquebradas Envigado Florencia Floridablanca Girardot Ibagu Itag Maicao Manizales Medelln Montera Neiva Palmira Pasto Pereira Popayn Santa Marta Sincelejo Soacha Sogamoso Soledad Tulu Tunja Valledupar Villavicencio Costa Rica Alajuela Desamparados San Jos Cuba Bayamo Camagey Ciego de vila Cienfuegos Ciudad de La Habana Guantnamo Holgun Manzanillo 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 293,000 183,000 1,276,000 353,000 6,558,000 543,000 230,000 113,000 2,181,000 854,000 129,000 644,000 166,000 145,000 116,000 232,000 117,000 403,000 246,000 115,000 345,000 1,909,000 256,000 317,000 234,000 349,000 401,000 206,000 382,000 234,000 285,000 114,000 310,000 157,000 112,000 278,000 289,000 234,737 203,770 326,384 154,832 308,288 118,935 154,897 2,186,632 222,217 268,843 110,846 100 100 100 97 100 100 80 100 97 97 98 100 84 99 80 95 95 97 98 100 100 100 100 98 100 100 94 98 97 100 95 81 100 100 100 98 98 82 40 100 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100
Year
Urban Population
66
ANNEX G (continued)

City
Matanzas Pinar del Ro Sancti Spritus Santa Clara Santiago de Cuba Tunas Dominican Republic La Romana Quito Santo Domingo de los Colorados Ecuador* Quito Santo Domingo de los Colorados El Salvador La Libertad - Nueva San Salvador San Miguel, San Miguel San Salvador - Apopa San Salvador - Ilopango, San Salvador - Mejicanos San Salvador - Soyapango San Salvador, San Salvador Santa Ana, Santa Ana Grenada Grenada Guatemala Antigua Guatemala Guatemala Quetzaltenango San Benito Guyana Georgetown Haiti Cap-Hatien Carrefour Croix des Bouquets Delmas Gonaves Jacmel Les Cayes Ption Ville Port-au-Prince Saint Marc Honduras San Pedro Sula Jamaica* North Eastern Wasteshed( Portland, St.Mary and St.Ann) Retirement(Westmoreland,Hanover,Trelawny & St.James) Riverton ( Kgn, St.And, St.Cath. Clarendon and St.Thomas) Southern(Manchester, St. Elizabeth) Mexico Acapulco, Guerrero Acua, Coahuila Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes Altamira, Tamaulipas Apatzingan, Michoacn Apodaca, Nuevo Len
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
133,177 162,078 109,220 220,345 452,307 144,381 201,700 2,774,926 244,039 1,841,200 200,421 136,909 172,203 139,802 115,358 172,548 285,286 479,605 167,975 95,551 248,019 2,541,581 122,157 366,735 180,000 141,061 416,301 143,803 335,866 138,480 138,504 152,845 143,452 1,100,085 164,868 483,384 357,265 452,724 1,458,155 331,190 728,010 117,271 656,245 130,425 108,466 297,776

100 100 91 98 100 100 100 60 90 80 83 94 82 73 50 85 95 81 83 100 80 70 90 80 100 45 16 40 16 45 80 45 22 22 45 85 56 68 66 48 85 85 90 85 85 100
ANNEX
67
ANNEX G (continued)

City
Atizapan de Zaragoza, Mxico Atlixco, Puebla Boca del Ro, Veracruz Campeche, Campeche Cancn, Benito Jurez, Quintana Roo Crdenas, Tabasco Carmen, Campeche Celaya, Guanajuato Chalco, Mxico Chetumal, Othon P. Blanco, Quintana Roo Chihuahua, Chihuahua Chilpancingo, Guerrero Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz Colima, Colima Comitn de Domnguez, Chiapas Crdoba, Veracruz Cuauhtemoc, Chihuahua Cuautla, Morelos Cuernavaca, Morelos Culiacn, Sinaloa Delicias, Chihuahua Dolores Hidalgo, Guanajuato Durango, Durango Ecatepec, Mxico Ensenada, Baja California Fresnillo, Zacatecas General Escobedo, Nuevo Len Gmez Palacio, Durango Guadalajara, Jalisco Guadalupe, Nuevo Len Guadalupe, Zacatecas Guanajuato, Guanajuato Guasave, Sinaloa Guaymas, Sonora Hermosillo, Sonora Hidalgo del Parral, Chihuahua Hidalgo, Michoacn Huixquilucan, Mxico Iguala, Guerrero Irapuato, Guanajuato Jurez, Chihuahua La Paz, Baja California Sur Lagos de Moreno, Jalisco Lzaro Crdenas, Michoacn Len, Guanajuato Lerdo, Durango Lerma, Mxico Los Cabos, Baja California Sur Los Mochis-Topolobampo, Ahome, Sinaloa Madero, Tamaulipas Mante, Tamaulipas Manzanillo, Colima Matamoros, Tamaulipas Mazatln, Sinaloa Mrida, Yucatn Metepec, Mxico
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
475,683 117,929 135,875 219,281 444,870 219,414 169,784 388,012 232,956 209,241 676,160 197,275 268,673 131,268 107,065 178,672 125,105 155,363 342,374 755,017 117,215 130,748 495,962 1,655,225 381,747 183,941 246,166 276,085 1,650,776 679,230 109,179 144,166 279,878 129,236 619,185 101,390 106,922 198,564 125,395 445,778 1,264,121 199,712 128,407 174,205 1,153,998 113,705 103,909 113,727 362,442 184,289 111,671 127,443 427,966 385,047 714,689 197,699

90 85 85 80 90 80 85 95 85 80 95 85 80 85 85 90 85 90 85 90 85 85 90 90 95 85 100 85 90 100 85 90 85 85 100 85 85 85 85 90 90 85 85 85 90 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 95 85
68
ANNEX G (continued)

City
Mexicali, Baja California Mxico, Federal District Minatitln, Veracruz Monclova, Coahuila Monterrey, Nuevo Len Morelia, Michoacn Naucalpan, Mxico Navojoa, Sonora Nezahualcoyotl, Mxico Nogales, Sonora Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas Oaxaca, Oaxaca Obregn, Cajeme, Sonora Orizaba, Veracruz Pachuca, Hidalgo Piedras Negras, Coahuila Poza Rica, Veracruz Puebla, Puebla Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco Quertaro, Quertaro Reynosa, Tamaulipas Ro Bravo, Tamaulipas Salamanca, Guanajuato Saltillo, Coahuila San Andrs Tuxtla, Veracruz San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas San Francisco del Rincn, Guanajuato San Juan Bautista de Tuxtepec, Oaxaca San Juan del Ro, Quertaro San Luis Potosi, San Luis Potosi San Luis Ro Colorado, Sonora San Martn Texmelucan, Puebla San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Len San Pedro Garza Garca , Nuevo Len Santa Catarina, Nuevo Len Silao, Guanajuato Soledad de Graciano, San Luis Potosi Tampico, Tamaulipas Tapachula, Chiapas Taxco, Guerrero Tecoman, Colima Tehuacn, Puebla Tepatitln, Jalisco Tepic, Nayarit Tijuana, Baja California Tlajomulco, Jalisco Tlalnepantla, Mxico Tlaquepaque, Jalisco Toluca, Mxico Tonal, Jalisco Torren, Coahuila Tulancingo, Hidalgo Tuxpan, Veracruz
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
779,523 8,615,955 144,574 194,458 1,112,636 628,801 861,173 141,412 1,223,180 164,819 317,877 259,343 357,857 119,405 249,838 130,398 152,318 1,372,446 191,424 657,447 438,696 104,620 228,239 587,730 143,235 135,731 100,805 134,895 184,679 678,645 147,912 123,072 138,393 497,078 127,254 231,809 134,539 185,063 298,063 276,743 100,889 101,049 233,807 121,076 307,550 1,262,520 128,339 722,279 480,844 687,969 350,648 533,457 124,461 126,257

80 100 85 85 100 85 90 85 80 85 100 80 85 90 95 100 85 95 85 100 85 85 90 90 85 85 90 85 90 85 90 85 90 100 100 100 90 85 85 85 85 85 90 85 80 95 85 95 95 85 95 100 85 85
ANNEX
69
ANNEX G (continued)

City
Tuxtla Gutirrez, Chiapas Uruapan, Michoacn Valle de Chalco Solidaridad, Mxico Valle de Santiago, Guanajuato Valles, San Luis Potosi Veracruz, Veracruz Victoria, Tamaulipas Villahermosa, Centro, Tabasco Xalapa, Veracruz Zacatecas, Zacatecas Zamora, Michoacn Zapopan, Jalisco Zitacuaro, Michoacn Nicaragua Chinandega Leon Managua Panama Arraijn Ciudad de Panam Coln La Chorrera San Miguelito Paraguay Asuncin Capiat Ciudad del Este Fernando de la Mora Lambare Luque San Lorenzo Peru Callao, Callao Cercado Callao, Ventanilla Junn, El Tambo Junn, Huancayo Lima, Ate Lima, Carabayllo Lima, Chorrillos Lima, Comas Lima, El Agustino Lima, Independencia Lima, La Molina Lima, La Victoria Lima, Lima Cercado Lima, Los Olivos Lima, Lurigancho Lima, Puente Piedra Lima, Rmac Lima, San Borja Lima, San Juan de Lurigancho Lima, San Juan de Miraores Lima, San Martn de Porres Lima, San Miguel
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
443,782 268,208 330,885 130,553 147,086 463,812 266,612 531,511 404,788 124,722 161,425 1,018,447 139,514 124,107 147,845 952,068 149,918 708,438 174,059 124,656 293,745 513,399 154,469 223,350 114,332 119,984 170,433 202,745 449,282 148,767 165,357 112,203 410,734 153,112 264,645 469,747 166,902 200,365 125,034 205,554 286,202 344,164 123,142 183,861 192,449 122,270 751,155 387,641 448,345 134,908

85 85 80 85 85 90 90 80 90 85 90 90 85 80 70 80 63 80 66 64 95 99 35 60 97 42 54 26 75 57 66 70 89 78 89 90 80 66 75 75 85 87 65 73 89 63 47 65 74 80
70
ANNEX G (continued)

City
Lima, Santa Anita Lima, Santiago de Surco Lima, Villa El Salvador Lima, Villa Mara del Triunfo Piura, Castilla Ucayali, Callera Saint Lucia St. Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines* St. Vincent Suriname Greater Paramaribo Trinidad and Tobago Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo Diego Martin San Juan/Laventille Tunapuna/Piarco Uruguay Canelones Maldonado Montevideo Venezuela Distrito Capital Municipio Barinas Edo Barinas Municipio Caroni Edo Bolivar Municipio Girardot Edo Aragua Municipio Iribarren Edo Lara Municipio Lagunillas Edo Zulia Municipio Maracaibo Edo Zulia Municipio Pedraza Edo Apure Municipio Simon Bolivar Edo Anzoategui Municipio Simon Rodriguez Edo Anzoategui Egypt Cairo Iraq Baghdad Nepal (Alam 2008) Kathmandu Sri Lanka (UNSD 2009) Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia Moratuwa
Year
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Urban Population
148,752 251,567 364,476 341,971 106,926 246,856 162,157 106,916 287,131 162,779 105,720 157,295 203,975 539,130 137,390 1,303,182 1,836,286 283,273 704,168 396,125 895,989 144,345 1,405,933 283,273 344,593 147,800

71 79 77 80 77 70 100 90 82 100 100 100 100 75 95 90 80 100 68 88 80 90 87 100 80 100
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Middle East & North Africa (UNSD 2009) 2007 2005 South Asia 2003 2007 2007
7,765,000 6,784,000
77 86
738,173 209,787 189,790
94 96 90
NOTES: * Domestic waste data used as MSW gures not available; hence it is assumed that waste collection coverage is for domestic waste and not MSW ** Urban population data from 2007; Waste collection coverage data from 2006 PAHO denitions: Municipal waste Solid or semi-solid waste generated in of population centers including domestic and commercial wastes, as well as those originated by the, small-scale industries and institutions (including hospital and clinics); markets street sweeping, and from public cleansing. Domestic waste Domestic solid or semi-solid waste generated by human activities a the household level.
ANNEX
71
ANNEX H
MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100,000

Urban Population Sanitary Landll (%) Controlled Landll (%) Open Dump (%) Watercourses (%) Other (%)
City
Latin America & Caribbean (PAHO 2005) Argentina Area Metropolitana Buenos Aires Bahia Blanca Neuquen Parana Salta Capital Bolivia Cochabamba El Alto La Paz Oruro Potosi Santa Cruz de la Sierra Sucre Tarija Barbados Antofagasta, Antofagasta Antofagasta, Calama Araucana, Temuco B.O'Higgins, Rancagua Barbados Biobo, Chilln Biobo, Concepcin Biobo, Talcahuano Coquimbo, Coquimbo Coquimbo, La Serena Los Lagos, Osorno Los Lagos, Puerto Montt Los Lagos, Valdivia Magallanes, Punta Arenas Maule, Curic Maule, Talca Santiago, Cerro Navia Santiago, La Florida Santiago, Maip Santiago, Providencia Santiago, Recoleta Santiago, Santiago Tarapac, Arica Valparaso, Valparaso Valparaso, Via del Mar Cuba Bayamo Camagey Ciego de vila Cienfuegos Ciudad de La Habana Guantnamo Holgun Manzanillo 12,544,018 285,000 202,518 245,677 472,971 717,026 629,955 790,353 201,230 135,783 1,113,000 193,876 135,783 318,779 138,402 245,347 214,344 268,792 161,953 216,061 250,348 163,036 160,148 145,475 175,938 140,559 120,874 120,299 203,231 148,312 365,674 468,390 120,874 148,220 200,792 185,268 275,982 286,931 154,832 308,288 118,935 154,897 2,186,632 222,217 268,843 110,846 100 80 100 0 100 87 0 87 89 85 85 83 90 0 0 98 100 35 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 83 0 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 86 0 100 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 75 0 0 48 0 100 75 100 100 0 96 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 99 9 100 100 0 90 100 80 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 16 0 5 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 85 11 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 N.A. N.A. 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 N.A. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 11 13 7 15 6 9 10 0 25 2 0 17 0 0 25 0 0 0 4 17 15 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 14 5 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
72
ANNEX H (continued)

City
Matanzas Pinar del Ro Sancti Spritus Santa Clara Santiago de Cuba Tunas Colombia Armenia Barrancabermeja Barranquilla Bello Bogot Bucaramanga Buenaventura Buga Cali Cartagena Cartago Dosquebradas Envigado Florencia Floridablanca Ibagu Itag Maicao Manizales Medelln Montera Palmira Pasto Popayn Santa Marta Sincelejo Soacha Sogamoso Soledad Tulu Valledupar Costa Rica Alajuela Cartago Desamparados Goicoechea Heredia Prez Zeledn Pococ Puntarenas San Carlos San Jos Dominican Republic San Francisco de Macors Santiago de los Caballeros Santo Domingo
Urban Population
133,177 162,078 109,220 220,345 452,307 144,381 293,000 183,000 1,276,000 353,000 6,558,000 543,000 230,000 113,000 2,181,000 854,000 129,000 166,000 145,000 116,000 232,000 403,000 246,000 115,000 345,000 1,909,000 256,000 234,000 349,000 206,000 382,000 234,000 285,000 114,000 310,000 157,000 278,000 234,737 138,940 203,770 123,375 109,398 129,219 109,367 108,214 135,133 326,384 210,580 594,424 2,774,926
Sanitary Landll (%)

0 20 0 93 100 81 100 0 100 97 100 0 0 100 0 100 82 100 99 0 0 99 98 0 100 100 0 100 99 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 95 100 100 90 100 100 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 83
Controlled Landll (%)

100 80 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 100 0 0 0 0 0 10
Open Dump (%)

0 0 13 5 0 19 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 97 0 100 100 0
Watercourses (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Other (%)
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 18 0 1 0 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 10 0 0 70 0 0 3 2 0 0 4
ANNEX
73
ANNEX H (continued)

City
Ecuador Quito Santo Domingo de los Colrados El Salvador San Salvador, San Salvador San Salvador - Soyapango Grenada Grenada Guatemala Guatemala Guyana Georgetown Haiti Cap-Hatien Carrefour Croix des Bouquets Delmas Gonaves Jacmel Les Cayes Ption Ville Port-au-Prince Saint Marc Honduras Distrito Central Jamaica North Eastern Wasteshed( Portland, St.Mary and St.Ann) Portmore Retirement(Westmoreland,Hanover,Trelawny & St.James) Riverton ( Kgn, St.And, St.Cath. Clarendon and St.Thomas) Southern(Manchester, St.Elizabeth) Southern(Manchester, St.Elizabeth) Mexico Acapulco, Guerrero Acua, Coahuila Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes Altamira, Tamaulipas Apatzingan, Michoacn Apodaca, Nuevo Len Atizapan de Zaragoza, Mxico Atlixco, Puebla Boca del Ro, Veracruz Campeche, Campeche Cancn, Benito Jurez, Quintana Roo Crdenas, Tabasco Carmen, Campeche Celaya, Guanajuato Chalco, Mxico Chetumal, Othon P. Blanco, Quintana Roo Chihuahua, Chihuahua Chilpancingo, Guerrero Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz Colima, Colima
Urban Population
1,841,200 200,421 479,605 285,286 95,551 2,541,581 180,000 141,061 416,301 143,803 335,866 138,480 138,504 152,845 143,452 1,100,085 164,868 819,867 357,265 159,974 452,724 1,458,155 331,190 331,190 728,010 117,271 656,245 130,425 108,466 297,776 475,683 117,929 135,875 219,281 444,870 219,414 169,784 388,012 232,956 209,241 676,160 197,275 268,673 131,268
Sanitary Landll (%)

84 0 81 95 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 0 93 94 0 0 0 94 0 0 94 0 0 93 0 0 94

0 91 0 0 0 40 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Open Dump (%)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 38 80 44 60 35 54 38 30 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 94 0 0 94 0 94 0 94 94 0 94 94 0 94 94 0
Watercourses (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0 10 25 0 0 0 0 0 23 26 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other (%)
16 9 19 5 10 60 0 10 62 20 56 40 65 23 36 70 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6
74
ANNEX H (continued)

City
Comitn de Domnguez, Chiapas Crdoba, Veracruz Cuauhtemoc, Chihuahua Cuautla, Morelos Cuernavaca, Morelos Culiacn, Sinaloa Delicias, Chihuahua Dolores Hidalgo, Guanajuato Durango, Durango Ecatepec, Mxico Ensenada, Baja California Fresnillo, Zacatecas General Escobedo, Nuevo Len Gmez Palacio, Durango Guadalajara, Jalisco Guadalupe, Nuevo Len Guadalupe, Zacatecas Guanajuato, Guanajuato Guasave, Sinaloa Guaymas, Sonora Hermosillo, Sonora Hidalgo del Parral, Chihuahua Hidalgo, Michoacn Huixquilucan, Mxico Iguala, Guerrero Irapuato, Guanajuato Jurez, Chihuahua La Paz, Baja California Sur Lagos de Moreno, Jalisco Lzaro Crdenas, Michoacn Len, Guanajuato Lerdo, Durango Lerma, Mxico Los Cabos, Baja California Sur Los Mochis-Topolobampo, Ahome, Sinaloa Madero, Tamaulipas Mante, Tamaulipas Manzanillo, Colima Matamoros, Tamaulipas Mazatln, Sinaloa Mrida, Yucatn Metepec, Mxico Mexicali, Baja California Mxico, Distrito Federal Minatitln, Veracruz Monclova, Coahuila Monterrey, Nuevo Len Morelia, Michoacn Naucalpan, Mxico Navojoa, Sonora Nezahualcoyotl, Mxico Nogales, Sonora
Urban Population
107,065 178,672 125,105 155,363 342,374 755,017 117,215 130,748 495,962 1,655,225 381,747 183,941 246,166 276,085 1,650,776 679,230 109,179 144,166 279,878 129,236 619,185 101,390 106,922 198,564 125,395 445,778 1,264,121 199,712 128,407 174,205 1,153,998 113,705 103,909 113,727 362,442 184,289 111,671 127,443 427,966 385,047 714,689 197,699 779,523 8,615,955 144,574 194,458 1,112,636 628,801 861,173 141,412 1,223,180 164,819
Sanitary Landll (%)

0 0 0 94 0 94 0 0 92 94 0 0 93 0 0 93 0 94 94 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 92 0 0 94 94 0 0 0 94 0 93 0 0 92 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 94

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 92 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 70 0
Open Dump (%)

94 94 94 0 94 0 94 94 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 94 0 94 94 0 92 0 0 92 94 0 0 94 94 0 0 94 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 94 0 94 0 94 23 0
Watercourses (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other (%)
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 7 8 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 8 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 8 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 6
ANNEX
75
ANNEX H (continued)

City
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas Oaxaca, Oaxaca Obregn, Cajeme, Sonora Orizaba, Veracruz Pachuca, Hidalgo Piedras Negras, Coahuila Poza Rica, Veracruz Puebla, Puebla Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco Quertaro, Quertaro Reynosa, Tamaulipas Ro Bravo, Tamaulipas Salamanca, Guanajuato Saltillo, Coahuila San Andrs Tuxtla, Veracruz San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas San Francisco del Rincn, Guanajuato San Juan Bautista de Tuxtepec, Oaxaca San Juan del Ro, Quertaro San Luis Potosi, San Luis Potosi San Luis Ro Colorado, Sonora San Martn Texmelucan, Puebla San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Len San Pedro Garza Garca , Nuevo Len Santa Catarina, Nuevo Len Silao, Guanajuato Soledad de Graciano, San Luis Potosi Tampico, Tamaulipas Tapachula, Chiapas Taxco, Guerrero Tecoman, Colima Tehuacn, Puebla Tepatitln, Jalisco Tepic, Nayarit Tijuana, Baja California Tlajomulco, Jalisco Tlalnepantla, Mxico Tlaquepaque, Jalisco Toluca, Mxico Tonal, Jalisco Torren, Coahuila Tulancingo, Hidalgo Tuxpan, Veracruz Tuxtla Gutirrez, Chiapas Uruapan, Michoacn Valle de Chalco Solidaridad, Mxico Valle de Santiago, Guanajuato Valles, San Luis Potosi Veracruz, Veracruz Victoria, Tamaulipas Villahermosa, Centro, Tabasco
Urban Population
317,877 259,343 357,857 119,405 249,838 130,398 152,318 1,372,446 191,424 657,447 438,696 104,620 228,239 587,730 143,235 135,731 100,805 134,895 184,679 678,645 147,912 123,072 138,393 497,078 127,254 231,809 134,539 185,063 298,063 276,743 100,889 101,049 233,807 121,076 307,550 1,262,520 128,339 722,279 480,844 687,969 350,648 533,457 124,461 126,257 443,782 268,208 330,885 130,553 147,086 463,812 266,612 531,511
Sanitary Landll (%)

96 0 0 94 94 94 94 93 94 94 0 94 0 94 0 0 0 0 94 94 0 0 94 93 93 93 94 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 94 94 92 94 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 94 0 0 0 0 94 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 0
Open Dump (%)

0 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 0 94 94 92 94 0 0 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 94 94 0 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 94 94 94 94 94 0 0 94
Watercourses (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other (%)
4 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
76
ANNEX H (continued)

City
Xalapa, Veracruz Zacatecas, Zacatecas Zamora, Michoacn Zapopan, Jalisco Zitacuaro, Michoacn Nicaragua Chinandega Managua Masaya Tipitapa Panama Arraijn Ciudad de Panam Coln La Chorrera San Miguelito Paraguay Asuncin Luque Peru Callao, Callao Cercado Callao, Ventanilla Junn, El Tambo Junn, Huancayo Lima, Ate Lima, Carabayllo Lima, Chorrillos Lima, Comas Lima, El Agustino Lima, Independencia Lima, La Molina Lima, La Victoria Lima, Lima Cercado Lima, Los Olivos Lima, Lurigancho Lima, Puente Piedra Lima, Rmac Lima, San Borja Lima, San Juan de Lurigancho Lima, San Juan de Miraores Lima, San Martn de Porres Lima, San Miguel Lima, Santa Anita Lima, Santiago de Surco Lima, Villa El Salvador Lima, Villa Mara del Triunfo Piura, Castilla Ucayali, Callera
Urban Population
404,788 124,722 161,425 1,018,447 139,514 124,107 952,068 115,369 108,861 149,918 708,438 174,059 124,656 293,745 513,399 170,433 449,282 148,767 165,357 112,203 410,734 153,112 264,645 469,747 166,902 200,365 125,034 205,554 286,202 344,164 123,142 183,861 192,449 122,270 751,155 387,641 448,345 134,908 148,752 251,567 364,476 341,971 106,926 246,856
Sanitary Landll (%)

0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 95 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 80 0 0 0 0 76 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 70 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 100 67 51 59 63 79 0 79 0 71 59 67 66 0 0 58 65 79 56 42 58 0 71 63 0 68 71 69 62
Open Dump (%)

94 94 94 0 94 58 0 71 61 63 N.D. 66 64 N.D. 0 0 18 35 26 21 3 14 3 2 12 28 20 21 11 5 27 19 3 32 46 29 20 13 21 15 16 12 16 23
Watercourses (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other (%)
6 6 6 8 6 42 51 29 39 37 20 34 36 5 2 0 15 14 15 16 18 16 18 18 17 13 13 13 13 17 15 16 18 12 12 13 14 16 16 15 16 17 15 15
ANNEX
77
ANNEX H (continued)

City
St. Lucia St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines St. Vincent Suriname Greater Paramaribo Trinidad and Tobago Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo Diego Martin San Juan/Laventille Tunapuna/Piarco Uruguay Canelones Maldonado Montevideo Venezuela Municipio Guacara Carabobo Municipio Valencia Edo Carabobo
Urban Population
162,157 106,916 287,131 162,779 105,720 157,295 203,975 539,130 137,390 1,303,182 142,227 742,145
Sanitary Landll (%)

70 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0

18 0 0 100 100 100 100 0 0 100 0 100
Open Dump (%)

0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 0
Watercourses (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other (%)
13 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
78
ANNEX I
MSW Composition Data for Cities Over 100,000

Region/Country/ City
Ghana (Asase 2009) Kumasi
Year
Urban Population
Organic (%)
Total Recyclables (%)

Africa
Paper (%)
Plastic (%)
Glass (%)
Metal (%)
Other (%)
2008
1,610,867
64
East Asia & Pacic
28
Cambodia (Kum et al. 2005) Phnom Penh 2002 Egypt Cairo Jordan Amman Saudi Arabia Riyadh Syria Aleppo Tunisia Tunis Yemen Aden India (CPCB 2005) Agartala Agra Ahmedabad Aizwal Allahabad Amritsar Asansol Bangalore Bhopal Bhubaneswar Chandigarh Chennai Coimbatore Daman Dehradun Delhi Dhanbad Faridabad Gandhinagar Gangtok Greater Mumbai Guwahati Hyderabad Imphal Indore Itanagar Jabalpur Jaipur Jammu Jamshedpur
65 4 Middle East & North Africa (Al-Yous) 67 55 34 59 68 57 South Asia 14 16 12 21 19 14 14 22 22 13 11 16 16 22 20 16 16 23 13 16 17 23 22 19 13 21 17 12 21 16 18 14 31 13 10 11
13
12
2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
3 13 2 12 11 11
3 3 3 8 3 3
2 2 16 1 2 5
7 13 14 8 6 14
2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005
1,89,998 12,75,135 35,20,085 2,28,280 9,75,393 9,66,862 4,75,439 43,01,326 14,37,354 6,48,032 8,08,515 43,43,645 9,30,882 35,770 4,26,674 1,03,06,452 1,99,258 10,55,938 1,95,985 29,354 1,19,78,450 8,09,895 38,43,585 2,21,492 14,74,968 35,022 9,32,484 23,22,575 3,69,959 11,04,713
59 46 41 54 35 65 50 52 52 50 57 41 50 30 51 54 47 42 34 47 62 54 54 60 49 52 58 46 52 43
28 38 48 25 45 21 35 26 25 38 32 42 34 48 29 30 37 35 53 37 21 23 24 21 38 27 25 42 27 41
ANNEX
79
ANNEX I (continued)
MSW Composition Data for Cities Over 100,000

Region/Country/ City Year Urban Population
25,51,337 10,119 5,95,575 77,030 45,72,876 21,85,927 13,98,467 9,28,868 10,68,772 20,52,066 10,77,236 59,066 13,66,444 2,20,865 99,984 25,38,473 6,05,747 9,67,476 8,47,093 1,32,867 50,463 1,42,555 8,98,440 24,33,835 7,44,983 13,06,227 10,91,918 8,51,282 9.82,904 738,173
Organic (%)
48 46 57 57 51 47 50 55 55 47 40 62 52 50 48 62 51 42 51 63 72 43 62 57 73 47 45 59 46 68
Total Recyclables (%)

12 27 19 23 11 16 19 17 11 16 25 17 13 24 28 17 16 11 10 17 14 37 18 11 14 15 17 17 24
Paper (%)
8
Plastic (%)

Glass (%)
2
Metal (%)
11
Other (%)
41 27 23 20 38 37 31 27 35 37 35 21 35 26 24 21 32 47 39 20 14 20 20 32 13 38 38 23 30 11
Kanpur 2005 Kavarati 2005 Kochi 2005 Kohima 2005 Kolkata 2005 Lucknow 2005 Ludhiana 2005 Madurai 2005 Meerut 2005 Nagpur 2005 Nasik 2005 Panjim 2005 Patna 2005 Pondicherry 2005 Port Blair 2005 Pune 2005 Raipur 2005 Rajkot 2005 Ranchi 2005 Shillong 2005 Silvassa 2005 Simla 2005 Srinagar 2005 Surat 2005 Tiruvananthapuram 2005 Vadodara 2005 Varanasi 2005 Vijaywada 2005 Visakhapatnam 2005 Nepal (calculated from Alam 2008) Kathmandu
80
ANNEX J
MSW Generation by Country Current Data and Projections for 2025

Current Available Data MSW GenTotal MSW Total Urban eration Per Generation Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/ capita/day) day)
1,418,524 19,225,335 8,973,498 24,907 33,681,145 1,964,525 16,233,664 5,526,033 252,689 574,671 38,103,596 92,289 7,057,977 10,265,273 124,224 3,147,050 225,257 5,587,410 860,779 144,507,175 282,415 5,423,113 2,549,805 700,922 7,914,528 21,287,906 274,049 1,596,934 2,566,839 13,450,282 511,722,970 29,283,628 161,070 18,855,716 2,056,826 2,390,195 9,006,597 2,539,903 8,447,447 595,707 7,547,813 4,684,754 50,793 5,625,356 7,599,288 29,894,036 3,504,687 878,184 931,657 12,566,942 339,328 0.77 1.21 0.48 5.50 1.22 0.68 2.23 2.40 3.25 1.10 0.43 4.75 0.78 1.33 2.87 0.54 1.46 0.33 1.03 1.03 0.87 1.28 0.51 0.55 0.77 2.33 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.08 1.02 0.95 2.23 0.50 0.53 1.36 0.48 0.29 0.81 2.07 1.10 2.34 1.24 1.18 1.13 1.37 1.13 0.50 1.47 0.30 2.10 1,088 23,288 4,329 137 41,096 1,342 36,164 13,288 822 630 16,384 438 5,479 13,690 356 1,699 329 1,863 890 149,096 247 6,959 1,288 384 6,082 49,616 137 795 1,288 14,493 520,548 27,918 359 9,425 1,096 3,260 4,356 740 6,822 1,230 8,326 10,959 63 6,658 8,603 40,822 3,945 438 1,367 3,781 712
Country
Income Level
LMI LMI LMI HIC UMI LMI HIC HIC HIC HIC LI HIC UMI HIC UMI LI LMI LMI UMI UMI HIC UMI LI LI LMI HIC LMI LI LI UMI LMI LMI LI LI LMI UMI LI UMI UMI HIC HIC HIC UMI LMI LMI LMI LMI LI HIC LI UMI
Region
Total Population
3,488,000 42,882,000 27,324,000 101,000 46,115,000 2,908,000 24,393,000 8,622,000 397,000 972,000 206,024,000 303,000 8,668,000 10,742,000 389,000 14,460,000 819,000 12,368,000 2,265,000 228,833,000 526,000 6,551,000 23,729,000 15,040,000 25,136,000 37,912,000 750,000 5,831,000 17,504,000 19,266,000 1,445,782,000 55,563,000 1,217,000 107,481,000 5,362,000 5,549,000 26,233,000 4,274,000 11,231,000 1,018,000 9,910,000 5,578,000 69,000 12,172,000 16,074,000 98,513,000 8,525,000 7,684,000 1,252,000 124,996,000 905,000
2025 MSW GenUrban eration Per Population Capita (kg/ capita/day)

2,006,000 31,778,000 18,862,000 35,000 43,470,000 1,947,000 22,266,000 6,204,000 346,000 875,000 76,957,000 152,000 6,903,000 10,511,000 237,000 7,286,000 428,000 9,047,000 1,591,000 206,850,000 426,000 5,011,000 6,899,000 2,577,000 17,194,000 31,445,000 526,000 2,634,000 6,566,000 17,662,000 822,209,000 44,179,000 405,000 48,980,000 3,678,000 3,973,000 15,677,000 2,735,000 8,763,000 760,000 7,575,000 5,027,000 55,000 9,523,000 12,027,000 46,435,000 5,726,000 2,368,000 903,000 30,293,000 557,000 1.2 1.45 0.7 4.3 1.85 1.2 2.1 2.15 2.9 1.6 0.75 4 1.2 1.8 2.3 0.75 1.7 0.7 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.6 0.75 0.8 1 2.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 2.1 0.75 0.75 1.8 0.7 0.8 1.3 2.1 1.65 2.15 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.6 0.7 1.7 0.65 2.1
Total MSW Generation (tonnes/day)

2,407 46,078 13,203 151 80,420 2,336 46,759 13,339 1,003 1,400 57,718 608 8,284 18,920 545 5,465 728 6,333 2,227 330,960 554 8,018 5,174 2,062 17,194 69,179 368 1,844 4,596 26,493 1,397,755 66,269 851 36,735 2,759 7,151 10,974 2,188 11,392 1,596 12,499 10,808 88 14,285 18,041 83,583 9,162 1,658 1,535 19,690 1,170
Albania Algeria Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Bahamas, The Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt, Arab Rep. El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji
ECA MENA AFR LCR LCR ECA OECD OECD LCR MENA SAR LCR ECA OECD LCR AFR SAR LCR AFR LCR EAP ECA AFR AFR AFR OECD AFR AFR AFR LCR EAP LCR AFR AFR AFR LCR AFR ECA LCR ECA OECD OECD LCR LCR LCR MENA LCR AFR ECA AFR EAP
ANNEX
81
ANNEX J (continued)

3,301,950 47,192,398 1,144,675 822,588 2,316,296 60,530,216 11,680,134 6,755,967 31,324 5,237,139 215,946 3,227,249 2,832,769 6,977,700 6,717,604 280,148 321,623,271 117,456,698 46,219,250 2,589,698 5,179,120 39,938,760 1,353,969 84,330,180 3,850,403 6,615,510 38,895,504 2,683,301 1,916,209 1,549,569 3,244,163 461,534 2,256,263 390,776 466,162 1,341,972 4,653,890 2,288,114 14,429,641 70,816 3,900,064 384,809 1,197,094 519,206 79,833,562 1,370,974 15,753,989 7,706,816 12,847,522 708,907 3,464,234 2.13 1.92 0.45 0.53 1.69 2.11 0.09 2.00 2.71 2.00 5.33 1.00 1.45 1.99 1.92 1.56 0.34 0.52 0.16 3.58 2.12 2.23 0.18 1.71 1.04 0.30 1.24 5.72 0.70 1.03 1.18 0.50 1.10 2.31 1.47 1.06 0.80 0.50 1.52 2.48 0.65 1.78 0.50 2.30 1.24 0.66 1.46 0.14 0.44 0.50 0.12 7,030 90,493 521 438 3,904 127,816 1,000 13,499 85 10,466 1,151 3,233 4,110 13,890 12,904 438 109,589 61,644 7,197 9,260 10,959 89,096 247 144,466 4,000 2,000 48,397 15,342 1,342 1,600 3,836 230 2,474 904 685 1,425 3,734 1,151 21,918 175 2,534 685 603 1,195 99,014 904 23,014 1,052 5,616 356 427
Country
Income Level
HIC HIC UMI LI LMI HIC LI HIC UMI LMI LMI LI LMI HIC HIC HIC LMI LMI LMI HIC HIC HIC UMI HIC LMI LI HIC HIC LI UMI UMI LMI UMI HIC HIC LMI LI LI UMI LMI LI HIC LI UMI UMI LMI LMI LI LI LMI LI
Region
Total Population
5,464,000 65,769,000 1,698,000 2,534,000 3,945,000 80,341,000 31,993,000 11,236,000 108,000 19,926,000 683,000 12,305,000 9,682,000 8,305,000 9,448,000 337,000 1,447,499,000 271,227,000 88,027,000 5,275,000 8,722,000 58,079,000 2,908,000 121,614,000 8,029,000 57,176,000 49,019,000 3,988,000 7,713,000 2,072,000 4,784,000 2,211,000 3,102,000 569,000 535,000 2,001,000 29,954,000 21,353,000 33,769,000 411,000 20,589,000 431,000 4,548,000 1,406,000 124,695,000 3,112,000 37,865,000 28,954,000 55,374,000 2,560,000 38,855,000

3,805,000 53,659,000 1,524,000 1,726,000 2,272,000 61,772,000 19,713,000 7,527,000 40,000 11,478,000 230,000 7,966,000 5,544,000 8,305,000 7,011,000 314,000 538,055,000 178,731,000 66,930,000 3,564,000 8,077,000 42,205,000 1,733,000 86,460,000 6,486,000 16,952,000 41,783,000 3,934,000 3,776,000 1,476,000 4,275,000 850,000 2,193,000 473,000 535,000 1,493,000 11,350,000 6,158,000 27,187,000 233,000 8,987,000 416,000 2,203,000 674,000 102,258 1,965,000 23,994,000 14,493,000 24,720,000 1,226,000 10,550,000 2.1 2 0.7 0.75 1.85 2.05 0.5 2 2.3 2 3.5 1.4 1.8 2 2 1.7 0.7 0.85 0.6 3 2.1 2.05 0.9 1.7 1.3 0.6 1.4 4 1.1 1.45 1.7 0.8 1.5 2.2 1.75 1.6 1.1 0.8 1.9 2.2 0.95 2 0.8 2.2 1.75 0.95 1.85 0.5 0.85 0.9 0.7

7,991 107,318 1,067 1,295 4,203 126,633 9,857 15,054 92 22,956 805 11,152 9,979 16,610 14,022 534 376,639 151,921 40,158 10,692 16,962 86,520 1,560 146,982 8,432 10,171 58,496 15,736 4,154 2,140 7,268 680 3,290 1,041 936 2,389 12,485 4,926 51,655 513 8,538 832 1,762 1,483 179 1,867 44,389 7,247 21,012 1,103 7,385
Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong, China Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Rep. Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kenya Korea, South Kuwait Lao PDR Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Lithuania Luxembourg Macao, China Macedonia, FYR Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal
OECD OECD AFR AFR ECA OECD AFR OECD LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR EAP OECD OECD SAR EAP MENA OECD MENA OECD LCR OECD MENA AFR OECD MENA EAP ECA MENA AFR ECA OECD EAP ECA AFR AFR EAP SAR AFR MENA AFR AFR LCR EAP MENA AFR EAP AFR SAR
82
ANNEX J (continued)

13,197,842 3,612,147 2,848,165 2,162,063 73,178,110 3,605,500 1,629,404 60,038,941 2,008,299 3,052,320 18,678,510 58,654,205 23,398,400 6,162,205 759,577 11,648,240 107,386,402 1,573,625 88,673 15,388,239 4,693,019 3,830,299 43,172 2,029,398 4,839,400 3,036,442 986,862 50,992 26,720,493 33,899,073 2,953,410 15,069 44,119 48,255 12,600,333 343,331 270,983 7,662,130 5,490,214 9,109,737 1,653,091 9,439,781 22,453,143 2,390,840 22,162 144,645 6,063,259 48,846,780 2,061,980 2.12 3.68 1.10 0.49 0.56 2.80 0.70 0.84 1.21 0.21 1.00 0.50 0.88 2.21 1.33 1.04 0.93 0.52 0.49 1.30 0.52 0.79 2.98 0.45 1.49 1.37 1.21 4.30 2.00 2.13 5.10 5.45 4.35 1.70 0.79 1.36 0.51 1.61 2.61 1.37 0.89 0.26 1.76 0.52 3.71 14.40 0.81 1.77 0.98 27,945 13,293 3,123 1,068 40,959 10,082 1,142 50,438 2,438 630 18,740 29,315 20,630 13,616 1,014 12,082 100,027 822 44 20,000 2,438 3,041 129 904 7,205 4,164 1,192 219 53,425 72,137 15,068 82 192 82 10,000 466 137 12,329 14,329 12,493 1,479 2,425 39,452 1,233 82 2,082 4,932 86,301 2,027
Country
Income Level
HIC HIC LMI LI LI HIC HIC LI UMI LMI LMI LMI UMI HIC HIC UMI UMI LI LI HIC LI UMI UMI LI HIC HIC HIC LI UMI HIC LMI UMI UMI UMI LMI UMI LMI HIC HIC LMI LI LI LMI LI LMI HIC LMI UMI LMI
Region
Total Population
16,960,000 4,764,000 7,075,000 26,250,000 210,129,000 5,228,000 3,614,000 224,956,000 4,267,000 8,026,000 34,148,000 115,878,000 36,337,000 10,712,000 1,102,000 19,494,000 128,193,000 15,220,000 216,000 34,797,000 17,999,000 9,959,000 94,000 8,639,000 5,104,000 5,308,000 1,941,000 705,000 52,300,000 46,623,000 20,328,000 61,000 195,000 125,000 54,267,000 482,000 1,242,000 9,854,000 7,978,000 27,519,000 8,929,000 59,989,000 68,803,000 9,925,000 112,000 1,401,000 12,170,000 89,557,000 6,068,000

14,860,000 4,229,000 4,478,000 5,503,000 126,634,000 4,187,000 2,700,000 104,042,000 3,501,000 5,584,000 25,593,000 86,418,000 23,236,000 7,389,000 1,066,000 11,783,000 96,061,000 3,831,000 155,000 29,661,000 8,992,000 5,814,000 60,000 3,949,000 5,104,000 3,300,000 958,000 183,000 36,073,000 37,584,000 3,830,000 23,000 64,000 69,000 30,921,000 389,000 417,000 8,525,000 6,096,000 16,890,000 2,774,000 21,029,000 29,063,000 5,352,000 37,000 291000 8,909,000 67,981,000 3,485,000 2.1 3 1.5 0.75 0.8 2.3 1.15 1.05 1.65 0.6 1.4 0.9 1.2 2.15 1.7 1.45 1.25 0.85 0.9 1.7 0.85 1.05 2.5 0.85 1.8 1.6 1.7 4 2 2.1 4 4 4 1.85 1.05 1.6 0.85 1.85 2.3 1.7 1.2 0.55 1.95 0.85 3.5 10 1.15 2 1.25

31,206 12,687 6,717 4,127 101,307 9,630 3,105 109,244 5,777 3,350 35,830 77,776 27,883 15,886 1,812 17,085 120,076 3,256 140 50,424 7,643 6,105 150 3,357 9,187 5,280 1,629 732 72,146 78,926 15,320 92 256 128 32,467 622 354 15,771 14,021 28,713 3,329 11,566 56,673 4,549 130 2,910 10,245 135,962 4,356
Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia Solomon Islands South Africa Spain Sri Lanka St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan
OECD OECD LCR AFR AFR OECD MENA SAR LCR LCR LCR EAP ECA OECD MENA ECA ECA AFR AFR MENA AFR ECA AFR AFR EAP OECD ECA EAP AFR OECD SAR LCR LCR LCR AFR LCR AFR OECD OECD MENA ECA AFR EAP AFR EAP LCR MENA ECA ECA
ANNEX
83
ANNEX J (continued)

3,450,140 2,526,336 54,411,080 241,972,393 3,025,161 33,430 22,342,983 24,001,081 4,010,708 4,478,555 0.34 1.66 1.79 2.58 0.11 3.28 1.14 1.46 0.21 0.53 1,179 4,192 97,342 624,700 329 110 25,507 35,068 842 2,356
Country
Income Level
LI HIC HIC HIC UMI LMI UMI LI LI LI
Region
Total Population
54,011,000 6,268,000 65,190,000 354,930,000 3,548,000 328,000 35,373,000 106,357,000 16,539,000 15,969,000

9,713,000 5,092,000 59,738,000 305,091,000 3,333,000 113,000 34,059,000 40,505,000 6,862,000 7,539,000 0.65 2 1.85 2.3 0.6 3 1.5 1.8 0.55 0.7

6,313 10,184 110,515 701,709 2,000 339 51,089 72,909 3,774 5,277
Uganda United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Vanuatu Venezuela, RB Vietnam Zambia Zimbabwe
AFR MENA OECD OECD LCR EAP LCR EAP AFR AFR
Summary by Income Level Number of Countries Included

38 42 35 46 161
Current Available Data Total Urban Population (millions)

343 1,293 572 774 2,982
Projections for 2025 Projected Population Total Population (millions)

1,637 4,011 888 1,112 7,648
Income Level
Urban MSW Generation Per Capita (kg/capita/day)

0.60 0.78 1.16 2.13 1.19
Projected Urban MSW Generation Per Capita (kg/capita/day)

0.86 1.26 1.59 2.06 1.42
Total (tonnes/day)
204,802 1,012,321 665,586 1,649,546 3,532,255
Urban Population (millions)

676 2,080 619 912 4,287
Total (tonnes/day)
584,272 2,618,804 987,039 1,879,590 6,069,705
Summary by Region Current Available Data Region Number of Countries Total Urban Included Population (millions)
42 17 19 33 16 27 7 161 261 777 227 400 162 729 426 2,982
Projections for 2025 Projected Population Total (millions)

1,153 2,124 339 682 379 1,032 1,939 7,648
Urban MSW Generation Per Capita (kg/ capita/day)

0.65 0.95 1.12 1.09 1.07 2.15 0.45 1.19
Projected Urban MSW Generation Per Capita (kg/ capita/day)

0.85 1.52 1.48 1.56 1.43 2.07 0.77 1.42
Total (tonnes/day)
169,120 738,959 254,389 437,545 173,545 1,566,286 192,411 3,532,255
Urban (millions)
518 1,230 240 466 257 842 734 4,287
Total (tonnes/ day)

441,840 1,865,380 354,811 728,392 369,320 1,742,417 567,545 6,069,705
84
ANNEX K
MSW Collection Rates by Country

Country
Albania Algeria Andorra Antigua and Barbuda Armenia Austria Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Brazil Bulgaria Cambodia Canada Colombia Comoros Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Czech Republic Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt, Arab Rep. El Salvador Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong, China Hungary Iceland Indonesia Iraq Ireland Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Korea, South Latvia Lebanon Luxembourg
Income
LMI UMI HIC HIC LMI HIC UMI HIC LMI LI UMI UMI LI HIC UMI LI UMI HIC UMI HIC HIC UMI UMI LMI LMI LMI HIC HIC HIC LMI HIC LI HIC UMI LMI LMI LI LMI HIC HIC HIC LMI LMI HIC HIC UMI HIC LMI HIC UMI UMI HIC
Region
ECA MENA OECD LCR ECA OECD ECA OECD LCR AFR LCR ECA EAP OECD LCR AFR LCR ECA LCR OECD OECD LCR LCR LCR MENA LCR ECA OECD OECD ECA OECD AFR OECD LCR LCR LCR LCR LCR EAP OECD OECD EAP MENA OECD OECD LCR OECD MENA OECD ECA MENA OECD
Collection (%)
77 92 100 95 80 100 100 100 50 23 83 81 75 99 98 20 74 92 76 100 100 94 69 81 30-95 71 79 100 100 60 100 85 100 100 72 89 11 68 100 90 100 80 56 76 100 62 100 95+ 99 50 100 100
Urban/Total
T U T T T T T T T T T T U T T T T T T T T T T T U T T T T T T U T T T T T T T T T U T T T T T U T T U T
ANNEX
85
ANNEX K (continued)

Country
Macao, China Madagascar Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Monaco Morocco Nepal Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Panama Paraguay Peru Portugal Romania Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Tanzania Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uganda United Kingdom United States Uruguay Venezuela, RB West Bank and Gaza Zambia
Income
HIC LI LI HIC LMI UMI UMI HIC LMI LI HIC LMI HIC UMI LMI UMI HIC UMI LI UMI UMI LI HIC HIC HIC UMI UMI UMI UMI HIC HIC LMI LI HIC LMI UMI LI HIC HIC UMI UMI LMI LI
Region
EAP AFR AFR MENA EAP AFR LCR OECD MENA SAR OECD LCR OECD LCR LCR LCR OECD ECA AFR ECA AFR AFR EAP OECD ECA LCR LCR LCR LCR OECD OECD MENA AFR LCR MENA ECA AFR OECD OECD LCR LCR MENA AFR
Collection (%)
100 18 40 100 60 98 91 100 72-100 94 100 73 99 77 51 74 100 90 21 65 95 33-55 100 100 93 98 100 91 80 100 99 80 48 100 95 77 39 100 100 86 86 85 20
Urban/Total
T T T T T T T T T U T T T T T T T T T T T U T T T T T T T T T U U T U T U T T T T U T
86
ANNEX K (continued)

Summary by Income Level Income Level
Number of Countries Included

13 20 27 35 95
MSW Collection (%) Lower Limit

10.62 50.20 50.00 76.00
Upper Limit
55.00 95+ 100.00 100.00
Summary by Region Region


12 6 12 28 10 26 1 95
MSW Collection (%) Lower Limit

17.70 60.00 50.00 10.62 55.60 76.00 94.00
Upper Limit
55.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 95+ 100.00
ANNEX
87
ANNEX L
MSW Disposal Methods by Country

Country
Algeria Antigua and Barbuda Armenia Australia Austria Belarus Belgium Belize Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominica Greece Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Hong Kong, China Hungary Iceland2 Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan3 Korea, South Kyrgyz Republic Latvia Lebanon Lithuania Luxembourg Macao, China2 Madagascar2 Malta Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Monaco4 Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua
Income
UMI HIC LMI HIC HIC UMI HIC LMI UMI LI LMI HIC UMI UMI UMI HIC UMI HIC HIC HIC UMI HIC UMI LMI LMI LI HIC HIC HIC HIC HIC HIC UMI HIC LMI HIC LI UMI UMI UMI HIC HIC LI HIC LMI UMI UMI HIC LMI HIC HIC LMI
Region
MNA LCR ECA OECD OECD ECA OECD LCR ECA EAP AFR OECD LCR LCR LCR ECA LCR ECA OECD OECD LCR OECD LCR LCR LCR LCR EAP OECD OECD OECD MENA OECD LCR OECD MENA OECD ECA ECA MENA ECA OECD EAP AFR MENA EAP AFR LCR OECD MENA OECD OECD LCR
Dumps (%)
96.80
Landlls (%)
0.20 99.00
Compost (%)
1.00
Recycled (%)
2.00 1.00
WTE (%)
21.10 34.32 13.97 54.04 6 9 12 74 14 2 39 32
Other (%)
0.90 17.10 60.74 5.39 27.20 12.80 1.74 0.03 10 78 4 76 0 6 15 1 50 100 13 63 132 17 38
100.00 95.00 54.00 22.37 37 24 60 37 95 34
100.00 69.66 6.75 96.00 11.57 100.00 82.90 100.00 46.00 71.95 69.50 100.00 87.20 79.78 5.09 100.00 92 90 22 59 55 90 72 66 90 54 100 3 85 36 100 40 46 44 19 21 97 88 91 97 27 1 2 85 28
44.72 4.00 22.77 12.48 0.90 11.10 3.24 15.28 1 9 33 8 19 4 6 23
30.34 26.54 31.10 5.00 26.78 0.29 2.40 4.80 1.27 25.57 8 45 3 16 34 10 17 49 8 4 23 31 2 3 4 4 25 15
88
ANNEX L (continued)

Country
Niger Norway Panama Paraguay Peru Poland Portugal5 Romania Singapore6 Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uganda United Kingdom United States Uruguay Venezuela, RB West Bank and Gaza
Income
LI HIC UMI LMI UMI UMI HIC UMI HIC HIC HIC HIC UMI UMI UMI UMI HIC HIC LMI LMI HIC LMI UMI LI HIC HIC UMI UMI LMI
Region
AFR OECD LCR LCR LCR ECA OECD ECA EAP OECD ECA OECD LCR LCR LCR LCR OECD OECD MENA EAP LCR MENA ECA AFR OECD OECD LCR LCR MENA
Dumps (%)
20 42 19 100 >60 6 45 66 32 59 69
Landlls (%)
64 26 56 44 66 92 64 75 15 78 86 52 100 70 78 5 1 <25
Compost (%)
15 3 6 1 33 10 16 <5 0 1 9 8
Recycled (%)
4 34 4 9 47 1 9 34 34 <15 14 5 17 24 1
WTE (%)
25 0 21 12 7 50 50 0 8 14
Other (%)
32 0 24 14 15 25 49 7 14 30 22 0 1 85 94 3 1 66 41
50 30 100 64 54 3 30
NOTES: For sources and year of data, see Annex C. 1. All waste is taken to landlls, where the waste is classed and then sent to different destinations, such as recycling and composting plants. 2. Percentages may not add up to 100 because residues of some treatments, such as incineration and composting, are landlled. 3. Landlling refers to all waste disposed on land. 4. Recycled amount refers to both recycled and composted waste; other includes wastes imported from France for incineration with energy recovery. 5. Landll includes non-controlled dumping sites. 6. MSW includes industrial waste from manufacturing industries; landll includes ash from incineration.
ANNEX
89
ANNEX L (continued)


7 17 27 39 90


6 6 13 27 10 0 28 90
90
ANNEX M
MSW Composition by Country

Country
Albania Algeria Andorra Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Brazil Brunei Darussalam Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominican Republic Egypt, Arab Rep. Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Guinea Guyana Hong Kong, China Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Rep. Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan
Income Level
LMI UMI HIC UMI LMI HIC HIC LI UMI HIC LMI LI LMI LMI UMI HIC LI LMI HIC UMI UMI UMI HIC UMI HIC HIC HIC UMI LMI LI UMI HIC HIC LI LMI HIC LI HIC LMI LI LMI HIC HIC HIC LMI LMI LMI HIC HIC HIC UMI HIC
Region
ECA MENA OECD LCR ECA OECD OECD SAR ECA OECD LCR AFR SAR LCR LCR EAP EAP AFR OECD LCR LCR LCR ECA LCR ECA OECD OECD LCR MENA AFR EAP OECD OECD AFR ECA OECD AFR OECD LCR AFR LCR EAP OECD OECD SAR EAP MENA OECD MENA OECD LCR OECD
Organic (%)
38 70 19 40 51 47 35 71 29 39 60 52 58 24 61 44 55 48 24 50 54 50 46 69 38 18 29 39 60 88 68 33 32 35 39 14 64 47 44 58 49 38 29 26 35 62 43 25 40 29 57 26
Paper (%)
10 10 26 24 12 23 22 5 28 17 20 3 17 6 15 22 3 4 47 19 11 21 20 12 27 8 27 14 10 4 15 40 20 10 34 34 3 20 18 9 24 26 15 26 3 6 22 31 25 28 13 46
Plastic (%)
8 5 14 14 10 4 11 7 10 5 5 7 13 8 15 2 10 5 3 10 10 18 12 10 11 4 1 36 12 2 8 10 9 3 22 4 9 13 4 10 19 17 17 2 10 11 11 13 5 18 9
Glass (%)
5 1 11 5 9 7 8 13 7 5 2 4 2 3 4 8 4 6 2 5 2 7 5 1 4 5 1 3 1 3 5 10 2 3 12 5 5 1 2 3 2 4 1 9 2 5 3 13 5 7
Metal (%)
5 2 3 2 5 5 5 7 3 5 2 1 1 2 5 7 5 13 2 2 2 4 2 9 2 6 1 2 1 3 5 3 2 5 5 1 5 4 1 2 2 2 3 8 9 4 3 2 4 8
Other (%)
34 12 27 15 14 13 19 16 13 29 5 1 7 59 5 13 17 35 8 4 18 7 11 3 13 63 32 10 13 4 4 7 26 51 16 12 28 16 16 27 12 12 35 24 59 4 13 23 16 22 3 12
ANNEX
91
ANNEX M (continued)

Country
Jordan Korea, South Lao PDR Latvia Lebanon Liberia Luxembourg Macao, China Macedonia, FYR Madagascar Malaysia Mali Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Niger Nigeria Norway Pakistan Panama Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Senegal Serbia Sierra Leone Singapore Slovak Republic Solomon Islands Spain Sri Lanka St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uganda United States Uruguay
Income Level
LMI HIC LI UMI UMI LI HIC HIC UMI LI UMI LI LMI UMI UMI LMI LI LI LI HIC HIC LI LMI HIC LMI UMI UMI LMI UMI HIC UMI LI UMI LI HIC HIC LMI HIC LMI UMI HIC HIC LMI LMI LI LMI HIC LMI UMI LI HIC UMI
Region
MENA OECD EAP ECA MENA AFR OECD EAP ECA AFR EAP AFR EAP AFR LCR MENA AFR EAP SAR OECD OECD AFR AFR OECD SAR LCR LCR EAP ECA OECD ECA AFR ECA AFR EAP OECD EAP OECD SAR LCR OECD OECD MENA EAP AFR EAP LCR MENA ECA AFR OECD LCR
Organic (%)
62 28 46 57 63 43 45 4 20 52 62 18 20 70 51 69 69 54 80 35 56 38 57 30 67 44 55 41 38 34 46 44 5 85 44 38 65 49 76 34 29 65 48 46 47 14 68 40-65 78 25 54
Paper (%)
11 24 6 18 10 22 4 24 4 7 4 15 12 15 19 12 8 7 26 21 2 11 33 5 25 7 19 10 21 11 10 37 28 13 6 21 11 32 68 20 10 15 4 31 32 9 7-18 3 34 20
Plastic (%)
16 8 10 7 13 1 24 11 1 12 2 15 9 6 4 10 16 3 19 8 2 18 9 18 11 4 14 10 11 3 3 12 12 7 17 12 6 12 2 15 12 14 10 5 24 11 5-14 1 12 11
Glass (%)
2 5 8 5 1 12 4 5 1 3 1 5 2 6 4 3 7 3 4 3 5 4 2 8 3 3 12 7 11 1 10 4 8 5 8 1 8 11 4 4 5 2 3 3 2 2-6 1 5 3
Metal (%)
2 7 12 3 2 4 1 3 1 6 4 20 3 3 3 2 8 1 4 7 1 5 4 5 2 5 8 4 5 3 5 5 3 6 4 1 6 2 3 2 4 2 8 16 4 1-6 2 8 5
Other (%)
6 28 21 43 4 31 16 63 37 41 10 1 22 4 18 2 4 7 7 12 5 57 4 20 7 7 28 18 23 23 24 39 31 15 7 31 2 7 5 8 17 29 7 14 35 5 12 6 7-24 16 16 8
92
ANNEX M (continued)

Country
Vanuatu Vietnam West Bank and Gaza Zambia Zimbabwe
Income Level
LMI LI LMI LI LI
Region
EAP EAP MENA AFR AFR
Organic (%)
71 60 61 50 40
Paper (%)
11 2 14 5 21
Plastic (%)
8 16 7 5 20
Glass (%)
3 7 3 2 4
Metal (%)
4 6 2 2 4
Other (%)
3 9 13 37 11
NOTE: For sources and year of data, see Annex C.


22 27 25 35 109
Organic (%) Lower Limit

18 20 5 4
Paper (%) Lower Limit

2 3 7 4
Plastic (%) Lower Limit

1 2 3 1
Glass (%) Lower Limit

1 1 1 1
Metal (%) Lower Limit

1 1 1 1
Other (%) Lower Limit

1 2 3 5
Upper Limit
88 76 70 56
Upper Limit
21 34 37 68
Upper Limit
20 18 36 24
Upper Limit
8 9 13 13
Upper Limit
12 20 8 16
Upper Limit
57 59 43 63


19 17 12 18 10 6 27 109
Organic (%) Lower Limit

18 4 5 14 40 14 35
Paper (%) Lower Limit

2 2 10 6 9 8 3
Plastic (%) Lower Limit

1 2 3 4 4 1 2
Glass (%) Lower Limit

1 3 1 1 1 2 1
Metal (%) Lower Limit

1 1 3 1 2 2 1
Other (%) Lower Limit

1 2 11 3 2 5 5
Upper Limit
88 71 65 69 70 56 80
Upper Limit
21 31 37 32 25 68 17
Upper Limit
20 24 12 36 16 22 18
Upper Limit
5 9 13 8 5 13 4
Upper Limit
5 20 9 16 9 13 1
Upper Limit
57 63 43 59 16 63 59
ANNEX
93
ANNEX N
IPCC Classication of MSW Composition

Region Food Waste
26.2 40.3 43.5 41.1
Paper/ Cardboard
18.8 11.3 12.9 18
Wood
Textiles
Asia 3.5 2.5 2.7 2.9 Africa 1.7 2.5 2.5 1 Europe 4.7 2
Rubber/ Leather
1 0.8 0.9 0.6
Plastic
Metal
Glass
Other
Eastern Asia South-Central Asia South-Eastern Asia Western Asia & Middle East Eastern Africa Middle Africa Northern Africa Southern Africa Western Africa Eastern Europe Northern Europe Southern Europe Western Europe Australia & New Zealand Rest of Oceania North America Central America South America Caribbean
3.5 7.9 9.9 9.8
14.3 6.4 7.2 6.3
2.7 3.8 3.3 1.3
3.1 3.5 4 2.2
7.4 21.9 16.3 5.4
53.9 43.4 51.1 23 40.4 30.1 23.8 36.9 24.2 36 67.5 33.9 43.8 44.9 46.9
7.7 16.8 16.5 25 9.8 21.8 30.6 17 27.5 30 6 23.2 13.7 17.1 17
7 6.5 2 15 4.4 7.5 10 10.6 11 24 2.5 6.2 13.5 4.7 2.4
1.1
5.5 4.5 4.5 3
1.8 3.5 3.5 1 3.6 7
2.3 2 2
11.6 1.5 1.5
1.4
6.2 13
10 8
14.6
Oceania
America 3.9 2.6 2.6 5.1
1.4 1.8 0.7 1.9
8.5 6.7 10.8 9.9
4.6 2.6 2.9 5
6.5 3.7 3.3 5.7
9.8 12.3 13 3.5
NOTES: 1. Data are based on weight of wet waste of MSW without industrial waste at generation around year 2000. 2. The region-specic values are calculated from national, partly incomplete composition data. The percentages given may therefore not add up to 100%. Some regions may not have data for some waste types - blanks in the table represent missing data.
94
ANNEX O
The Global City Indicators Program

No single standard or comprehensive system to measure and monitor city performance and urban quality of life exists today. The Global City Indicators Program, driven by cities themselves, lls this important gap. Through the collection and analysis of city data in a comparative format and data domain, elected ofcials, city managers and the public will be able to monitor the performance of their cities over time based on a core set of indicators. The Global City Indicators Program (GCIP) is a decentralized, city-led initiative that enables cities to measure, report, and improve their performance and quality of life, facilitate capacity building, and share best practices through an easy-to-use web portal. GCIP assists cities in providing support to decision makers in making informed policy decisions, in addition to enhancing government accountability to the public. Managing cities effectively and efciently is critical and becoming more complex as population growth and economic development are taking place in urban areas. Todays big challenges, such as poverty reduction, economic development, climate change, and the creation and maintenance of an inclusive and peaceful society, will all need to be met through the responses of cities. So too will the day-to-day challenges of garbage collection, responding to the house on re and larger disasters, and facilitating the provision of water, electricity, education, health care, and the myriad of other services that make life more productive and enjoyable. The pace of change within and among cities is increasing. Indicators need to be anchored on baseline data and need to be sufciently broad to capture social and economic aspects of urban development. Standardized indicators are essential in order to measure the performance of cities, capture trends and developments, and support cities in becoming global partners. The Global City Indicators Program is organized into two broad categories: city services (which includes services typically provided by city governments and other entities) and quality of life (which includes critical contributors to overall quality of life, though the city government may have little direct control on these activities). The two categories are structured around 18 themes. The Global City Indicators Program process encompasses monitoring, reporting, verifying, and amending the indicators. Similar to a Wikipedia approach, the Global City Indicators Program is a dynamic web-based resource (www.cityindicators.org) that allows participating cities across the world to standardize the collection of their indicators and analyze and share the results and best practices on service delivery and quality of life. The Global City Indicators Program is run by the Global City Indicators Facility based at the University of Toronto, which manages the development of indicators and assists cities in joining the Program. A Board of Directors and an Advisory Board oversee the Global City Indicators Facility and provide technical and advisory support to the Facility. The Boards are made up of representatives from cities, international organizations, and academia. The Global City Indicators Program was initiated by the World Bank through funding from the Government of Japan. For more information, please contact the Global City Indicators Facility at: 170 Bloor Street West, Suite 1100 Toronto, Ontario M5S 1T9 Canada Tel + 416-966-2368 Fax +416-966-0478 www.cityindicators.org cityindicators@daniels.utoronto.ca
REFERENCES
95
References
Achankeng, Eric. 2003. Globalization, Urbanization and Municipal Solid Waste Management in Africa. African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacic 2003 Conference. Alam, R., M. Chowdhury, G. Hasan, B. Karanjit, L. Shrestha. 2008. Generation, storage, collection and transportation of municipal solid waste A case study in the city of Kathmandu, capital of Nepal. Waste Management 28:1088-1097. Al-Yous, B. Sound Environmental Management of Solid Waste The Landll Bioreactor. UNEP. Asase, M., E. Yanful, M. Mensah, J. Stanford, S. Amponsah. 2009. Comparison of municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: A case study of the cities of London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana. Waste Management 29:2779-2786. Asomani-Boateng, R. and M. Haight. Reusing organic solid waste in urban farming in African cities: a challenge for urban planners. In Urban Agriculture in West Africa Contributing to Food Security and Urban Sanitation. 1999. O. Smith (Ed.). IDRC. Atudorei, A. Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management in Romania. Case Study Region 8 Bucharest Ilfov. European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services. Bangladesh Department of Environment. 2004. SAARC Workshop on Solid Waste Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, October 10 - 12, 2004. Prepared by Bangladesh DoE, Waste Concern, and ITN-BUET. Batool, S. and M. Nawaz. 2009. Municipal solid waste management in Lahore City District, Pakistan. Waste Management 29:1971-1981. Belarus Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. 2006. Second, Third, Fourth National Communication. Bingh, L. 2004. Opportunities for utilizing waste biomass for energy in Uganda. University of Science and Technology, Oslo, Norway. Business News Americas. 2004. Solid waste generation up 7.88% in 2003 Bolivia. Available at: http://www.bnamericas.com/content_print.jsp?id=283762&idioma=I &sector=&type=NEWS (accessed October 2009). CEROI. 2001. State of the Environment in Dushanbe. Cities Environment Reports on the Internet. UNEP and GIRD-Adrenal. Chalam, Philippe and Catherine Gaillochet. 2009. From Waste to Resources: World Waste Survey, Economica: Paris. City of Cape Town. 2008. Solid waste management. Available at: http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/SolidWaste/Pages/default.aspx (accessed November 2009). CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board, India). 2005. Municipal Solid Waste Waste generation and composition data. Available at: http://cpcb.nic.in/oldwebsite/ Municipal%20Solid%20Waste/Waste_generation_and_ Composition.html (accessed October 2009). Damghani, A., G. Savarypour, E. Zand, R. Deihimfard. 2008. Municipal solid waste management in Tehran: Current practices, opportunities and challenges. Waste Management 28:929-934. Denmark Ministry of Foreign Aairs. Waste Management A regional market overview. Denmark Ministry of Foreign Aairs - Trade Council of Denmark, Western Balkan (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, & Serbia). Environmental Council of Zambia. 2004. National Solid Waste Management Strategy for Zambia. Available at: http://www.necz.org.zm/reports/National%20 Solid%20Waste%20Management%20Strategy.pdf (accessed November 2009). EPA. 2006a. Waste. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. EPA 430-R-06-005. June 2006. EPA. 2006b. Solid waste management and greenhouse gases A life-cycle assessment of emission and sinks. 3rd Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. September 2006. European Environment Agency. 2008. Municipal waste generation per capita. European data set. Available at: http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/ viewpub.asp?id=4056 (accessed November 2009). Grest, J. 2008. Solid Waste Removal in Maputo and Durban. Groupement de recherche international. Workshop on Informality and Access to Services in Cities of Africa. Wits University, July 3 - 4, 2008. Available at: www.gdri-africancities.org (accessed October 2009).
96
Hanrahan, D., S. Srivastava, A. Ramakrishna. 2006. Municipal Solid Waste in India Overview and Challenges. World Bank Environment Unit South Asia Region. Hoornweg, D., P. Lam, M. Chaudhry. 2005. Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations. Urban Development Working Papers No. 9. East Asia Infrastructure Department. World Bank. Hoornweg, D. and L. Thomas. 1999. What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. East Asia and Pacic Region. Urban and Local Government Working Paper. World Bank. Hristovski, K. L. Olson, N. Hild, D. Peterson, S. Burge. 2007. The municipal solid waste system and solid waste characterization at the municipality of Veles, Macedonia. Waste Management 27:1680-1689. Imam, A., B. Mohammed, D.C. Wilson, and C.R. Cheeseman. 2008. Solid waste management in Abuja, Nigeria. Waste Management 28:468-472. IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (Eds). IGES. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 10 Waste management. J. Bogner, Coordinating Lead Author. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds). Cambridge University Press. Israel Ministry of the Environment. 2000. Israel National Report on Climate Change First National Communication to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. ISWA. 2009. Waste and Climate Change. White Paper. International Solid Waste Association. Vienna, Austria. December 2009. Jin, J., Z. Wang, and S. Ran. 2006. Solid waste management in Macaco: Practices and challenges. Waste Management 26:1045-1051. Kassim, S.M. and M. Ali. 2006. Solid waste collection by the private sector: Households perspectiveFindings from a study in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. Habitat International 30:769-780.
Kenya Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. 2002. First National Communication of Kenya to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kgathi, D. and B. Bolaane. 2001. Instruments for sustainable solid waste management in Botswana. Waste Management & Research 19:342-353. Kum, V., A. Sharp, and N. Harnpornchai. 2005. Improving the solid waste management in Phnom Penh city: A strategic approach. Waste Management 25:101-109. Latvia Ministry of Environment. 2006. Fourth National Communication of the Republic of Latvia to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Lithuania Ministry of Environment. 2005. Lithuanias Third and Fourth National Communication on Climate Change. Macedonia. 1996. National Environmental Action Plan. Government of Macedonia. McIntyre, M. 2005. Pacic Environment Outlook - Special Edition for the Mauritius International Meeting for the 10year Review of the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. UNEP and SPREP PROE. METAP. 2004. Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Programme Solid Waste Management Centre. Available at http://www.metap-solidwaste. org/ (accessed October 2- 009). Mongolia Ministry of Nature and the Environment. 2001. Mongolias Initial National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ngoc, U and H. Schnitzer. 2009. Sustainable solutions for solid waste management in Southeast Asian countries. Waste Management 29:1982-1995. OECD. 2008. OECD Environmental Data Waste. OECD. PAHO. 2005. Report on the Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in Latin America and the Caribbean. Pan American Health Organization. Available at: http://www.cepis.ops-oms.org/residuossolidos/evaluacion/i/index.html#Scene_1 (accessed November 2009). Parrot, L., J. Sotamenou, and B. Kamgnia Di. 2009. Municipal solid waste management in Africa: Strategies and livelihoods in Yaound, Cameroon. Waste Management 29:986-995.
REFERENCES
97
Pasang, H., G. Moore, and G. Sitorus. 2007. Neighbourhood-based waste management: A solution for solid waste problems in Jakarta, Indonesia. Waste Management 27:1924-1938. Patriotic Vanguard. 2007. World Bank Report: Solid Waste Management in Freetown. The Patriotic Vanguard Newspaper. Available at http://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/article.php3?id_article=955# (accessed October 2009). Payet, R. 2003. Solid Waste Management in Indian Ocean Islands and Seychelles. Waste Management Experts Meeting, Havana, Cuba. October 27 November 1, 2003. Perera, K. 2003. An Overview of the Issue of Solid Waste Management in Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Environment and Health. M. Bunch, V. Suresh and T. Kumaran (Eds.), Chennai, India, December 15 -17, 2003. Peterson, C. 1979, Excise Tax on New Tires Proposed: Scrap Tires Arise As Special Disposal Problem. Waste Age. May 1979. Phuntsho, S., S. Heart, and D. Yangden. 2008. Results of the rst national solid waste survey in the urban areas of Bhutan. National Conference on Solid Waste Management, Thimphu, Bhutan. August 18-20-2008. Saeed, M., M. Hassan, M. Mujeebu. 2009. Assessment of municipal solid waste generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Management 29:2209-2213. Samake, M., Z. Tang, W. Hlaing, and J. Wang. 2009. State and Management of Solid Wastes in Mali: Case Study of Bamako. Environmental Research Journal 3(3):81-86. Shekdar, A. 2009. Sustainable solid waste management: An integrated approach for Asian countries. Waste Management 29:1438-1448. Singapore. 2009. Yearbook of Statistics Singapore. Government of Singapore. Slovenia Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning. 2006. Slovenias Fourth National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Solomon, U. 2009. The state of solid waste management in Nigeria. Waste Management 29:2787-2790.
Tadesse, T., A. Ruijs, and F. Hagos. 2008. Household waste disposal in Mekelle city, Northern Ethiopia. Waste Management 28:2003-2012. Tchobanoglous, G., H. Thiesen, and S. Vigil. 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, USA. Turan, N., S. oruh, A. Akdemir, O. Ergun. 2009. Municipal solid waste management strategies in Turkey. Waste Management 29:465-469. Turkmenistan Ministry of Nature Protection. 2000. Turkmenistan: Initial National Communication on Climate Change. UNEP. 2002. State of the Environment Maldives. United Nations Environment Programme Regional Resource Centre for Asia and the Pacic. UNEP. 2007. Assessment of Solid Waste Management in Liberia. United Nations Environment Programme in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia. UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 2004. Municipal solid waste composition: for 7 OECD countries and 7 Asian cities. UNEP/ GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. Available at: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/municipal_solid_ waste_composition_for_7_oecd_countries_and_7_ asian_cities (accessed April 2010). UNESCWA. 2007. Compendium of Environmental Statistics in the ESCWA Region. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. UNFCCC. 2005. Inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases. Addendum to: Sixth compilation and synthesis of initial national communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. December 6, 2005. http://unfccc.int/resource/ docs/2005/sbi/eng/18a02.pdf (accessed July 2010) UN-Habitat. 2009. Solid Waste Management in the Worlds Cities. UNSD. 2009. UNSD Environmental Indicators Waste. United Nations Statistics Division. Available at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/ENVIRONMENT/qindicators.htm (accessed November 2009).
98
USAID. 2009. Environmental Guidelines for SmallScale Activities in Africa. 2nd Ed. ENCAP (Environmentally Sound Design and Management Capacity Building for Partners and Programs in Africa). Available at: http://www.encapafrica.org/egssaa.htm (accessed November 2009). van de Klundert, A. and J. Anschtz. 2001. Integrated Sustainable Waste Management- the Concept. Tools for Decision-makers. Experiences from the Urban Waste Expertise Programme (1995-2001). WASTE.
Vego, G., S. Kuar-Dragievi, N. Koprivanac. 2008.Application of multi-criteria decision-making on strategic municipal solid waste management in Dalmatia, Croatia. Waste Management 28:2192-2201. WASTE. 2005. Available at http://www.waste.nl (accessed May 2010). World Bank. 2004. Vietnam Environment Monitor 2004 Solid Waste. Jointly prepared by World Bank, Vietnam Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, and CIDA.
For more information about the Urban Development Series, contact: Urban Development and Local Government Unit Sustainable Development Network The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC, 20433 USA Email: urbanhelp@worldbank.org Website: www.worldbank.org/urban
March 2012, No. 15

What A Waste - A Global Review of Solid Waste Management

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

What A Waste - A Global Review of Solid Waste Management

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Public Disclosure Authorized

Public Disclosure Authorized

Public Disclosure Authorized

Public Disclosure Authorized

Daniel Hoornweg and Perinaz Bhada-Tata March 2012, No. 15

Urban Development Series

Copyright World Bank, 2012 All rights reserved

Maxim Tupikov /Shutterstock.com

URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES KNOWLEDGE PAPERS