specific contract n°...

Feasibility of Solid Waste Management in Southern Belize Page 0

FWC BENEFICIARiES 2013 - LOT N° 6 : Environment

EuropeAid/132633/C/SER/multi

Specific Contract N° 2016/374683

Consultancy to conduct a Waste Generation and Composition Study

and a Feasibility Study for Solid Waste Management Facilities (Drop Off Centre) in the Stann Creek

and Northern Toledo Districts, Belize

Financial evaluation of alternatives

Methods of waste collection in Southern Belize”

FINAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

Delegation of the European Union to

Jamaica, Belize, The Bahamas, Turks and Caicos and Cayman Islands


This report was prepared with the financial support of the European Commission. The opinions

expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the European Commission.


ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

BAM Banana Accompany Measures

BBB Banana Belt of Belize

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

CRCF Cumulative Reduce Cash Flow

DOC Drop Off Center

EBT Earnings Before Tax

FCF Free Cash Flow

IRR Internal Rate of Return

MLS Most Likely Scenario

MSME’s Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise

NOPAT Net Operating Profit After Tax

NPV Net Present Value

OS Optimistic Scenario

PB Pay Back Period

PS Pessimistic Scenarios

SWOT Strengths, Opportunities, Weakness & Threats

SWMA Solid Waste Management Authority

TS Transfer Station

WC Worst Case


TABLE OF CONTENT

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 4

II – BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 4

III - METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

IV –RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................................... 9

V- CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 43

VI – RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 44

VII - REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 45

VIII – ANNEX ............................................................................................................................................................... 46


I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In this document, you will find the results regarding the Situation Analysis, Feasibility & Sensitivity

Analysis, as well as the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA); for communities of Southern Belize. The situation

analysis consist of the identification of major constraints that limits the operationalization of the

communities in to the Solid Waste Management Project. A Strengths, Opportunities, Weakness and Threats

(SWOT) were used to determine the internal and external factors.

The constraints identified were as follows: Management (1. The councillors are lacking of

environmental laws & policy knowledge, 2. Councillors don't re-enforce Environmental laws and its

consequences by applying Fines, 3. The majority of the Councillors have limited or no experience in

community projects). In regards to Human Resources ;( 1. The entire communities are lack of

environmental awareness, policies and infrastructure for Solid Waste Management, 2.

Environmental laws are not enforced, 3. Solid Waste collection isn’t incorporate as part of the governance

structure).

From a service perspective (1. Many villages are without proper Dump Site or Drop off Center (DOC), 2.

Communities without sanitation service for waste collection and delivery, 3. Pricing scheme is uneven in

other villages). With regards to Marketing (1. Non-existence of an Awareness Plan, 2. Unknown knowledge of

waste collection demand externally, 3. Unknown knowledge of external collection price).

From an economic stand point, a feasibility and sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine

the financial viability to operationalize of the communities into the Solid Waste Management project

by using three financial indicators which were the Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return

(IRR) and Pay Back Period (PB). According to the analysis, the project is financially feasible because of

positive Net Present Value that result in differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant

& Hotel/Resorts) at different price levels (7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at determine

Market Share.

II – BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 2.1 B A C K G R O U N D

In today’s view of Sustainable Development (SD), there should be huge interest in considering the

Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental aspects of waste management control.

Human interaction has created that waste management related activities are in constant evolution in


order to be sustainable and to stay business. Nevertheless; traditional communities, groups, associations

or cooperatives are still faced with tremendous gap of cultural barrier of how waste disposal and

management from a sustainable stand point.

In order to continue with sustainable growth, communities have seen the need to request for

technical, financial and logistical supports in order to create environmental drivers or condition that will

stimulate public awareness. The Urban and rural communities of Southern Belize (Stann Creek and Toledo

District) are challenged with cultural effects of waste disposal, lack of infrastructure, Lack of

Environmental Law Knowledge, Lack of Environmental Law enforcement, Lack of an Awareness Plan,

Functional Governance structure and management systems that will lead to sustainable environmental

practices. The sole dependency of cultural practices (irregular waste disposal in abundant sites or

backyard composing); triggers environmental hazards that leads to the release of unfavorable, odors,

contamination, as well as conditions that can cause diseases.

The creation of public awareness of waste disposal, collection as well as management alternatives

will lead to better environmental practices that will guarantee improved standard of living of the rural

inhabitants. Furthermore; it is believed that projects implemented by these agencies will expand in the

near future and also create opportunity for other emerging areas of Belize. From a social perspective

these projects decrease unemployment and migration of talented youths out of the rural area.

In this regard, Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) which is the financial implementing agency in

collaboration with other partners within the country is interested in projects that incorporate local

economic strategic development that will ensure sustainable livelihoods in the region.

2.2 T H E PURPOSE

As part of the Banana Accompany Measures (BAM 2013), the purpose of the project is to improve social

and economic development of Belize, leading to the poverty reduction of workers and families in the

Banana Belt of Belize (BBB). This Solid Waste (SW) component; will also provide guidance and strategic

direction in the different implementation stage; which should lead to project success base on given

criteria.

2.3 O B J E C T I V ES

1. Prepare a Feasibility Study for drop-off centers, intended at collecting waste in order to bring them to the Transfer Stations.


2. Conduct financial analysis of collection practices, recycling, composting and disposal systems, considering CAPEX and OPEX.

3. Based on the assessment; make recommendations on the legal/institutional and financial structures required for implementation. The Consultant will recommend on appropriate organizational arrangements and cost recovery mechanism tariff structures for solid waste collection, services and transfer.


III - METHODOLOGY

3.1 SITUATION ANALYSIS

3.1.1 History

Interview was conducted from a participative approach with the Director of the Solid Waste

Management Authority (SWMA) Director and Technician, Community Leaders, and Sanitation Company

Managers (SCM).

3.1.2 SWOT Analysis

Relevant internal and external factors; was considered from documentation, site visits as well as

participation that was done. It is known that the role of a SWOT analysis is to document all present and

possible future influences on performance, which can be negative or positive in some way or the other on

any new practice.

3.1.3 PESTLE Analysis

A Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental (PESTLE) analysis was done in order

to assess other factors that in some way or the other can impact on the communities, its inhabitants, the

project and possible clients.

3.1.4 Marketing Aspects (Service, Price, Place and Promotion)

From the visit to the communities, observation and consultation was done regarding the Services,

Price, Place, Promotion; its competitive advantage as well as the determination of future growth or

awareness leakage. The marketing aspects were considered to facilitate the formulation of marketing

strategy if the services are financially sustainable, socially and environmentally friendly.


3.2 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

3.2.1. Calculation of NPV, IRR and PB

In the economic evaluation of any project or strategic activity; the Net Present Value (NPV), Internal

Return Rate (IRR) and Pay Back Period (PB) are three financial indicators that are used to determine the

viability of any project. In this regard; the Infrastructure required (Drop off Center), the Collection Service and

the transportation of the waste from the village to the Drop Off Center or Dump Site were analyzed from a

financial perspective. Ideally, the Net Present Value (NPV) must be positive at an acceptable Internal

Return Rate (IRR), which should be recovered in a given period of years. (PB)

3.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

3.3.1. Calculation of Optimistic, Most Likely and Pessimistic

Scenarios

The Sensitivity Analysis included the calculation of three Financial Scenarios (Optimistic, Most Likely and

Pessimistic) under different conditions (Market share and Collection Price). These scenarios are the different

levels of risk management that must be considered by Solid Waste Management Authority (SWMA), the

communities and the possible Sanitation companies during the collection and transportation of waste.

3.4 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA)

3.4.1 Related Cost / Benefit for Waste Collection.

The Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a synthesis of the calculation done regarding waste collection, it’s

tangible and intangible benefits to the villages and possible customers. The intangible benefits include, but

are not limited to social cohesion, community involvement & sharing, environmentally awareness,

introduction and exchange of experiences, learning & growth opportunities as well as inter-ministerial

involvement.


IV –RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 SITUATION ANALYSIS

4.1.1 History

The villages in the Stann Creek and Toledo District, are situated in Southern Belize and represents a

significant area of major industries (Banana, Citrus, & Tourism) in the area. The target communities are

largely located in the banana farming area (Independence, Bella Vista, Trio, Cow Pen, Red Bank, and San

Roman). San Antonio is located in the South of Toledo District. Pomona and Silk Grass are located in the area

of citrus growing. Three villages are on the coast and are mostly touristic areas (Hopkins, Seine Bight and

Placencia).

The economy of the villages in the Belize Banana Belt (Independence, Bella Vista, Trio, Cow Pen, Red

Bank, and San Roman) depends mainly on the Banana Industry. On another note; the villages of Hopkins,

Seine Bight and Placencia has condition setting for tourism related activities and therefore depend mainly on

the Tourism sector. For the communities of Pomona and Silk Grass; they are located in the citrus area and

therefore depend on that industry.

The work force which represents approximately 3200 in the Banana Industry, 1000 for the citrus

industry and another 800 to 1000 direct employment for the tourism industry make the area unique as a

source for economic generation. From a gender perspective 85% of the employee in the banana Industry are

males and 15% are females. On another note; it is important to indicate that women participate largely in the

tourism work force hence their importance to this sector as Tour guides, Cultural Dancers, Chefs, Cooks, Staff

and waiters which can be considered as a valuable asset to the industry or any business venture.

4.1.2 SWOT Analysis

In the analysis of Strengths; these can be considered as positive internal factors that are unique sources

of advantage that the propose project or plan should leverage. Another internal factor is the Weakness, which

is classified as negative and refers to circumstances that limit performance and should be address to improve

efficiency of the enterprise (Best J. R, 2013).

The other critical component of this analysis is Opportunities, which are classified as positive external


factors that can improve the profitability in service delivery and collection; which should be addressed by the

Sanitation Companies. The last component is the Threat; which is a negative external factor considered as

current and possible factors that could impede the performance of the Sanitation Companies. The result of

this SWOT analysis will help the Solid Waste Management Authority (SWMA), Communities, Sanitation

Companies and Rural Development Authorities to understand the degree to which each of these key issues

affects the results of its performance metrics.

In agreement with (Best J. R, 2013), the SWOT analysis serve as the primary guideline in developing the

Marketing Strategy, so they must be carefully specified and articulated. This set of planning process should be

used to determining the marketing/awareness strategy and its impact on the future performance of Solid

Waste Project.

In regards to the communities; at the time of study the communities faces numerous challenging factors

that can be summarize as follows: Management (1. Councillors are lacking of environmental laws and policies

knowledge of Solid Waste, 2. Councillors don't re-enforce Environmental laws and its consequences by In

regards to Human Resources ;(1. The entire communities are lack of environmental awareness, policies and

infrastructure for Solid Waste Management, 2. Environmental laws are not enforced by Authorities

and its consequences by applying Fines, 3. Solid Waste Collection isn’t incorporated as part of the governance

structure).

From the service perspective (1. Many villages are without proper Dump Site or Drop off Center (DOC), 2.

Not all villages have a sanitation service for waste collection and delivery, 3. Pricing scheme is uneven in

other villages). With regards to Marketing (1. Non-existence of an Awareness Plan, 2. Unknown knowledge of

waste collection demand internally and externally, 3. Unknown knowledge of external collection price).

Finally; from a financial perspective the constraints were as follows: 1. Non-existence of funding for Drop

off Center (DOC) or Transfer Station (TS) construction, 2. None existence of funds to transfer collected waste

from Drop Off Center or Transfer Station to land fill (Mile 25), 3. Additional personnel will be required

to operate new Transfer Station (TS) or Drop off Center (DOC)

The charts below, illustrates the SWOT results in the different areas; Management, Human Resource, Services, awareness, and Finance of the Solid Waste Management Project of the Communities.


4.1.3 PESTLE Analysis

Table No. 1, Pestle Analysis for the Solid Waste Project in Southern Belize

Table No 1, illustrates other indicators/effects from a Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and


Environmental stand point that can be considered in the project with regards to the Management, collection

and delivery of solid waste. The analysis demonstrates that the impact that the project will cause or create, is

more beneficial than the environmental impact in the short, medium or long term if it is executed.

On an affirmative note, the analysis also reveals that there are more positive outcomes than negative

outcomes at a significant ratio of (3/1 or 75%) from a beneficial perspective; which can be considered as

overwhelming for SWMA, the communities as well as its inhabitants of the area.

4.2 PROPOSE RED OF WASTE COLLECTION COMMUNITIES

Table No.2, Red of Communities, trips per week and yearly transportation cost ($USD).

Table No 2, illustrates the red of proposed collection communities, Dump Site, number of weekly trips and

yearly transportation cost from the villages to the Transfer Station, Drop Off Center or Dump Site. The

information revealed that for Hopkins, Sittee River and the incorporation of Silk Grass will require 1.0 trips per

week to collect, transport and delivery of the waste from the villages to the Transfer Station, Drop Off Center

or Dump Site at a yearly cost of $11,960. For Independence and Mango Creek; the information revealed that

0.9 trips will also be required per week to collect, transport and delivery of the waste from the villages to the

Transfer Station, Drop Off Center or Dump Site at a yearly cost of $12,449.

In the Citrus belt, the communities of Pomona and Hope Creek required three trips per week for the

collection, transportation and delivery of waste from the villages to the Transfer Station, Drop Off Center or

Dump Site at a yearly estimated cost of $11,082 With regards to the Peninsula; the communities of Placencia,

Seine Bight, Riversdale along with the incorporation of San Roman; these communities would require 1.5 trips

per week to collect, transport and delivery of waste from the villages to the Transfer Station, Drop Off Center

or Dump Site at a yearly cost of $23,587.


The communities of the Banana Belt (Cowpen, San Juan and Red Bank); calculated that 1.4 trips per weeks

will be needed to collect, transport and delivery of the waste from the villages to the Transfer Station, Drop

Off Center or Dump Site at an estimated yearly cost of $19,423. For the communities of Trio and Bella Vista 2.1

trips is required per week to collect, transport and delivery the waste collection from the villages to the Drop

Off Center or Dump Site at a yearly cost of $29,004,18. Finally; communities of San Antonio and surrounding

communities, 0.7 trips is required per week to collect, transport and delivery the waste collection from the

villages to the Drop Off Center or Dump Site at a yearly cost of $9,704.

4.3 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR HOPKINS COMMUNITIES.

4.3.1. Optimistic Scenario

Table No.3, Conditions of the Optimistic Scenario (OS)


Table No. 4, Ten years projection for Hopkins, Sitter River and Silk Grass

Under the Optimistic Scenario (2017-2026)

Table No 3, illustrates the condition of the Best Case / Optimistic Scenario (OS), which refers to

acquiring a market share of 65% from the total 100% of the villages of Hopkins, Sittee River and Silk Grass.

Additionally; as a part of the conditions under the Optimistic scenarios, 8% of the Net Operating after Tax

(NOPAT) goes towards Reinvestment and inflation at 2%. The cost of Awareness should not exceed 8% and

the average waste collection fee were $ 6 for Residents, $16 for Shops & Restaurant and $13 for Hotel &

Resorts.

The economic evaluation of any project is measured through three financial indicators which are Net

Present Value (NPV), Internal Return Rate (IRR) and Pay Back Period (PB). These indicators were used to

determine the financial sustainability to operationalize the waste collection of these communities under the

Best Case / Optimistic Scenario as illustrated in ten projected years (2017-2026).

The information in Table No 4, revealed that there is a positive Net Present Value (NPV) of $ 1,001,856

USD, at an Internal Return Rate (IRR) of 98.9%, which should be payable in 1.01 years. The three indicators

are positive and can concluded that to operationalize the solid waste collection of the communities of


Hopkins, Sittee River and Silk Grass will be financially feasible if all key requirements are fulfil (1.

infrastructure of Drop off Center is implemented, 2. Environmental Awareness and policies are

implemented, and 3. Reinforcement of Environmental laws by Authorities as well as the application of Fines

for violations of the laws).

Additionally; training should be provided to the community leaders on the Environmental Laws and their

consequences in regards to fines. Graph No 1, illustrates the Cumulative Reduce Cash Flow (CRDF) and the

Net Operating Profit after Tax (NOPAT) under the Optimistic Scenario. Calculation also indicated that the

amount of sales required to break even is $48,680; in order to recover from the investment of $12,558 USD.

From a market perspective; the analysis was done considering the importance of Services, Place & Price;

which is critical for an Awareness Plan).

Graph 1, Cumulative Reduce Cash Flow, vs. Net Operating Profit After Tax (NOPAT)

(Optimistic Scenario)

4.3.2. Most Likely Scenario


Table No.5, Conditions of the Most Likely Scenario (MLS)

Table No 6, Ten years projection for Hopkins, Sitter River and Silk Grass Under the Most Likely Scenario (2017-2026)


Table No 5, illustrates the condition of the Possible Case / Most Likely Scenario (MLS), refers to

acquiring a market share of 40% from the total 100% of the villages of Hopkins, Sittee River and Silk Grass.

Additionally; as a part of the conditions under the Most Likely Scenarios (MLS), 5% of the Net Operating

after Tax (NOPAT) goes towards Reinvestment and inflation at 4%. The cost of Awareness should not exceed

5% and the average waste collection fee remains at $6 for Residents, $18 for Shops & Restaurant and $13

for Hotels & Resorts.

The same three financial indicators (NPV, IRR and PB); were considered for the determination of the viability

of this project; in this regard, the financial sustainability to operationalize the waste collection of these

communities under the Possible Case / Most Likely Scenario as illustrated in ten projected years (2017-2026).

The information in Table No 6, revealed that there is a positive Net Present Value (NPV) of $ 143,518 USD, at

an Internal Return Rate (IRR) of 98.9%, which should be payable in 1.01 years. Further calculation indicates

that the amount of sales that is required to break even is $30,550; in order to recover from the investment

of $12,558 USD.

As observed; the three financial indicators are positive and can conclude that to operationalize the

communities will be financially feasible if all key requirements are fulfilled as mentioned under the previous

Best Case / Optimistic Scenario (1. Infrastructure of Drop Off Center is implemented, 2. Environmental

Awareness and policies are implemented, and 3. Reinforcement of Environmental laws by Authorities as

well as the application of Fines for violations of the laws).

Additionally; training should be provided to the community leaders on the Environmental Laws and

their consequences in regards to fines. Graph No 2, illustrates the Cumulative Reduce Cash Flow (CRDF)

and the Net Operating Profit After Tax (NOPAT) under the Most Likely Case / Most Likely Scenario.


Graph 2, Cumulative Reduce Cash Flow, vs. Net Operating Profit After Tax (NOPAT) (Most Likely Scenario)

4.3.3. Pessimistic Scenario

Table No.7, Conditions of the Pessimistic Scenario (PS)


Table No. 8, Ten years projection for Hopkins, Sitter River and Silk Grass under the Pessimistic Scenario (2017-2026)

Table No 7, illustrates the condition of the Worst Case / Pessimistic Scenario (PS), refers to acquiring a

market share of 25% from the total 100% of the villages of Hopkins, Sittee River and Silk Grass. Additionally;

as a part of the conditions under the Pessimistic Scenarios (PS), 3% of the Net Operating after Tax (NOPAT)

goes towards Reinvestment, and inflation at 6%. The cost of Awareness should not exceed 3% and the

average waste collection fee remains at $ 6 for Residents, $16 for Shops & Restaurant and $13 for Resorts or

Hotels.


of this project, in this regard, the financial sustainability to operationalize these communities under the Worst

Case / Pessimistic Scenario as illustrated in ten projected years (2017-2026).

The information in Table 8, revealed that the calculated Net Present Value (NPV) is $48,899 USD; with

an Internal Return Rate of 99%, that should be payable within 6.56years. Calculations also indicates that the

amount of sales required to break even is $14,467; in order to recover from the investment of $12,558 USD.


Therefore, we can conclude that the collection, transport and delivery of waste from these communities

under any scenario is financially feasible using the different price structure from the highest ($7 for

Residential, $20 for Shop/Restaurants and $16 for Hotels & Resorts) to the lowest ($ 4 for Residential, $16

for Shop/Restaurants and $10 for Hotels & Resorts).

Graph 3, Cumulative Reduce Cash Flow, vs. Net Operating Profit After Tax (NOPAT) (Pessimistic Scenario)

4.3.4. Overall Average Scenario

Table No.9, Overall average condition; Optimistic Scenario (OS)

Table No 9, illustrates the average condition of the Best Case / Optimistic Scenario (OS), which refers

to acquiring a market share of 43% from the total 100% of the villages of Hopkins, Sittee River and Silk

Grass. Additionally; as a part of the conditions under the Average Optimistic Scenarios (OS), 5% of the Net

Operating after Tax (NOPAT) goes towards Reinvestment and inflation at 4%.The cost of Awareness should

not exceed 5% and the average waste collection fee remains at $ 6 for Residents, $18 for Shops &

Restaurant and $13 for Hotels & Resorts.



of this project, in this regard, the feasible operation of these communities under the average Best Case /

Optimistic Scenario as illustrated in the below. Additionally; the information revealed that the calculated Net

Present Value (NPV) is $ 163,364 USD; with an Internal Return Rate of 98.9%; which should be payable 1.01

years. Further calculation indicates that the required break even sales is $32,838; in order to recover from

$12,5658 USD investment. From a financial perspective, we can conclude that the operation for the

collection, transport and delivery of waste from these communities under the average Best Case / Optimistic

Scenario is financially feasible as well as sustainable.

Table No. 10, Ten years projection for Hopkins, Sitter River and Silk Grass under the Overall average condition of the Optimistic Scenario (2017-2026)


Graph 4, Cumulative Reduce Cash Flow, vs. Net Operating Profit After Tax (NOPAT) (Overall Average Optimistic Scenario)

4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR HOPKINS COMMUNITIES

4.4.1. Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic and Overall Average Scenario

In Table No.11, you can observe the different indicators considered for the sensitivity analysis from a

financial perspective. The Best Case / Optimistic Scenario; calculated Net Present Value (NPV) ranging from

$1,233,790 to $1,001,856 as a result in differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant &

Hotel/Resorts) at different prices set levels (7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at determine Market

Share participation 65% within the communities.

Consequently; the Internal Return Rate (IRR); was 98.9%; with constant Pay Back (PB) period of 1.01

years. The calculated break even sales fluctuates from $ 33,245 to $56,678 in order to recover from the

$12, 558 USD investment. In synthesis; the Best Case/Optimistic Scenario possess three (3) feasible

conditions to operationalize Hopkins and the surrounding communities.

In the Possible Case / Most Likely Scenario, the calculations were also positive. The Net Present Value

(NPV) ranges from $186,972 to $143,132 as a result in differences in targeted clients (Residents,

Shop/Restaurant & Hotel/Resorts) at different prices set levels (7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at

determine Market Share participation of 40% within the communities.

Furthermore; the Internal Return Rate (IRR) was 98.9%; with Pay Back (PB) ranging at 1.01 years. The

calculated break even sales fluctuates from $ 20,870 to $35,571 in order to recover from the $12,558 USD


investment. In synthesis; the Best Case / Optimistic Scenario also possess three (3) feasible conditions to

operationalize Hopkins and the surrounding communities considering the participation of 40% of clients.

In regards to the Worst Case / Pessimistic Scenario, the calculated Net Present Value (NPV) fluctuated

was from $ -5,837 to $ 77,264 as a result in differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant &


Share participation of 25% within the communities.

Additionally; the Internal Return Rate (IRR); was constant at 98.9%; with constant Pay Back (PB) of 1.01

years. The calculated break even sales fluctuates from $ 13,300 to $22,657 in order to recover from the

$12,558 USD investment. In synthesis; the overall average of the calculated Net Present Value (NPV) for

the Best Case / Optimistic Scenario ranges from $73,234 to $210,065; with constant Internal Rate of Return

of 99% as a result in differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant & Hotel/Resorts) at

different prices set levels (7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at a Market Share participation of 43%

within the communities.


Table No. 11; Sensitivity Analysis, Optimistic, Most Likely & Pessimistic (2017-2026)

4.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR OTHER PROPOSED COMMUNITIES.

The Feasibility Analysis for the other set of communities and their possible associates when thought

the same calculation of the same scenarios (Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic & the Average Scenario);

under the same pricing structure (7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13) and the possible Market Share (65,

40, 25 & 43%; which is the overall Average); as well as the sensitivity analysis. The set of proposed

communities are as follows: Independence & Mango Creek, 2. Pomona & Hope Creek, 3. Buena Vista, Trio,

Red Bank, Cowpen & San Juan, 4. Placencia, Seine Bight, Riversdale & San Roman, 5. San Antonio &

Surroundings.


4.5.1; Sensitivity Analysis for Independence & Mango Creek (Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic,

Overall average) (2017-2026)

In Table No.12, you can observe the different indicators considered for the sensitivity analysis from a

financial perspective. The Best Case / Optimistic Scenario; calculated Net Present Value (NPV) ranging from

$526,750 to $ 915,480 as a result in differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant &


Share participation of 65% within the communities.

Consequently; the Internal Return Rate (IRR); fluctuated between 70% to 147%; with Pay Back (PB)

ranging 0.68 to 1.43 years. The calculated break even sales fluctuates from $ 51,320 to $59,000 in order to

recover from the $70,809 USD investment. In synthesis; the Best Case / Optimistic Scenario possess three

(3) feasible conditions to implement the operation of Independence & Mango Creek community.

In the Possible Case / Most Likely Scenario, the calculations are also negative The Net Present Value

(NPV) ranges from $-96,564 to $39,158 as a result in the differences in targeted clients (Residents,

Shop/Restaurant & Hotel/Resorts) at different prices set levels (7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13).

However; the Internal Return Rate (IRR) as well as the break-even sales were negative. In synthesis; the

Possible Case /Most likely didn’t present any feasible conditions to operate Independence & Mango Creek

community under a 40% clients participation.

The Worst Case / Pessimistic Scenario as well as the Overall average; calculated negative Net Present

Values, Internal Return Rate and break-even sales. Therefore the conditions for the financial feasible to

operate Independence & Mango at 25% or 43% community participation respectively isn’t realistic.


Table No. 12; Sensitivity Analysis: Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic & Overall for Independence & Mango Creek (2017-2026)

4.5.2; Sensitivity Analysis for Pomona & Hope Creek ;( Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic &

Overall average) (2017-2026) Table No.14, illustrates the calculation for Pomona & Hope Creek for the different indicators

considered for the sensitivity analysis from a financial perspective. The Best Case / Optimistic Scenario;

calculated Net Present Value (NPV) ranging from $465,419 to $ 1,019,514 as a result in differences in

targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant & Hotel/Resorts) at different prices set levels (7-20-16, 6-18-

12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at determine Market Share participation of 65% within the communities.

Consequently; the Internal Return Rate (IRR); were constant at 99%; with also constant Pay Back (PB) of

1.01 years. The calculated break even sales fluctuates from $ 27,555 to $46,650 in order to recover from

the $4,368 USD investment. In synthesis; the Best Case / Optimistic Scenario possess three (3) feasible


conditions to operationalize Pomona and Hope Creek community.

In the Possible Case / Most Likely Scenario, the calculations are also positive. The Net Present Value



determine Market Share participation of 40% within the communities.

Furthermore; the Internal Return Rate (IRR); were constant at 99%; with also constant Pay Back (PB) of

1.01 years. The calculated break even sales fluctuates from $ 17,050 to $28,889 in order to recover from

the $10,182 USD investment. In synthesis; the Possible Case / Most Likely Scenario also possess three (3)

feasible conditions to operationalize Pomona and Hope Creek community considering the participation of

40% of clients.


was from $ 137,616 to $ 218,843 as a result in differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant

& Hotel/Resorts) at different prices set levels (7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at determine Market

Share participation of 25% within the communities. Additionally; the Internal Return Rate (IRR); were

constant at 99%; with also constant Pay Back (PB) of 1.01 years. The calculated break even sales fluctuates

from $ 10,860 to $18,411 in order to recover from the $10,182 USD investment.

In synthesis; the overall average of the calculated Net Present Value (NPV) for the Average Scenario

ranges from $210,694 to $595,989; with an Internal Rate of Return that was constant at 99%; with also

constant Pay Back (PB) of 1.01 years at a Market Share participation of 43% within the communities. The

calculated break even sales fluctuates from $ 18,330 to $31,063 in order to recover from the $10,182 USD

investment for Pomona and Hope Creek community as illustrated in the table below.


Table No. 13; Sensitivity Analysis for Pomona & Hope Creek (Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic &

Overall average) (2017-2026)

4.5.3; Sensitivity Analysis for Bella Vista, Trio, Red Bank, Cowpen & San Juan Optimistic, Most

Likely, Pessimistic & Overall average (2017-2026) Table No.14, illustrates the calculation for Bella Vista, Trio, Red Bank, Cowpen & San Juan for the

different indicators considered for the sensitivity analysis from a financial perspective. The Best Case /

Optimistic Scenario; calculated Net Present Value (NPV) ranging from $ 713,956 to $ 2,435,922 as a result

in differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant & Hotel/Resorts) at different prices set

levels (7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at determine Market Share participation of 65% within the

communities.



ranging 0.12 to 1.00 year. The calculated break even sales fluctuates from $ 63,100 to $ 107,500 in order to


(3) feasible conditions to operationalize Bella Vista, Trio, Red Bank, Cowpen & San Juan community.


(NPV) ranges from $624,493 to $ 1,098,721 as a result in differences in targeted clients (Residents,


determine Market Share participation of 40% within the communities. Furthermore; the Internal Return

Rate (IRR); fluctuated between 78% to 185%; with Pay Back (PB) ranging 0.54 to 1.22 years.

The calculated break even sales fluctuates from $ 59,650 to $67,800 in order to recover from the

$78,612 USD investment. In synthesis; the Possible Case / Most Likely Scenario possess three (3) feasible

conditions to operationalize Bella Vista, Trio, Red Bank, Cowpen & San Juan community considering the

participation of 40% of clients.


was from $ -133,974 to $ 31,943 as a result in differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant &

Hotel/Resorts) at different prices set levels (7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at determine at

participation of 25%.

Additionally; there wasn’t a positive Net Present Value, Internal Return Rate and Pay Back Period; it

was not necessary to calculate break-even sales since they aren’t financially feasibility at 25% community

participation. In synthesis; the overall average calculated Net Present Value (NPV) for the Scenario ranges

from $ 13,370 to $ 282,663; with an Internal Rate of Return the fluctuates from 0% to 293% as a result in

differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant & Hotel/Resorts) at different prices set levels

(7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at a Market Share participation of 43% within the communities. The

calculated break even sales fluctuates from $ 63,100 to $71,800; with Pay Back (PB) ranging 0.34 to 0.90

years in order to recover from the $78,612 USD investment for Bella Vista, Trio, Red Bank, Cowpen & San

Juan community.


Table No. 14; Sensitivity Analysis for Bella Vista, Trio, Red Bank, Cowpen & San Juan Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic & Overall average (2017-2026)


Table No. 15, Ten years projection for Bella Vista, Trio, Red Bank, Cowpen & San Juan under the condition of the Optimistic Scenario (2017-2026)

4.5.4 Sensitivity Analysis for Placencia, Seine Bight, Riversdale & San Roman Optimistic, Most

Likely, Pessimistic & Overall average (2017-2026) Table No.16, illustrates the calculation for Placencia, Seine Bight, Riversdale & San Roman for the

different indicators considered for the sensitivity analysis from a financial perspective. The Best Case /

Optimistic Scenario; calculated Net Present Value (NPV) ranging from $ 165,290 to $ 660,375 as a result in

differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant & Hotel/Resorts) at different prices set levels

(7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at determine Market Share participation of 65% within the

communities.


ranging 1.23 to 4.35 years. The calculated break even sales fluctuates from $ 61,467 to $67,743 in order to



(3) feasible conditions to operationalize Placencia, Seine Bight, Riversdale & San Roman community.

In the Possible Case / Most Likely Scenario, Worst Case / Pessimistic Scenario; as well as the Overall

average scenario; No positive Net Present Value, Internal Return Rate and break-even sales were calculate

since it was not financially feasibility at 40% 25% and 43% community participation respectively in theses

communities as illustrated in the table below.

Table No 16; Sensitivity Analysis for Placencia, Seine Bight, Riversdale & San Roman Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic & Average (2017-2026)


Table No. 17, Ten years projection for Bella Vista, Trio, Red Bank, Cowpen & San Juan under the condition of the Optimistic Scenario (2017-2026)

4.5.5; Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic & Sensitivity Analysis for San

Antonio & Surroundings (2017-2026)

Table No.18, illustrates the calculation for San Antonio & Surroundings for the different indicators

considered for the sensitivity analysis from a financial perspective. The Best Case / Optimistic Scenario;

calculated Net Present Value (NPV) ranging from $ 536,019 to $ 1,126,195 as a result in differences in

targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant & Hotel/Resorts) at different prices set levels (7-20-16, 6-18-

12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at determine Market Share participation of 65% within the communities.

Consequently; the Internal Return Rate (IRR); was constant 99%; along with Pay Back (PB) 1.01 years.

The calculated break even sales fluctuated from $ 29,210 to $49,550 in order to recover from the $9,478

USD investment. In synthesis; the Best Case / Optimistic Scenario possess three (3) feasible conditions to

operationalize San Antonio and Surrounding community.





determine 40% Market participation of within the communities. Furthermore; the Internal Return Rate

(IRR);was constant at 99%; along with Pay Back (PB) 1.01 years. The calculated break even sales fluctuates

from $ 18,090 to $30,713 in order to recover from the $9,478 USD investment. In synthesis; the Possible

Case / Most likely Scenario possess three (3) feasible conditions to operationalize San Antonio and

surrounding community at 40% market share participation.


was from $ 8,340 to $ 79,681 as a result in differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant &

Hotel/Resorts) at different prices set levels (7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13). Additionally; the

Internal Return Rate (IRR); was constant 99%; within a Pay Back (PB) period of 1.01 years. The calculated

break even sales fluctuates from $ 11,530 to $19,567 in order to recover from the $9,478 USD investment,

at determine Market participation of 25% within the communities. In conclusion; the overall average of the

calculated Net Present Value (NPV) for the Average Scenario ranges from $80,877 to $198,324; with a

constant Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 99% and Pay Back period of 1.01 years at a Market Share

participation of 43% within the communities. Additionally; the calculated break even sales fluctuates from

$ 19,450 to $33,013 in order to recover from the $9,478 USD investment for San Antonio and surrounding

community as illustrated in the table below.


Table No. 18; Optimistic, Most Likely, Pessimistic & Sensitivity Analysis for San Antonio & Surroundings (2017-2026)


Table No. 19, Ten years projection for San Antonio & Surroundings under the condition of the Optimistic Scenario (2017-2026)


4.6 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA)

Table No 21; Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) for the different set of communities

ASPECT COST(USD) BENEFIT

Financial

Perspective

$ 9027 to $84,153

1. 1. The Best Case / Optimistic provides calculated greater values of Net

Present Values (NPV), Internal Return Rate (IRR), Payback (PB) period and

break even sales, which provide substantive rationale for the green light of

the project.

2. 2. Provision of employment opportunities and financial income for

vulnerable families in rural communities.

Awareness

Perspective

$ 1,363 to $ 4,949

1. Creation of access services.

2. Expansion demand for other services

3. Opportunities for pricing & increase in market share.

4. Opportunity to know the competitor & its services.

5. It provides room for strategic competitive marketing

Social Perspective

1. Employment opportunities for women and youths.

2. Social cohesion among families and communities.

3. Provision of opportunities for team building & commitment.

4. Opportunities for capacity building & experiential learning.

5. Creation of alternative livelihood for family sustainability.

Learning & Growth

Perspective

1. Introduction of new processes / procedure for sustainable development. 2. Information sharing between inter-governmental, financial agencies and communities. 3. It serves as a laboratory for experiential learning & growth. 4. Opportunity for expansion in collaborative efforts for projects and other services. 5. Opportunity for research expansion and building.


V- CONCLUSIONS 5.1 SITUATION ANALYSIS

The situation analysis indicates that the communities of southern Belize faces numerous constraints

for the implementation of the Solid Waste Management project. These critical constraints are cultural effects

of waste disposal, lack of infrastructure, Lack of Environmental Law Knowledge, Lack of Environmental Law

enforcement, Lack of an Awareness Plan, Functional Governance structure and management systems.

Additionally; the creation of public awareness of waste disposal, collection as well as management

alternatives will lead to better environmental practices that will guarantee improved standard of living of

the rural inhabitants. These constraints must be address for the implementation of Solid Waste Management

program in order to guarantee the planning, execution and most of all financial sustainability of the project.


The viability of any project or process is evaluated from a financial perspective. The calculations

revealed that under the Best Case / Optimistic Scenario (OS) and Possible Case / Most Likely Scenario, there

will be significant Net Present Value (NPV) for the different sets of communities according to the

sensitivity analysis. These NPV ranges from of $ 8,340 to $ 2, 435, 992 BZE at an Internal Return Rate (IRR)

that fluctuates from 4% to 674%, which should be payable or generate positive returns from 1.01 to 0.32

months.

Additionally; these scenarios, estimated break even sales fluctuating from $ 11,530 to 107,500 USD.

This indicates that to operationalize these communities under the Best Case / Optimistic Scenario or Worse

Case / Pessimistic Scenario; it is financial feasible considering that the identified constrains are addressed.

(Ross, S. A; Westfield, W. R & Jaffe, J. 2010),

5.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The different indicators considered for the sensitivity analysis from a financial perspective for the case

of Placencia, the Best Case / Optimistic Scenario calculated Net Present Value (NPV) that ranges from $

165,290 to $ 660,375 BZE, with significant changes in the Internal Return Rate (IRR) from 35 to 674%, Pay

Back (PB) period ranging from 1.23 to 4.35 months. Lastly, the breakeven fluctuates from $61,467 to

$67,774 Bze. In synthesis; all three scenarios, possess feasible conditions to operationalize the

communities of Southern Belize (Ross, S. A; W Westfield, W. R & Jaffe, J. 2010).


5.4 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The analysis revealed that the communities of Southern Belize will benefit significantly from an

intangible benefits social cohesion, team work, capacity building, market expansion / introduction and

exchange of experiences, learning & growth opportunities as well as intergovernmental, financial agencies

and community involvement) exceeds the tangible benefits (NPV, IRR, PB) in medium or long term

(Kotler, P & Keller, L.K. 2012).

VI – RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 SITUATION ANALYSIS

Before the implementation of the projects; the critical constraints identified must be

addressed. These constraints are cultural effects of waste disposal, lack of infrastructure, Lack of

Environmental Law Knowledge, Lack of Environmental Law enforcement, Lack of an Awareness Plan,

Functional Governance structure and management systems. Additionally, the provision of training on

public awareness of waste disposal, collection as well as management alternatives that will lead to

better environmental practices that will guarantee improved standard of living of the rural inhabitants.


The project is financially feasible because of positive Net Present Value that result in

differences in targeted clients (Residents, Shop/Restaurant & Hotel/Resorts) at different price set

levels (7-20-16, 6-18-12, 4-16-10 & 6-18-13), at determine Market Share participation(65%, 40%, 25%

and 43%). The provision of capacity building in Environmental Awareness to the communities fill

facilitate strategies that gears towards sustainable development in the medium and long term

(Dumrauf, G.L. 2010).

6.3 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Considering that the intangible benefit (Awareness, Social, and Learning and growth perspective) is

significant & impressive along the tangible benefit (financial perspective). There is green light for the

project to proceed so that the communities and SWMA can aspire it’s medium and long term vision and

mission regarding environmental management (Kotler, P & Keller, L.K. 2012).


VII - REFERENCES

1. Belize Enterprise for Sustainable Technology (BEST), (September 2013); Culturally appropriate consultation and participation plan.

2. Belize Enterprise for Sustainable Technology (BEST), (October 2013); Environmental Management Framework

3. Belize Enterprise for Sustainable Technology (BEST), (November 2013); Involuntary Resettlement Framework

4. Best, J.R. (2013), Market-Based Management; Strategies for growing customer value and profitability, (6th.ed.), USA: PEARSON, pp. 485– 498

5. Dumrauf, G.L. (2010), Finanzas Corporativas; Un Enfoque Latinoamericano, (2nda.ed.), Buena Aries: Alfa omega, pp. 25– 80

6. Belize Enterprise for Sustainable Technology, (2013); Environmental Management Framework

7. Kotler, P & Keller, L.K. (2012), Marketing Management, (14th. ed.), USA: PEARSON, pp. 34– 47

8. Ross, S. A; Westfield, W. R & Jaffe, J. (2010), Cooperate Finance (9ª. ed.), USA: McGraw-Hill, pp. 300 – 426

9. Statistical Institute of Belize-SIB, (2012); Abstract of Statistics of Belize, Volume I, P 1- 20


VIII – ANNEX

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Consultancy to conduct a Waste Generation and Composition Study and a Feasibility Study for Solid Waste

Management Facilities (Drop Off Centre) in the Stann Creek and Northern Toledo Districts, Belize"

1, BACKGROUND

The economy of Belize is heavily dependent on the tourism sector, which relies on clean and beautiful beaches,

healthy coral reefs and impressive wildlife within the country. Currently in the Northern and Southern Districts,

wastes are generally disposed in open dump sites that are burnt on a regular basis creating nuisance conditions

for those living in the immediate vicinity. dump sites, when poorly managed, result in air, soil/land and water

pollution that can affect the environment as well as human and ecosystem health. As a result, maintaining a

healthy environment through improvements in vaste management is an important and necessary priority for

Belize.

The Government of Belize (GOB), through the Solid Waste Management Authority and the Ministry of Natural

Resources and Immigration and with funding from the Inter American Development Bank, OPEC Fund for

International Development (OFID) and GOB counterpart funds, is in the final stages of the implementation of

Solid Waste Management Project I (SWI\4P BY—1006) to improve solid waste management practices in tour

municipalities of the Western Corridor of Belize (San Pedro Ambergris Caye, Caye Caulker, Belize City and San

Ignacio/Santa Elena). SWMP I will support the goals of environmental protection, natural resource

conservation, and protection of public health, safety and welfare. The entire system for solid waste

management in the Western Corridor, comprising the infrastructure is being implemented under a

Design*Build-operate (DBO) contract, which is required to meet both operational and environmental

performance standards.

The GOB has received grant funding from the IDB to execute a Technical Cooperation for the preparation of a

Solid Waste Management Master Plan for Emerging Tourist Areas in the Northern and Southern Corridors. One

of the tasks under this Consultancy will be to undertake a number of waste generation and composition studies

in Coronal Town and Orange Walk Town (Northern Corridor) and in Dangriga, and Punta Gorda (Southern

Corridor). Other key tasks under the TC include the preparation of feasibility studies, Environmental

Assessment and Social Impact Assessment* and preliminary designs.

The EU funded Banana Accompanying Measures (BAM) consultancy will specifically target the selected

communities of Cow Pen, Hopkins, Independence, Pomona, Red Bank, San Roman, Seine Bight, Silk Grass, Bella

Vista. Trio and San Antonio within the Stann Creek and northern Toledo District. The outputs of this BAM study

will be to determine the quantity and quality of municipal, household and industrial waste generated, prepare

a feasibility study that includes identification and assessment of waste management options, site selection and

preliminary designs of taste management facilities, environmental stakeholder consultations and legal and

institutional arrangements to implement the preferred waste management alternative.

Synergies between both consultancies will need to be identified, addressed and capitalized on, with the view of

eventually having an integrated waste management system.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT


Global objective The overall objective of BAM 2013 is to foster social and economic development leading to the reduction

of poverty, focusing on workers and families in the banana belt, The specific objectives are to increase the

efficiency of banana production and to improve economic and social development.

Specific objective(s) of this consultancy are:

i. Conduct a Waste Generation and Composition Study to determine the composition and quantify waste

generated by residences/households. commerce/business, institutions and industries: and

Prepare a Feasibility Study including preliminary designs for Drop off Centres and conduct a financial

analysis of existing and projected collection, recycling, composting and disposal

systems into account capital (CAPEX), operating, administrative and maintenance costs (OPEX) and

make recommendations on the legal/institutional environmental and financial. structures required for

implementation.

The Consultants will be expected to recommend appropriate organizational management systems, cost

recovery mechanisms} tariff structures and cost recovery' targets for solid waste collection services, and

transfer. Requested services Consulting services to conduct a Waste Generation and Composition Study

and prepare a Feasibility Study for Drop Off Centres including preliminary designs of waste management

facilities/services.

The specific tasks of the assignment 'will be as follows:

Waste Generation and Composition Study

1: Estimate the waste generation rates and waste composition by material category in target communities :

The per capita Waste generation rates, according to the type of generator, in order to determine the

total quantities of solid waste for those generators listed at (ii) a, b, c, and d below:

(ii) The material composition (percent by weight) of solid waste generated according to the type of generator in order to project total quantities of biodegradable and other fractions of solid waste produced for: The target comrnunities are Independence, Cow Pen, Red Bank, Bella Vista, Trio, San Antonio and Hopkins:

a. Residential/household (single and multi-family homes, apartments): high. medium and low income

b. Businesses/commerce: office buildings, retail and wholesale establishments, restaurants, hotels. resorts,

c. Institutional: schools, libraries, clinics (domestic fraction), government institutions

d. Industrial: domestic •fraction (food scraps, packaging etc..); process wastes

2: Estimate the following parameters:

e Density of Waster density (kg/n:vl and lbs, /yd

3) of the waste :from each source of generation for each

community.

Moisture content: Representative samples are to be taken for laboratory analysis of moisture content

(percent weight loss after oven drying) for each source of generation.

Calorific Value and Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio (C: N): Analytic calculation of Calorific Value and C/N

ratio of solid waste for each source of generation,


3: Analysis and presentation of data: Analyse and present the data separately by community and source of

generation and aggregated. into one Banana Belt per capita generation rate (kg/person•day) and material

composition (percent by weight).

Feasibility's Study

i Assessment of current waste management practices.

The consultant will carry out an assessment of current. waste collection, recycling, composting, transport and

disposal practices in the study areas for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). This will include a literature retrieve of

solid waste management studies in the study areas. interviews with Government representatives and vil{ages

councils along with field visits to dump sites and interviews with key stakeholders to be identified by the

consultant, In addition to municipal waste the assessment should include bio-medical and hazardous waste,

special waste: organic and non-organic waste from Banana Farms.

2: Identification and assessment of waste management alternatives for collection, treatment (recycling, composting, other), and drop off centres.

Based on the previous task and the results of the waste characterization and composition study, the consultant Shall determine the waste catchment area to be served and assess the number of communities that could be serviced by each type of proposed facility and identify at least three alternatives for managing solid waste collection, transport and treatment (recycling, composting..,). These alternatives should include proposals for the management of medical and hazardous waste; white goods/bulky waste; tree trimmings and grass clippings; drain/ditch cleaning waste; septic tank pumpings (sewage): sludge from waste-water treatment plants and other types of special or difficult waste identified by the consultant. Wastes that are recycled and composted should be identified and quantified.

In the event that the consultant recommends drop off centres, recycling stations, composting facilities or

communal containers he/she shall be required to prepare screening criteria and conduct preliminary site

assessments based on internationally accepted setting criteria for drop off centres. recycling and composting

facilities as the case may be.

The section of sites for drop of centres should be focused on Nation.al Lands or lands that the owners are

willing to donate for the purpose of building waste management infrastructure,

Financial and Environment Assessment

1: Financial Assessment

The Consultant shall conduct a comprehensive financial analysis of solid waste collection. recycling and

composting within the community, This shall include estimates of capital requirements for composting. drop off

centers and equipment. It shall also project operating and maintenance costs over the first ten (10) years of the

operation of the proposed new drop off centers and equipment. The land, whether national or private. to be

devoted to new facilities shall be appraised and valued.

The analysis shall consider various government and private sector arrangernents for the construction and/or

operation of proposed recycling, composting, and drop off centres facilities as the case may be, and determine

the financial viability and technical advantages of alternative arrangements. The Consultant shall determine the

optimal capital structure(s) required to implement the proposed new facilities. The relative willingness and

capacity of residents. Businesses and industries in the target area(s) to pay for solid waste management

services shall be determined.


The feasibility of undertaking waste recycling as a source of revenue generation should be explorable together

with. on-site recycling and composting activities which minimize waste generation. The Consultant shall

develop a proposed schedule of fines and penalties for violation of solid waste management by-laws, rules,

guidelines, and regulations.

Based on the considerations above* and other factors deemed relevant by the Consultant, a tariff policy shall

be recommended. Various cost recovery schemes may be proposed together with the corresponding rate

structures for user charges. tipping fees and solid waste fees to be collected from residents, commercial and

industrial establishments. Various methods of invoicing and payment collection. shall be assessed and a cost

recovery mechanism, that is likely to increase revenues and has minim.al potential for shall be developed.

Mechanisms tbr the collection of with other services (i.e. water and sewerage, and power distribution and

generation) shall be explored. Consideration of implementing a segregated account or enterprise fund for all

solid waste revenues shall be explored. The Consultant shall prepare a financial model, which should include

projected balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement (where applicable).

The Consultant 'Will recommend alternative funding sources/financing mechanisms for the target areas to

cover potential short fails and/or provide temporary subsidies.

2: Environmental Assessment:

The Consultant shall undertake surveys conduct studies, consult with communities and compile an

environmental assessment report. The assessment should cover all likely construction and operation activities

and will include; but not to be limited 10, environmental and social impacts relating to:

Physical and geographical suitability and public acceptability of the proposed facilities;

Land acquisition and future land uses in the study area:

Waste recycling. composting, transfer and communal containers technologies to be employed;

Pollution abatement methods to be employed;

Management control and operational practices to be employed;

Potential for accidents and failures to be foreseen and mitigated: Adonitoring

and long term restoration of drop off centres; Environmental safety and

health.

Institutional & Social Assessment

As for the institutional assessment, the objectives of this task are to: (i) review and analyse the institutional

framework for waste management at the community level, (ii) review the alternatives proposed to reinforce

the institutional system of the sector and (iii) review the social/community habits and practises that may

impact any solid waste management system proposed.

The Consultant shall examine the pros and cons of a range of alternative institutional arrangements for their

amenability to create financially self-sustainable solid waste services, Such arrangements shall include: village

solid waste management boards, and solid waste public/private partnerships. The Consultant shall propose a

strategy by which efficient delivery of solid waste collection. recycling, composting, and use of drop off centres

would be optimized The institutional recommendations shall address problems in the existing solid waste

management system, including possible problems of: labor productivity, hiring qualified staff. capacity building,

revenue generation capacity, enforcement capacity and timeliness, maintenance of equipment, cash flow ör

recurrent expenditures, availability of capital, status of the organization and management of the drop off

centres.


The Consultant should assess whether the solid waste system should be managed as a whole or in parts (e.g.,

whether collection should be handled by the community and Doc's should be handled by a central authority).

The Consultant should also examine the pros and cons of integrating solid waste management operations with

water supply and waste water management, Whether special wastes (site., medical and hazardous wastes)

require special arrangements shall be examined.

The proposed strategy should be accompanied by recommended organizational structure(s) with institutional

relationships and clearly defined responsibilities. Corresponding management systems and operating

procedures should be formulated. Illustrative staffing plans should be prepared including the type and level of

skills required and identifying any labor shortages or excesses within the system. A capacity development

program for managers and technical staff shall be prepared if deemed advisable, identifying general training

needs in topic, mode. duration and source.

Required outputs

1, Waste Generation and Composition Study for identified communities

2, Feasibility Study for waste management facilities Drop Off Centres and/or other services: 3, Financial and Environmental Assessment of options for waste management facilities Drop Off Centres

and/or other services including cost recovery mechanisms report,

4, Institutional Arrangements for the proper project execution.

Language of the Contract English

Subcontracting (to be foreseen or not) Subcontracting is permissible

3. EXPERTISE REQUIR.ED

The Team should comprise the following experts:

Key Experts

Solid Waste Management Specialist

Institutional and Financial Specialist

Waste Characterization. Specialist

Environmentalist

Social Expert

Non Key Experts

Field supervisors, survey staff Technicians etc. as required*

It is expected that the team will consist of experts with local expertise and ability to communicate with the

Spanish: Garifuna and Mayan populations in the targeted communities. Each of these specialists shall work in

the project area for short periods to collect the essential information and obtain the views and concerns of

various key stakeholders, and complete related analysis and report preparation in their home-office.

At least one member of the team should have demonstrated knowledge of hazardous and medical waste

management. It is emphasised that the experts will be working in communities and rural areas in southern


Belize and therefore knowledge related to solid waste management in communities and rural areas is a distinct

advantage.

Solid Waste Management Specialist Category 1: Team Leader — 40 working days The Lead Consultant shall be a

solid waste management specialist.

- Qualifications and Skills the Lead Consultant must have at least a Bachelor's Degree in Environmental

Engineering, Environmental Studies or related discipline.

Proficient in spoken and written English.

Excellent communication and team management skills.

General Pre/&ssional Experience

He/she will at least years of demonstrated experience working in solid waste management and planning field.

- Specific Professional Qualifications

Have successfully conducted at least three (3) integrated solid waste management studies, with emphasis on

community/rural waste management.

Institutional and Financial Specialist Category l: 30 working days - Qualifications and

Skills

The Consultant must have at least a Bachelor's Degree in Finance, Business Administration, Economics or

related discipline.

Proficient in spoken and N,written English

Excellent communication skills

General Professional Experience will have at least 12 years of demonstrated experience working in

institutional and financial planning.


Have successfully conducted at least three (3) assignments related to institutional and financial management in

community and rural settings

Experience on one assignment related to institutional & financial management related to solid waste

management would be an advantage.

Waste Characterization Specialist Category Il: 15 working days - Qualifications and

Skills

The Consultant must have at least a Bachelor's Degree in natural sciences, engineering or related discipline.

Proficient in spoken and written English. Excellent

communication skills.

General Professional Experience

He/she will have at least 6 years of demonstrated experience working in Solid Waste Management

and waste recycling and composting.



Have successfully conducted at least two (2) assignments related to Solid Waste Characterization,

preferably at community or rural level.

Environmentalist Category Il: - 20 working days

- Qualifications and Skills

The Consultant.t must have at least a Bachelor's Degree in natural sciences, environmental

engineering or related discipline.

Proficient in spoken and written English.

Excellent communication skills,

- General Professional Experience

He/she will have at least 6 years of demonstrate experience working in Solid Waste Management.

Specific Professional Qualifications

Have successful conducted at least two (2) assignments related to Environmental Assessment of Solid

Waste Management Projects.

Experience on one assignment related to solid waste characterization would be an advantage.

Social Scientist Il: - 15 working days

- Qualifications and Skills

The Consultant must have at least a Bachelor's Degree in social sciences or related discipline.

Proficient in spoken and w

ritten English.

Excellent communication skills*

- General Professional Experience

He/she will have at least 6 years of demonstrated experience working in Community

Development± Facilitation and Participatory Management*

- Specific Qualifications

Experience on one assignment related social impact assessments and community participation in solid waste management would be an advantage. Management team member presence required or not for briefing and/or debriefing No required.

4. LOCATION AND DURATION Location of assignment: BELIZE (Stann Creek and northern Toledo Districts) Starting period:September 2016 Foreseen finishing period: December 2016

5. REPORTING

Content and indicative reporting schedule:

1. Inception Report: Within two (2) weeks, the consultant shall produce an inception report outlining initial observations, list of personnel, demographic data of the communities, sampling plan design, assumptions, and detailed work program for the study. The work program shall describe the waste characterization survey, sampling, collection of samples, sorting protocol and laboratory analytical protocols to be used. The work program shall include a detailed schedule for all work. including field work in each of the communities.


2. First Interim Report: Within five (5) weeks, the consultant shall produce an interim report outlining (i)

demographic data and preliminary data on waste generation rates in the study area; (ii.) preliminary waste

composition data by material categories per generator type in each community; (iii) preliminary densities of

waste per generator type in each community; (iv) preliminary moisture content data per generator type in each

community: (v) preliminary calorific value and C:N data per generator type in each community, The report shall

also include preliminary result of the assessment of current solid waste management practices; and preliminary

presentation of the identification and assessment of waste management alternatives for collection, treatment

and drop off centres.

3. Second Interim Report: Within seven (7) weeks, Draft Feasibility Report and an examination and preliminary

proposal of legal/institutional arrangements for various solid waste management activities with

recommendations on the optimal approach and proposed organizational structure and staffing; Draft

Environmental and Social Assessments:

4. Final Draft Report: Within nine (9) week* the consultant shall produce a draft final report. including (i) final

presentation of all background information, demographic data, survey data and findings; (ii) analysis and

presentation of waste generation and composition survey and recommendations: (iii) preliminary designs of

Drop of Centres, recycling or composting facilities as the case may be; (v) Recommendations for

Legal/institutional framework and organizational structure (v) Environmental Assessment Report; (vi) Social

Assessment Report (vii) Cost Recovery mechanism Report; (viii) Report on private sector participation with

recommendations on which activities should involve the private sector. This should be presented in a Public

Forum,

6. Final Report: \Within four (4—3) 'Weeks from receipt of comments from NAO and SWaMA reviewers,

the consultants shall produce a final report addressing review comments.

MILESTONE WEEKS TO COMPLETION

l . Contract signature

Inception Report 2

3. First Interim Report 5

4. Second Interim Report 7

5. Final Draft Report 9

6. Comments Final Draft Report and public

presentation

10

7. Final report 12

Submission/comments: 3 hard copies plus electronic version of the reports in English language.

7. INCIDENTAL EXPENDITURE

Other imitatively reimbursable costs With their details,

8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Monitoring will be done by the EU Technical office in Belize together 'With NAO and involved ministries and

partners.

specific contract n°...

Documents