Institutional Arrangements for Solid Waste Management in Metropolitan Areas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Sao Paulo City (cont.) • Given impossibility of regional MSWM plan, Sao Paulo City has formulated its own strategic solid waste plan • source separation of organic waste for composting (twin chamber collection trucks) • 4000 tpd composting plant • produce 1500 tpd high quality compost • potential for 300,000 Nm3/day of CH4 • 3 modern incinerators with energy recovery, each 1250 tpd • 2 enlarge landfills for final disposal of ash and rejects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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