Benchmark Indicators for Integrated and

Sustainable Waste Management (ISWM)

Professor David C Wilson
Independent Waste & Resource
Management Consultant
Imperial College London

ISWA World Congress, Vienna, 8 October 2013

Context: Why Benchmark Indicators?
1. Availability, comparability &
reliability of SWM data is poor
2. Need a consistent means to
assess the current baseline in a
city & highlight priorities for
improvement
3. Allow consistent comparison
of performance between cities
4. Allow monitoring of progress
Photos: Illegal dumping in Port Harcourt, Nigeria
Moshi, ‘the cleanest city in Tanzania’
Photo credits: © Kaine Chinwah; Alodia Ishengoma
‘Wasteaware’ ISWM Benchmark Indicators
1. Project started in 2009, many
people involved
2. Written paper provides
progress report to end 2012
3. Scope goes beyond ‘hard’ data
– ‘soft’ aspects often critical
4. Ambition is to apply the
indicators to any city – North
or South
Photos: Collection in Bamako, Mali and Adelaide, Australia
Photo credits: © Erica Trauba; Justin Lang, Zero Waste South Australia
Step 1: 2010 UN-Habitat Book
• Compiled by a team of 30+
professionals from North & South
• Objective 1: to provide a critical
review and guidelines on SWM in
the World’s cities
• Objective 2: address the critical
lack of solid waste & recycling
benchmarks – ISWM Indicators
set ‘Prototype A’
• Set out to collect reliable and
consistent data from 20 cities Scheinberg A, Wilson D.C. and Rodic L. (2010).
using that methodology Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities.
Published for UN-Habitat by Earthscan, London
 Step 2: Analysis and Further Testing
• Using
‘Prototype A’
• Comparative Rotterdam, NL

analysis for Tompkins County, US

Varna, BG
•Bishkek
San Francisco,US Sousse, TU
Ghorahi, NP
the ‘20 cities’ Bamako, ML
Bahrain• Delhi, IN
Kunming, CH
Dhaka, BN
Quezon City, PH
Managua, NC Bengaluru, IN
Nairobi, KE
• Additional Canete, PR
Moshi,TZ

Lusaka, ZM
testing in Belo Horizonte, BR
Curepipe, MU

Adelaide, AU

further cities
Analysis: Wilson, D.C., Rodic L., Scheinberg, A., Velis, C.A. and Alabaster, G. (2012).
Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities.
Waste Management & Research, 30, 237-254.
Bahrain: Al Sabbagh et al, 2012. Waste Management & Research, 30(8), 813-824.
Bishkek: Sim et al, 2013. Waste Management and Research, 31 (10 Supplement).
 Step 3: Revise indicators
• Based on experience in use
• New version – ‘Prototype B’
• Initially tested in 5 case study cities as
part of GIZ ‘Operator Model’ project
• Focus of this presentation
Case studies (from top): Qena, Egypt; Castries, St. Lucia;
CIGRES, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; Maputo, Mozambique.
Also, Surat, India
GIZ report: Soos et al, 2013. Operator Models – Understanding Local Objectives:
Respecting Diversity. Eschborn: GIZ (in press).
Simplified ISWM analytical framework
1. Public health –
4. Inclusivity
Collection

6. Sound
2. Environment
Physical Governance Institutions
– Disposal & Pro-active
Policies

3. Resource value
5. Financial
3Rs – Reduce, Sustainability
Reuse, Recycle

© David Wilson, Ljiljana Rodic, Costas

Concept: Scheinberg A, Wilson D.C. Velis. See Proceedings of the Institution of
and Rodic L. (2010). Solid Waste Management Civil Engineers, Waste and Resource
in the World’s Cities. Earthscan for UN-Habitat Management, 2013, 166, WR2, 52-68.
 Quantitative indicators
Physical
Driver Indicator
component
1. Collection
Public health Collection
coverage
Environmental Treatment & 2. Controlled
protection disposal disposal

3Rs: reduce, 3. Recycling rate

Resource value (including organics
reuse, recycle recycling)
Public health – 1. Collection coverage
World Bank website: 30-60% in low & middle income countries
100% Wilson, D.C., Rodic L.,
Scheinberg, A., Velis, C.A.
90% and Alabaster, G. (2012).
Comparative analysis of
Collection / sweeping coverage (%)

solid waste management in

80% 20 cities.
Waste Management &
Research, 30, 237-254.
70%

60%

50%

Income level
40%
High
0% Upper-middle
1

500
700
900

2000

4000

6000
8000
10000

30000

50000
Lower-middle
Low
GNI per capita (000' $)
 Other quantitative indicators (20 cities analysis)
1990s baseline for environmental control : open dumping
still dominant in middle and low-income countries
2. Controlled 3. Recycling
Income Level
Disposal Rate
High 100% 54%
Upper-middle 95% 15%
Lower-middle 93% 27%
Low 53% 27%
Substantial progress has been made,
particularly in middle-income countries
Data source: Scheinberg A, Wilson D.C. and Rodic L. (2010). Solid Waste
Management in the World’s Cities. Published for UN-Habitat by Earthscan, London
 Quantitative indicators only part of story
100%
2. Controlled
90% Income Level
Disposal
Collection / sweeping coverage (%)

80%

70% High 100%

60%
Upper-middle 95%
50%

40%
Lower-middle
Income level 93%
High
0% Upper-middle

Low 53%
1

500
700
900

2000

4000

6000
8000
10000

30000

50000

Lower-middle
Low
GNI per capita (000' $)

So revised Prototype B: introduced complementary

qualitative indicators – 1Q, 2Q, 3Q
Each is a composite indicator,
scored against 5 or 6 criteria
 Example: Criteria used to derive 1Q:
Quality of waste collection/ street cleaning
No Criterion Description
Appearance of waste Presence of accumulated waste around
1Q.1
collection points collection points/containers
Presence of litter and of overflowing litter
Effectiveness of
1Q.2 bins in city centre, along main roads and in
street cleaning
popular places where people gather
Effectiveness of Presence of accumulated waste/ illegal
1Q.3 collection in low dumps/ open burning in and around lower
income districts income districts of the city
Effectiveness of
Appropriate service implementation,
1Q.4 supervision and
management and supervision in place
management control
Health and safety of Use of appropriate personal protection
1Q.5
collection workers equipment & supporting procedures
 User manual provides guidance on
assessment against each criterion
For example:
No Criterion Description
Appearance of waste Presence of accumulated waste around
1Q.1
collection points collection points/containers

Score to be assigned
Assessment
0 5 10 15 20

Very Medium/
Incidence is: High Medium Low
high High

Role of the ‘User’ or ‘Assessor’ is critical:

requires a level of ‘professional judgment’
 Governance indicators – ‘Prototype A’
• Governance is by definition difficult to measure
• Approach taken in original UN-Habitat indicators:
Indicator Short name Description of what that indicator
No. represents
Composite qualitative indicator:
4U User inclusivity
Degree of User inclusivity
Provider Composite qualitative indicator:
4P
inclusivity Degree of provider inclusivity
Quantitative indicator: % of total
Financial
5 households both using and paying
sustainability
for collection services
Sound Composite qualitative indicator:
institutions & assesses the policy framework and
6
proactive the degree of municipal control and
policies institutional coherence
 Governance indicators – ‘Prototype B’
• Extensive revisions: all composite, qualitative indicators
• Revamped criteria for existing 4U and 4P
• Introduced 6 criteria for revised 5F
• Split No. 6 into two composite indicators
No. Description of what indicator represents
4U Degree of User inclusivity
4P Degree of Provider inclusivity
5F Financial sustainability
6N Adequacy of national SWM framework
6L Local institutional coherence
All indicators summarised as ‘traffic lights’
• Qualitative indicators: assessment ‘linear’ vs calculated ‘scores’
• Quantitative indicators: assessment scales different for each
‘Traffic light’ colour coding
LOW/ MEDIUM HIGH
LOW MEDIUM
No Indicator MEDIUM / HIGH

All qualitative 81-

- 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80%
indicators 100%
Collection 99-
1 0-49% 50-69% 70-89% 90-98%
Coverage 100%
Controlled 95-
2 0-49% 50-74% 75-84% 85-94%
disposal 100%
3 Recycling rate 0-9% 10-24% 25-44% 45-64% 65%+
 Supplementary information
to characterise a city’s
solid waste management performance

© David Wilson, Ljiljana Rodic, Costas Velis

Worked Example: Maputo, Mozambique
A: Supplementary information
No Category Indicator Results
Background information on the city
Country income World Bank income category Low
G1
level GNI per capita $470
G2 Population of city Total population of the city 1,131,149
G3 Waste generation MSW generation (tonnes/year) 508,000
Key Waste-related data
449 (or
W1 Waste per capita MSW per capita (kg per year)
316)
W2 Composition: 3 key fractions – as % wt. of waste generated
W2.1 Organic Food and green wastes 65%
W2.2 Paper Paper 8.5%
W2.3 Plastics Plastics 8.0%
Worked Example: Maputo, Mozambique
B: Physical indicators
No Category Indicator Results
1 Collection coverage 82%
Public health –
Waste collection Quality of waste
1Q M/H
collection service
2 Environmental Controlled disposal 0%
control – waste Environmental quality
2Q treatment and of waste treatment and L/M
disposal disposal
3 Recycling rate < 5%
3Rs – reduce, reuse
and recycling Quality of 3Rs
3Q L/M
provision
Worked Example: Maputo, Mozambique
C: Governance indicators
No Category Indicator Results
Degree of user
4U User inclusivity M
inclusivity
Provider Degree of provider
4P M/H
inclusivity inclusivity
Financial Financial
5F M/H
sustainability sustainability

Sound Adequacy of national

6N L/M
institutions, SWM framework
proactive Degree of institutional
6L policies M
coherence
 Step 4: On-going work
• Further testing of ‘Prototype B’ in
12+ cities
• Extensive expert peer review
• In-depth testing within a country
(Egypt) – 19 more cities
• Preliminary updating to ‘prototype C’
and testing in Guadalajara, Mexico
• Comparative analysis for 36 cities
• Complete updating - ‘Prototype D’
• Next steps: Finalise, upload to web,
widespread roll-out
Photo credits: © Recaredo Vilches
Guadalajara
 Summary – benefits of benchmarking
• Provides a rapid assessment of
the solid waste management
situation in a city
• Allows areas of comparatively
strong and poor performance to
be identified, to help prioritise Qena, Egypt
future work
• Allows consistent comparison
between cities and countries
• Allows for monitoring over time.
Progress can be recorded and Kunming,
analysed Photo credits: GIZ; Ljiljana Rodic China
‘Wasteaware’ ISWM benchmark indicators
• Many person-years of • Cover both physical and
development since 2009 governance aspects
• Uses integrated sustainable • Revised version: 3
waste management quantitative + 8 composite
framework qualitative indicators
• Applicable both ‘South’ & (comprising 43 criteria)
‘North’ • ‘Finalised’ by end 2013

Please use
them!
 Thanks to …
• UN-Habitat for their leadership
and funding of initial work and
data gathering
• GIZ who part-funded steps 3 & 4
• My many co-authors, including
Ljiljana Rodic, Mike Cowing,
Andy Whiteman, Joachim Stretz
and Anne Scheinberg
• The global community of
practice (CWG) who did the
work behind the Habitat book
• The many ‘testers’ in 36 cities
One size does not fit all – large
• My students at Imperial College and small composting plants in
• and most of all to … Adelaide and Canete, Peru
Photo credits: © Justin Lang, Zero Waste South Australia; Oscar Espinoza
 … the millions of
professional waste
workers around
the world

Clockwise from top left: Canete, Nepal, Delhi, Sousse,

Cairo, Bengaluru, Dhaka, San Francisco, Rotterdam

Photo credits in same order: © Oscar Espinoza; Bhusan Tuladhar;

Enrico Fabian; Verele de Vreede; David C Wilson; Jeroen Ijgosse;
Waste Concern; Portia M. Sinnott; Rotterdam
 Thank you for
listening!

www.davidcwilson.com
waste@davidcwilson.com
d.c.wilson@imperial.ac.uk