One thing politicians sometimes forget is that people just want their basic services to get done right: safe streets, clean streets. And so, I am convinced issues of water and waste will eventually be primary factors in how satisfied people are with their governments. This appeared first in the Penang Monthly issue of November 2010.
We can’t afford bad waste management
Curbing the amount of solid waste we generate and improving our ability to collect them and then dispose of them rationally are major challenges for a modern state. Malaysia’s political culture of centralised solutions may be more a hindrance than a help.
Whilst the words “green” and “sustainable” have been gaining popularity in both the public and private sectors in Malaysia, it is worrying that problems associated with solid waste have intensified. No doubt, the management of solid waste over the years has always left much to be desired. Piles of rubbish strewn across open sites, irregular waste collection and dirty garbage trucks chugging along our roads are part of our national landscape.
Whether we like it or not, they are signs that something is not right in this country of ours. Why have the issues been so difficult to resolve, and who and what are responsible for this baneful affair?
Solid waste can be discussed in three segments, namely waste generation (residential, commercial, institutional and municipal), waste collection, and finally waste disposal. Where waste generation is concerned, the problem is worldwide. Since we consume in increasing amounts, the things we have to throw away have multiplied tremendously in volume. This of course puts great pressure on a society’s ability to collect and to dispose of its own throwaways.
The problem is not beyond our ability to manage. Some developed countries have learnt to deal with the problem. But in Malaysia, we are still fumbling around for acceptably efficient solutions.
Problems at three levels
According to the Housing and Local Government Ministry, Malaysia produces 25,000 tonnes of waste daily, and this is expected to rise to 30,000 tonnes by 2020. Out of this, 45% is food waste, 24% plastic, seven per cent paper and six per cent iron and glass. Selangor’s population of 3.49 million produced 3,090 tonnes per day in 2004 with Kuala Lumpur being responsible for 2,538 tonnes per day, or 5/6 of them.
Penang’s population of 1.34 million in 2002 produced 1,189 tonnes per day, and the MPPP (Municipal Council of Penang Island) showed that the amount of solid waste disposed increased by 52% to 768 tonnes per day in 2006 from 505 tonnes per day in 2005.
In 2001, Malaysia as a whole generated 0.68kg per capita/day, compared with Vietnam at 0.61kg per capita/day, Thailand at 0.23kg per capita/day and Singapore at 1.13kg per capita/day. Curbing waste generation is definitely the first thing that needs doing.
The second issue is waste collection. This has been under the purview of local authorities. However, whilst local councils that had sufficient funds could provide those services by contracting them to private companies, poorer councils could not. Waste management is never a profit-making exercise. For the latter, collection became infrequent. Local authorities spend RM1bil annually dealing with solid waste.
In Penang, collection coverage reportedly approaches 90% of households on Penang Island and 70% of households in Seberang Perai on the mainland.
The third problem is waste disposal. Less than five per cent of all waste is currently being recycled, when 30-50% is actually recyclable. Although recycling campaigns have been carried out before, these have largely failed to result in a systematic process of extracting recyclable items from the waste flow. Open dumping and open burning of waste were common practices until the early 1990s when landfills gradually became the preferred solution. As at April 2007, there were 261 landfills in the country, about 150 of which were still operating. There are now nine operating landfills in Selangor, all located away from urban areas. Landfills come under local council jurisdiction and are managed by appointed operators.
Landfills however are not a sustainable solution, as many are at critically full levels and need safe closure, non-sanitary landfills require upgrading and some landfills have been found to have been built too close to water catchment areas and access roads. An example is the Bukit Tagar landfill in Rawang where in 2006 an open pipe valve caused leachate spillage, leading to the contamination of Sungai Selangor. A more recent phenomenon is that of scavengers (immigrants and Orang Asli, depending on the site) who are exposed to toxic wastes and dumpsite collapse. Landfill capacity is severely limited today and land availability for new sites or transfer stations is not promising.
Land filling however remains the predominant treatment for municipal waste, even in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.
Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007
The federal government at the time did take measures to address this and passed the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 to institutionalise strategies and procedures for solid waste management. The objective was to ensure better and efficient management of waste collection, recycling and disposal, all at no extra charge. The distinctive feature of the legislation is that it removes the responsibility of solid waste management from local authorities and transfers this to the federal government instead. This has been a reiterated feature under the planning authority Performance Management and Delivery Unit’s (Pemandu) recently announced Economic Transformation Programme (ETP).
Between 2007 and today, the privatisation process has been ongoing with negotiations expected to conclude by the end of this year. Eventually, the federal government’s plan is to pay three concessionaires to operate solid waste management in Peninsular Malaysia: Alam Flora (central zone), E-Idaman (northern zone) and Southern Waste (southern zone).
The current status in Penang is that the collection system is actually being operated by contractors on behalf of the two local authorities. In Selangor, all 12 local councils except for Hulu Selangor already contract out to Alam Flora, although in some councils these are sub-contracted further. It is estimated that between 30-40% of local council revenue is used for solid waste management.
Penang, however, is resisting the takeover by the federal government. The takeover requires councils to surrender their Solid Waste Management Department assets and human resources to the Solid Waste Management Body. The state is also not convinced that a third party will be more efficient, and is understood to be in consultation with the proposed concessionaire and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
The success of this privatisation process depends on several factors, namely concessionaire ability to deliver on waste collection, recycling and disposal and maintain financially viable operations. Solid waste management companies cannot be given concessions similar to that of the water services concessions in Selangor, some of which were biased in their favour despite their lack of experience. More importantly, the federal government must not try to “save” the companies if they eventually become financially unsustainable, and risk being accused of bailing out private companies. Solid waste is not as capital intensive as water services, the bulk of the cost being vehicles, collection and overcoming environmental costs such as leachate.
The Act legislates for twice-a-week waste collection for households and daily for wet markets. The existing 112 unsanitary landfills are to be closed and rehabilitated, with some to be upgraded to sanitary landfills. There will also be mandatory garbage sorting in 2012, with accompanying fines for any failure to adhere to the regulations.
Other recommendations
Mandatory waste separation is definitely one necessary solution, although ideally, waste generation should be reduced at source. This means purchasing items with minimal package. Recycling can itself be wealth-generating, for example large cardboard boxes can be disposed of at shopping centres. Scavenging at landfills could also be formalised through a material recovery facility for manual sorting. At a conference I attended in Jakarta recently, a folder handmade from waste was distributed instead of the usual conference files, product of a project called Trashpickers (website www.xsprojectgroup.com).
Other alternatives have been proposed, such as the use of integrated solid waste management systems with zero emissions, or incinerators. Some countries already use eco-friendly incinerators, such as Austria and Japan, for example.
In order for incinerators to work, their design must ensure complete combustion, and they must be well-maintained. Poor management of equipment in Malaysia however has led to doubt as to whether large-scale incinerators will work here. Another problem is that transporting waste to incinerators will require smooth traffic conditions, which currently do not exist in the Klang Valley. In Malaysia, a study was conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s which ruled out heavy-duty incinerators in the Klang Valley because of bad traffic conditions. Kuala Terengganu and Broga are two sites with incinerators presently.
Ultimately, the proposals by the federal government will only work if the new concessionaires ensure efficiency of collection, mandatory separation, and efficient transportation of rubbish and disposal of waste in an environmentally-safe way. It will be interesting to see what transpires if not all state governments accede to federal demands. From the consumers’ perspective, all should advocate the 5Rs recommended by the Centre for Environment, Technology and Development Malaysia (CETDEM): rethink, reduce, repair, reuse and recycle.
