International Experience and Economicsof Solid Waste Management

A Thesis PresentedTo the Faculty of theCollege of Social Sciences

In Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements of the DegreeBachelor of Arts in the Social Sciences

Rimpillo, Marian Guille G.

February 2014ii | International Experience and Economics of Solid Waste Management

College of Social SciencesUniversity of the Philippines BaguioApproval SheetThis is to recommend the approval of the thesis of Marian Guille Garcia Rimpillo entitled International Experience and Economics of Solid Waste Management. This is in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelors of Arts in Social Sciences.

Arturo C. BoquirenThesis AdviserNoted:

Nimreh L. CaldeChairperson, Department of Economics and Political Science (DEPS)Approved:

Lorelei C. MendozaDean, College of Social SciencesAcknowledgement

This thesis would not be possible first and foremost to my thesis adviser, Sir Arturo Boquiren: for being open-minded and listening to my ideas which would normally be deemed unconventional and for giving me an upstart on how my ideas could be heeded and developed.I thank my parents who do everything just for my comforts: my father Mario Rimpillo who ventured away to give us a life of ease at the expense of his own, most especially for his unica ija, because you herald me as a princess it pushes me to not waste time, opportunity and other blessings that come my way; and my mother Elma Rimpillo who continuously checks up on my progress, reminds me to eat and sometimes even closes the lights down for me to sleep already, but most of all I find it fantastic the way she hushes everyone down because she knows I need my odd wee hours to myself. I also appreciate that my younger twin sisters for the time-being that I request I would need concentration, tried their best to be in their good behavior: not making kulit first to their ate.I am grateful for the ones who stark up inquisitiveness that betters my formulations and analytics: Mr. Bernard Okubo for intellectual discussions while drinking hot beverages and also for supporting me like a father. I am most grateful to my co-abalone: Teroji Okubo for being my greatest motivator and acolyte! Without you I could not have finished, with keeping my serenity at that.AbstractTrash can be treasure if managed effectively. The study presented each top countrys SWM profile ranging from production, transformation and disposal. Revenues from taxes per ton are as follows: Austria, Netherlands and US make use primarily landfill tax which yield $120, $177.80 and a base fee of $32.19 with increase of $1.62 per ton per year respectively; while Japan has a more sophisticated taxation with appropriation to type of industry and elasticity of product but basically an increase of a 1% reduction in final waste would yield saving of about $9.40. On recycling, Austria and Netherlands earn per ton $70 on glass, $210 on paper, and $420 on plastics; Japan earns per ton $107.48 on glass, $312.45 on furniture and appliances, and $200-$400 on plastics; US earn per ton $4.890 on glass, $235.300 on paper, $448.335 on steel, $1050.000 on plastics, and $2730.000 on aluminum. On organic waste/composting, per ton the European countries incur $70-1,400, US is $123, and Japan has developed coefficients of how many tons per sector can incur $10million. Lastly, savings are made in WTE on non-petroleum substitute fuels, oil and electricity. With the actualized methods and results, the study analyzed applications for the Philippines. With investigation to the Philippines waste context, viable strategies have been proposed to improve the nations current state: implementation of policies and economic instruments are immediately applicable and could cause earnings for development in technology to not be dependent on just partnerships but long-term betterment and sustainability of the Philippines ISWM.Table of Contents

Title Page...iAcknowledgement.........iiAbstract.......iiiTable of Contents...ivI. IntroductionA. Background of the Study..1B. Significance of the Study...7C. Statement of the Problem and Research Objectives.10II. Review of Related Literature..12III. MethodologyA. Framework of Analysis...31B. Data Gathering and Analysis...32C. Scope and Limitations..35D. Definition of Key Terms.42E. Abbreviation and Acronyms44IV. Results and DiscussionA. Identification of Countries with Most Advanced Experience in SWM...45B. Narration of Most Advanced Countries ISWM Profiles.........51C. Recognition of Returns from Effective ISWM.......68D. Possible Application of Advance Country Experiences to Philippines.........83V. Conclusions and Recommendations A. Conclusions95B. Recommendations.100

I. Introduction

A. Background of the StudyThe generation of waste is a mirror image of economic growth since as ISWA relays on the account of their observing of the best Waste-to-Energy, products create waste during raw material extraction, production, trade, shipment, and when being used before ultimately becoming waste themselves (ISWA, 2010). For both developed and developing nations, there is similarity in demand trend: populations continue to increase and so does consumption patterns thus resulting to waste management becoming an issue of global concern, however, the growth of the solid-waste market, increasing resource scarcity and the availability of new technologies are offering opportunities for turning waste into a resource (UNEP GEAS, 2013). Hence besides concerning with maximum profit retrieved on consummation, other within-operation-based maximization is a sought of transition to which the goal of maximum returns aims at sustainable development already. The World Bank recognizes sustainable development and that this may have many definitions. The landmark surfacing on 1987 is that it is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED, 1987, p. 43).Later on, the International Institute for Sustainable Development was established and it adheres to the Brundtland Report of the World Commission on Environment and Developments definition but just further standardizing that sustainable development must contain two key concepts: the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the worlds poor, and the idea oflimitationsimposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs (IISD, 2013). Besides then looking after sustainable growth, there is a seeking of appropriation of context: to look after which sectors or areas have difficulty in attaining their needs and then how to go about it with the available and/or could be acquired capital (like by IISD mentioning social organization an technology, emphasizes the vitality of people resource management and pragmatics workability).Nations are indeed seeing a value in sustainable development as observable with almost each establishing a millennium (or varying time-period) development plan which is not only geared to achieving economic development but finding more ways of sustaining it. The congregation of UN is one which pushes for millennium development goals (MDGs) most persistently and its efforts have resulted to the MDGs having been the most successful global anti-poverty push in history (UN, 2013, p. 3) but UN admits in their 2013 report that the achievement of the MDGs has been uneven among and within countries (UN, 2013, p. 3). It has enlisted eight goals with which the top seven is Ensure Environmental Sustainability'.But not just the supposed most cautious allocator which is the government which has a big role in upholding sustainable development as part of its nations future orientation but even profit-oriented sectors are highly integrating sustainable development to their working mechanisms. As one of the world's largest professional services firms, Pricewaterhouse Coopers in 2006, foresees that sustainable development will steadily advance over the next decade, with six major trends influencing industry world-wide (Kate Alexander, 2006): growing influence of global market forces, consumerism not limited to government policy; revisions in the financial model draw on to set corporate and government strategy; innovation, particularly in core industries; globalization where international institutions will be responsible for formulating global policies and the role of national or local institutions will be limited to implementation; evolution, not revolution so progress toward sustainable development will be largely incremental and barriers to rapid change will cease to exist, but specific catalysts may cause spurts of great change; communication such that the global media may influence which issues governments and industries focus on and accelerate the speed of changes in policy and behavior.Not only has sustainable development been an increasing concern in the government and public sector, but it is also an increasing priority on income generating and other private sectors. The global society is really integrating between sectors so we can say sustainable development shall be furthered in future economic undertakings where we see that there is a rising dynamism in the public and private sectors to care for making ends meet now and in the years to come.More particularly, there is a new lobbied specific transition which is Green Economy. UNEPs publishing on a synthesis for policy makers entitled Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication shows magnanimous rewards of greening the worlds economies are tangible and considerable, that the means are at hand for both governments and the private sector, and that the time to engage the challenge is now (UNEP, 2011, p. 1). To establish how young this new wave is, the report paints out how it is developing in terms of integration it observed prior to the reports publishing in 2011 wherein the last two years have seen idea of a green economy float out of its specialist moorings in environmental economics and into the mainstream of policy discourse:It is found increasingly in the words of heads of state and finance ministers, in the text of G20 communiqus, and discussed in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication[footnoteRef:2]. [2: The Rio+20 agenda has adopted green economy as a key theme in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication nearly 20 years after the Earth Summit was held also there.]

(UNEP, 2011, p. 1)UNEP defines a green economy as one that results in social equity by improving human well-being, while significantly reducing environmental scarcities and ecological risks. The concept of a green economy does not replace sustainable development, but there is now an emerging recognition that achieving sustainability rests almost entirely on getting the economy right (UNEP, 2011, p. 2). Having a green economy then is a great component for being sustainably developed.Status quo is that we are living in an era of capital misallocation. As UNEPs green initiative characterizes several concurrent crises have either sprung up or accelerated during the last decade: crises in climate, biodiversity, fuel, food, water, and of late in the financial system and the economy as a whole (UNEP, 2011, p. 1). Our heavily industrialized world has promulgated the highest production and consummation ever and it is logical how there are these backlashes. The Industrial Revolutionmarked a major turning point in Earths ecology and humans relationship with their environment such that it dramatically changed every aspect of human life and lifestyles: the impact on the worlds psyche would not begin to register until the early 1960s, some 200 years after its beginnings (McLamb, 2011) -from human development such as health and life longevity then to social improvements of such and the impact on natural resources such as energy usage and sanitation then to their economic repercussions, the effects were profound.Susan Strasser author of the book Waste and Want: A Social History of Trash, spoke at Harvards Geological Lecture Hall as part of the Peabody Museum of archaeologyand Ethnologys fall lecture series, Trash Talk and in her lecture entitled Rags, Bones, and Plastic Bags: Trash in Industrial America she claims, In all cultures, people reuse stuff. Thats what the Industrial Revolution interrupted (Powell, 2011) so she tracked the evolution of refuse from the 19th century to the present. Before the Industrial Revolution, Strasser said trash was virtually unknown. Without widespread mechanization and absent a ready supply of consumer goods, people developed the skills to make and maintain the things they owned. The household functioned under a cultural framework that saw worth in individual handiwork and the maintenance of a familys possessions for years and even generations as she encapsulates, People used to be stewards of things, and their reuse was a fundamental skill of life (Powell, 2011)and by the end of the 19th century and early in the 20th, it was altered by the rise of new manufacturing methods that made mass production of goods possible, lowering their cost just to make commodities available throughout the masses. But the subsequent effect to the masses is that the lowered cost also lessened incentives to care for things as diligently as in the past (Powell, 2011). New line of products meant new wastes generated as Strausser identifies: disposables, made with the express purpose of eventually being thrown away, with industrialization came the idea of affordable luxuries, an increased emphasis on fashion, style, and acquiring the latest technological innovations and what arose was an association of poverty with mending things and reusing them (Powell, 2011). She recounts, Through the early part of the Industrial Revolution, there were no landfills, no incinerators. There just simply wasnt that much trash (Powell, 2011) and attributes it so from production and disposal being part of the same processes much like how households traditionally operate. As consumer society took hold, cities began to institutionalize the easy creation of trash through garbage pickup. For the first time, families could drop things they no longer wanted into a trash can, cart it to the curb, and never see the trash again (Powell, 2011). The government did not curb the unsustainable practices then and just catered to a linear profitability: of how industries could produce more to cater to more consumers, thus only concerning itself to waste collection and not much of the intrinsic practices on waste generation and extrinsic process of possibly waste transformation.The most rapidly generating type of waste was determined by UNEP in 2009 were solid and hazardous waste which is attributed to continuous economic growth, urbanization and industrialization, is becoming a burgeoning problem for national and local governments to ensure effective and sustainable management of waste (UNEP-DTIE, 2009, p. 2). It was estimated that in 2006 the total amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated globally reached 2.02 billion tones, representing a 7% annual increase since 2003 (Key Note, 2007). It is further estimated that between 2007 and 2011, global generation of municipal waste will rise by 37.3%, equivalent to roughly 8% increase per year (UNEP-DTIE, 2009, p. 2).Waste management does not only reflect societies utilization of resources available therein but their general relationship with the environment. My input-output analysis and theorizing interest has been vested on the deemed greatest component of those incurred in society which is management of solid waste.

B. Significance of the Study1. Importance and timeliness of the issue:Urbanization has increased in speed and scale in recent decades, with more than half the worlds population now living in urban centers ( DESA, 2012). By 2050, urban dwellers probably will account for 86 per cent of the population in developed countries and for 64 per cent of the population in developing countries ( DESA, 2012). Rapid urban population growth has resulted in a number of land-use and infrastructural challenges, including municipal solid-waste management. Not just with the upkeeps, but with the culmination of an effective SWM, it is said that national and municipal governments often have insufficient capacity or funding to meet the growing demand for solid-waste management services (Tacoli, 2012). Solid-waste management is the single largest budget item for many cities (UN-Habitat, 2010) which goes to show how important SWM is. According to World Banks estimation, urban authorities in Asia spend an estimated 50-70% of their revenues on waste management and the effect of neglecting the environment is said to cost an average 5% of the GDP. There must not be just spending allocated to waste management but conceptualizing it to the most sustainable way that it could be so there would not be further losses and for possible gains.2. Contribution to the Issue:Although rich in empirical detail, studies in environmental history and economics often strike world system analysts as theoretically underdeveloped. They generally do not address the fact that landscape changes in core areas have been recursively connected with those in peripheral areas. Although several books claim to deal with global environmental issues (e.g. McNeill, 2000[footnoteRef:3]; Hughes, 2001[footnoteRef:4]; Richards, 2003[footnoteRef:5]; Radkau, 2008[footnoteRef:6]; Simmons, 2008[footnoteRef:7]), they are rarely global in this sense (Hornborg, 2010). SWM studies with cross-comparison on different locations tend to offer a series of national and local case studies, focusing more of the environmental records of individual nations and groups rather than on the global and historical experiences and material flows that have generated their problems as well as their options. In this study: [3: Something New Under the Sun] [4: An Environmental History of the World] [5: The Unending Frontier] [6: Nature and Power: A GlobalHistory of the Environment] [7: Global Environmental History 10,000 BC to AD 2000]

Not only stages of operation was looked into, but also economic instruments used to induce sustainability within the operation and participation as a whole; Not only gain showcasing happened, but also prying for savings that can be obtained from effectively mitigating trade-offs like environmental harms other externalities that may add up to costs.Considering that many ofthese authors use words such as global and world in the titles oftheir books, it is remarkable that so few of them really consider the world as a system (Hornborg, 2010). The framework considered in the study was: Not just determining the statistically/pioneering best countries But moreover, including respect of representation across differently acclaimed geopolitical arenas Most of all, bearing in mind not only materializations in place-setting but also economic considerations and values inculcated that brought rise to success in SWM.The award-winning book of Pomeranz makes a useful distinction that most of these global narratives treat different regions in terms of comparisons rather than connections (Pomeranz, 2009, p. 25). Analyses, conclusions and recommendations made in this study from successes of the most advanced countries were not just parallelized to the Philippines but are appropriated. This study is more of a connection-building than merely comparing: primarily addressing to exhibit the integration of sectors that give rise to waste management and how the efficiency of these sectors yields economic benefits.Thus the ultimate contribution is showing that the real triumph on management is learning, and not just copying, how to turn what is considered trash into beneficial turnover for the state. The desired result would be shown possible via first giving consideration to the socio-economic situation and then how utmost utilization of owns economical advantages may be plausible for both the short run and the long run.

C. Statement of the Problem and Research ObjectivesThe main purpose of the study was to examine the economics and international experience on garbage, specifically the most generated which is on Solid Waste Management to observe how garbage has been profitable to successful nations in integrated solid waste management and to culminate effective actions for an ISWM that would profit also the Philippines and also to which it could gain sustainable development.

The research was aimed at achieving the following objectives:1. Identify the countries with the most advance experience in waste management2. Narrate the details of the experiences of the countries focusing on:a) SWM Policies and Economic Instrumentsb) Circulation of Waste Compositionc) Approach and Facilitiesd) Budget Allocated or Fundinge) Returns and By Products3) Identify the experiences applicable in the Philippines in the immediate or long term and the economics

II. Review of Related Literature

A. Waste Management1. Origins of Managing Waste:The necessities of waste management goes back as early as the 7th century B.C. primarily catching intellectuals eyes due to the health concerns it raised and the abnormality it caused lands and public spaces, primarily where urbanization was to be found. The Romans capture their creation of sewage systems capturing refuse and materials from latrines to be drained into the Tiber. But as each society prospered and expanded, they develop new waste systems according to certain economic trends of their times. We could take Middle-Ages latter disuse of the Roman style of sewerage was replaced it with Urban brooks and moats, having surface run-off rainwater and drainage waters, to suit the artisan activities of the time due to the professions mechanical value of water. But, as time progressed, certain societies in the Middle-Ages till the Renaissance rather turned to creating privies and later underground reservoirs under dry latrines which even developed a new profession of cesspool emptier[footnoteRef:8]. By the 13th century human waste was prohibited to be dumped in sewers and river due to its contamination of surround water bodies take the case of Paris where the Grand Egout or the Great Sewer had its back water at Right Bank (Barles, 2010, pp. 1-4). By the 18th century the role of environment to health was emphasized primarily by the medical sector. The state of the environment was then taken to account an areas morbidity and mortality. Cities were subject to a negative natural balance but also it general population having shorter life span, in comparison to its neighboring countryside. Many of the doctors then detected the airs degradation furthered diseases due to the accumulation of human waste and contamination of grounds. This led to the establishment of better policies, such as airing cities and reducing human and urban waste, through which was further developed throughout the 19th century integrating industrialization, urbanization and recycling (Barles, 2010, p. 5). [8: a vacuum truckwhich removes contaminated water from hollows (cesspools andsewagetanks) and carries it to a disposal point. ]

2. Relationship of Waste Management to Economic GrowthThroughout the development of worlds industries and communities, a trade-off between high standards of sustainable economic growth and of environmental quality has been a fragile and extensive issue. Different independent organizations and nations have been tireless in their pursuit of balancing the scales. Firstly, let us focus on economic activities; wherein a higher prerequisite of energy and raw materials results to a high waste production. An economic survey done in Europe at 2003 tried to define the varying scales of economic-environmental relationships. Panayotous study which primarily delved on the inverted U relationship between environment quality and economic growth with the use of Kuznets curve in inquiring on (Panayotou, 2003, pp. 45-72): level of per capita income on the turning point, gravity of damage that would have taken place and ways it can be avoided, also violations on ecological thresholds and degradation of the environment if irreversible damage is not circumvented, correlation of environmental improvement to income level and other factors such as conscious institutional and policy reforms and approaches to accelerate development process so that developing and transition economies can attain the same improved economic and environmental conditions enjoyed by developed market economies (Panayotou, 2003, p. 52).Notice that the questions of income, damage and ecological factors are phrased generally. This is due the Kuznets model changing results caused by the varying variables used through its focus (population growth, income distribution, international, trade and time-and-space-dependent etc.). Various studies made using this model although concede to a general fact that if the variables compared are from the income environment relationship the EKC or the environmental Kuznet curve may prove useful. The simplest explanation as to understanding the EKC was introduced by Adreoni and Levinson (Panayotou, 2003, p. 49) by having the variables of good and bad: whereas a rising income was attained by the consumption of good but at the cost of generating the bad. The consumer is then faced with a trade-off wherein to reduce the ill effects of the bad the consumer must sacrifice part of his income to abatement programs rather than a focused spending on the good. The inverted U-shape is then presented first on the increase of returns when it is characterized by the abatement technology the consumer can avail of. Having a high income consumer, compared to a low income consumer, then can easily achieve more consumption and less pollution where an abatement technology can only be characterized by its increasing returns when it requires a lumpy investment or when lower marginal cost requires larger fixed costs. Essentially low income consumers are not large enough or polluted enough to obtain a positive return. Hence, low income consumers tend to invest more on low fixed cost or high marginal cost technologies. Conclusively, only a high income consumer gets to be effective on the usage of high fixed cost, low marginal cost technologies. In respect, those different pollutants have different abatement technologies. Khan then substantiates the said study by producing results of his own having a study in California, Chauhudri and Pfaff proving the relationship between carbon emissions and household income and in Pakistan, the relationship of indoor waste and household income (Panayotou, 2003, p. 49). By conclusion of the EKC, having no scarcity of microfoundations in proving the inverted U-shape be it via income and pollution, abatement technology and customer preferences let us proceed to further substantiation of the economic growths relationship to pollution.By the 1990s the EKC studies boomed to test a variety of pollutants. But more importantly Panayotou focuses on studied the income environment relationship. One of the studies reviewed by Panayotou was an EKC focus on environmental degradation which had samples of 149 countries during the 1960 1990 using functional specifications of log linears, log quadratics and logarithmic cubic polynomial forms. This study concluded that although deforestation was independent from income, the lack of clean water and sanitation, water pollution, municipal waste and carbon emissions increased uniformly with income having their turning points between the income levels of $300 to $4000. Panayotou however with the use of cross section data and a translog specification found turning points of the pollutants at $3000 to $5000 income levels in observance of the raise of exchange rates. Furthermore, Panayotous EKC application on deforestation then proved a turning point at $ 800 per capita. Deforestation as he claims is significantly greater in tropical and densely populated countries. The studies mentioned may only provide a net effect between income and environment providing that income may have several factors involved but a study by Panayotou, Islam and Vincent further clarify how the inverted U within the EKC model is attained by having three distinct structural forces that affect environmental quality, these are: the scale of economic activity, the composition or structure of economic activity, and the effect of income on the demand and supply of pollution abatement efforts (Panayotou, 2003, p. 52).These result in naming respective effects on the environment, the scale of the said effect and the pure income or abatement effect. With an established formula (Panayotou, 2003, p. 52):[Ambient pollution level] =[GDP per unit of area] x [composition of GDP] x [Abatement efforts]This suggests that having a large scale of economic activity per unit of area, pollution levels higher having all else equal. The structural change within economic activity and environmental quality is dictated by the economic activitys veering towards lower or higher pollution intensity. Subsequently, at lower levels of income the increase of pollution intensity is a result of a dominant shift of agriculture towards industry. In comparison, high level incomes in an industry avail services which lower pollution intensity. The composition effect, therefore, results to be a non-monotonic function of the GDP (an Inverted U). If the income is stripped of its scale and composition effects, having a pure income, to derive income effect on demand and supply of environmental quality results show that a low income country is focused more food and shelter and has little effect on environmental quality demand. But, at high income countries, the rising income led to the demand of environmental quality since food and shelter is already at a normative good if not superior state.International trades explanation though on the other hand may vary on its sloping segment of the inverted U shape between pollutants and income. A certain hypothesis to this is high income countries tend to trade or invest pollution intensive products to poorer countries due to lower environmental standards. Grossman and Kreuger (Panayotou, 2003, p. 53) states that developing countries may then not find poorer countries to serve their production of pollution intensive goods, thus, an indication that the past may not be a good predictor of the future. International trade may have its blurry lines in the income environment relationship that other economist shifted their style of approach by focusing on countries consumption rather than its production. However, a study by Ekins that negated the EKC hypothesis proved still to be faulty at its methodology having the aggregation of so many dissimilar indicators that the systematic co-variance with income was eliminated. Conclusively, International trade needs more studies to clarify its role in an income environment relationship. Although, a growing number of studies provide evidence that open economies tend to be cleaner than closed ones. Being that an inverted U-shaped relationship between income and environment established. It suggests that a country can outgrow environmental problems with a normal economic growth. This is due to results dictating that an environment eventually gets worse before it gets better. The strategy proposed by this is a quick economic growth to surpass the environmentally bad stage of the EKC. Now, the step to be observed next is the countrys policy intervention. A policy factors in this relationship by whether it delays or advances, weakens or strengthens either the environmental variable or the economic one. Taking to account low income countries, it may take decades to outgrow the bad environmental stage in the EKC this suggests that the accumulated damage done to the environment maybe too high for the present value of higher future growth. Consequently, an active environmental policy that mitigates pollution and resource depletion may be justifiable under the grounds of economics. In the same context, a present prevention may in turn be more cost effective than a future one taking for example safe disposal of toxic wastes. Economic inefficiency and unnecessary environmental degradation, therefore, are deemed consequences of market and policy failure which results to a far more critical ecological threshold thus irreversible change occurs. Examples of such events are the loss of biodiversity, extinction of species and irrecoverable depletion on natural resources. In support Munasighe (Panayotou, 2003, p. 55) suggests that while economy wide reforms in poor countries are aimed at accelerating economic growth the environmental impacts it produces may cause it to exceed a safe ecological threshold. In conclusion, he suggests policies to have adjustment of the timing and sequencing of policy reforms and complementary measures to address specific distortions and tunnel through the EKC, while cautioning against the temptation of making major changes in economy-wide policies merely to achieve minor environmental (and social) gains (Panayotou, 2003, p. 55).Similarly, Arrow et al, suggests bettering off ecosystem dynamics vis--vis signals to economic agents by providing right incentives for protecting ecological systems.

B. Industrial Growths and Demands1. Agriculture:There is an increase of demand and land aggregation. On a global scale of assessment, the agricultural sector has significantly increased in land use and production, in a trade-off, so as rates of soil degradation, nutrient pollution, biodiversity loss and the likes have increased as well.High yielding crop-varieties, fertilization, irrigation and pesticides have factored in to increasing food production. These few decades alone primary crops have triple with only a 12% increase in cropland. While the total production has had significant increase this cannot be said on a person to person basis having only an increase of a third. Agricultural intensification however, if compared between high-income regions to low income regions have significant differences both in its economic production and waste production. While a dramatic increase in food production in Western Europe is observed it must be noted that its agricultural land has in effect been reduced. This result is attained by the high income region to avail high technological farming. Compared to Western Africa with a low technology scale have increased production via agricultural land expansion. Similar cases could be said on the 60% majority of global farmers. In correlation, the industrialization of agriculture has shifted from a state centered national agricultural development into a privatized system structured to service the international demand. Evidence suggests that by 2005 alone 50% of all commercial seed are controlled by 10 corporations; and 75% of the market is controlled by only 5 grain trading companies (IRP, p. 36) . With this degree of intensification the usage of fertilizers may have increased food production the degradation of environmental quality has been significant as well. Consequently, this has led to a high nutrient pollution not only within land areas but extends itself to marine ecosystems as well.By 2005, a study by Lepers et al suggests that agricultural expansion as well as conversion of natural habitats have been the two key causes in degradation within the biodiversity and ecological systems. Not only does this affect animal and plant species it, as well, degrades soil quality. By 2009 Van Vuuren and Faber (IRP, p. 34) have noted that in order to halt the biodiversity loss, agricultural lands must be stabilized. The priority of the international community in a sense is not only to protect and maintain natural ecosystems but also to address the increased demand of agricultural products.Other vital products of agriculture are climate change and food security. The IPPC has concluded that fossil-fuel combustion and land use changes has had significant emissions which attribute to climate change. Land use, particularly, and land cover change emit GHGs (greenhouse gases) to the atmosphere via the degradation of land which increases carbon dioxide inland. The main driver for such damage however is intensified by the sequence of deforestation followed by agriculture. Other GHG emissions trail after with the inclusion of methane from altered hydrologies; wetland drainages and rice paddies, cattle grazing. Also, the input of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers alongside nitrogen fixing plants and biomass combustion has led to nitrous oxide presence within agriculture. Food security though is another important factor to understand agricultural booms. Not only that 70-80 % (IRP, p. 37) of income by the affected population goes to food, the consequences such as increased infant and child mortality of those already undernourished and those who live in poverty must be taken note of. Although food prices have had a long term decline due to the massive increase in agricultural production this too has in turn been raising production costs such as fuel, fertilizer, and more recently the demand for bio fuels which conclusively offsets the downward trend of price. This trend would then also be attributed to population growth and diet change caused by modernization and urbanization of areas.While the average food price of today linger below their peak in 2008 a similar level is attained this 2011 although are higher in many developing countries. These crises of food and energy would then set new pressures on the global economic system as a whole. Countries with a high share of food imports and limited fiscal spaces would then result to a net increase in extreme poverty, having 44 million people in developing countries (IRP, p. 37). The demand for food however would still increase towards 2050 still as a result of population growth and new demands, increased incomes and growing consumption of meat and dairy products according to a projection by the OECD-FAO.Despite the harms of agricultural intensification to the environment, it may present benefits as well in the form of agricultural products in export to support a national economy. In the case of Argentina, whose exports rose from 23.3 to 68.1 billion USD, innovation within the agricultural sector was made during the rising demand of its cash crops making the country maximize its opportunities in terms of environmental taxes to create programs from poverty alleviation to external debt payment.2. The Urban Sector and its Problems:The urban sector may be by far the most complex of sectors when it comes to waste production having the agreed UN term of Municipal Solid Waste or the MSW. MSWs then are subdivided within 4 categories of waste: Residential, Commercial, Institutional and Municipal Services, each waste is primarily produced by the aforementioned respectively. MSW on the current global scale rakes at about 1.3 billion tons a year and is projected to increase to 2.2 billion by 2025 according to the urban development series (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012, p. 1). But to be more accurate MSW production must be seen on higher specificities such as by region, country or city. Urban consumers though produce twice as much compared to rural consumers. This is due to factors become more intensified in urban areas. We encounter degree of industrialization, public habits, local climate and the degree of urbanization itself, as standards of living increase the consumption of goods and services increase correspondingly. Viewing by region, the case of sub-Saharan Africa leads waste production with an approximate of 62 million tons per year. This varies though upon a person to person basis, having a 0.09 to 3.0 kg person per day averaging to a 0.65kg/capita/day. Similarly island countries read the highest per capita rates due to the waste generated by its tourism industry augmented by it general waste. Comparatively East Asia and the Pacific Region result to 270 million tons per year having China responsible of the 70% generation with a person to person average of 0.44 to 4.3 kg per day. Eastern and Central Asia generates 93 million tons a year having 8 countries without data. Latin America and the Caribbean had the most consistent data results to 160 million per year having capita values at 0.1 to 14kg/capita/ day, these averages to a 1.1kg/capita/day. In comparison to Africa, the Caribbean generates more waste per capita. Middle East and North America generates 63million tons per year. Per capita generation is 0.16 to 5.7kg/capita/day which average to 1.1kg/capita/day. OECD countries generate 572million tons per year with a capita range of 1.1-3.7kg per person which averages to 2.2 kg/capita/day. Finally the South Asia region generates 70 million tons per year with a capita range of 0.12 to 5.1 kg per person with an average of 0.45kg/capita/day. Comparatively high income countries produce most waste per capita while low income countries produce the least. In the case of India and China, the urban waste produced by these countries is disproportionate to its overall economy due to their population (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012).Inconsistent data on solid waste generation in some Asian countries prove to be the main setback in the improvement of its management (Agamuthu, Fauziah, Khidzir, & Aiza, 2007, p. 19). Urban population in Malaysia, for example, has produce 8million tons per year in 2000 alone having 25% of the waste generated from Klang Valley independently. The case of Kuala Lumpur reached a generation rate of 3000tons in 2001 and is expected to increase by 2017 to 3200. In comparison, Malaysia is estimated at a generation rate of 25,800tons a day. Katmandu, similarly, produces a staggering 80% of Nepals total waste while Chinas medium sized cities produce 60% of its waste (Agamuthu, Fauziah, Khidzir, & Aiza, 2007, p. 19).The problems faced in urban areas seem to have chain reactions, from poor collection systems resulting inappropriate disposing methods such as dumping in isolated areas. In the city of Phnom Penh the problem of inadequate waste collection has resulted into garbage being dumped into rivers, burnt or left uncollected (Agamuthu, Fauziah, Khidzir, & Aiza, 2007, p. 20). In contrast, Malaysia waste collection maybe at 100% but only 70% of the collected waste is disposed properly leaving the 20-30% disposed illegally into rivers or burnt (Agamuthu, Fauziah, Khidzir, & Aiza, 2007, p. 20). Although the amount of waste generated may also cause a problem it must also be taken to account that its composition play a factor to how a country responds to waste management. Waste composition in Asia has an estimate of having 75% organic except for Japan. The organic waste seems to root from kitchen and food waste. This trend, however, varies by the change in consumption of the countries having the gradual practice of paper and plastic due to packaging materials. Which leads to the other problems faced by the recycle reuse sectors; despite door to door collection and segregation is practiced, recycling is hindered by the poor management and lack of recycling infrastructures. Despite these efforts problems with energy resourcing may add as well, having that emission levels from incineration and Bio fuels be strictly regulated to avoid added pollutions (Agamuthu, Fauziah, Khidzir, & Aiza, 2007, p. 23).3. External Problems in Waste management:Asian developing countries may have rising MSW generation but in order to put a strong foundation policies must be forwarded. In the case of Malaysia though, the constant debate between solid management law and related issues has hindered the countrys progress in the waste management sector. As policies are being developed to facilitate and standardize waste management an integral part of forwarding is to consider the technological capacity of countries as well. The varying geography and culture alone in a country may hinder an industry that may present scientific or technological progress. Local capacity development must be taken priority over the import of technology.

C. Waste Management for Sustainable Development1. Attaining Sustainable Development:To delineate urban waste from rural waste we must consider first Non controlled and controlled wastes. Agricultural, which is highly rural, alongside radioactive and explosive waste fall under the uncontrolled sector while MSWs Special and non-special waste are all classified to be highly urban. In order to manage waste generating factors a process of resource recovery is a widely accepted model wherein materials to be reused in their original form must undergo a controlled process of sterilization and recovery. This process however must be designed to suit a disassembly and ecology friendly. One of the waste management process is the return of products to their manufacturers this process being called the product takeback. Product takeback prioritizes the reverse of logistics. Take for example Canons toner cartridges or the return of Xerox machines. Another strategy called waste exchange wherein waste producers sell their waste to outside organization capable of using the waste for their own production. The UK Governments Advisory for Business and Environment take eco-efficiency a necessary prerequisite to achieving a sustainable consumption (CIPS, 2009, p. 12). Eco-efficiency was coined in respect to the produce more from less or the use less resource to produce the same amount ideology.To understand Sustainable waste management a paper by P.Agamuthu, S. H. Fauziah, K.M Khidzir and A. Noorazamimah Aiza done in Asia observes the different factors or drivers, as they say to attaining sustainability. Agamuthu et al first discuss upon the Human drivers involved in the process of sustainability. Firstly, by focusing on the health and wellbeing of a population, claiming that elected governments must provide first healthcare. This involves waste management and disposal policies which reduces risks on health such as diseases. This however must go hand in hand with information dissemination of state policies via Education. For the citizens or the population to participate effectively and cooperate they must first be informed of benefits (Agamuthu, Fauziah, Khidzir, & Aiza, 2007, p. 3). On an economic standpoint consumers and producers alike respond better on incentives. A case presented on a Malaysian middle-class municipality by Chenayah, et al (2007) found that recycling within the municipality have an increase of 20% if provided by auxiliary facilities. The same study found that the development of landfills within residential areas is attained smoothly and efficiently if only provided simple literature and explanation which in turn raises awareness within communities. The second drivers presented within the study involve the economic factors. Fundamentally, we must consider the present Socio-Economic Condition of a country. Take to account the financial capacity of the nation to make any waste management policy forwarded. In this case high-income countries are able to spend more on the said policies. World Bank estimated that New York spent 0.48% (106 USD per capita) of its capita on solid waste management alone comparing to the 15 USD per capita expenditure of Malaysia which is 0.38% of its GDP. Vietnam although using 0.8% of its GDP, amounts only to a 2USD per capita expenditure on solid waste management. Therefore, percentage allocation varies from the actual dollars spent. Waste recovery plays a vital factor as well in the interplay of a countries economics. Modern manufacturing not only save in production to the minimal processing of salvaged goods but also goes hand in hand in preserving the integrity of the disposal systems. The case of Japan, in a study conducted by Contreras et al (2006), reports that the effective segregation of paper and plastic resorts to an export product as raw materials to its target markets, primarily developing economies such as China and India which use recycled products as a secondary source of raw materials for development. Japan, in course of 1990 to 2005, has exported 21.9 to 3108.5thousand tons of paper and 41.4 to 1053.2thousand tons of plastic.Environmental Drivers factor in waste management in policies forwarded to protect environment. Trends in policies and research are driven by environmental issues. This in turn results to environmental integration to economic plans.2. Responses to MSW Generation:Waste generation has doubled its rate in some industrial countries (Agamuthu, Fauziah, Khidzir, & Aiza, 2007, p. 19) while developing countries waste production are also increasing at drastic levels. This is caused by rapid urbanization, rural-urban migrations, increase of per capita income as well as the consumption patterns brought by development (Agamuthu and Khan, 1997).Although various technology and policies have been developed to cope with waste generation increase and diversity, primarily on cities, open dumping or Land filling alongside composting and incineration has been the main disposal process of most low income countries. This process, however, poses not only waste to environment but extends to the scarcity of land and results to the loss of recyclable resources (Shapkotta et al 2006). Composting of MSWs indicate a rather large amount of organic waste while open dumping indicates high disposal of recyclable waste. A well-managed composting method has great potential to mitigate ecological imbalances due to the loss of nutrients from ecosystems and disposal of organic wastes. If proper composting were to be introduced to Asian countries, per se, it could enhance both economic and environmental sustainability.Recycling and Reuse in the Asian countries has been a method ultimately increased by the presence of scavengers. In 1990 1998 the recycling rate was double over from 10% - 22% by the scavenging bodies through segregation and effective collection. In the case of Sri Lankas Ministry of Forestry and Environment, the encouragement given to segregation in household effectively reduce the amount of the total waste disposal. Thailand took the private sector to developing high end recycling centers which trade internationally. China alone recorded 3.6 billion USD in recycling. In the less developed parts, Cambodia 12% of their total waste is sorted out prior disposal in households. Meanwhile, the insufficient availability of recycling plants in Nepal and Bhutan made countries resort to direct exports to India.3. Business in Waste Management:MNCs represent the overall shift of a society to consumerism (WB: Urban and LGU Working Papers, 1999, p. 14). Their global marketing programs have factored in greatly in waste generation and composition. But on a lighter note have addressed the waste stream as well with progressive programs that integrate recycling. In the case of Brazil, local governments have partnered with these marketing bodies to achieve comprehensive waste management programs. The ERP or the extended product responsibility as well has improved a countries response to MSW generation, though voluntary in nature, by involving manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, consumers and disposers of various products. Germany or parts of Europe as well developed the Ecocycle Waste Act of 1994 which sets environmental goals for manufacturers. It provides the necessary guidelines for goods regarding reusability and recyclability; by using secondary materials as a source for production. Sweden developed ordinances to increase return and recycling of consumer packaging from papers to used tires. Waste exchanges between industries as well have been developed to decrease MSW generation, increase profit and raw materials. This suggests that Asian countries must be cooperative in establishing secondary materials markets and promote a consistent product and package design amongst their countries (WB: Urban and LGU Working Papers, 1999, p. 18).

III. Methodology

A. Framework of AnalysisIETC recommends inclusion of the following elements which was taken account in the analytical framework of this study (IETC/UNEP, 2005): Integrated Waste Management Stakeholders Cost RecoveryThe key concern is to find out the economic value of what is usually called waste. Although economic benefit-cost analysis is a strategy closest to find out real values that can be recovered from wastes, the focus instead of this study is finding out how much financial value can still be recovered from one ton of garbage.For appropriation of learnings to our context, other important strategies that nuance are incorporated in the framework of analyzing such as (IETC/UNEP, 2005): Understanding characteristics of waste generated Major differences between industrialized and developing countries[footnoteRef:9] [9: Discussed in Scope and Limitations of the Study]

Improving management capabilities Public Involvement Proper handling of special wastesUnderstanding characteristics of waste generated is the attunement of pragmatics and its complementing technologies to the character of the waste that is generated in a particular location i.e. if wastes are wet and dense, as they are in most developing countries, buying compactor trucks will often be a waste of money; if wastes have low calorific value, it will not be possible to incinerate them without using supplementary fuel; if considerable amounts of toxic waste have entered the general municipal solid waste stream, leachate from dumps will be particularly dangerous. On the other hand, if a portion of the waste stream consists of organics or can be easily separated into organics and non-organics, composting may become a viable waste management strategy (IISD, 2013, p. 15).

B. Data Gathering and Analysis The approach is to identify first countries having most advanced experience in SWM, herein is the gage in the platforms for socio-economic standards. Municipal solid waste (MSW) is a term usually applied to a heterogeneous collection of wastes produced in urban areas, the nature of which varies from region to region. The characteristics and quantity of the solid waste generated in a region is not only a function of the living standard and lifestyle of the region's inhabitants, but also of the abundance and type of the region's natural resources. On a global scale of comparison of Solid Waste Management, IETC makes it clear that, The primary difference between wastes generated in developing nations and those generated in industrialized countries is the higher organic content characteristic of the former (IETC/UNEP, 2005, p. 1). Therefore a more specific way of approaching how to identify the best countries is that we compare from continental/region based studies first before having been able to filter which are the countries prospect for study. When there has been an established representation of geopolitical areas, we can say so that we are comparing in fair grounds. After which, profiling the countries proven to be best in turning their trash to treasure can be pursued: the best ones were those which have a sustainable circulation, but moreover exhibits efficiency in their management like having least cost possible and having profitable or cost-lessening by-products.Like in the determining of which are the best, there is also a hurdle in narrating the experiences and economics of the deemed countries. IETC/UNEP sees the lack of cross-comparison in the global scale is because of localized changes in degree of development within each country, it is difficult to apply a single developmental category as far as solid waste management is concerned. For example, a large urban community (typically the capital city and surrounding area) in a developing nation may be in a stage of development that is well above that of the rest of the nation. On the other hand, these communities are not totally immune to the limitations imposed by the status of the nation ( IETC/UNEP, 2005, p. 1).The solution is adaptation of a parallel approach to the AIT/UNEPs study that presented the status-quo of the different aspects of Municipal Waste Management in 14 SEA and East Asian countries. To narrate having regions with not only different economic statures but let alone have differing definition on what SWM is: they made use of inclusion of economic instruments, technologies, partnerships, informative measures and awareness raising efforts, informal sector, stakeholder participation and capacity building. (AIT/UNEP: Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific (RRC.AP), 2010, p. 20). The real dynamics in the national state is an integrative solid waste management in work and thus the approach must also be an integrative analysis in sight.All in all, data needed in accomplishing the approaches that aimed to uphold international connecting of SWM experiences and economics were sources that would represent globally which continent/regions are in supremacy in SWM and also sources that would reflect the national state of those countries in terms of their finest practices in recent times or any important point in time where effective transition happened. Only by virtue of these could learnings from the most established currently in SWM could be integrated to the Philippine setting.

The methodology of data gathering includes the following activities: Crystallizing established international comparisons (e.g. international publications, international bodies agency reports, global news that have been affirmed through studies and other reports from relevant international economics-oriented organizations such as World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNEP International Environmental Technology Centre, UNEP Asian Institute for Technology and others to determine which regions are leading in the global arena. Reviewing Municipal Waste screening/assessments/questionnaires already conducted by continental bodies soliciting comments/additional inputs from regions member countries and member partners to determine most excelling country in the determined region such as EU, EEA and European Commission. Gathering of existing information and data of targetive sources to our context such as those collected by 3RKH[footnoteRef:10], to have relevant analysis and have appropriation of application of the status-quo and issues on municipal waste management we are facing. [10: The purpose of 3RKH is to capture and share knowledge on 3Rs (reduce reuse and recycle) applications and good practices in waste management. This has been established through the Project Preparation Support for Livable Cities in Asiaof the Asian Development Bank (ADB).]

C. Scope and Limitations of the StudyThus the scope of the profiling of countries was derived to integrate the experiences from pre-waste generation up to the post which are: Waste Composition Waste Generation and Waste TransformationAlong with the vital elements of ISWM:SWM Policies and economic instruments -This describes joint projects with partnerships between stakeholders. AIT includes national government and key players on Municipal waste management ( AIT/ UNEP: Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific (RRC.AP), 2010, p. 24) and this is also what was looked into each determined country: it describes in a condense manner the economic instruments related to Municipal waste e.g. incentive subsidies, low-interest finance, tax exemption; disincentive fees, charges/fines at the national/local level ( AIT/ UNEP: Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific (RRC.AP), 2010, p. 20). Charges and fees can also be used as incentives to encourage good behavior and to discourage bad behavior. For example, the price of disposal can be increased and the cost of materials recovery subsidized to give people incentives to source separate. In some instances, fines can be used to discourage illegal dumping ( IETC/UNEP, 2005, p. 13). Indirect charges in some locations, charges for waste are linked to other public services that people are willing to pay for, such as water or electricity. Including waste charges in water and if present, sewer charges allows some cost recovery; studies have shown that water and electrical energy consumption are rough indicators of waste generation (IETC/UNEP, 2005, p. 12).Circulation of Waste Composition- As mentioned earlier, although the amount of waste generated may also cause a problem it must also be taken to account that its composition play a factor to how a country responds to waste management (Agamuthu, Fauziah, Khidzir, & Aiza, 2007). This section would show not only how much waste is produced but what comprises the total waste generated. Also it was delved on what kind of industries are the prime there so we can have an understanding of what is the economical context, therefore to derive easier which are applicable to our context.Facilities and Budget allocation Whenever there is available data on the existing technologies in the countries, it was mentioned along with the pragmatics. As in AIT it further illustrates the type of technologies used for municipal waste collection, segregation, treatment and disposal, and briefly discuss the level of technology: Imported, Local, Capacity (rate), etc. the municipalities have (AIT/UNEP: Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific (RRC.AP), 2010, p. 22). There is no costs breakdown from private companies since there is no data available but the ways in which SWM are funded and the prioritization given to it per nation is attempted to be depicted. Also processes, plants and other manifestations of the nations choice in waste management would also reflect costs and investments put into its holistic workability.By-products -ISWM is the application of suitable techniques, technologies and management programs covering all types of solid wastes from all sources to achieve the twin objectives of (a) waste reduction and (b) effective management of waste still produced after waste reduction (MUD, 2010, p. 9). Management of municipal solid waste involves (a) development of an insight into the impact of waste generation, collection, transportation and disposal methods adopted by a society on the environment and (b) adoption of new methods to reduce this impact (MUD, 2010, p. 5). Effective solid management systems are needed to ensure better human health and safety. They must be safe for workers and safeguard public health by preventing the spread of disease. In addition to these prerequisites, an effective system of solid waste management must be both environmentally and economically sustainable.Environmentally sustainable: It must reduce, as much as possible, the environmental impacts of waste management. Economically sustainable: It must operate at a cost acceptable to community. Clearly it is difficult to minimize the two variables, cost and environmental impact, simultaneously. There will always be a trade off. The balance that needs to be struck is to reduce the overall environmental impacts of the waste management system as far as possible, within an acceptable level of cost. The section of by-products of SWM could be begotten from an effective waste management system which includes one or more of the following options (MUD, 2010, p. 11): Waste collection and transportation. Resource recovery through sorting and recycling i.e. recovery of materials (such as paper, glass, metals) etc. through separation. Resource recovery through waste processing i.e. recovery of materials (such as compost) or recovery of energy through biological, thermal or other processes. Waste transformation (without recovery of resources) i.e. reduction of volume, toxicity or other physical/chemical properties of waste to make it suitable for final disposal.

The limitation is that analyses of the study may not be in Toto parallel because of some particular context differences but to acknowledge limit of comparative grounds is also a way of seeing what is to be specialized in our own milieu especially with the resources and economical condition we are in. At the same time, there are scope of meeting grounds in which no matter where the context is, are economically and environmentally valuable for stakeholders to have successful and sustainable SWM.Major Differing Points of Developing countries often:One theme that appears consistently throughout IETCs book is the enormously different conditions in which industrialized and developing countries must work to solve MSWM problems (MUD, 2010, pp. 15-16): Low labor costs and extreme shortages of capital, which together call for low-tech solutions to MSWM problems; A waste stream dominated by organic waste, which means that:a) Incineration is difficult unless undertaken in conjunction with a program that achieves source separation of organics, andb) Composting is especially important if large amounts of waste are to be diverted from landfills; a complex informal sector that is very active in the collection, separation, and recycling of waste; Significant mixing of industrial hazardous wastes with MSW; Few people who are adequately trained in solid waste management activities, and a high proportion of the urban population with low levels of education; and Inadequate physical infrastructure in urban areas, which makes collection of waste particularly difficult.

At the same time, it should be recognized that there are also similarities between industrialized and developing countries with regard to MSWM issues:In neither case does the public want MSWM facilities near residential areas and, in both cases, the amount of waste being generated is increasing. In both industrialized and developing countries, adopting an integrated approach to waste management is important. Related to this, people throughout the world are recognizing the importance of waste reduction as the first stage of the waste management hierarchy and as an essential element of MSWM. (Ministry of Urban Development, 2010, p. 16)The following are externalities especially for developing contexts:Improving management capabilities -In many instances, particularly in developing countries, the greatest impediments to efficient and environmentally sound handling of MSWM issues are managerial, rather than technical (MUD, 2010, p. 16).Public involvement -The public can play a role in promoting efficient, financially sound, technically competent management of waste issues by demanding accountability from the MSWM system. Although in many countries the public has long grown accustomed to having low expectations of government, the pressing and very visible problems brought about by the absence of effective MSWM systems may inspire stronger demands for good performance from public managers and any private companies with whom they work. Information dissemination is important in achieving the goal of public involvement (MUD, 2010, p. 16).Special wastes -Special wastes are those types of solid waste that require special handling, treatment, and/or disposal. The reasons for separate consideration include (MUD, 2010, pp. 16-17): Their characteristics and quantities (either or both may render them difficult to manage if they are combined with typical municipal solid waste); or Their presence will or may pose a significant danger to the health and safety of workers and/or the public, to the environment, or both.These wastes are very different from each other, so they should be managed and handled separately if feasible. Typically, in developing countries, special wastes are set out for collection, collected, and/or disposed along with wastes from commercial businesses and residential generators. Ideally, these wastes should not enter the municipal solid waste stream, but quite frequently they do, particularly in developing countries (Ministry of Urban Development, 2010, pp. 16-17).In terms of the approach, there were no mathematical computations made although exemplars such as: EKC, ODIN-WR model, graphs and others were all utilized for effective deducing and deeper analyses when applicable. The key concern is to find out the economic value of what is considered waste already. Although economic benefit-cost analysis would be closer to find real net values recoverable from waste, this study focused instead on finding out how much financial value can still be recovered from one ton of garbage. The profits of the most successful countries have been standardized to USD. The last segment understood the Philippine solid waste circumstance and to promulgate what is applicable to our context.

D. Definition of Key TermsWaste Generation -The first of the six functional elements in the SWM system encompasses activities in which materials are identified as no longer being of value (in their present form) and are either thrown away or gathered together for disposal (IGES, 2005, p. 13). There is not much control of its incurring but could be influenced in the future by orientations such as IGES pointing reduction of waste at source, though not controlled by solid waste managers, is now included in system evaluations as a method of limiting the quantity of waste generated.Waste Handling, Sorting, Storage, and Processing at the Source -This is the next functional elements in the SWM. Waste handling and sorting involves the activities associated with management of wastes until they are placed in storage containers for collection. Handling also encompasses the movement of loaded containers to the point of collection. Sorting of waste components is an important step in the handling and storage of solid waste at the source (MUD, 2010, p. 13).Collection -The functional element of collection, includes not only the gathering of solid wastes and recyclable materials, but also the transport of these materials, after collection, to the location where the collection vehicle is emptied. This location may be a materials processing facility, a transfer station, or a landfill disposal site (MUD, 2010, p. 15).Sorting, Processing and Transformation of Solid Waste -The recovery of sorted materials, processing of solid waste and transformation of solid waste that occurs primarily in locations away from the source of waste generation (can be MRF, transfer stations, combustion facilities and disposal sites) are encompassed by this functional element. Sorting often includes the separation of bulky items, separation of waste components by size using screens, manual separation of waste components, and separation of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Waste processing is undertaken to recover conversion products and energy. The organic fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) can be transformed by a variety of biological and thermal processes. The most commonly used biological transformation process is aerobic composting. The most commonly used thermal transformation process is incineration. Waste transformation is undertaken to reduce the volume, weight, size or toxicity of waste without resource recovery. Transformation may be done by a variety of mechanical (eg shredding), thermal (e.g. incineration without energy recovery) or chemical (e.g. encapsulation) techniques (MUD, 2010, p. 15).Transfer and Transport -The functional element of transfer and transport involves two steps: the transfer of wastes from the smaller collection vehicle to the larger transport equipment and the subsequent transport of the wastes, usually over long distances, to a processing or disposal site. The transfer usually takes place at a transfer station (MUD, 2010, p. 15).Disposal -The final functional element in the solid waste management system is disposal. Today the disposal of wastes by landfilling or uncontrolled dumping is the ultimate destination of all solid wastes, whether they are residential wastes, residual materials from Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs), residue from the combustion of solid waste, rejects of composting, or other substances from various solid waste-processing facilities. A municipal solid waste landfill plant is an engineered facility used for disposing of solid wastes on land or within the earths mantle (MUD, 2010, p. 16). The highest rank of the ISWM hierarchy is waste minimization or reduction at source, which involves reducing the amount (and/or toxicity) of the wastes produced. E. Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADB -Asian Development BankAIT -Asian Institute of TechnologyCIPS -Chartered Institute of Purchase & SupplyCIWM -Chartered Institution of Wastes ManagementDESA -Department of Economic and Social AffairsDTIE -Division of Technology, Industry and EconomicsEEA -European Environment AgencyEKC -Environmental Kuznets CurveETB -Economics and Trade BranchFAO -Food and AgricultureGEAS Global Environment Alert ServiceGEC Global Environment CenterIETC -International Environmental Technology CentreIISD -International Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentIRP -International Resource PanelMDG -Millennium Development GoalsMSW -Municipal Solid WasteMUD -Ministry of Urban DevelopmentOECD -Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentREAP -Resource Efficiency Action PlanSDS -Sustainable Development StrategySWM -Solid Waste ManagementUN United NationsUNEP -United Nations Environment ProgramWB -World BankWCED -World Commission on Environment and DevelopmentWRAP Waste & Resources Action Program

IV. Results and Discussion

A. Identification of Countries with Most Advanced Experience in SWMThe only cross-continental comparison that has been reported (and the most recent attempt) is that of the newsletter by EcoMENA[footnoteRef:11]stating that, Currently, the European nations are recognized as global leaders of the SWM and WTE movement. They are followed behind by the Asia Pacific region and North America respectively (Zafar, 2014). The intentionality of the organization was to witness real activity in waste-to-energy sector in the Middle East but before looking specifically at Middle Easts scenario, they scoured over the global scenario and the following were the findings: In 2007 there are more than 600 waste plants in 35 different countries, including large countries such as China and small ones such as Bermuda. Some of the newest plants are located in Asia. The United States processes 14 percent of its trash in WTE plants. As at the end of 2008, Europe had more than 475 WTE plants across its regions more than any other continent in the world that processes an average of 59 million tons of waste per annum. In the same year, the European WTE industry alone as a whole had generated revenues of approximately US$4.5bn (Zafar, 2014). [11: EcoMENA's primarymission is to create mass awareness on renewable energy, sustainability, waste management, environment protection, energy efficiency and resource conservation in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Their majorobjective is to promote sustainable development worldwide.]

Most researches concentrated on waste management that analyze across continents just give out their data by clustering nations according to their level of income. The current status of waste management is by no means uniform in different parts of the world. For the purpose of showing these differences, it seems sensible to divide the globe into the following four geo-political areas ( ISWA, 2002): the European Union, the United States, other high and medium income countries and economically developing countries.Superimposing the element of representation from the different geopolitical areas to the identified top regions for SWM cross-continentally, we now can filter that the best countries would come from: Europe Asia United StatesBBC found interest in the big divide in Europes waste disposal performance. The UK gets one red flag for the category "existence of ban/restrictions for the disposal of municipal waste into landfills", a medals tablefor waste management shows red flags -the worst scores -dominating the results for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta and Romania, and the best performing countries - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden - resort to landfill for less than 5% of their waste (BBC News Europe, 2012). Its most viable finding: The UK's overall score is 32, while Austria and the Netherlands top the table with 39 points each must be verified through other studies.

Figure 1. Municipal waste recycling rates in 32 European countries, 2001 and 2010 (Rozenberg, 2013)

Figure 1 shows the recycling rates of MSW in the European Union in 2010 compared with 2001. A line further from the centre in the radar chart signifies better waste management. As the figure indicates, recycling performance has improved in most European countries. The general increase in recycling of municipal waste reduced the percentage of municipal waste landfilled (European Environment Agency (EEA), 2013).The European Commision conducted the Screening of Waste Management Performance of EU Member States which validates Austria and the Netherlands top the table with 39 points each.

Table 1. Overview of scoring of each criterion and overall score for each Member State of EU (order according to achieved overall score) (European Commission, 2012)

With the rapid economic growth and urbanization that is taking place in Asia, solid waste generation and management is becoming a major social, environmental and economic issue. Complicating the picture, each country and region has its own background and characteristics in relation to solid waste management and material-cycles policy, even though they share the same global region (IGES, 2005). When countries or regions have laws governing waste management, solid waste and MSW are usually given specific definitions and IGES conducted a study on Waste Management and Recycling in Asia where the definitions in selected countries in Asia[footnoteRef:12] were exhibited. In its year of publication 2005, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand have no laws on waste management thus do not have official definitions of solid waste and MSW; India and Taiwan have definitions of MSW only (IGES, 2005). There was an already conceded general definition of MSW before which can be referred back set in a United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June 14, 1992, Solid wastes include all domestic refuse and non-hazardous wastes such as commercial and institutional wastes, street sweepings and construction debris (IETC, 2008). MSW primarily comes from households, but also includes wastes from industries, municipal services such as street cleaning and maintenance of recreational areas ( AIT/ UNEP: Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific (RRC.AP), 2010, p. 6). There is a collection of the recent working definitions of the 14 member countries in Southeast and East Asia which was collected by AIT[footnoteRef:13]. [12: For further reading, a table of that can be found in the said IGES study] [13: For further reading, a table of that can be found in the said AIT/UNEP study]

However different the answers that Southeast and East Asian countries provided, Asian countries all have the common goal of 3Rs. The 3R Initiative was officially launched at the 3R Ministerial Conference hosted by the Government of Japan in April 2005, with an aim to promote global action on 3R. In March 2006, a Senior Officials Meeting on 3R was organized in Japan resulting in strong commitment of governments and other stakeholders to implement 3R at local, national, and regional level (Visvanathan, Adhikari, & Anant, 2007). Besides Japan being the initiator of the template waste management is Asia, it is also the leader which was established by AIT Thailand.

Legend:

Table 2. Status in 3R implementation in developed Asian countries (Visvanathan, Adhikari, & Anant, 2007)

The identified best countries with the most advance experience in waste management are the following: Austria Netherlands Japan United States of America

B. Narration of the Most Advanced Countries ISWM Profiles1. AustriaWaste Composition:Consumption of different materials result in products which later result to waste generation. Austria in the span of 2000-2007 has had its strongest material consumption of non metallic minerals which ranges at around 80 90 million tons (50.5%) compared to biomass, fossil energy and metal ores which ranges are 40 50 (26.7%), 20 30 (17.2%) and 10 15 (5.6%) million tons respectively (EEA, 2011, p. 4).

Figure 2. Austrias Vital ConsumptionsConclusively by 2009, the sectors which hold the highest contributions to the GDP are its Services sector which holds 69.1%, the Industry sector which holds 29.4% and the Agriculture sector having 1.5% (EEA, 2011, p. 3). Household wastes result from product to waste consumption which would result to:NATIONWIDE QUANTITIES BY INDIVIDUAL FRACTION QUANTITY (TONS)

Residual waste 1 402 100

Biogenic waste and green waste 752 100

Waste paper677 000

Bulky waste 259 100

Waste glass 211 600

Waste wood 183 200

Light fraction 148 100

Scrap metal household scrap (bulky waste collection) 86 800

Waste electrical and electronic equipment 72 600

Waste metals 30 600

Waste textiles 26 000

Hazardous household waste 23 200

Other recoverables 22 600

EST TOTAL3,895,000

Table 3. Austrias Household Waste Components (EEA, 2011, p. 6)

Waste Generation:Production in its process consumes both energy and raw materials to produce certain products which results to waste. This means that a direct relationship between energy and material consumption and waste generation is established. Austria at an average has a GDP of 1100 USD per ton of Domestic Material Consumption (EEA, 2011, p. 5)having the trends of materials and energy similar in terms of its increases and decreases within 1970 2009 in an indexed development (EEA, 2011, p. 6). This all results to 48.6 million tons of waste per year by 2001 having construction residues a major part at 7.5 million t/a. At a more specific premise of MSWs, Austria in the span of 2001 to 2010 has had a 7% increase in MSW generation from 4.63 million tons to 4.96 tons respectively.Policies:With growing demands for production; energy and resource policies are made to regulate and increase efficiency. Voluntary agreements between economic sectors and government ministries are examples of these. By 2009 the Austrian Resource Efficiency Action Plan (REAP) along with several other strategies was drafted by 2009. These go by five core strategies to raise: awareness on resource efficiency in production, public procurement, development of secondary materials in an economy that circulates and synergies between stakeholders cooperating (EEA, 2011, p. 7).By 2010, the Austrian (SDS) was adopted with sustainable consumption and production patterns as its focus. This policy would then take a 4 year working program period from 2011 2015 (EEA, 2011, p. 8).Thus having regulated production and consumption, the next step for the Austrian government was to address the waste produced by both areas. Hence, the Waste Prevention program was published in 2011 as part of the Federal Waste Management Plan. This would then focus on the nations primary waste drivers (EEA, 2011, p. 8): the construction sector, industries and households, food sectors from food industries to households, and the reuse sector.These policies are then strengthened through the Austrian Strategy for the Education for sustainable development. This was made possible through the governments agreement among federal regions to inform consumption patterns in the educational programs. As early as 2005 the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology initiated the Austrian Program on Technologies for Sustainable Development which focuses achieving economic use of natural resources on buildings, energy systems and factories. The initiative would then promote financing of development projects to implementation of pilot projects (EEA, 2011, p. 10). Three program lines would then emerge these are: the Building of Tomorrow, which is aimed at using environmentally friendly and renewable materials in construction, the Factory of Tomorrow, aimed at zero-waste, zero-emission production and produces, and the Energy System of Tomorrow aimed at efficient, decentralized and renewables based energy technologies and systems (EEA, 2011, p. 11).With the REAP dealing with all material types the 2011 Waste Prevention would focus on construction materials, food and products with high pollutant and critical material contents (EEA, 2011, p. 9).In lieu of the economic policies given, Austria had to take into account producing environmental protection and preservation laws. Austrian policies regarding the environment are often characterized by the separation of responsibilities between the federal, regional and local levels. The REAP would then be developed to taking to account recommendations from different government sectors and other private stakeholders as well. This action is in regards to the large Industrial sector of the nation. This would then highlight the initiatives of the Ministry of Economy, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management and the Ministry of Transport, Innovation and technology as to achieving resource efficiency. The National Action for Sustainable Public Procurement of 2010 was then created to insure land buyers and owners would have a requirement of a minimum lifespan or a minimum share of 5% in recycled construction materials. The Ministry of Environment would then create the Masterplan Environmental Technologies to increase market shares in efficient, environmental friendly and environmental protecting technologies. Consequently with the economic policies regulating efficiency in the production sector this would result to higher MSW generation. Austria would first deal with landfills wherein all main legislations were to divert biodegradable MSW from landfills through banning and high tipping fees or tax and by its full implementation in 2004, land filled waste would be at an almost zero state by 2008 (EEA, 2013, p. 9). To avoid consequences from the landfill bans Austria, in accordance to the Federal Waste management plan of 2011, would extensively use 16 plants to treat waste which would result in 57.8% of biological waste treated, 40% incinerated, and 2.2% metal recycled (EEA, 2013, p. 10).Waste Transformation:At 2001 the Sei g scheit vermeid was launched, by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water management, to avoid and reduce waste. The project would provide information and guidelines to extending material durability. Waste collection for paper, glass, packaging waste and biogenic materials were set up country wide (UN, 2004, p. 4). This would soon extend to avoidance, collection and utilization of wastes as well including hazardous wastes from electrical and electronic equipment.With waste collection policies on the rise Austria moved forward to its management. The Plastics Labelling and PCP regulation for example, facilitates waste separation for recycling (UN, 2004, p. 3). This would apply to biogenic wastes as well. Waste transformation however must still be regulated. The Clean Air Regulation for example subjects thermal treatment plants to regulate its emissions. Landfills as well are obligated to be built accordingly by the Landfill Regulation (UN, 2004, p. 3). Legislations have been passed by Austria to minimize pollution in the waste streams transformation which scales from labor to sector-specific strategies. Enterprises for example with more than 100 employees are required to appoint waste management officers. A similar policy applies to larger companies which are required to draft their own waste-management plans in accordance to the Waste Management Act. To strengthen the institutional capacity in waste management sectors the policy is revised every three years (UN, 2004, p. 3).2. NetherlandsWaste Composition:With a high percentage of its GDP composition to services, at 73.2%, seconded by industry, at 24%, and agriculture at 2.8% (Index Mundi, 2013). The Netherlands would have the bulk of its occupational force to its services. Taking to account Netherlands material extraction which has fossil fuels shares at 41% by 2012 (European Comission, 2011, p. 12), which heavily relies on import trades within the EU, natural resources within the country cannot meet domestic demand. Despite its physical trade deficit the Netherlands still creates a monetary trade surplus. The Dutch economy could therefore be characterized for its ability to turn cheap bulk materials into expensive products (European Commision, 2012, p. 5) with the costs of high imports of energy carriers via fossil fuels holding up at around 200 billion kilograms by 2011 (European Commision, 2012, p. 7). Conclusively, waste composition, in comparison to other countries, would be by products of producers and manufacturers. Household waste compositions however would result to:

Figure 3. Netherlands Household Waste Components

Waste Generation:By 2011, the Netherlands would have produced 9 930 000 t