CENTER FOR CLEAN AIR POLICYccap.org/assets/Evaluation-of-NAMA-Opportunities-in-Colombias... · CENTER FOR CLEAN AIR POLICY EVALUATION OF NAMA OPPORTUNITIES ... SSPD - Superintendence

CCAPCENTER FOR CLEAN AIR POLICY

EVALUATION OF NAMA OPPORTUNITIES IN COLOMBIA’S SOLID WASTE SECTOR

WRITTEN BY:

Leo LarochelleMichael TurnerMichael LaGiglia

RESEARCH SUPPORT:

Hill Consulting (Bogotá)

Dialogue. Insight. Solut ions.OCTOBER 2012

Evaluation of NAMA Opportunities in Colombia’s Solid Waste Sector 1

Acknowledgements This paper is a product of CCAP’s Mitigation Action Implementation Network (MAIN) and was written by Leo Larochelle, Michael Turner, and Michael LaGiglia of CCAP. This project was undertaken with the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Federal Department of the Environment. Special thanks are due to the individuals and organizations in Colombia who offered their time and assistance, through phone interviews or in-person discussions to help inform this work. The support of the Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible was essential to the success of this report as well as help from the Steering Committee (made up of the Ministerio de Ambiente Vivienda Y Desarrollo Territorial, the Departamento Nacional de Planeación, the Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, and the Superintendencia de Servicios Públicos Domiciliarios), representatives from Santiago de Cali (Empresa Pública de Gestión Integral de Residuos Sólidos de Cali, Departamento Administrativo para la Gestión del Medio Ambiente), Medellín (Area Metropolitana del Valle de Aburra Unidad Ambiental), Ibagué (Corporación Autónoma Regional del Tolima-Cortolima and Interaseo) and Sogamoso (Secretario de Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente and Coservicios). The views expressed in this paper represent those of CCAP and not necessarily those of any of the other institutions or individuals mentioned above. For further information, please contact Michael LaGiglia at ([email protected]).

http://www.ccap.org/index.php?component=programs&id=43

mailto:[email protected]


List of Acronyms

CARs - Regional Autonomous Corporations (Regional Environmental Authorities) CCAP - Center for Clean Air Policy CDM - Clean Development Mechanism CEMPRE - Corporal Commitment on recycling - www.cempre.org.co CPC - Colombian Politic Constitution of 1991 CRA - Regulatory Commission for Water and Sanitation - www.cra.gov.co DANE - National Department of Statistics - www.dane.gov.co DNA - Designed National Authority EICE - Industrial and Commercial State´s companies EPR - Extended Product Responsibility EU - European Union GHG - Greenhouse Gas HDPE - High Density Polyethylene ICA - Colombian Institute of Agriculture IDEAM - Colombian Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies - www.ideam.gov.co IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISWM - Integrated Solid Waste Management LFG - Landfill Gas LFGTE - Landfill Gas to Energy MADS - Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development - www.minambiente.gov.co MBT - Mechanical Biological Treatment MDL - Clean Development Mechanism MRV - Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable MSW - Municipal Solid Waste NAMA - Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action PGIRS - Integrated Solid Waste Management Plans RAS - Technical Regulation for drinking water and sanitation RDF - Refuse Derived Fuel RUPS - Public Services Providers Registry SINA - National Environmental System SSPD - Superintendence for Household Public Services - www.superservicios.gov.co SUI - Unique Information System of domiciliary public services providers - www.superservicios.gov.co SWM - Solid Waste Management UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.ideam.gov.co/


USTDA - United States Trade and Development Agency WTE - Waste to Energy


Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

Economic Model ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

Analysis of Technologies ................................................................................................................................................ 9

Cost Prohibitive Technologies ................................................................................................................................... 9

Potentially Viable Technologies ............................................................................................................................... 10

Recommended Colombia Integrated Waste NAMA .................................................................................................... 12

Assessment Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 13

Assessment Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 15

Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 17

Background on Canadian Waste Initiative .......................................................................................................... 17

Colombian Waste Assessment Report ................................................................................................................ 17

Section 2: Solid Waste Management and GHG Emission Fundamentals .................................................................... 26

Section 3: Waste NAMA Fundamentals ....................................................................................................................... 30

Section 4: Solid Waste Management in Colombia....................................................................................................... 35

4.1 Solid Waste Generation and Disposal ................................................................................................................ 35

4.2 Solid Waste Composition ................................................................................................................................... 37

4.3 Recycling and Recovery in Colombia ................................................................................................................. 39

4.4 Solid Waste Disposal in Colombia ...................................................................................................................... 44

4.5 Institutional Framework .................................................................................................................................... 46

4.6 Municipal Integrated Solid Waste Management Plans (PGIRS) ......................................................................... 50

4.7 Target Community Solid Waste Management Conditions ................................................................................ 52

a. Santiago de Cali ............................................................................................................................................... 52

b. Medellin .......................................................................................................................................................... 60

c. Ibagué .............................................................................................................................................................. 69

d. Sogamoso ........................................................................................................................................................ 71

Section 5: Climate Change Activities in Colombia ....................................................................................................... 75

5.1 Climate Change Policy and Initiatives in Colombia ............................................................................................ 75

5.2 Colombia CDM Projects Overview and Experience ........................................................................................... 77

Section 6: Alternative ISWM Scenarios – Viability and GHG Mitigation Potential ...................................................... 81


6.1 Waste Reduction ............................................................................................................................................... 88

6.2 Collection and Transport ................................................................................................................................... 88

6.3 Recycling, Processing and Recovery .................................................................................................................. 89

6.4. Disposal ............................................................................................................................................................. 93

6.5 Integrated Solid Waste Management Processes ............................................................................................... 95

6.6 Net GHG Mitigation Effects ............................................................................................................................... 95

Section 7: Economic and Financial Considerations ..................................................................................................... 99

7.1 ECONOMIC VIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY.................................................................................................... 100

7.2 COLOMBIA'S CURRENT TARIFF STRUCTURE AND ALLOCATION ...................................................................... 110

7.3 FINANCING AND SERVICE PROVISION ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 111

Section 8: Colombia Waste NAMA Alternatives and Design ..................................................................................... 114

8.1 Waste NAMA Related Activities and Initiatives ............................................................................................... 114

8.2 Recommended Colombia Integrated Waste NAMA ........................................................................................ 116

8.3 Technical and Economic Basis for the Integrated Model ................................................................................ 119

8.4 Waste NAMA Related Factors and Processes in Colombia .............................................................................. 121

8.5 Waste NAMA Development Drivers – Strengths and Weaknesses ................................................................. 121

8.6 Waste NAMA Implementation Impediments .................................................................................................. 123

Section 9: Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 125

Assessment Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 125

Assessment Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 126

Annex 1: Principal Active MSW Landfills in Colombia ............................................................................................... 128

Annex 2: Solid Waste Composition in Colombian Departments ............................................................................... 129

Annex 3: Companies Currently Active in Buying Recovered Recyclables in Colombia .............................................. 130

Annex 4: Cement Manufacturing Plants in Colombia ................................................................................................ 131

Annex 5: Major Private Sector Contractors Active in Colombia ................................................................................ 133

Overview of Waste Management Companies in Colombia ................................................................................... 133

Company profiles .............................................................................................................................................. 133

Annex 6: Economic Model Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 136

Annex 7: Construction and Demolition Waste Management .................................................................................... 143

Annex 8: Extended Product Responsibility ................................................................................................................ 150

Annex 9: References .................................................................................................................................................. 157


Evaluation of NAMA Opportunities in Colombia’s Solid Waste Sector Executive Summary The intent of the Colombia Waste NAMA assessment is to analyze solid waste management (SWM) technologies and programs that could be implemented in Colombia to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions as well as other health, economic, and social co-benefits under the framework of a Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA). The assessment investigates baseline conditions and factors that influence the development of new SWM programs and facilities, and provides a scoping analysis to identify elements of SWM that could be implemented singly or as an integrated package. In undertaking the assessment, the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) in association with Hill Consulting of Bogota, and on behalf of Environment Canada, made use of extensive available national information and data to determine the applicability of alternative SWM approaches that can achieve GHG emission reductions while also improving solid waste management conditions in an economically viable and sustainable manner. To accomplish this, CCAP also investigated specific conditions in four municipalities (Santiago de Cali (Cali), Medellín, Ibagué and Sogamoso) that were viewed to represent different demographic and institutional settings in Colombia. SWM is one of the major urban problems faced by municipalities throughout the world. In recent years, the focus for improving municipal SWM has been towards the development of Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) programs where each facet of the sector (waste generation, collection, transfer, disposal, etc.) is analyzed in a holistic manner. Through this integrated approach, SWM in developing countries has increasingly been focusing on waste minimization, energy and resource recovery rather than solely viewing the sector as an environmental risk and public service issue. In developed countries, expensive disposal and public opposition to landfill siting has only increased this trend. MSW recovery potential is primarily the function of the physical characteristics of the solid waste to be managed and the manner by which recovery is achieved. Mature and proven processing technologies are commercially available for recovery and treatment purposes. However, worldwide experience has shown that the application of some conventional technologies must be carefully evaluated to determine that they are economically viable and sustainable within the specific settings for which they are intended. In recent years, municipalities in Colombia have made significant progress in improving their core SWM services and functions including collection, transport and disposal processes. (Current government estimates indicate that up to 92% of the municipal solid waste in Colombia is disposed of in sanitary landfills.) National policies have also evolved to promote ISWM approaches that seek to achieve a “zero


waste” culture. By regulation, Colombian municipalities were required to develop solid waste management plans to define how they will further improve their local SWM programs to meet national regulations. However, implementation of these plans has been slow as a result of a number of factors described in this report. Currently and in parallel to these evolving SWM situations in Colombia, increased concern about anthropogenic climate change effects has brought solid waste management into a new global focus as a potential source of climate change mitigation. By their nature, most SWM processes are a source of GHG emissions (i.e., methane emissions from landfills) but this report will outline ways that this can be remedied. For initial screening purposes, CCAP evaluated the applicability of a number of conventional solid waste management approaches in two scenarios and various technical configurations within each scenario including: Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Processing

1. Waste to Energy (WTE) - incineration for energy recovery 2. Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility - utilizing anaerobic digestion as the core

biological process 3. Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility - utilizing windrowed compost as the core

biological process 4. Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility - utilizing In-Vessel compost as the core

biological process 5. Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) (With refuse derived fuel generation) - primarily for

materials recovery including recyclables and/or the production of refuse derived fuel (RDF) for offsite utilization.

Source Separation Source separation and independent collection of: 6. Organic waste - from residences (yard waste, food scraps, non-recyclable paper, etc.) or

specific large-scale generators such as markets, restaurants, etc. 7. Recyclable materials - from specific high-volume commercial/industrial generators and from

residential sources

Landfill gas collection and treatment 8. Landfill gas collection and treatment - in closed and active landfills throughout Colombia


Economic Model During the assessment process, CCAP developed an economic model to evaluate the cost and GHG impact for the different SWM technology/program options. The model used estimated revenues from potential tipping fees, and the generation and sale of electricity, recyclables, compost and refuse derived fuel for different technology/program options. The model also estimated costs for capital equipment, operations and maintenance, and financing for different technology/program options. In order to run the model, CCAP used specific information on Cali’s municipal solid waste (MSW) (e.g. amount of annual municipal solid waste and solid waste composition data, etc.). The model calculated the added cost per ton of MSW to treat the waste under each technology/program option. Table ES-1 shows the results of the economic model under best case, average and worst case assumptions.

Alternatives Cost to Treat MSW (USD/ton)

GHG Reduction (USD/ton CO2e )

GHG Reduction (ton CO2e/ton of

processed waste)

Best Avg. Worst Best Avg. Worst Best Avg. Worst Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case

1. Waste To Energy -55 -99 -143 53 96 138 1.04 1.04 1.04 2. MBT (Anaerobic Dig.) -42 -70 -98 31 52 73 1.35 1.35 1.35 3. MBT (Windrowed Compost) -6 -28 -51 4 21 38 1.35 1.35 1.35 4. MBT (In-Vessel Compost) -19 -41 -64 14 30 48 1.35 1.35 1.35 5. MRF (With RDF Generation) -15 -39 -63 10 27 43 1.46 1.46 1.46 6. Source Separation - Organics -3 -21 -40 5 36 66 0.6 0.6 0.6 7. Source Separation - Recyclables -6 -39 -73 6 39 73 0.33 0.33 0.33 8. Landfill Gas Recovery* n/a n/a n/a

* Landfill gas recovery was not included in the model because its economics are very site specific. It should be noted that due to the complex nature of waste management technologies and the significant impact that location can have on costs and revenue, this economic analysis should be considered only as indicative to help explore initial economic viability. It should also be noted that the cost data presented in this report relates to an assessment of economic factors consistent with a waste


stream in a city similar to Cali. This model can be utilized as a tool for other cities in Colombia if local factors and scale issues are taken into account. While all of the options analyzed result in increased costs for treatment as compared to disposal in sanitary landfills assuming current tipping fees, CCAP believes several of these options are still possible as elements of a waste NAMA given the factors described below. NAMA financing has the ability to help reduce the cost increases associated with new waste processing systems. These factors could significantly affect or reverse the negative numbers shown in the above table:

• Reduced collection and transport costs. Although the model already factors in avoided disposal costs by considering the tipping fee as potential revenue, it does not include avoided collection and transportation costs. The collection and transport system is very site specific depending on where a processing facility would be located in relationship to the current landfill. There could be significant cost savings and an increase in collection efficiency in the collection and transport system (which in Cali is 78% of total SWM costs, or USD 42/ton). These savings could be passed on from municipalities to SWM service providers to incentivize diversion of waste going to landfills.

• Tariff reform. Further, incentives given by municipalities could be greatly enhanced by the upcoming tariff reform process. It is anticipated that, at a minimum, tariff reform will seek to allocate tariff funds to recovery projects based on the avoided costs for both disposal and collection/transport. If the government decided to include an incentive element to the tariff to support recovery projects and initiatives, this could also reduce the additional costs associated with recovery projects.

• Reduced need for future landfills. Deferred capital investments in landfill expansion due to decreased landfill airspace utilization may also result since design landfill airspace will be utilized at a slower rate through diversion of solid waste materials away from the landfill.

• More attractive financing terms. Especially for capital intensive facilities, the viability of each scenario is highly dependent on financing terms such as interest rates, loan term, and debt to equity ratios. CCAP has used conservative financing terms for our assessment. The Government of Colombia, either local or national, could also drive the diversion of waste away from landfills by providing concessional terms to SWM projects. Incentives for renewable energy could also boost the viability of those scenarios that produce electricity or use waste as direct fuel (RDF).

Analysis of Technologies

Cost Prohibitive Technologies Waste to Energy and Anaerobic Digestion. Conventional waste to energy technologies such as those utilized in the United States and European Union are, most likely, not viable in Colombia for both technical and economic reasons. The high organic (and resulting moisture) content of typical municipal


solid waste in Colombia makes it very difficult for conventional incineration technologies to effectively combust the solid waste without significant preconditioning of the waste prior to direct combustion. In addition, the high capital and operating costs associated with these systems and typical air pollution control systems normally utilized would significantly increase in the cost of solid waste management. Similarly, the utilization of mixed solid waste Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facilities that utilize anaerobic digestion as the core biological process would also be cost prohibitive.

Potentially Viable Technologies The six remaining options could be economically feasible and therefore should be evaluated further as a potential Waste NAMA in Colombia. A number of these alternatives may be a technical component of a composite mixed solid waste processing facility utilizing various treatment processes as will be defined in the proposed Waste NAMA model.

• MBT (Windrowed Compost). A mechanical biological treatment facility with a windrowed compost component as the primary biological element is an attractive alternative to pursue as part as an integrated waste NAMA because of its lower capital cost (25-60 million USD based on the scenario evaluated in the model) and low cost per ton of CO2e reduction ($4/ton in the best case scenario). A key sensitivity in the economic analysis of this technology is the value and marketability of compost produced in Cali. As compost markets in Colombia are highly fragmented and prices are volatile, a full market study is needed to ensure sufficient demand for the low-grade compost generated in this type of MBT facility when processing a mixed solid waste stream.

• MBT (In-Vessel Compost). A MBT facility with an in-vessel composting approach shares some of the same favorable aspects of the windrowed facility. While In-vessel systems are more capital intensive (35-70 million USD based on the scenario evaluated in the assessment) than windrowed composting, their advantage is that they require less space, have lower processing times (3-28 days) and better controlled odor and leachate issues. Again, compost values and sufficient demand will determine the economic feasibility of this technology.

• MRF (With RDF Generation). There is a positive economic case for the inclusion of Materials Recovery Facilities with Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) generation in the development of the Waste NAMA, especially when considering the potential demand for RDF in some Colombian communities where cement kilns are located. While these facilities are more expensive with capital costs between 32 to 67 million USD for the evaluated scenario, market conditions for RDF in cities such as Sogamoso offer an opportunity to offset high capital and operating & maintenance unit costs and achieve considerable GHG reduction impacts (1.46 ton CO2e/ton processed waste) through energy substitution. Cities or regions that have robust cement industries that rely on fossil fuels would be suited for RDF generation. Assessing market conditions for RDF in each site will be critical for assessing the economic feasibility of this technology in various local settings.


• Source Separation – Organics. The economic feasibility of the source separation organics (SSO) alternative is highly dependent on the generation and sale of the high quality compost which can be produced through composting source separated organic material. It should be noted that collection costs are site specific and it is assumed that any SSO program will utilize the structure of the existing waste management collection system to the degree possible or, at a minimum, possibly decrease the scope of the conventional collection system for the sources where organic materials are independently collected. This alternative is also considered an important component of any Colombian waste NAMA because it is consistent with the existing waste management strategies and goals as represented in the municipalities’ ISWM (Integrated Solid Waste Management) or PGIRS plans.

• Source Separation – Recyclables. Strong markets for recovered recyclables exist in Colombia which may provide a basis for developing a program that collects source separated recyclable materials. However, this would directly compete with the existing informal sector recycling process (which collects about 10% of the total waste stream) which may make it difficult to formally collect available recyclable materials set out by generators for collection. Source separation set-outs could provide a greater opportunity for informal recyclers to simply take the material prior to the formal collection process thereby affecting the recovery rate that could be achieved through the formal process.

• Landfill Gas Collection and Treatment. In addition to the above, the possible installation of landfill gas to energy systems could lead to GHG mitigation benefits. A recent study funded by the United States Trade and Development Agency related to the CIS El Guacal landfill site in the greater Medellin region concluded that an enhancement of the existing landfill gas collection and treatment system at the landfill site to recover energy is economically feasible based on the continued receipt of the current amount of solid waste at the site throughout the life of the project. Similar situations at other landfills in Colombia would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

With support of the above model results, CCAP has made the following observations:

1. Markets for recyclable materials recovered from the municipal solid waste stream are strong and sufficient for a significant increase in the amount of recyclable materials recovered through formal recovery processes. This is also the basis for the strength of the informal sector in their material recovery endeavors.

2. Markets for both high and low quality compost in Colombia need to be developed if composting is to be adopted as an option for treating solid waste organic content.

3. Potential opportunities exist in utilizing refuse derived fuel derived through mechanical processing for co-firing in the numerous cement kilns located throughout Colombia.

4. Some landfills in Colombia have already installed landfill gas collection and treatment systems under the CDM framework. Most of these, if not all, were developed as a means for achieving


the revenue derived from the sale of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs). Additional opportunities may exist for installing landfill gas treatment systems (particularly landfill gas to energy systems), especially considering the fledgling market for CERs worldwide.

5. For the most part, solid waste management plans prepared by the municipalities that were reviewed by CCAP emphasize the intent to develop source separation processes for organics and recyclables as a means for 1) reducing the amount of solid waste delivered to landfills and 2) complying with national solid waste management policies and strategies.

6. GHG mitigation benefits associated with the various technology alternatives are a function of both direct and indirect results. Any solid waste stream organic content diverted from landfill disposal will help to reduce the quantity of methane generated at the landfill by reducing the amount of material subject to the landfill’s anaerobic decomposition process. This will result in a direct net increase in GHG emissions based on the manner by which organic content is diverted. In addition, there will be significant levels of indirect avoided GHG emissions that will result from some ISWM processes. For example, recovery of solid waste stream recyclable components will help to avoid GHG emissions derived through producing new products from virgin materials now displaced by the use of recycled materials.

Recommended Colombia Integrated Waste NAMA Based on its findings, and consistent with current SWM planning initiatives at the national and local levels, CCAP recommends that a Colombia Waste NAMA consist of an integrated approach model that involves:

1. MBT facilities that could generate refuse derived fuel, recyclables and compost 2. Integrating tariff reform into the Waste NAMA evaluation 3. Potentially implementing landfill gas to energy on active landfills that currently collect and flare

landfill gas 4. Pursuing source separated waste for organics and recyclables.

The viability of these elements is dependent on local conditions. Financial support will be needed on many options to help overcome the incremental costs of implementing facilities. NAMA financing coupled with appropriate tariff reform measures could make integrated waste management strategies economically viable. The principal driver will be the existence, viability and economic effect of market outlets for recovered commodities. These “market” conditions will define the nature, capacity and viability of technical elements (and resulting economic impact) of the model components as reflected in the schematic below. The principal output commodities will be recyclables, compost and refuse derived fuel derived through source separation and mixed waste processing activities. The mixed processing element will seek to derive all three of the output commodities depending on the characteristics of available


“market” entities in the local areas. The model also recognizes that the informal sector may continue to play a role in recovering recyclable materials in the local areas. In applying the model to any local or regional area in Colombia, specific conditions will determine the definition, viability or design capacity of any individual technical element of the model. This may mean that some local areas or regions will not support the development all of the technical elements or that some elements may be more viable than others. Figure ES-1 depicts the elements of the proposed integrated solid waste management NAMA model

Municipal Solid Waste

Manual/Partial Mechanical Separation

Refuse Derived FuelRecyclables

Landfill Disposal

Informal Recyclers

INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT MODEL SCHEMATIC

Dry Organic and Other Materials

Formal Source Separation

Source Separated Organics

H

L

Compost

Mixed Waste Processing Element

Landfill Gas Energy Recovery

High Moisture Organics

H L Denotes Potential for High and Low quality compost

Assessment Conclusions Based on its assessment of current conditions, CCAP derived the following general conclusions:

1. The general solid waste management situation in Colombia has progressed and evolved to a point where a good level of service is provided in core collection, transport and disposal processes in most municipalities.

2. Solid waste management improvements over the past decade have been supported by the modification and strengthening of Colombia's national institutional framework. This has led to the active participation of multiple service providers where private capital is playing a significant role in the development of upgraded services and facilities. As a result of this, disposal facilities


throughout the country have been upgraded to a point where a significant proportion of the solid waste generators in Colombia is now disposed of in facilities that are classified as sanitary landfills.

3. Colombian solid waste management policy seeks to achieve a “zero waste” culture by promoting integrated solid waste management approaches that will recover the intrinsic value of solid waste components through a variety of means. This policy is reflected in the local solid waste management plans (PGIRS) prepared by municipalities throughout Colombia.

4. Colombia still has a significant way to go in terms of implementing integrated solid waste management processes. This is primarily due to the institutional and policy impediments that currently exist. Important impediments to the development of ISWM processes relate to overall economic sustainability where the existing solid waste management tariff structure does not recognize recovery processes as a formula factor in defining tariff allocations. However, the government of Colombia recognizes this impediment and is currently working on revising its tariff framework to include waste recovery processes. Other legal requirements such as the limitation capping any costs associated with solid waste recovery processes to be passed on to generators to the offset cost of core collection and disposal services may also create an impediment to the development of recovery programs and facilities that may achieve important environmental benefits but at a higher cost than current core services.

5. Implementation of policy based programs such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) initiatives or the diversion and recovery of construction and demolition waste can derive some GHG mitigation benefits. EPR elements that help to reduce the overall amount of municipal solid waste generated or that improve the prospects for marketing output materials from recovery projects will have a beneficial impact as will the recovery of construction and demolition waste components that will decrease the total amount of solid waste placed in landfills or displace the use of virgin materials through recovery. (An effective program to manage construction and demolition waste will have the major added benefit of helping to rectify one of the most solid waste management visible problems in Colombian municipalities.)

6. The regionalization of final disposal sites with the significant participation of the private sector has been accomplished in many locations in Colombia with the result that there is a strong basis for future regional applications of solid waste processing facilities and the availability of sufficient solid waste from multiple sources to take advantage of economies of scale that may affect the technical and economic viability of some ISWM processes and elements of the proposed Waste NAMA integrated model.

7. Recycling in Colombia is primarily accomplished through the informal sector which is viewed to be an important element for future solid waste management in the country. This includes the need to incorporate the informal sector into future processes as well as consider its impact on the viability of alternative formal programs and facilities with which the informal sector may compete.


8. Analysis of available outlets for recyclable materials in Colombia demonstrates that there are strong markets with significant demand for materials for use in manufacturing new products. Currently, supply has not kept up with demand to a point where recyclable materials are imported into Colombia for manufacturing purposes. Current available markets are expected to support significantly greater levels of recovery in Colombia in the future.

9. Source separation cost remains as one of the main obstacle for the implementation of some municipal waste recovery strategies. Increased incentives will be necessary to achieve an effective level of source separation of various materials. In addition, the strengthening of ongoing public education programs will be required to help assure the effective participation and cooperation of residential, commercial and industrial solid waste generators in new or expanded source separation initiatives.

10. New programs and facilities that can achieve greater material or energy recovery levels from the municipal solid waste stream are expected to increase the overall cost of solid waste management in Colombia. The ability to accept and accommodate these increased costs will be an important element in decision-making relative to the development of any new solid waste management process that may be included as a component of a Colombian Waste NAMA. However, all potential locale specific cost savings (such as those associated with the impact on the efficiency and cost of conventional collection and transport processes) must also be considered through the development and utilization of full cost accounting principles.

Assessment Recommendations Based on this assessment, CCAP recommends the following:

1. A Waste NAMA in Colombia should be developed based on an integrated solid waste management approach where mechanical biological treatment facilities could generate refuse derived fuel, recyclables, and/or compost depending on the local market conditions for the recoverable elements. The next steps for developing such a NAMA would include:

a. Conduct a feasibility study for an MBT facility in 1-2 municipalities which would include an evaluation of the market potential for RDF, recyclables and compost.

b. Conduct a national scoping analysis to identify other municipalities in which favorable conditions exist for MBT facilities

2. The upcoming tariff reform presents a critical opportunity to align stakeholder incentives with integrated waste management goals. The current tariff should be analyzed as to how potential revisions could strengthen the feasibility of a waste NAMA. CCAP would be open to directly supporting the CRA (Comisión de Regulación de Agua Potable y Saneamiento Básico) in researching alternative tariff adjustment scenarios affecting the upcoming tariff reform process, dependent on the CRA’s willingness for this collaboration.


3. There may be opportunities to implement electric generation projects on sites that are currently collecting and flaring landfill gas. A scoping analysis should be done to fully evaluate this potential.

4. Source separation for organics and recyclables can be an effective part of an integrated solid waste management program in the longer term. Because the economic feasibility of source separation is highly dependent on the generation and sale of compost and recyclables, additional analysis should be conducted on the market for compost and recyclables, and should specifically address the informal sector recycling process.


Section 1: Introduction Background on Canadian Waste Initiative

In early 2012 Environment Canada added substantial funding to CCAP’s well established MAIN program (Mitigation Action Implementation Network), specifically targeting climate mitigation efforts in the solid waste sector in Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic and Mexico. As part of the greater MAIN project, the Canadian waste initiative was created to support the design and implementation of NAMAS in the solid waste sector. Funds were made available by the Canadian government to support select pilot projects, feasibilities studies, and/or technical assistance and workshops in these countries to result in “shovel ready” and financeable waste NAMAs by the project conclusion date in March 2013. The following report is part of the work done to date towards the development of a Colombian Waste NAMA. Colombian Waste Assessment Report

The intent of this assessment is to investigate baseline conditions and factors that may influence the development of solid waste management (SWM) programs and facilities that will achieve climate change benefits by mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The assessment is based on a need to define the development process for an effective Waste NAMA in Colombia. Figure 1 presents a schematic of an approach for implementing a Waste NAMA and also defines the key issues and activities that will need to be addressed during the development process, with this initial assessment to serve as a starting point.


Review related policies/plans and their progress

in ISWM and NAMA process

Define reference scenarios for evaluation

Set Waste NAMA targets

Define and develop priority Waste NAMA

projects

o Identify barriers to existing policies/plans/targets in the NAMA sectoro Define and select reference scenarios for detailed evaluationo Consider countermeasures to address identified barriers to Waste

NAMA implementation process

o Identify main GHG emission sources in the Waste NAMA sectoro Select practical GHG mitigation measureso Estimate GHG emission reduction potential by identified practical GHG

mitigation measureso Set “NAMA Targets” considering the possibility of realization of

identified practical GHG mitigation measures

o Establish selection methodology of priority Waste NAMA pilot projectso Define priority Waste NAMA pilot project candidates o Select priority Waste NAMA projects in the NAMA sector for

implementation activities

Define current solid waste management

situation

WA

STE

NA

MA

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T PR

OC

ESS

AN

D A

CTI

VITI

ES

PROCESS KEY ACTIVITIES

o Examine existing national policies, plans, and targetso Understand/assess the progress of national policies/plan/targets in the

NAMA sector based on existing data and informationo Understand the methodology to manage national policies, plans and

targets

WASTE NAMA DEVELOPMENT MODEL

Establish MRV methodologies for Waste

NAMA plans

Identify possible financial resources for implementing Waste

NAMA plans

Develop schedule and process for

implementing Waste NAMA plans

o

o Define and evaluate current practices and facilitieso Establish baseline GHG emission levelso Define new ISWM facilities for effective serviceso

o

o Evaluate and engage financial institutions and donors for implementation of Waste NAMA pilot projects

o Develop means for risk assessment capacity building for conventional financing institutions o

o o Establish process for implementing Waste NAMAo Develop implementation schedule for Waste NAMA elementso

o Define means for measuring Waste NAMA process resultso Define means for reporting and verifying Waste NAMA process resultso Establish protocols for MRV management

Figure 1

In regards to new facilities and programs that may be identified as potential components of a Waste NAMA, this preliminary assessment is not intended to replace the detailed feasibility studies that would provide the level of information necessary to fully evaluate the viability and sustainability of individual actions. In addition to identifying baseline conditions, the assessment also seeks to define implementation impediments and to recommend procedures to overcome them.


Solid Waste Management Basis for the Colombia Waste NAMA Assessment - Solid waste management is one of the major urban problems faced by municipalities throughout the world. While the historical public service funding priority allocated to municipal solid waste (MSW) management often lags behind that associated with water and sanitation services, it is still one of the most visible public service issues that governments must manage. This is particularly the case for MSW collection services that can affect the perceived cleanliness of urban roadways and, as a result, the overall public and visitor impression of a municipality. In recent years, the focus for evaluating and improving solid waste management conditions has been towards the development of Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) programs. In such programs, the integrated nature of various solid waste management processes is stressed and solid waste is viewed as a resource rather than solely as an environmental risk and public service issue. Effective ISWM programs usually seek to recover materials and/or energy from the MSW stream for sale while reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills for disposal. It is important to note that an effective ISWM program can involve a variety of SWM facilities and activities that address various components of a municipality’s solid waste stream. Accordingly, individual processing facilities such as solid waste incinerators or mechanical/biological treatment systems can coexist with other processes such as recycling achieved through the informal sector. MSW recovery potential is primarily the function of the physical characteristics of the solid waste to be managed and the manner by which recovery is achieved given existing economic and social conditions. Mature and proven processing technologies are commercially available for recovery and treatment purposes. However, experience throughout the world has shown that the application of some technologies must be carefully and thoroughly evaluated to determine that they are economically viable and sustainable within the specific municipal settings and conditions for which they are intended. This is particularly true when considering their use in countries with evolving economies where current solid waste management practices and facilities are often substandard with resulting low costs and poor performance. In recent years, municipalities in Colombia have made significant progress in improving SWM services and functions particularly as they relate to core service elements (collection, transport and disposal). National policies have been developed that promote ISWM approaches that seek to achieve a “zero waste” culture intending to reduce the quantity of solid waste that must be placed in landfills. Disposal facilities throughout the country have improved as open dumps are being closed and new landfills with improved design, operating, and environmental compliance standards are being implemented. Also, as a result of increasingly stringent regulatory requirements and enforcement, Colombian municipalities were required to develop solid waste management plans (PGIRS) that would serve as a basis for defining how they would further improve their SWM systems and programs to meet national laws, policies and regulations. However, since these municipal solid waste management plans were developed (mostly


about 5 to 6 years ago), they have not resulted in the actions (new programs and facilities) defined in their plans. This is primarily due to implementation reality (the increased cost often associated with improved practices and standards and the impediments created by existing policies and funding (tariff mechanisms that do not consider waste recovery, for example). From a sustainable development viewpoint, effective solid waste management is crucial for conserving local environments and this has been the fundamental basis for worldwide solid waste planning and development for decades, including Colombia. Currently and in parallel to evolving SWM situations, increased concern about anthropogenic climate change causes and effects has brought solid waste management into a new global focus. There is an emerging recognition of the potential for shared co-benefits associated with the evolution of effective solid waste management processes and climate change related initiatives. By their nature, most SWM processes are sources of GHG emissions but, importantly, they are now also viewed as a potential sector for significant mitigation of emissions both through direct and indirect means. The sector’s mitigation effects can occur through improvement of current practices or the development of new solid waste processing/recovery facilities and programs that divert solid waste components from landfill disposal. Furthermore, lifecycle analyses have demonstrated that the use of recycled materials in production processes can significantly reduce GHG emissions from the extraction and transport processes of virgin raw material. Worldwide, the SWM sector contributes 3 to 5% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions. In Colombia, it is slightly higher at 5.7% (10,277 Gg of CO2e based on data from their last UNFCCC National Communication). However, the sector is considered to be in a unique position to provide significant GHG mitigation with increasing degrees of energy and resource recovery instead of traditional disposal methods. This future evolution of the solid waste sector through the development of a Waste NAMA in Colombia can build on the global climate change progress made to date. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognizes that total global GHG emissions from the waste sector have significantly decreased in recent years primarily as a result of the increased prevalence of landfill gas (LFG) recovery and treatment systems. However, LFG systems that eliminate the emission of methane are not the only opportunities that exist in the waste sector for achieving beneficial GHG mitigation results. This report seeks to define some of those opportunities as they relate to SWM conditions in Colombia and recommend how they can be optimized through the development of the Waste NAMA. The intent of this assessment report is to evaluate the potential for reducing GHG emissions through alternative approaches to SWM improvements in Colombia and to define potential actions that will achieve that result. For the most part, many of these development initiatives are the same as those already under consideration by Colombian municipalities in their solid waste management plans.


Figure 2 In undertaking the assessment, the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) in association with Hill Consulting of Bogota and on behalf of Environment Canada, made use of extensive available national information and data to determine the general applicability of alternative SWM approaches that achieve GHG emission benefits while also providing the more immediate and visible benefits of improving solid waste

Sogamoso

Sanitago de Cali

Medellin

Ibague

Figure 2Waste NAMA Assessment Municipalities


management in local areas in Colombia in an economically viable and sustainable manner. For evaluation of representative local conditions, CCAP also investigated specific SWM conditions in four municipalities viewed to represent different demographic and institutional settings in Colombia. This local outreach sought to provide CCAP a further understanding of the issues related to developing new SWM initiatives and scaling up the findings of the assessment to nationwide actions that may subsequently define and implement an appropriate Waste NAMA. The municipalities included in the assessment were: Santiago de Cali (Cali), Medellín, Ibagué and Sogamoso whose locations are shown in Figure 2. Table 1 presents a listing of all Colombian municipalities with populations over 100,000 people. (The assessed municipalities are shown in green in this table.) CCAP believes that the selected municipalities represent prevailing conditions for the full spectrum of municipalities shown in Table 1. Therefore, assessment results may be applicable to other locations shown in the table with the caveat that the specific situations in any municipality will have an effect on the best and most viable approaches to achieve SWM and GHG mitigation benefits. However, the findings of this preliminary assessment will hopefully have national applicability. Since the technical and economic viability of new technology or process applications are often a function of an effective economy of scale, the Table 1 municipalities are apt to be the possible locations for new facilities that may utilize capital intensive technologies possibly through regional configurations involving multiple municipalities including Colombia’s smaller municipalities not shown on the Table 1 listing. To the benefit of ISWM project development potential, regionalization of solid waste management services is currently evident throughout Colombia. There are numerous regional landfills throughout Colombia that serve as an important precedence for possible regional applications of processing and recovery technologies. (A listing of the principal landfills in Colombia is shown in the Annex 1 of this report.) Many of the possible institutional arrangements and relationships that may support the necessary scale of regional ISWM facilities already exist and they include the strong participation of a qualified private sector. CCAP views that both of these factors are an indication of the progress that has been made in Colombia and they will continue to be advantageous in developing new solid waste processing facilities in the future. A critical objective of this assessment is to relate the technical and economic aspects of alternative SWM scenarios and actions to the amount of GHG mitigation benefits that may be derived. However, any new ISWM facility or process that seeks to accomplish these benefits must be carefully evaluated to assure that it can be created in a manner that is economically viable and sustainable for the municipalities or private sector organizations responsible for providing effective solid waste management services. Unfortunately, new facilities and processes using state of the art recovery technologies and sound practices will, most likely, increase the overall cost of solid waste management services in the areas where they are developed. The ability to accommodate these increased costs is one of the most


important factors that political leaders and governments must consider in deciding whether to implement new ISWM systems. This is also an important factor in defining new policies, laws and regulations that may be necessary to overcome the current impediments to waste recovery initiatives. A strong political and social driver for improving SWM while achieving GHG emissions reductions can help stakeholders and decision-makers support and accept the possible higher costs necessary to achieve the desired recovery (and climate change) results. Based on experience with available recovery technologies and processes throughout the world, it is evident that there is considerable variation in the technical nature and potential investments required to implement the various technical elements and configurations of effective ISWM programs. High-technology systems such as waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration plants and mechanical biological treatment (MBT) facilities that rely on anaerobic digestion as the core biological process are often too expensive for use in countries with emerging economies. This is especially the case in countries where improvements in core collection and disposal services must still be achieved to meet a basic level of service and reduce imminent public health risks. (The economic justification for high-technology facilities in industrialized countries is often the high cost of landfill disposal resulting from compliance to very stringent laws and regulations). While significant progress has been made in Colombia in improving core collection and disposal services, landfill tipping fees are still low when compared to U.S. and E.U. conditions thereby possibly affecting the economic viability and sustainability of high-technology systems.


Table 1 Source: Hill Consulting (Bogotá), 2012 While cost effectiveness and affordability is important in determining which ISWM approaches are most viable and sustainable for municipalities in Colombia, this situation does not necessarily change when also considering potential new SWM projects and initiatives as a means for mitigating GHG emissions. Projects must still be technically and economically sound and they generally face the same development impediments that municipalities face in the implementation of their SWM plans. However, the GHG mitigation aspect of new actions (in conjunction with economic and social benefits) may provide an enhanced political driver that could beneficially affect the development process as well as creating new

SANITARY LANDFILL

CONTROLLED DUMP

OPEN DUMP

WATERWAYS OTHER

Bogotá 6,558,000 100 0.72 4,721,760 4,722 100Cali 2,181,000 97 0.77 1,679,370 1,679 100Medellín 1,909,000 100 0.81 1,546,290 1,546 100Barranquilla 1,276,000 100 0.80 1,020,800 1,021 100Cartagena 854,000 97 0.87 742,980 743 100Cúcuta 644,000 100 0.46 296,240 296 Bucaramanga 543,000 100 0.55 298,650 299 98 2Ibagué 403,000 97 0.63 253,890 254 99 1Pereira 401,000 94 0.58 232,580 233 Santa Marta 382,000 97 0.72 275,040 275 86 14Bello 353,000 97 0.49 172,970 173 97 3Pasto 349,000 100 0.61 212,890 213 99 1Manizales 345,000 100 0.72 248,400 248 100Neiva 317,000 98 0.80 253,600 254 Soledad 310,000 100 0.60 186,000 186 100Armenia 293,000 100 0.58 169,940 170 100Villavicencio 289,000 98 0.51 147,390 147 Soacha 285,000 95 0.88 250,800 251 100Valledupar 278,000 98 0.85 236,300 236 95 5Montería 256,000 100 0.60 153,600 154 100Itagüí 246,000 98 0.62 152,520 153 98 2Palmira 234,000 100 0.66 154,440 154 100Sincelejo 234,000 100 0.51 119,340 119 100Floridablanca 232,000 95 0.50 116,000 116 90 10Buenaventura 230,000 80 0.65 149,500 150 100Popayán 206,000 98 0.67 138,020 138 98 2Barrancabermeja 183,000 100 0.60 109,800 110 100Dosquebradas 166,000 84 0.40 66,400 66 100 9Tuluá 157,000 100 0.75 117,750 118 100Envigado 145,000 99 0.31 44,950 45 99 1Cartago 129,000 98 0.44 56,760 57 82 18Girardot 117,000 95 1.02 119,340 119 Florencia 116,000 80 1.04 120,640 121 100Maicao 115,000 100 0.60 69,000 69 100Sogamoso 114,000 81 0.38 43,320 43 100Buga 113,000 100 0.61 68,930 69 100Tunja 112,000 100 0.79 88,480 88 100

COLOMBIA MUNICIPALITIES WITH OVER 100,000 PEOPLEDISPOSAL METHOD

MUNICIPALITY POPULATIONCOLLECTION COVERAGE

UNIT GENERATION

RATE

TOTAL MSW GENERATED

(KG/DAY)

TOTAL MSW GENERATED (TONS/DAY)


potential opportunities for deriving financial support from outside international sources through a consideration of these actions as a component of a Waste NAMA.


Section 2: Solid Waste Management and GHG Emission Fundamentals Table 2 lists the conventional ISWM processes that are sources of GHG emissions. The table also identifies possible mitigation processes and improvement opportunities inherent to each of the listed ISWM activities. For assessment purposes, Table 2 is primarily intended to identify the linkage between conventional SWM activities and the types of projects that will derive emissions reductions in Colombia. This listing of potential projects will, most likely, be the source of the primary physical components of a Colombian Waste NAMA. The nature and complexity of the listed mitigation activities and projects will determine their technical viability and cost-effectiveness for realizing the GHG mitigation potential that may be derived.

Table 2


As a result of ongoing international climate change considerations, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) have potential to be the main vehicle for GHG emission mitigation actions in developing countries in the future. (A basic description of generic NAMA characteristics and factors that may influence the development of a Waste NAMA in Colombia is presented in the next section of this report.) NAMAs in various development sectors (transport, energy, waste, etc.) may provide new opportunities for countries to take action on their large and rapidly increasing emissions in specific sectors while also supporting and managing their immediate growth, social, and development needs. The potential projects identified in Table 2 include both the implementation of new facilities that may require significant capital investment as well as other actions that may be accomplished through normal budgetary sources in the agencies or companies responsible for SWM services. CCAP recognizes that the Table 2 listing includes the possible use of high-technology systems that may be too costly to justify and develop within the current Colombian national setting. Because of this, the recommendations contained in this assessment also include possible actions such as modifications to existing policies, rules and regulations that will affect solid waste management project implementation in the future particularly as they relate to economic matters. At a minimum, this includes necessary tariff reform that will affect the economic resources available for SWM services and any other related policies that, in turn, will affect the ability to develop new recovery facilities and processes. In its national SWM policy, the government of Colombia is seeking to achieve a "zero waste" culture thereby optimizing in recovering the value of solid waste components and reducing the quantity of solid waste brought to landfills for final disposal. To achieve this, new national programs and reforms of existing policies and laws may be required especially in terms of how added cost to achieve the “zero waste” culture is allowed or managed. This assessment report seeks to identify some of these government actions since they may be prerequisites to the development of the types of projects and programs that can continue SWM improvement progress while achieving climate change benefits. Considerable work has been done around the world seeking to estimate the GHG impact of various solid waste management processes including collection, transport, recycling, composting, energy recovery and disposal. This work forms the technical basis by which CCAP sought to estimate the relative impact of improved SWM in Colombia in comparison to baseline conditions represented by current facilities and practices. The information available on GHG effects associated with SWM processes provided CCAP with a means of estimating the economic value and cost of achieving the GHG mitigation benefits that would result from improved practices and new ISWM facilities. The most important GHG emissions associated with municipal SWM choices are carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Of these, carbon dioxide is the most prevalent GHG generally emitted in industrialized countries from a number of source sectors particularly the energy sector. Most CO2 emissions are due to energy production and use, particularly as a result of fossil fuel combustion for


power generation. Methane (about 25 times as potent as CO2) is produced when organic waste components decompose in oxygen deficient (anaerobic) environments such as would be found inside the mass of solid waste accumulated at a landfill. Universally, landfills are viewed to be a major source of CH4 emissions and this has led to the stringent environmental regulations for landfill disposal in the United States and European Union. It has also led to the development of many landfill gas collection and treatment systems at landfills throughout the world supported by climate change-based Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) initiatives. The GHG mitigation potential of the SWM sector, however, comes from a variety of sources. From a life cycle assessment standpoint, a large amount of energy is consumed when a new product is manufactured and ultimately discarded as a component of a municipal solid waste stream. Through the life cycle process for various commercial products, energy is consumed by: 1) extracting and processing raw materials to produce the product (including the destruction of any carbon sinks); 2) manufacturing and fabricating products; 3) managing products at the end of their useful lives; and 4) transporting materials and products between each stage of their life cycle phases. As a result, energy-related GHG emissions occur in all of these life cycle stages. The energy consumed during product use by consumers is about the same irrespective of whether a product was manufactured from virgin or recycled materials. However, this parity is not the case when it comes to actually producing the product where more energy is necessary to manufacture a product from virgin materials. Accordingly, there can be significant GHG emission reduction by recovering solid waste components through recycling and reuse of solid waste components and, most importantly, by reducing the generation of solid waste since product manufacturing will also correspondingly decrease. When solid waste is used to generate electricity (either through direct combustion, combustion of anaerobic digestion-related biogas, or through the capture and combustion of CH4 generated at landfills), the generation process usually displaces the use of other fuels that would otherwise be consumed by an electric utility to generate the displaced electricity. The extent of this impact is a function of the nature of the competing energy source. In Colombia where a significant proportion of generated electricity is from hydroelectric sources, the offset impact is less than what would be expected in a country where generation is primarily accomplished through the combustion of fossil fuels. In addition to affecting GHG mitigation potential, this also affects economic viability when energy is derived from solid waste processing and sold since the value of the recovered energy is apt to be less than it would be if the displaced energy was derived from fossil fuels. Table 2 also identifies the types of GHG emissions generated from various SWM processes. The relative impact of these processes, particularly as they compare with expected landfill emissions in Colombia, is discussed in Section 6 of this report. Such comparisons serve the purpose of helping to define the GHG mitigation benefits resulting from improved SWM. The potential projects listed in Table 2 also provide a


basis for initially defining candidate pilot projects that may be developed as a means for demonstrating the function and effectiveness of a Colombia Waste NAMA.


Section 3: Waste NAMA Fundamentals Since the development of the Bali Action Plan and, as a result of COP16 in Cancun, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions emerged as an important mechanism to recognize and support possible emission reductions in developing countries within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) framework. At the time of its development, the Bali Action Plan anticipated that NAMAs would be voluntary, country-driven actions that were sustainable within the context of each country’s political, physical and financial setting. Further, as a result of the COP16 accords, many developing country parties formally submitted their plans to limit growth of their emissions, with appropriate and adequate technological, financial and capacity support from industrialized countries. Many of these plans include broad-based goals without detail on specific policies and measures. This provides an impetus for evaluating the potential impact of new ISWM programs and facilities in Colombia as a means for achieving the target GHG emission mitigations. NAMAs are expected to achieve GHG emission reductions from various sources and through enhanced capture by carbon sinks. In addition, NAMAs need effective MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verification) mechanisms in order to document GHG reductions and gain support for funding, in addition to various economic and social co-benefits that should also be a part of financial support. NAMAs will provide an effective tool by which developing countries can contribute to the worldwide reduction of GHG emissions. By definition, a Waste NAMA in Colombia should be developed by principal stakeholders and tailored to specific situations, resources and priorities in the country within the context of overall effectiveness and sustainability. Unfortunately, the successful implementation and function of a Waste NAMA in Colombia must overcome the same impediments that have influenced the pace of improving SWM services in the country. CCAP believes that a Waste NAMA designation for defined ISWM activities will help overcome some of these historical impediments to achieve Colombia's desired “Zero Waste” culture. NAMAs are intended to be supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity building in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner. However, the means by which this can be accomplished is still being defined in many countries and in many of the anticipated NAMA development sectors. As structured in the Bali Action Plan, NAMAs should include the following general elements:

• Nationally Appropriate: NAMAs should be appropriate for the particular national setting, circumstances and development needs of any country where they are implemented.

• Sustainable: NAMAs should promote the country’s sustainable development agenda. In another important sense, NAMAs need to include the private sector as stakeholders and should not be solely public sector investments (either international or national). NAMA design should


aim for business models that need a partial public sector investment (in the form or grants, loan guarantees, capacity building, research, etc) to overcome impediments but let the profit mechanism of the private sector take hold.

• Support: NAMAs should have access to developed country support including, at a minimum, technology, financing, and capacity building support.

• Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable (MRV): The defined NAMAs (and the support from developed countries) should be subject to international and nationally defined MRV to validate their performance and results.

Accordingly, an appropriate Waste NAMA in Colombia may be a policy, program, or physical project that achieves the desired climate change impact within the waste management sector. Through consultation with the Colombia Waste NAMA Steering Committee, a number of solid waste management actions were identified as sources for GHG emission reductions and candidate Waste NAMA focus areas. These provided an investigatory framework to the CCAP assessment process and include the following, some of which can be packaged into an integrated Waste NAMA:

1. Mixed Waste Processing Facility - Technologies are available that can process and treat a mixed solid waste stream. These systems are primarily designed for the processing of residential solid waste in the condition that it is normally collected. The design intent of these systems is to recover materials and/or energy. In some situations, they are designed to create useful byproducts such as biogas and compost.

2. Separation of Organic and Recyclable Material at Source - This involves the sorting and classification of organic waste (and the organic content of municipal solid waste) and its subsequent diversion away from landfills. Following source separation, organic material may be processed aerobically using composting processes (for the agricultural sector or land reclamation), or could be utilized for energy generation through the use of incinerators or bio-digesters (for electricity generation or direct use of biogas on or offsite). In addition to the GHG emission benefits that may be derived from material recovery, the diversion of organic material from landfill disposal will have a beneficial impact of reducing the amount of landfill gas generated by reducing the amount of solid waste exposed to anaerobic decomposition and the resulting methane generation process. In general, this process would involve developing both the means for collecting source separated organic material as well as a means for processing it into useable end products. A similar approach can also be applied to the source separation, collection and processing of dry recyclable materials such as paper, cardboard, glass, and metal. This has the benefit of recovering cleaner materials compared to recyclables separated from the mixed solid waste stream, and this tends to increase the revenue derived from the sale of the recovered materials.

3. Alternative Biogas Market - This area has many potential avenues to explore. In particular, low power-grid electricity prices are a potential barrier to develop a biogas market in Colombia where electricity generation is considered. As an alternative, other options exist such as using


biogas to fuel garbage collection trucks traveling solely to and from large landfill sites. Other potential uses include the use of biogas at industrial or other applications near landfill sites, the production of compressed natural gas, etc. Clearly, the cost effectiveness of such applications needs to be carefully considered to assure that these approaches are economically viable and sustainable.

4. Restructuring of Solid Waste Collection Tariff Model - If done correctly, a change in the Colombian tariff framework may provide an incentive to the separation of recyclable materials or diversion through composting or the recovery of energy. This NAMA could involve coordination with the Comisión de Regulación de Agua Potable y Saneamiento Básico (CRA) and the various operators involved in solid waste collection and disposal. The objective of this Waste NAMA would be to increase the potential for diversion of recyclable and organic material away from landfill disposal and increase the recycling and recovery rate in the country. During this assessment process, CCAP learned that the government of Colombia is currently working on reforming its tariff structure to accommodate prospective waste diversion projects and activities. A number of the private sector representatives that CCAP met with during the assessment process indicated that the existing tariff structure and formula is one of the major impediments preventing them from considering waste diversion actions. It is currently anticipated that required tariff reform to support diversion initiatives will take effect in late 2013. The manner in which the tariff framework is modified will be extremely important in the viability of waste diversion projects that will achieve GHG mitigation benefits. For example, if tariff reform only seeks to reallocate tariff allotments to diversion projects solely on the basis of avoided cost without an increase in the overall tariff amounts to recognize the value of the environmental, health and social benefits of diversion, it may make it more difficult to implement any project that increases the overall cost of solid waste management.

5. Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D) - Activities related to this NAMA may divert reusable construction materials away from landfills or possibly use combustible content of this waste for waste-to-energy applications. Recoverable components from the C&D waste sector may also be applicable to the production of other products. This would have the co-benefit of dealing with a major SWM and aesthetic problem in Colombian municipalities while possibly providing some emissions reductions. The common physical characteristics of C&D material in Colombia is a major factor in exploring the potential GHG mitigation benefits associated with enhanced construction and demolition debris processing and disposal actions.

6. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) - According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), EPR is an “environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle. An EPR policy is characterized by: 1) the shifting of responsibility (physically and/or economically; fully or partially) upstream toward the producer and away from municipalities; and 2) the provision of incentives to producers to take into account environmental considerations when designing their products.” EPR initiatives may take the form of reuse, buy-


back, or recycling program support. The producer may also choose to delegate this responsibility to a third party possibly paid by the producer for used-product management. Through this approach, producers, importers and/or sellers are obliged to internalize SWM costs in their product prices thereby helping to ensure the safe handling of their products. The expectation is that any program that helps to reduce solid waste generation or enhances the prospects for recycling and recovery can have a beneficial impact on GHG emissions.

The above areas provide an assessment focus by which CCAP is evaluating existing SWM conditions in Colombia for the purpose of defining a framework (and potential projects) for a Waste NAMA. This investigation recognizes that there are potentially 3 types of NAMAs that could evolve from this assessment process, including:

• Unilateral NAMAs/Domestically Supported NAMAs: (potentially implemented on a voluntary basis by developing countries without the expectation of outside support): This would possibly include various mitigation actions undertaken by national and local governments in Colombia on their own using their own technical and economic resources. The required funding comes from domestic financial sources. Improvements to solid waste collection and transport processes and the development of public education programs are possible examples of unilateral NAMAs.

• Internationally Supported NAMAs: These actions are classified as mitigation actions that may be supported directly by developed country entities (this could be bilateral or multilateral support), possibly under the UNFCCC framework. Supported NAMAs will, most likely, cover a portion of the incremental costs of moderate cost mitigation options such as the development of capital intensive solid waste processing facilities (WTE, MBT, etc.). MRV processes associated with this class of NAMA are likely to be accomplished through emerging international standards and protocols for measuring NAMA performance.

• Credited NAMAs (or credit generating NAMAs): While not formally recognized by the UNFCCC, this type of NAMA would be funded through income generated from selling carbon credits on an international carbon market once developed. One concern raised about credited NAMAs is the potential for counting emissions reductions twice—once toward the developing country’s climate goals and again towards the developed country’s commitment. Another concern relates to competition between the public and private sectors for use of low-cost mitigation actions within a developing country.

By its nature, the solid waste sector may provide opportunities within each of the above NAMA categories. This is based on the recognition that there are significant opportunities in the sector for the mitigation of GHG emissions that range from simple enhancement of core services such as collection and transfer or the development of source separation programs to the development of capital intensive, high-technology processing facilities capable of significantly diverting mixed municipal solid waste content from landfill disposal while achieving recovery outputs.


Technically, there is no limitation on the type of action that could be eligible under a NAMA except to the extent that it meets requirements for MRV and for achieving their climate impact goals. Accordingly, this assessment seeks to identify potential waste sector sources of these mitigation opportunities and identify potential impediments to realizing them. Since the entire NAMA concept is evolving, the assessment is also intended to identify capacity building elements that may be required to effectively develop and implement a viable Waste NAMA in Colombia and to support and monitor it to assure that it achieves its intended results.


Section 4: Solid Waste Management in Colombia

4.1 Solid Waste Generation and Disposal To investigate the current setting in Colombia, CCAP evaluated national solid waste management conditions as defined by existing policies, laws, rules, regulations and available operational data. In addition, local solid waste management conditions in Cali, Medellin, Ibague and Sogamoso were also investigated to determine representative local situations and impediments that currently hinder the implementation of local SWM plans. As is the case in most countries, SWM services in Colombia are significantly affected by the high rate of urbanization that has occurred in the country. In the second half of the twentieth century, Colombia experienced an accelerated urbanization process so that by 1950, about 40% of Colombia’s total population lived in cities. By 2005, Colombia’s urban population was estimated to have increased to more than 75% of the total population. The Colombian National Department of Statistics (DANE) estimates that, by 2020, this number will increase to about 80%. The rate of urbanization creates many of the urban problems faced by Colombian cities including issues related to environmental conditions and the provision of necessary public services such as solid waste collection and disposal. According to Government projections, by the year 2020, the number of cities in Colombia with more than one million people will increase from four to seven, and those with more than 100,000 people will increase from 37 to 55. Currently, there are four main cities in Colombia (Bogota, Cali, Medellin and Barranquilla) which account for about 40% of the country’s urban population. These are followed by a group of 37 intermediate cities with populations between 100,000 and one million people which account for about 30% of the urban population (as shown in Table 1). The remaining 30% of the urban population live in cities with less than 100,000 people and these smaller municipalities represent about 95% of the total number of cities in the country. Irrespective of their population, all municipalities in Colombia must deal with the provision of public services including SWM. Logically, the quantity of MSW generated in any Colombian municipality is a function of its population and the extent of its commercial and industrial development. The large municipalities in Colombia shown in Table 1 most likely represent the locations with the economy of scale that may be necessary to justify and support the potential application of modern systems for solid waste processing. In addition, the potential for regional facilities receiving solid waste from a number of smaller municipalities can also achieve the economy of scale required to justify these systems. (The numerous regional landfills that serve multiple municipalities in Colombia are an important precedence for both locating and developing regional waste processing facilities in the future.)


Currently, Colombia has 32 departments comprised of 1,101 municipalities that generate about a country-wide total of about 25,100 metric tons per day of municipal solid waste. The Colombian Superintendent of Public Services (SSPD) estimates that 41% (about 10,000 tons per day) of this MSW is generated in the Colombia's four largest cities (23.6% in Bogota, 8.0% in Cali, 7.3% in Medellin and 2.1% in Barranquilla). Another 18.7% of the national total (about 4,700 tons per day) is generated in Colombia’s 28 department capital cities and 40.5% (about 10,200 tons per day) is generated in the 1,069 remaining municipalities. Table 1 also shows the estimated quantity of municipal solid waste generated daily in each of the municipalities with a population of over 100,000. These expected daily generation rates form some of the basis for estimating the processing capacity that will be required for any ISWM facilities developed to treat solid waste. This also includes the possibility of source separation programs to derive high-quality materials for processing (composting, recyclables, etc.) The per capita production in Colombia is estimated to be about 0.6 kg/person/day, but varies depending on the size and economic development of individual cities. Table 1 shows the estimated per capita generation rates for the 100,000+ municipalities based on data contained in their solid waste management plans. For example, Bogotá has an estimated average unit generation rate of about 0.95 kg/person/day while smaller, poorer municipalities, such as Sogamoso, have a unit generation rate of about 0.31 kg/person/day. This variation is consistent with worldwide experience relating per capita generation rates to population and the living conditions in individual municipalities. The unit generation rates are consistent with what CCAP would have expected in municipalities such as those in Colombia. In the past, most municipalities in Colombia disposed of their MSW in open dumps. Also, local services were often controlled by public and private entities without any accreditation or regulatory/economic incentive to improve their performance. However, with the passage of Resolution 1390 in 2005, national authorities required regional and local authorities Regional Autonomous Corporation (CARs) to identify and close open dumps and other uncontrolled and random informal disposal sites to prevent further environmental damage and the resulting health effects. Also, Resolution 1390/2005 included incentives to develop new, properly designed and appropriately sited landfills. The resolution also promoted regional approaches that would further enhance management conditions and reduce overall costs. This emphasis on regionalization has also helped to create a better business situation for national and international private sector companies with expertise in landfill design and operation thereby further stimulating service improvements in both collection and disposal. (A brief summary of some of the private companies actively involved in SWM in Colombia is shown in Annex 5.) Currently, according to the SSPD, about 90% of the MSW in Colombia is disposed of in effectively designed and operated landfills or at a limited number of small-scale solid waste processing plants. The current characterization (according to the SSPD) of the disposal facilities serving the 100,000+ municipalities is also shown in Table 1. Annex 1 presents a listing of the principal landfills in Colombia


including some of their important operational characteristics such as the number of regional municipalities for which disposal services are provided. The improvement of disposal facilities has contributed to increased regionalization since a number of regional landfills were developed by the private sector as business opportunities to serve multiple municipalities. Regionalization of disposal services in Colombia has continued to increase. For example, during 2011, landfill regionalization activities increased by about 10% when compared to 2010. Currently, 69 of the 206 reported landfills in Colombia are regional facilities with the result that about 60% of all municipalities dispose of their MSW in a regional landfill. This provides a strong precedent for the possible development of regional processing facilities that will require sufficient incoming solid waste for technical and economic viability. Table 3 summarizes the national solid waste disposal characterization in 2010 and 2011 demonstrating that progress continues to be made in improving disposal facilities throughout Colombia and closure of substandard open dump sites. The decrease in the total number of landfills in the two years shown in Table 3 is, most likely, an indication of the growth in the number and service areas of regional disposal facilities and the continued closure of substandard sites. As would be expected with the improvement of any public service, disposal costs have increased in Colombia as new disposal sites (built to improved design standards) have been built and come into service. From the perspective of this assessment, this situation helps to make the projected costs that may be associated with new recovery processes more competitive and achievable.

Colombian Disposal Sites by Waste Amounts and Number of Municipalities

Indicator Tons/day # of municipalities # of disposal sites

2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

Landfill 21,600 24,600 674 762 229 206

Transitory cells 1,000 300 90 38 79 27

Open dumps 1,400 1,330 199 190 193 176

Integrated treatment plants 330 190 83 67 39 35

Burial 170 80 36 27 34 24

Water streams 20 20 10 9 8 7

Open burning 10 10 6 5 6 5

Total 24,530 26,530 1,098 1,098 588 480

Table 3. Source: SSPD, 2011

4.2 Solid Waste Composition Solid waste composition is one of the key factors in the technical viability of various commercial solid waste technologies and diversion processes. Common physical characteristics such as organic and moisture content has a major impact on technology and design decisions. For example, the high moisture content normally found in municipal solid waste in developing countries makes it difficult to


use mass burn incineration (as commonly utilized in the U.S. and E.U.) as a core process without significant initial physical processing of the solid waste stream. Table 4 below shows the range of differences between solid waste streams typically generated in low, medium and high GDP countries. These differences commonly include the unit generation rate, the percentage of putrescible organic material, and the resulting heating value of the mixed municipal solid waste streams. Excessive moisture resulting from high organic content will affect the heating value of the processed solid waste and therefore affect the overall combustion process as well as the amount of recovered energy output. This can have a significant impact on waste to energy facility technical and economic viability. As a result, energy recovery technologies that have direct applicability to recovering energy in industrialized countries may not be transferable to processing applications in countries such as Colombia.

Characteristics of MSW in Low, Medium, and High GDP countries Low GDP countries Medium GDP countries High GDP countries

Example country India Argentina EU – 15

GDP US$/capita/year <$5,000 $5,000 – $15,000 > $20,000

MSW kg/capita/year 150 – 250 250 – 550 350 – 750

MSW collection rate <70% 70% – 95% > 95%

% MSW putrescible waste 50% – 80% 20% – 65% 20% – 40%

Heating value kcal/kg 800 – 1,100 1,100 – 1,300 1,500 – 2,700

Table 4. Source: Lacoste and Chalmin, 2006

In Colombia, municipalities were required to investigate the physical composition of their solid waste streams as an element of their solid waste management plans. The data presented in Annex 2 shows that the solid waste composition throughout Colombia is relatively consistent and generally includes high percentages of food and yard waste thereby affecting recovery and processing technology selection. The typical solid waste composition shown in Figure 3 was utilized by CCAP in investigating the applicability of various ISWM processing technologies to specific situations in Colombia.

Figure 3: Assumed Typical Colombian Municipal Solid Waste Composition


4.3 Recycling and Recovery in Colombia Historically, the informal sector has been the primary source of recycling in Colombia. The government of Colombia has estimated that there are approximately 50,000 Colombian families whose income depends on informal collection and recycling activities. In 1986, a non-governmental organization began a program to organize informal recyclers into local associations. The main purpose of the National Association of Recyclers (ANR, Spanish acronym) was to help informal recyclers improve their working and living conditions by strengthening their logistical systems and establishing a quality control process for what they recovered. The ANR program was also intended to address the informal sector’s social needs including early childhood education, access to the social security system and addressing issues related to women’s rights. The ANR program also created new waste storage facilities and developed formalized waste management systems in conjunction with the municipal governments. Through the ANR, equipment and training was also provided to the informal sector players. It is estimated that the ANR’s program

resulted in an increased income of about 30% for participating recyclers thereby increasing their quality of life and the economic viability of their recycling functions. In supporting recycling activities in Colombia, the ANR undertook a study of the recovered materials that were marketed as a result of informal sector activities. According to this evaluation, about 53% of the material collected by informal recyclers is traded with intermediary warehouses with the remaining 47% sold directly to local industrial plants capable of utilizing the recovered material to manufacture new products. Based on the study results, glass, plastics and paper are the most common materials collected by informal recyclers (% shown in Table 5). Government studies also concluded that Colombia municipal solid waste generators produce about 9.4

million tons of solid waste per year and that the informal recycling sector recovers about 0.98 million tons per year (or about 8.7% of the amount generated). The integration of these informal recovery processes into more formal programs developed by municipalities or the private sector will be an important aspect of developing any new facilities or programs that rely on recycling revenues to achieve sustainable economics. This incorporation process is already underway in some of the evaluated municipalities. In Cali, this is a high priority activity and will be a factor in developing any proposed Waste NAMA element. A study of available markets for recyclables in Colombia was also undertaken by CEMPRE in 2011. This study presents an estimation of the market for recyclables in Colombia for the materials normally collected as identified in Table 5. The CEMPRE study determined that the commercial recycling systems

Materials Collected by the Informal Sector

Material Type % Glass 31 Plastics 19 Paper 19 Cardboard 15 Scrap Metal 12 Non-ferrous metal 3 Other 1

TOTAL 100

Table 5. Source: Aluna Consultores Limitada, 2011


in the various regions of Colombia are quite similar in structure and are only differentiated by the size of the population in each city served (and, therefore, the amount of material available). It was also determined that the common linkage between entities involved in recycling, (including the informal recyclers) is through a core group of 1) collectors, 2) warehouses, 3) specialized storage facilities and 4) processing companies. The first three of these entities operate in most cities and locally focus on the receipt and use of specific materials (mainly plastics and metal). For metal, glass, cardboard and paper materials, the ultimate market consists of large industries which receive these materials from extensive areas throughout the country and use the recycled materials to manufacture new products. Based on the current recovery rates for primary recoverable components in typical Colombian MSW and on the assessment of current markets for recovered materials, the CEMPRE study determined that there is a significant margin to expand material delivery to available markets for increased recycling output. Figure 4 demonstrates that, based on both the ANR and CEMPRE studies, the demand of recyclable materials in Colombia is not being met by the amount of material actually recovered by the informal system. For this reason, imports of recyclables by Colombian manufacturing plants have increased from 2000 to 2011. The CEMPRE market study estimates that the value of these imports was approximately US $245 million demonstrating the failure of the current system in meeting industry demand. This provides a strong basis for assuming that additional recovered material through a more formal process can be effectively marketed. This helps to enhance the technical and economic prospects for future processing facilities or other programs that would increase the recovery of recyclables.


Figure 4: Recyclables Supply and Demand Relationships. Source: National Study on Recyclables and Recyclers for CEMPRE, 2010


As is the case throughout the world, the Colombian recyclables market, operating in an open and unsubsidized economic environment, is significantly influenced by prices and changes in international markets. For this reason and because of a general shortfall in meeting industrial demand in Colombia, the import of recyclables regularly occurs depending on industry needs for specific materials or on periodic market opportunities where consolidators take economic advantage of niche markets and prevailing market conditions. In order to ensure a stable supply of recyclable materials, companies in Colombia have created a purchasing network throughout the country, either through the use of direct material acquisition or indirect purchase mechanisms with marketers and wholesalers (big warehouses and consolidators) that have collection capacity and that are able to meet material purchase quotas, provide good supply logistics and working capital, and make use of customer loyalty strategies to ensure supply. Often, warehouses engage in direct negotiations with informal recyclers, purchase directly from other waste sources, and hire people who serve as links with the informal recyclers and their organizational structures. Warehouses assume the function of a market buffer and manage the recovery process by increasing or slowing down the supply of materials to end markets. In addition, the warehouses use their knowledge of seasonal demand for specific materials so that they manage their inventories and purchasing activities to the anticipation of times when better prices can be realized. This overall dynamic is consistent with institutional structures found in other countries where informal recycling activities are prevalent. The current marketing channels for recyclables in Colombia have evolved during more than 25 years of continuous operations, generating linkages and economic functions and relationships that allow an economically efficient system. The ability to optimize recovery of recyclables through this current process will require the recognition of the dynamics involved and the interests of all of the current participants. Critically, this recognition should include both a consideration of how to enhance ongoing informal sector operations or to consider how existing recovery and marketing dynamics associated with the informal recyclers affect the ability to develop any alternate means for recovering recyclables such as the development of independent materials recovery facilities or as design elements of larger scale mechanical-biological treatment facilities. This integration is clearly an example of the need for a fully integrated process that involves many different elements as a component of an effective ISWM program including the incorporation of the existing informal recycling sector and its participants.


SOLID WASTE RECOVERY PLANTS IN COLOMBIA

Municipality Waste Received (Tons/month)

Investment (COP$)

Providencia 2,9 60.000.000 Gutiérrez 3 - Quetame 9,6 135.000.000 Yacuanquer 9,8 30.000.000 Fosca 22 100.000.000 Suratá 24 - Los Santos 30 - Argelia 37 - El Colegio 38 824.542.407 Valle de San Juan 40 -

Nocaima 40 200.000.000 Versalles 52 130.000.000 Castilla La Nueva 52 126.554.438

Santa María 60 160.000.000 Santa María (Huila) 80 165.500.000

Fómeque 100 100.000.000 El Playón 104 388.005.000 Villapinzón 112 - Choconta 135 45.000.000 Pupiales 148 186.110.185 La Victoria 250 332.276.560 El Santuario 270 30.000.000 Carmen de Viboral 294 -

Cajamarca 320 - Garagoa 350,9 1.430.000.000 Caicedonia 383 - La Plata 624,5 470.307.681 Ubaté 700 1.006.251.444 Garzón 970 864.803.676 Acacías 1.155 - Pitalito 1.664 726.000.000 Ibagué 8.810 100.000.000 Heliconia 13.222 8.000.000.000

Integrated Solid Waste Management Facilities – Throughout Colombia, there are a number of solid waste processing facilities. In 2008, the SSPD completed an evaluation of these facilities and determined that there were 34 of these plants in existence at the time of the study. Table 6 identifies the municipalities where these plants are located, the amount of solid waste they typically received on an ongoing basis and the capital investment made in developing them. The total amount of solid waste received for processing at these facilities was estimated to be about 6.5% of the total solid waste stream generated in Colombia. The SSPD reported that a total of about COP$15.600 million (USD 8.7 million) was invested in developing these plants with most of these funds provided directly by municipalities (78%), the Royalties National Fund (13%) (FNR, Spanish acronym), public companies (8%), and the private sector (1%). It is noteworthy that 21% of these facilities functioned as regional processing centers, serving two or more municipalities. The recovery plants shown in Table 6 represent two operational approaches to solid waste collection and processing. 36% of the systems utilized source separation processes where residential and commercial waste generators are directly involved in separating recoverable materials and making these materials available to an independent separate collection program (generally on established collection routes consistent with the primary waste collection routes). In the other 64% of the systems, mixed waste was received at a processing facility and manually separated by staff at the site. The SSPD also recently reported that a number of these plants (in

Table 6


Valle del Cauca, Tolima, Cundinamarca, Santander, for example) ceased operations due to 1) a lack of financial resources for operations, 2) environmental violations, 3) political decisions, 4) low marketing potential for recovered materials and/or, 5) lack of sufficient labor to accomplish the separation process. In addition a major solid waste management private contractor in Colombia (Interaseo) reported that, for economic reasons, they have closed the two processing plants that they developed in Santa Marta and Ibague. This illustrates the importance of effective planning and due diligence to ensure project viability and sustainability based on prevailing local conditions and effective design and operational standards. In Colombia, the experience with compost generation from municipal solid waste has been mixed. Generally, the quality of derived compost was a factor of poor control of the physical, chemical or microbiological process required to assure good quality compost and its safety. Only 31% of the 26 plants evaluated by the SSPD utilized acceptable standards for compost production. However, compost generated at substandard facilities was still provided for agricultural use without a clear understanding of the full health risks associated. Composting facilities that did not comply with regulations had problems because of: 1) the lack of separation of extraneous materials that led to excessive contamination in the compost, 2) the lack of monitoring during processing, 3) the mismanagement of leachate which affected the quality of the compost. In many cases, the sale of the organic product (compost and humus) from many of these facilities is carried out informally without registration or certification from the agricultural agency responsible for compost certification in Colombia (ICA, Spanish acronym).

4.4 Solid Waste Disposal in Colombia In the last 7 years, there has been significant improvement in the design and operation of disposal facilities in Colombia. Increasingly stringent regulatory requirements have led to the upgrade of the existing landfills and the development of new facilities throughout the country. Based on a 2011 assessment, the government of Colombia classified disposal facilities (see figure 5) which indicates that 92% of the landfills throughout the country are classified as sanitary landfills. In addition, Figure 6 presents the trend relative to the annual progress that was made in improving disposal facilities during the last 7 years where substandard facilities (open dumps, etc.) were replaced by sanitary landfills (either in individual municipalities or through the use of regional landfills). Figure 6 also demonstrates another very important element to that progress. As shown, the effect of a major modification to the Colombian tariff structure is illustrated. A major tariff revision occurred at the end of 2005 and served as a strong incentive for the improvement of disposal facilities as shown in the progress made since the tariff modification. (A similar modification accommodating waste diversion processes could have the similar effect of incentivizing actions leading to the government’s “zero waste” culture with its resulting environmental, social, and health benefits.)


Annex 1 presents a listing of the principal landfills in Colombia including the status of their landfill gas collection and treatment systems. The listing also shows the number of regional communities utilizing these facilities. In many cases, these landfill sites may ultimately serve as locations for processing facilities since public opposition to developing new facilities may be minimal if they are developed at those locations.

Figure 6: Characterization of Disposal Facilities in Colombia. Sistemas de disposición Final Año 2011. Source: Comisión De Regulación De Agua Potable Y Saneamiento Básico (CRA), 2011


Figure 6: Landfill Improvement Progress – 2005 to 2010. Evolución de la disposición final Source: Comisión De Regulación De Agua Potable Y Saneamiento Básico (CRA), 201 In 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assisted the government of Colombia in developing a landfill gas evaluation model intended to provide a mechanism by which existing and new landfills in Colombia could be evaluated to determine the emissions impact of landfill gas and the technical/economic viability of alternatives for managing the landfill gas. This model can be utilized to investigate opportunities at existing landfills relative to landfill gas management potential in the proposed integrated Waste NAMA. As the new disposal facilities in Colombia age, an increasing amount of landfill gas will be generated due to an increasing accumulation of solid waste at these facilities. This will, most likely, lead to the increased economic viability of installing landfill gas treatment systems as a result of the increased amount of gas generated at the landfill sites. The above referenced EPA supported model provides a means for monitoring this effect.

4.5 Institutional Framework At the end of the 20th century, many countries with emerging economies redefined the role of their government institutions regarding the provision of public services. In many cases, state monopolies were replaced by market structures with increased participation of private companies in a competitive market environment. In this sense, the public sector reoriented its participation in public service markets and often assumed the role of regulators rather than service providers. This new strategy in providing public services was formalized in Colombia through the Colombian Politic Constitution (CPC) in 1991. Article 365 of the CPC established that public services are inherent to the social objective of the


State whose responsibility is to guarantee efficient provision of public services for the entire population. Within this context, public services could then be provided directly or indirectly by the State, by an organized community or by private companies to established service performance standards. In any case, the State reserved the right to intervene in and supervise the delivery of specific services in order to guarantee that the operating mechanisms and entities are compatible with the social purpose of public services. Relevant institutions in Colombia have evolved to put this concept into practice even to a point where service institutions with poor performance have been liquidated and replaced to achieve effective service levels. (In Cali, the public agency previously responsible for solid waste management services (EMSIRVA) is currently being liquidated as a result of poor performance.) In 1994, Law 142 completely redefined the national institutional framework of the public service sector in Colombia. The main purpose of this act was to encourage different ways of managing public service providers to ensure their operational and economic efficiencies. This led to the various institutional approaches that currently exist for providing SWM services which include both private and public sector entities as implementing and operating organizations. In addition to its service provision perspective, waste management is also viewed as an environmental concern of the State. Therefore, SWM is included in Colombia’s environmental legislation framework (whose core regulation is Law 99 of 1993). Law 99 defines and establishes the National Environmental System (SINA) as the main institutional arrangement for environmental issues in Colombia. SINA’s objective is the coordination of environmental concerns and actions between national, regional and municipal environmental authorities. Through this Act, the Colombian Ministry of Environment (MADS) was officially created. Due to the above, SWM in Colombia must relate to two regulatory frameworks as illustrated in Figure 7. The first aims to prevent health and environmental risk due to substandard SWM processes while the second seeks to ensure the financial sustainability of the entities responsible for SWM services. The figure below illustrates the structure of the SWM institutional framework, including the principal authorities involved in each of the above regulatory branches.


Figure 7 Source: Hill Consulting (Bogotá), 2012 Each of these regulatory branches and arrangements has different institutions that are involved in decision making regarding investments, regulatory and monitoring procedures. The “public services” arrangement has two main institutions involved in the regulation and control of SWM activities including the SSPD and the Regulatory Commission for Water and Sanitation (CRA, Spanish acronym). Figure 8 presents the institutional management framework in Colombia and the role of each major party in the public service management process. The SSPD is responsible for the supervision and control of local service providers. The SSPD’s duties include the collection of operational data and information from certified operators in order to guarantee an effective level of service and its financial sustainability. As a key element of this framework, the CRA was created for the main purpose of regulating fundamental monopolies, promoting competition within service operators, enhancing the sustainability of services and ensuring the provision of effectiveness of services at reasonable rates. (The CRA’s responsibility for the SWM tariff structure is an important consideration pertaining to the economic elements of potential SWM projects that can achieve GHG


mitigation.) In practice, the CRA defines tariff formulas and procedures in order to prevent excessive costs for public service users. Their current work in reviewing and reforming the existing tariff structure in Colombia is a key element to the prospects for development of an effective supported Waste NAMA in the country. Tariff reform could be a basis for a government action to stimulate the diversion of solid waste from landfills. Conversely, it could be an impediment if the economic value of the environmental, health and social benefits of solid waste diversion projects are not factored into the tariff framework formula.

Figure 8 Source: Hill Consulting (Bogotá), 2012 The CRA is also responsible for releasing the Colombian Technical Normative for Potable Water and Public Services (RAS). Resolution 1096 of 2000 compliments Law 142/1994 that established the RAS as the main performance guideline regarding collection, transport, treatment, reuse and final disposal of municipal solid waste.


One of the most important planning milestones regarding SWM at a national level is Decree 1713 of 2002. This decree establishes that Colombia’s national solid waste management policy must comply with principles to:

• Guarantee the quality and coverage of service with an uninterrupted, efficient and continuous operation.

• Obtain proven economy of scale. • Define mechanisms guaranteeing access of services to all users, and assuring their participation

in the service management and auditing process. • Develop a zero waste culture by promoting ISWM processes to mitigate health and

environmental impacts of waste generation and management.

Another relevant legal instrument is the National Development Plan of 2007 (Law 1151/2007). This Act establishes that the government would provide funds to regional authorities to fund environmentally related programs including SWM. In 2008, the National Council for Economic and Social Policies (CONPES) published a document (CONPES 3530) as a supplement to the National Development Plan which presents the specific guidelines to prioritize and organize actions and policies to improve SWM in Colombia. The above has led to the planning activities undertaken by municipalities in Colombia in defining their solid waste management plans which emphasize the need to develop the type of facilities that will achieve the intent of Decree 1713. The projects will, for the most part, also provide GHG reductions and therefore serve as core development elements of a Colombian integrated Waste NAMA. The above legal instruments and policy principles are important for developing ISWM facilities that will achieve emissions reductions especially given the increased costs that may be experienced. It is expected that the government will also need to deal with potential economic impediments created by some of its other policies and laws. For example, Article 5 of Decree 1505 of 2003 establishes that the costs of waste diversion activities can be transferred to final users only if the costs of these activities plus the management costs are less or equal than the costs of traditional activities (collection, transport, transfer and final disposal). This may be an impediment to the development of sufficient cash flow without an alternative form of funding to assure the sustainability of diversion processes and facilities.

4.6 Municipal Integrated Solid Waste Management Plans (PGIRS) At the municipal level, the main planning tool for assuring effective local SWM services is the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plans (PGIRS) developed by each municipality. These plans were required as a result of Decree 1713 which stipulated that the content of the PGIRS must include, among other things:

1. A description of the municipal organization responsible for PGIRS definition and implementation.


2. A current analysis of conditions (including technical, economic, institutional, environmental and social) related to the generation and the management of municipal solid waste.

3. Demographic information, waste generation indicators, urban growth and land use description. 4. Specific and general goals in compliance with national and regional policy objectives. 5. Identification of alternative solutions to SWM issues. (Definition of programs focused on source

separation, storage, treatment, collection, transportation, reuse, and final disposal) 6. Feasibility studies to determine the technical and economic viability of alternative programs

defined as a result of Item 5 above. (As a result of the requirements of Decree 1505 of 2003, these studies were also required to include an assessment of how informal recyclers can be included in the SWM sector improvements)

7. Plan structure: a. Specific projects: including a description of the proposed results, activities to be

developed, timeline for implementation, budget, total time of execution and responsibilities for each principal stakeholder.

b. Public educational activities specifically oriented to the community in general and to key stakeholders.

c. Budget and investment plans of every phase of the PGIRS. 8. Economic Development and sustainability plan.

By 2005, all municipalities in Colombia were required to have developed a PGIRS that was approved by their respective City Councils with a clear program for its implementation. The PGIRS were intended to serve as a basis for establishing local standards and develop new activities to implement the programs defined by their PGIRS that would be consistent with national policy. Unfortunately, the implementation of the PGIRS has been poor to date and waste recovery strategies stipulated in the PGIRS have not been extensively implemented to achieve the “zero waste” culture defined in Colombia’s SWM policy. This is partially due to the normal pace of developing public sector related projects in Colombia as a result of contractual and legal issues. In some cases where there is an inherent conflict of proposed formal systems with the activities of informal recyclers, there have been some delays or an inability to make progress as a result of inherent conflicts between the municipal plans and the perceived interest of the organized informal recyclers. One of the other reasons for the delay in implementing PGIRS defined initiatives is that it has not been determined who will assume the additional costs of implementing the ISWM plans defined in the PGIRS. In addition, current service providers are constrained by the existing tariff structure formula which does not properly consider recycling and other solid waste reduction or diversion processes in defining the level of tariff collection and allocation. Since the existing tariff formula is strongly focused on the quantity of solid waste received at disposal facilities without considering potential waste diversion processes, the existing tariff formula may actually penalize service providers for any diversion that they would achieve. Tariff reform is necessary to accomplish two purposes including: 1) development of a


means for economically accommodating solid waste recovery processes and facilities and 2) creating an economic incentive to emphasize recycling and other diversion approaches. Whether this occurs, will be a function of the revisions that are actually implemented in the tariff structure currently being evaluated by the CRA. 4.7 Target Community Solid Waste Management Conditions To review general local conditions that may also affect the development of Waste NAMA actions in Colombia, CCAP evaluated local settings through an investigation of SWM conditions in four different municipalities including Santiago de Cali, Medellin, Ibague and Sogamoso. Population data and solid waste generation and management information relative to each of these municipalities is shown in Table 1. a. Santiago de Cali

In Cali’s SWM plan (Evaluación y ajuste del Plan de Gestión Integral de Residuos Sólidos. PGIRS 2004-2019), the municipality defined their preferences for implementing a number of SWM activities that are intended to comply with national policy. These include the following:

1. Source Separation Program - The municipality will seek to develop a source separation program for certain solid waste components. Currently, shopping malls and some solid waste generators in commercial zones have already implemented source separation of various waste materials. The plan aims to incorporate other large generators of waste material into an expanded source separation initiative.

2. Selective routes for collection of recyclable material - The plan proposes the use of the 4 current MSW collection zones to design similar selective collection routes for source separated materials. At the same time, the plan envisions the further incorporation of informal recyclers into the formal recycling process to avoid competition for recoverable materials.

3. Organic material - The “Progama Municipal de Recuperación y Aprovechamiento” considers collection and processing programs to utilize organic material generated from markets, restaurants, malls, supermarkets, parks, and other sources.

4. Environmental Technology Park - The plan stipulates that the municipality will seek to develop an environmental technology park (Parque Ambiental y Tecnológico) for development of a solid waste or Environmental and Technical Facility for solid waste recovery and treatment. It is anticipated that the industrial sector will contribute to the design and operation of this facility. CCAP believes that the closed Navarro landfill site in Cali may be the proposed site for this Environmental Technology Park.

5. Construction and Demolition Waste - One program element defined in the PGIRS envisions the collection and processing of construction and demolition material derived from building activities. This will include a program to separate, collect, and process rubble material and to motivate construction companies to reutilize the processed material where possible. This


program element will also include the implementation of a processing facility to treat rubble material and a separate disposal facility for rejected residual from processing.

6. Extended Producer Responsibility - Cali’s PGIRS also identifies the need for an EPR policy and program to support reduction of solid waste generation in the production cycle and the development of alternatives to packaging material for waste quantity reduction.

7. Closure of Navarro Landfill - Cali’s PRIGS also identifies a number of different initiatives to reduce GHG emissions generated by the closure of the Navarro Landfill. (With the assistance of the USEPA, the recovery of landfill gas from the Navarro site has already been evaluated.) Other environmental issues associated with the site such as leachate management must also be addressed.

8. Other Referenced ISWM Options - Based on the content of the Cali PGIRS, these include the development of incineration, composting and biodigestion facilities, if they are determined to be practical.

These activities constitute the main policy work lines in Cali’s current SWM planning and their implementation depends on the actions and interests of the different entities and private stakeholders shown in the following institutional framework schematic in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Source: Hill Consulting (Bogotá), 2012

Municipal MayoraltyConstitutional responsible for

cleaning public service

Operator companies

Domiciliary collection, Street Cleaning, Parks

and public YardsTransfer Station

and Landfill

contractsPGIRSWaste management

plannnig instrument forthe municiplaity

Promoambiental

Ciudad Limpia

EMAS

Interaseo SSPDSupervice financialsustainability and

manage operationalinformation

Special and hazardouswaste

generators

More than ten small specializedcompanies.

DAGMASupervice environmental

impacts of operations

Private companies

contracts

CRARegulation of economicrelationships and tariff

CVCRegional Environment

authotity. It issuelicences to facilities

NationalInstitutions

MADSPublic Policies and

regulation

+DAP

EMSIRVAIs being Liquidated but it is

the contracts signatory


An ongoing issue related to the ability to move forward with SWM initiatives in Cali is the legal status of the public company historically responsible for SWM in the city. The original company, EMSIRVA (the agency that executed contracts with Interaseo and the 4 collection service operators currently active in the city as shown in the above framework schematic) is now being liquidated and this process is expected to take some time to resolve. EMSIRVA is being liquidated by SSPD because of poor financial management particularly related to its pension liabilities. The municipality intends to replace EMSIRVA with a specialized public agency, similar to the UAESP (Special Administration Unit for Public Services) in Bogotá. The existing contracts with the public and contracted service providers will then be transferred to the new entity which is expected to be formally created in about 6 months after completion of current city council discussions. For about 40 years, solid waste disposal in Cali was carried out using poor operational procedures. However, since Cali’s adoption of its PGIRS, major changes occurred including the closure of Navarro open dump (the city’s waste disposal site at that time) and the construction of a new landfill (the Colomba-Guabal landfill located in Yotoco, a small municipality located 40 kms away from Cali). Problems with the Navarro site had been identified as early as 1974. However, its use continued until 2008 when the new waste disposal site was opened. The closure of Navarro dump was affected by the historical presence of hundreds of families of waste pickers who lived near the site. It was estimated that about 600 recyclers consistently worked at the Navarro site. Since closure, the informal recyclers who had worked at the Navarro site then were added to the more than 2,500 informal recyclers who were already working in Cali’s streets. According to the PGIRS, this has led to an effort to organize a more formal recycling network involving the informal recyclers. In addition, the municipality is subject to findings of the Constitutional Court requiring the inclusion of the informal recyclers in the formal waste management framework. Cali continues to work toward this end. Another important change since adoption of Cali’s PGIRS is the increase in the number of SWM service providers. The public company, EMSIRVA, was the only entity in charge of this activity until 2011 when the SSPD began their liquidation process. Since then, three private companies (Promoambiental Valle S.A. ESP, Ciudad Limpia, and EMAS Cali) and one public agency (El Espinal ESP AAA1), were authorized to provide the SWM service in different geographical zones of Cali. In early 2012, one of the private companies (Promoambiental) assumed the operations in the zone in which the public agency (El Espinal) had been providing services. At this point, the entire solid waste collection and transport function was provided by private companies in the general institutional arrangement shown in the above schematic. Due to the changes that have occurred since the adoption of the PGIRS, public perception of SWM services in Cali has improved. In particular, the collection process provided improved standards and practices, while also providing increased service coverage. However, complaints have recently been 1 ESP: Public Household Services Company, by its Spanish acronym; AAA: Drinking water, sewage and waste


received by the municipality regarding the relatively low implementation of recycling processes on the part of all four companies (Bohórquez, 2012). In addition, the informal recyclers are still waiting for an effective plan related to how they will be included into the municipality’s waste management service chain. Solid waste generation - Cali produces about 8% of all solid waste generated in Colombia with a total of about 1,800 tons of solid waste per day. With a population of more than two million people, the per capita production of solid waste in Cali was estimated to be about 0.75 kg per day in 2009. Figure 10 presents the general distribution by source category of the solid waste generated in Cali.

In addition Cali’s PGIRS presents data concerning the generation sources for municipal solid waste directly managed by the city from 2000 to 2005 as shown in the table below:

Santiago de Cali Solid Waste Sources (tons/year)

Source 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Residential 339,124 347,799 338,618 395,159 368,038 351,624 382,537 Commerce and industry 48,016 48,062 49,704 66,463 35,967 34,363 37,384 Hospitals 1,080 1,121 1,491 1,757 1,943 1,856 2,019 Market places 1,374 14,384 16,601 17,136 19,142 18,288 19,896 Street cleaning /mixed waste 66,653 62,650 59,121 47,375 58,659 56,043 60,970

Debris 150,923 36,839 172,296 4,146 64,247 61,382 66,778 Others 2,394 1,996 1,951 9 11,437 10,927 11,887 Rural areas 2,374 2,395 2,471 2,105 1,789 1,710 1,860 Total 611,938 515,246 642,253 534,150 561,222 536,193 583,331

Table 7. Note: Numbers in italic fonts were estimated by municipal planning department (DAP), not measured. Source: DAP, 2011. Cali en cifras.

Figure 10: Distribution of solid waste by source in 2009 Source: Departamento Administrativo de Planeación, 2012.


Based on solid waste composition analysis completed during preparation of the PGIRS, Table 8 presents the estimated quantity of recyclables contained in Cali’s municipal solid waste stream. This forms the basis for the expected level of recovery that may be achieved through enhanced source separation and mixed solid waste processing activities.

RECYCLABLES IN RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION

Category % of Total

Solid Waste % of

Recyclables Tons per day

Paper 3.84 20 53.20 Cardboard 2.39 12 31.79 Packaging 6.93 35 92.97 Plastics 3.21 16 42.56 Wood 2.56 11.5 30.59 Metal 1.06 5.60 14.90

TOTAL 19.99 100 266

The typical physical composition of Cali’s residential solid waste proportion of organic content shown in Table 9 is based on composition analysis data from 2006. This composition illustrates the high proportion of organic material that is consistent with other locations in Colombia. This typical composition was used in the economic analysis of this report, which was based on SWM conditions in Cali.

Residential Solid Waste Composition in 2006

Category % Food 59.0 Sanitary 7.7 Bags and Packaging 6.9 Leaf and Garden 6.5 Paper 3.9 Plastic 3.2 Glass 2.6 Cardboard 2.4 Textile 2.0 Other 1.5 Metalic 1.1 Ceramic 1.3 Rubber and Leather 1.0 Wood 0.6 Bones 0.3

Table 8: Source: DAP, 2009.

Table 9: Source: DAP, 2009.


Collection, Transport and Transfer - In Santiago de Cali, there are four principal companies involved in solid waste collection, street sweeping, transport, and transfer activities. Each company has the license to operate in a specific geographical zone of the city as shown in the Table 10:

Waste Management Company Operations Data

Company name Concession Zone Workers Vehicles

Subscribers Ton/year Sweeping Collection 25 cy 16 cy Others

Promoambiental Cali S.A. North - 1 237 131 21 2 16 175,000 170,700

EMAS SA ESP East - 2 189 89 8 11 5 162,500 142,300

Promoambiental Valle S.A. South - 3 173 92 12 3 8 134,000 131,000

Ciudad Limpia SA ESP Downtown - 4 197 79 9 4 15 102,500 110,300

Total 796 391 50 20 44 574,000 554.,300

Table 10: Source: DAGMA, 2012. Processing and Recovery - According to a Cali census in 2006, there are about 2,600 people working as informal recyclers in the municipality. Generally, these people search solid waste containers in the city for materials that they can sell to the 353 warehouses in the city. Less than half of these warehouse facilities meet the legal requirements to formally operate in the municipality. Based on the census, it was also determined that about 69% of the recyclers live in the urban zone while 31% live in rural areas. Additionally, it was determined that about 50% of the recyclers do not make the Colombian legal minimum wage. Most of the recovered material is metal, paper and cardboard, plastic, and glass. When the Navarro dump site was operating, recyclers at the site collected about 120 tons of usable materials daily at that site. With the commencement of operations at the new Colomba-Guabal landfill in 2008, informal recycling activities were not allowed at the disposal site. In 2009, Cali updated its PGIRS with proposed strategies aimed at reinforcing the productivity and competitiveness of the entire recycling network which included a decrease of the volume of recycled material disposed in the landfill. The revised strategy also sought to improve the socio-economic conditions for the people involved in the informal recycling process. To accomplish these strategies, five recycler cooperatives operating in Cali (FERESURCO, COOPRIM, ECOFUTURO, AMCE and ARC) were invited to be part of the development process. Through investigation, it was determined that there were 770 recyclers working through these cooperatives, 1,804 recyclers that worked independently, and a third group of homeless people that also sought recyclable materials but not on a daily basis. The total amount of recovered material from all three of the above type of recyclers was about 280 tons per day (53% due to the cooperative recyclers; 30% due to the independent recyclers and 17% due to the homeless part-time recyclers). In accordance with DAGMA, there are about 300 companies in Cali that use recycled materials for manufacturing new products or provide raw material for larger industries in Colombia. These companies


directly and indirectly support about 7,000 jobs in the city, produce 1,000 different products, and export 10% of its manufactured products. Table 11 presents solid waste diversion data from one of the private companies active in Cali that collect source separated solid waste components from large waste producers (educational institutions, public agencies, offices, commercial establishments). This data can form the basis for estimating the amount of solid waste recyclables that could be collected from similar processes in the other zones of the municipality.

Table 11: Source: DAP, 2012. Disposal - Upon closure of the disposal site in Navarro in 2008, operations began at the new Colomba-Guabal disposal site located 42 km from the center of Cali in a rural area in the municipality of Yotoco. Interaseo del Valle S.A. E.S.P. (Interaseo) is the owner and operator of the Colomba-Guabal landfill and the site is estimated to have an operational life of about 31 years at the current rate of disposal. EMSIRVA (which currently is being liquidated) then contracted with four private operators for collecting the municipal solid waste in the city and transporting it to a transfer station. From there, Interaseo transports the solid waste to the landfill site. Interaseo received a concession from the Municipality of Cali for the operation of the transfer station for a total period of 20 years commencing in June 2008. As owner of the landfill, Interaseo issued a public tender in October 2009 for the development of a CDM project at the landfill. Another private company, Green Gas, won the tender and a contract between Green Gas Yotocó SAS and Interaseo was signed on June 25th 2010.

MAS Ambiente SAS Solid Waste Diversion

Material type Ton/year

2010 2011 Collected waste 298 460 Diverted waste 259 400 PVC 33 51 Paper 14 36 Low density polyethylene 2 12 Cardboard 74 117 Scrap metal 1 5 Confidential documents 23 11

Other plastics 3 17 Low density cardboard 50 76 Newspapers 3 7 PET 10 11 Traditional X-ray 0 1 Digital X ray 1 1 Glass 44 56 Not diverted 39 60


The landfill site has an active area of about 64 ha of which 20 ha are expected to receive solid waste for disposal. Since start-up, this landfill has received an average of about 1,800 tons per day and has the operational capacity to receive up to 2,000 tons per day of waste from a number of regional municipalities including: Yotoco, Santiago de Cali, Yumbo, Candelaria, Jamundí, Florida, La Cumbre, Dagua, Caloto, Padilla, Villarica, and Corinto. Currently, about 230 trucks arrive at the landfill daily on a 24 hour per day operational schedule. Interaseo estimates that it receives an annual tonnage of about 625,000 tons. The areas designated for the disposal of solid waste has a basic flexible membrane liner (HDPE geomembrane - 1.5 mm thickness) and leachate collection and treatment system with a design capacity of 16 liters/second) system. Landfill gas is currently collected from areas not in active use and combusted through a flare system. In their CDM application, Interaseo stated that their proposed landill gas project would be developed in 2 phases where only flaring will be used for gas treatment in phase 1 and electricity generation in phase 2. For back-up purposes, the existing flaring system will be retained to be used at times when the Phase 2 power generation system is not operational or is under maintenance. In their CDM application, Interaseo estimated that Phase 2 of their CDM project would start a year after phase 1 was developed in order to determine the quality and quantity of the gas actually collected and processed through the flaring system. The Interaseo plans acknowledged that the implementation of power generation would depend on observed conditions (gas quality and quantity). During the total project lifetime (projected to be 21 years) Green Gas would implement additional power generation capacity based on the observed increasing gas production and collection until reaching an output capacity of approximately 11 MW. The amount of solid waste disposed in Cali at the Navarro and Colomba-Guapal landfills from 2003 through 2009 is shown in Table 12.

Solid Waste Received from 2004 to 2009 Categorized by Source

Item Units 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Collection and transport Ton/day 1,961 1,641 2,046 1,703 1,535 1,466 1,834

Waste disposal in Navarro Ton/year 624,310 478,407 574,735 613,360 554,101 263,102 -

Waste disposal in Yotoco Ton/year - - - - - 266,287 575,931

Table 12: Source: DAP, 2012. Financial/economic Aspects - According to data provided by the current service providers, the estimated costs associated with the management of the solid wastes in Cali are as shown in Table 13.


Solid Waste Management Costs

Cost Unit Value

($ COP)

Cleaning and Sweeping cost $COP/Km 21,206

Collection and Transport Cost $COP/Ton 75,135

Excess Transport Cost $COP/Ton 14,4521

Final Disposal Cost $COP/Ton 19,203

Service Marketing Cost $COP/Sus 886

Yotoco Town's Incentive Fee* $COP/Ton 1,303

As an indication of the annual incomes derived by the service providers, Table 14 shows the number of users and the invoiced value received by the one of the private companies (EMAS Cali) classified by socio-economical strata (1=poorest people, 6= richest). EMAS Cali provides services only in the eastern zone of Cali where there are no subscribers classified as Strata 6.

Annual Incomes by Socio-economic Class (EMAS)

Type of user Number of

Users Tariff Incomes

(USD/year) Residential SC 1 59,143 $ 2,310,000 Residential SC 2 61,738 $ 2,851,000 Residential SC 3 33,564 $ 2,272,000 Residential SC 4 15 $ 1,000 Residential SC 5 0 NA Residential SC 6 0 NA Industrial 5 $ 1,000 Commercial 6,641 $ 1,456,000 Official 227 $ 75,000

Total $ 8,966,000

b. Medellin

The following have been identified by the municipality of Medellin as strategic components of their PGIRS. CCAP views these elements as a statement of their overall priorities in achieving the intent of the national policy.

1. Source Separated Collection - The PGIRS consideration of Source Separated Collection is based on a study already completed by the municipality (Consideraciones Metodológicas para el

Table 13: Source: EMSIRVA, 2012. *Yotoco municipality receives a monetary incentive for allowing the operation of a regional landfill in its territory.

Table 14: EMAS Cali- Metropolitan Cleaning Company of Cali S.A.E.S.P. Source: EMAS Cali, 2012.


Diseño de Rutas Selectivas del Área Metropolitana del Valle de Aburrá). This study proposed selective collection routes of source separated waste materials based on major generator locations and on the composition of their waste material. Regarding the nature of the selected waste generators, the study proposed special routes for areas with the greatest concentrations of large solid waste generators such as industrial and commercial areas. Regarding the composition of waste material, the study also proposed routes that depend on the calorific value and nature of waste material based on the following waste classifications: organics, recyclable materials and non-recyclable material. Another important classification that will affect source separation collection will be the collection for hazardous waste material, construction and demolition waste, commercial, industrial, hospital waste and “green” waste (from yards and public landscaping). The study also proposed the implementation of source separated collection in different stages including 1) the implementation of pilot programs to gain experience in the source separation collection process and 2) the participation of existing informal recyclers in the new process.

2. Recycling Material - This component of the PGIRS envisions improvements in the process of collecting recyclable material through the use of specialized vehicles, source separation waste collection routes, and the use of mechanical sorting facilities to capture marketable material. Improvements in the organization of informal recyclers and better “centros de acopio” or recycling facilities are also proposed.

3. Organic Material - The PGIRS objective pertaining to organic material is to increase the rate of organics capture and reuse to 15% within the next 15 years. The necessary actions to achieve this intent include a feasibility study for a composting plant, evaluation of required tariffs for project viability and sustainability, market studies for sale of processed compost, development of an appropriate legal framework, etc. The inclusion of other communities in a regional approach is another important aspect of this proposed component. The PGIRS also considers support of small scale composting in rural areas.

4. Construction and Demolition Material - The plan considers two pilot project alternatives to achieve the recovery of rubble material in the Valle de Aburrá region. Pilot plant alternatives to process between 100-150 tons per day of rubble material include:

a. Alternative 1: Enhance an existing asphalt recycling system and upgrade the facility to process asphalt material.

b. Alternative 2: Install a crushing system for the processing of rubble material at the existing asphalt recycling facility.

5. Incineration - The plan also states that the “Valle de Aburrá” region should use 5% of municipal solid waste material in thermal processes such as incineration within the next 10 years, and an additional 5% in the next 15 years.

6. Pruning waste and organic industrial material - The PGIRS proposed initiatives to recover and utilize 100% of the “green” waste generated in parks, markets, industries, etc. which is estimated to be about 108 tons per day. For this purpose, it presented two processing


alternatives including a composting plant (based on a windrow aerobic process, or a biodigester system based on an anaerobic digestion process.) To finance the biodigester, the plan considered the possibility of a loan from the European Union (€1 million, 5% interest rate for 12 years).

7. Biogas plant - The Medellin PGIRS also states that the municipality aims to use the biogas generated in the “Curva de Rodas” and “La Pradera” landfills for electricity production, cogeneration in the landfills, or biofuel.

The city of Medellin is within the Aburrá Valley Metropolitan Area (AMVA), which, in addition to Medellin, consists of nine other municipalities (Barbosa, Bello, Caldas, Copacabana, Envigado, Girardota, Itagüí, La Estrella and Sabaneta). EMVARIAS ESP (Empresas Varias de Medellin) is the public company (the largest such company in Colombia) responsible for the provision of SWM services in Medellin since 1964. EMVARIAS operates as an Industrial and Commercial State Company and has more than 685,000 registered customers including commercial (37,000), industrial (5,000) and residential (643,000) generators. Table 15 identifies the companies responsible for SWM services in each of the Medellin Metropolitan Area municipalities and the actual service operator.

Companies Responsible for Solid Waste Management in Medellin Metro Area

Municipality Public Company Operator

Barbosa Embaseo S.A. E.S.P. Embaseo S.A. E.S.P. Bello Belloaseo S.A. E.S.P. Interaseo S.A. E.S.P.

Caldas Aseo Caldas S.A. E.S.P. Interaseo S.A. E.S.P. Copacabana Copaseo S.A. E.S.P. Interaseo S.A. E.S.P.

Envigado Enviaseo S.A. E.S.P. Enviaseo S.A. E.S.P. Girardota Giraseo S.A. E.S.P. Interaseo S.A. E.S.P.

Itagui Serviaseo S.A. E.S.P. Interaseo S.A. E.S.P. La Estrella Aseo Siderense S.A. E.S.P. Interaseo S.A. E.S.P. Medellin Empresas Varias de Medellín. E.S.P. Empresas Varias de Medellín. E.S.P. Sabaneta Aseo Sabaneta S.A. E.S.P. Interaseo S.A. E.S.P.

AMVA, acting as the Medellin local authority for urban environmental and planning, developed the study of SWM in the region through the development of the Regional Aburra Valley Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (PGIRS-R). This regional plan was developed according to the guidelines, standards and methodologies stipulated in National Legislation (Decree 1713/2002) and Resolution 1045/2003 of the Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development. The PGIRS-R identified

Table 15: Source: AMVA, 2006.


5 different programs and 35 related projects to be implemented in 15 years, with an estimated investment of COP $115,000 million (AMVA , 2006). Since the formulation of PGIRS-R, Medellin has adopted two further policies concerning SWM. Municipal Agreement 46/2007 issued by Medellin’s Council established the public policy for waste diversion in the city to promote the recovery of solid waste. This policy includes four major strategies to:

1. promote separation and recycling at source, 2. promote health, education and training programs for recyclers, 3. create drop-off centers and downcycling facilities, and 4. promote economic incentives to fully establish recycling cooperatives.

The second strategy sets a Land Use Plan (POT, Spanish acronym), Municipal Agreement 46/2006, issued by Medellin’s Council. This plan seeks to address the challenge of developing new infrastructure for SWM in the city including the creation of drop-off centers (warehouses), the definition of appropriate locations for Medellin’s final waste disposal, waste sorting in market squares and other related policies. Solid Waste Generation - Medellin produces an average of about 1,300 tons per day of solid waste with a per capita generation rate of about 0.45 kg/inhabitant/day. Table 16 shows the production rate and total production of solid waste in Medellin by source. In addition, construction and demolition waste is estimated at about 411 tons per day. As shown in Table 16, the proportion of solid waste from the residential sector is estimated to be about 67% percent, 30% of which is recyclable. It was further estimated that informal recyclers collect about 13% of these materials (300 to 320 tons/day).

Solid Waste Produced by Source in 2004

Source Number of subscribers

Total production (ton/year)

Residential 561,632 323,496 Commercial 36,405 44,124 Industrial 4,011 34,128 Sweeping/street cleaning

- 41,676

Yards and gardens - 20,256

Hazardous (medical) 3,222 beds 1022,64



Figure 11 presents the typical solid waste composition for the city of Medellin and the AMVA area. Further, Figure 12 presents the solid waste composition for the residential category of waste in the municipality. This general solid waste composition data shown in Figures 11 and 12 is similar to that found in other Colombian cities as shown in the Annex.

Figure 13 presents the estimated per capita generation of residential solid waste classified by socio-economic strata. The figure demonstrates the difference in generation between affluent (strata 6) and poor residents (strata 1 and 2) of Medellin. In Medellin, about 73% of the dwellings are classified as strata 1, 2 and 3, 16,3% as Strata 4 and the remaining residences are strata 4 and 5 (AMVA , 2006).

Figure 11: Physical composition of residential solid waste in Medellin. Source: EMVARIAS ESP, 2009.

Figure 12: Physical composition of residential solid waste in the Metropolitan Area. Source: AMVA, 2006.


Figure 13: Per capita production of residential solid waste classified by socio-economic strata. Source: EMVARIAS ESP, 2011.

Collection, Transport and Transfer - Solid waste collection in Medellin is provided by EMVARIAS. For the other AMVA municipalities, this service is provided by a number of private contractors including: Embaseo SA ESP, Enviaseo SA ESP or Interaseo SA ESP. Table 17 presents the general data concerning the trucks, capacity and number of trips from 2004. In Medellin the waste collection service is provided from two to seven times a week, depending on the subscriber. Most of residential areas have a collection frequency of three times per week. EMVARIAS ESP divided the city in seven different zones, for a total of 396 collection micro-routes including the ones designed for Medellin’s suburbs (Altavista, San Antonio de Prado, San Cristobal, San Sebastian de Palmitas y Santa Elena). 378 of the micro-routes collect the waste in the urban area. By 2004, EMVARIAS had 175 drivers and 320 workers involved in waste collection and transport activities.

EMVARIAS ESP Vehicles and Transport to LA Pradera Landfill in 2004

Type of Truck Loading Capacity

Loading capacity (Ton)

Number of vehicles

Total volume (m3)

Total capacity (Ton)

Number of trips by per month

Compactor 14 Yd3 6.5 7 75 46 336 Compactor 20 Yd3 10.5 76 1,113 798 3,648 Compactor 25 Yd3 13.5 14 268 189 672 Compactor 28 Yd3 16 7 150 112 192 Dump truck 6 m3 7 6 36 42 Sporadic

TOTAL 110 4,848



Construction and demolition (C&D) waste collection service is provided through the use of 8 dump trucks and two loaders. Collected construction and demolition waste is delivered to 11 C&D waste sites located in the AMVA Region. There is only one solid waste transfer station currently in use. The South Transfer Station in the municipality of Sabaneta was built by Interaseo SA ESP and CODESARROLLO SA ESP to optimize transportation costs of waste from the Aburra Valley to the La Pradera landfill. It is noteworthy that there is ongoing controversy between the administrators of the transfer facility and neighboring communities who argue that the transfer station does not meet all the specifications defined in current regulations. Planning is underway for another transfer station to be built close to the Medellín urban area. The Medellín municipal Council is considering this project which is expected to cost about 10 million USD. (This is an example of an important major project that is required for core services which could deemphasize the municipality’s interest in secondary recovery facilities and processes.)

Processing and Recovery - The Metropolitan Area of the Valley of Aburra has developed strategies to increase and improve the use of recyclable and organic waste in the region. These strategies include environmental education for recyclers, recycling organizations and the collectors´ association. It also includes the creation and consolidation of a process to promote small-scale use of organic waste to produce compost. However, only about 35% of these small scale composting plants comply with the compost regulation. For the most part, the sale of the organic product (compost and humus) from these facilities is carried out informally, with no registration or certification by the Colombian agricultural authorities. Generally, evaluation of these activities showed that the quality of the produced compost is not monitored through physical, chemical or microbiological analysis to ensure safety and effective quality. Since 2010, the AMVA has also implemented 55 small composting plants in 38 residential complexes in Medellin which process about 155 ton of source separated organic waste. The resulting compost is used as fertilizer in the residential complex grounds and also made available for use by the inhabitants. Similar facilities are currently planned in the other municipalities in the region. The estimated 3,880 Informal recyclers in Medellin are organized in cooperatives. The Recimed Cooperative is the largest of these in the municipality2. Members of this cooperative collect about 54% of all the recyclable materials collected in the municipality. Members collect an average of about 75 kg per day and receive between COP $15,000 and COP $30,000 for this material. On a monthly basis, this is less than the minimum legal salary in Colombia.

2 In terms of number of associates, Recimed has grouped the 73% of recyclers and the remaining percentage is shared by 8 other cooperatives: Manos activas, Girar, Convenir, Cañofistola, Promovernos, Precoambiental, El Limonar, Reciclatur yLa Alborada.


The informal recycling activity is family oriented, with parents, children, and other family members involved in the process. A study on work and health conditions of urban informal recyclers conducted by the University of Antioquia concluded that they work under poor and dangerous conditions where the informal recyclers are exposed to vehicular traffic, high temperatures, rain, carbon monoxide, bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms present in the solid waste that they sort through for recoverable materials. Cuts are often caused by the direct extraction of the recyclables from trash bags and other containers. Major diseases within the population of informal recyclers in Medellin have been found including respiratory infections (37%), diarrhea (9%), dermatological lesions (6%), intestinal infections (6%), and other diseases (3%). Disposal - Medellin’s solid waste disposal is performed at the La Pradera landfill, which was opened in 2003. The La Pradera site is a regional landfill receiving solid waste from Medellin, the other AMVA municipalities and from other neighboring municipalities. Approximately 2,100 tons of waste are received daily at the landfill. Before 2003, the waste disposal occurred in the Rodas’ ravine located near the municipalities of Bello and Copacabana. The Curva de Rodas landfill began operations in 1984 and was closed in 2003. The Curva de Rodas landfill was designed, constructed, and managed by INTERASEO and has a total area of 73 ha with 33 previously used for active disposal. This site is located 10 km from the center of Medellin in the northeastern part of the Aburra valley. Approximately 8.5 million tons of solid waste was placed into the landfill from 1984 to 2003 when the site was closed. The current La Pradera landfill, which is owned by EMVARIAS, is located in a 354 hectare area which provides significant area for expansion. The current disposal site within the landfill (el Vaso Música) has an estimated 5 years of airspace left at the current disposal rate. The next site to be used at the landfill (el Vaso Altair) is estimated to have 9 years of capacity available (AMVA , 2006). The total site is expected to reach closure capacity in 2027 at the current rate of disposal. About 75% of the solid waste generated in Medellin is disposed at La Pradera. Approximately 12.5% is diverted by informal recyclers and the various cooperatives and companies in the region. Financial/economic aspects – Table 18 shows the current tariff to subscribers in Medellin for the service in 2005. The table also shows the subsidy or contribution levels received by socio-economical strata. The subsidy and contribution percentage is specified by a Municipal Agreement (043/2011) issued by the Municipal Council of Medellin to balance the costs of services between the affluent and poor factions of the population.


Tariff in Medellin by Socio-economic Status

Type of user Monthly Tariff

(COP$/Subscriber) Subsidy and/or contribution

(%)

Residential SES 1 4,104 - 55%



Residential SES 4 5,570 0%



Commercial 9,283 50%

Industrial 11,603 30%

The general costs associated with SWM in Medellin are shown in Table 19 based on the amounts calculated according to the pricing methodologies issued by the CRA as a result of Resolution CRA 043/2006. (The amounts shown also show the designated entry notations for the current tariff framework formula) This is followed by Table 20 that shows the general 2012 balance sheet of EMVARIAS.

Solid Waste Management Costs in Medellin Cost Element Value (COP$)

Service Marketing fixed cost ($/subscriber) - CCS 879.93

Collection management fixed cost ($/subscriber) - CMRf 334.31

Collection and Transport Cost ($/Ton) - CRT 67,627.55

Transport average cost by Excess Length ($/Ton) - CTEp 24,570.24

Final average disposal cost ($/Ton) – CDTp 26,573.19

Collection management variable cost ($/ton) - CMRv 8,907.82

Cleaning and Swap cost ($/km) 21,577.78

Table 18 source: Source: EMVARIAS, 2012.

Table 19: Source: EMVARIAS, 2012.


EMVARIAS SA ESP 2012 Cash Flow

Concept COP

Millions USD

Millions

Inco

mes

Collection and transport income 24.772 13,7 Final disposal income 3.772 2,1 Medical waste disposal income 494 0,3 Tree and grass pruning services income 7.000 3,9 Special services income 1.857 1,0 Other current income 4.805 2,7 Capital Income 8.112 4,5

Expe

nses

Operation expenses 7.314 4,0 Recollection and transport expenses 30.341 16,8 Debris collection, transport and disposal 3.425 1,9 Tree and grass pruning services expenses 6.119 3,4 Awareness Campaigns cost 773 0,4 Service marketing cost 1.190 0,7 Incentive to the landfill 880 0,5 Collection commission 6.104 3,4

Inve

stm

ents

Land purchase 7.300 4,0 Development of disposal sites 2.200 1,2 SIAM 5 300 0,2 Leachate treatment 2.750 1,5 Social investment 600 0,3 Research and development 900 0,5

c. Ibagué

The municipality of Ibagué has a population of approximately 550,000 people. About 9,300 tons per month of solid waste is generated in the city (about 300 tons/day) from 110,500 customers served by two private companies, Interaseo (the same company that provides SWM services in Cali) and Ecopijaos. Approximately 92% of the service customers are served by Interaseo as shown in Table 22. Both companies collect residential solid waste three times per week and deliver the collected material to the La Miel landfill for disposal. This site is about 6.5 km from the city and is owned and operated by Interaseo. It is expected to have sufficient capacity for use until 2017. The Ibague PGIRS states that the solid waste generation rate in Ibagué is about 0.66 Kg per person per day. Table 21 shows the total amount of waste placed in the landfill by the principal contractors.

Table 20: Source: EMVARIAS, 2012.


Total Solid Waste Delivered to La Miel Landfill Year Interaseo [K Ton] Ecopijaos [K Ton] Total [Ton/year] 2005 96 0 96,000 2006 101 3.6 105,000 2007 104.5 3.8 108,000 2008 106 3.3 109,000 2009 102.8 8.3 111,000 2010 109.6 10.3 120,000 2011 116.1 11.4 128,000

Users Served by the Principal Waste Companies Class Interaseo Ecopijaos Total Residential 97,447 8,861 106,308 Commercial 6,319 67 6,386 Industrial 195 2 197 Total 103,961 8,930

Solid Waste Composition - In the past, Tolima University conducted a solid waste characterization study of Ibague’s solid waste. Through this study, it was determined that the Ibague’s solid waste consists of about 64% organics, 17% recyclable material, 15% residual, and 4% construction and demolition debris. During a CCAP site visit to Ibagué, the public sector entity responsible for SWM in Ibague (Cortolima) indicated that the core SWM services (collection, transport and disposal) are in excellent condition primarily due to Interaseo’s performance as the principal private contractor to the municipality. In their operation of the disposal site, Interaseo began separating organic materials from the solid waste stream received for disposal to generate compost. This program was also supported through the implementation of source separation from some service customers (primarily residential complexes). However, Interaseo has had difficulties selling the compost derived from the process and has also experienced economic problems because of the cost of the process. In its solid waste management plan, Ibagué states that about 2% (170 tons per month) of organic material generated in the municipality’s MSW stream was used to produce compost. In their PGIRS, Ibague proposes to create a "Company of General Recycling Services" that will process both organic and inorganic material segregated from the municipal solid waste stream. For this purpose, the PGIRS set the following objectives to:

Table 21: Source: Alcaldía Municipal De Ibagué, 2009.

Table 22: Source: Alcaldía Municipal De Ibagué, 2009.


• Devise a business model for the recycling company. • Conduct technical and financial studies to allocate recycling tariffs to the municipal waste

management services. • Estimate the volume of recyclable material. • Evaluate the operational capabilities of the existing sorting facilities. • Define the strategies necessary to effectively sell the recovered recyclable material in the local

markets.

While the Ibagué PGIRS established a general timetable for accomplishing the above objectives, the physical elements of the plan have not yet been fully realized. According to the PGIRS, there are 33 registered companies who provide recycling and reuse practices in Ibagué. Further, an Interaseo manager stated that he believes that the number of informal recyclers in Ibagué is about 2,500. Local authorities state that about 1,500 informal recyclers are active in Ibagué. d. Sogamoso

Since 1981, Sogamoso’s SWM core services (collection, transport and disposal) have been provided by a public company (COSERVICIOS S.A.- E.S.P) (Compañía de Servicios Públicos de Sogamoso). COSERVICIOS also provides Sogomoso’s water distribution, sewerage and street lighting services. From 1981 to 1994, Sogamoso’s solid waste disposal was in open dumps located in different rural areas near the city where the delivered solid waste was often burned in an uncontrolled manner. In 1994, one of the principal open dumps (El Afilador) was closed by a legal order. At that time, COSERVICIOS bought a 17.5 Ha parcel in the rural township of San Jose del Porvenir which is located about 8 km away from Sogamoso’s urban area for the purpose of developing a new landfill site. In 2002, COSERVICIOS also constructed a compost plant, a leachate treatment plant at the landfill and waste drop-off centers in the city. In 2005, Sogamoso’s solid waste management plan (PGIRS) was adopted through local Resolution 1246/2005). In 2008, CORPOBOYACA (the Department of Boyaca’s environmental authority) granted a permit allowing the San Jose del Porvenir landfill to operate as a regional landfill which now provides disposal services for 42 municipalities in the region. Solid Waste Generation – Based on 2011 data, the municipality of Sogamoso produces about 62 tons of solid waste per day with a per capita generation of solid waste of about 0.48 kg per day. Figure 14 shows the city’s solid waste distribution by source. The physical composition of the residential solid waste in Sogamoso is shown in Table 23 (based on data from 2008).


Figure 14: Distribution of solid waste by source in 2011. Source: Coservicios S.A. ESP.

Sogamoso Solid Waste Composition

Category %

Organics 50 Paper and cardboard 19 Plastics 10 Textiles 4 Scrap metal 2 Glass 2 Others 13

Collection, Transport and Transfer - Solid waste collection and transport of solid waste is managed by one single company, COSERVICIOS that is also responsible for street sweeping. Currently, the collection and transport service is provided twice weekly with 18 formal collection routes covering more than 80% of the municipality. The collection system utilizes eight vehicles and 24 employees. Processing and Recovery - After solid waste is collected and transported to the landfill, the material is placed on a conveyor belt where sanitary waste is removed. This process then utilizes a rotating screen (trammel) to also separate the biodegradable fraction from the mixed municipal solid waste at a processing rate of about 25 tons per hour. The biodegradable waste is then used to produce a low

Table 23: Source: Cooservicios SA ESP, 2010.


quality compost in about 45 to 60 days. In 2011, this process produced about 115 tons of low quality compost. During site visits to the Sogamoso landfill site, CCAP observed that this system did not appear to be in regular use for waste processing. The recyclable materials that reach the landfill are minimal since informal recyclers recover over 80% of the recyclable material in the waste stream prior to collection. After recovery, this material is sold to buy-back centers and warehouses in the Sogamoso region. Sogamoso does not have any formal recycling programs. The plastic that arrives at the landfill is sorted manually on a conveyor belt, and sent to a washing plant where it is processed in two industrial washing machines, followed by a mechanical drying process and finally, packing. Table 24 shows the amount of various material recovered at the landfill and the unit revenue derived. Annually, income for selling this recycled material is approximately $3,500,000 COP.

Disposal - Since 1994, Sogamoso’s solid waste disposal site is the Terrazas del Porvenir Landfill located 8 kilometers away from the city’s urban area in San Jose del Porvenir township. Sogamoso’s landfill is a regional landfill serving Sogamoso and 42 other municipality. During 2011, this landfill received over 30,000 tons of solid waste from the regional municipalities in addition to that derived from Sogamoso. Table 25 shows the amount of solid waste placed into the landfill over the past six years. At the current rate of disposal, the landfill is expected to have about 21 years of disposal capacity available.

Solid waste Disposed at Terrazas del Porvenir Landfill (tons/year) Source/type of subscriber 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Other municipalities 2,669 3,143 9,125 25,975 28,752 31,605 Sogamoso 17,120 20,230 20,321 20,453 22,222 22,690 Total 19,789 23,373 29,446 46,428 50,975 54,296

Materials Recycled at Terrazas del Porvenir Landfill in 2011

Recovered materials Selling price

COP/kg Landfill diversion

Ton/year PP $ 200 0.418

PET $ 350 1.664 PE $ 300 0.726

LDPE $ 380 5.44 Scrap metal $ 200 0.603

Glass $ 60 2.027 Aluminum $ 2.000 0.169

Table 24 Source: Sierra, Carlos, 2008.

Table 25 Source: Sierra, Carlos, 2008.


Financial/economic aspects - The costs associated with SWM in Sogamoso are shown in Table 26.

Solid Waste Management Costs in Sogamoso Cost Unit Value

Street sweeping and cleaning COP $/Km 20,117

Collection and Transport COP $/Ton 71,343

Final Disposal COP $/Ton 46,699

Service Marketing COP $/Sus 690

Table 26: Source: Coservicios SA ESP - Tariffs by Rocio Tibocha.


Section 5: Climate Change Activities in Colombia

5.1 Climate Change Policy and Initiatives in Colombia Currently, the Colombian Government has an official and active institutional arrangement supporting climate change policies. This has allowed the country to assume a leadership role with other developing countries in the region in the establishment of voluntary goals regarding the mitigation of GHG emissions while supporting sustainable development models within emerging economies. Colombia approved the UNFCCC in 1994 and the Kyoto protocol in 2000. These milestones defined the course of Colombia’s political actions in climate change matters under a philosophy of “shared but differentiated responsibilities”. The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS) is the policy leader in Colombia through its Climate Change division. Further, IDEAM (Colombian Institute for Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies) is the Colombian public entity responsible for publishing official climate change national communications. The first national communication regarding climate change was published by IDEAM in 2001 and this included the GHG inventory of 1990 - 1994. The second official national communication published in 2009, contained GHG inventories for the period from 2000 to 2004. These documents constitute the official baseline of national GHG emissions and are an example of the technical actions accomplished by the National Government to investigate elements for identifying strategic development alternatives for implementation of a low carbon economic model. However, inventory calculation methodologies need to be improved to increase the accuracy of future inventories and for defining information exchange and generation protocols that allow the construction of MRV systems and procedures for NAMA initiatives such as the proposed integrated Waste NAMA that is the subject of this assessment. There are two key policy documents from the CONPES that define Colombia’s roadmap for climate change actions including:

1. The National Strategy for securing environmental services related with Climate Change Mitigations - CONPES 3242 (2003), and

2. The Institutional Strategy for promoting climate change actions and policies - CONPES 3700.

The former paved the way for CDM projects in Colombia by defining institutional and administrative processes for approving them. The later document defined four policy priorities including:

• Establishment of a National Climate Change Adaptation Plan (PNACC) • Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation National Strategy (EN REDD+) • Establishing a Low Carbon Development National Strategy (LCDS) • Developing a Financial protection strategy against natural disasters


These four priority areas are aligned with the current National Development Plan for 2010 to 2014, and may serve as the political and legal basis for future mitigation actions. Currently, LCDS is under development by the Climate Change Section of MADS and this is expected to define key projects in different sectors (Energy, Housing, Transport, Waste and Agriculture). One important characteristic of this strategy is that it is being implemented from a bottom-up policy implementation approach which implies that key stakeholders are engaged in the climate change inventory and development process. In addition, mitigation actions are being qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed to define priority projects which could be implemented in the near future. The LCDS comprises of three steps including the:

1. Projection of future GHG emission scenarios and identification of promising mitigation actions. This phase will end shortly (October 2012) and will be the basis for project formulation and implementation.

2. Formulation of mitigation plans through detailed feasibility studies and co-benefits analyses. In this phase which is expected to run until about July 2013, the Colombian government will explore financing options, as well as policy and regulatory alternatives for consolidating and implementing a low carbon development model.

3. Implementation, control and evaluation of specific mitigation actions. Once the National Government had prioritized specific and promising projects with clearly identified financing sources, the implementation phase will begin. In this stage, MRV systems should also be designed to quantify emission reductions in comparison with phase 1 estimates.

In the end, the Low Carbon National Strategy will allow Colombia to focus on climate change financing opportunities while simultaneously supporting and advising productive economic sectors to be competitive within a changing economy that is expected to migrate to low carbon economic models. In order to achieve this broad policy objective, Conpes 3700 seeks to create the Climate Change National System (SNCC) for Colombia as illustrated in the following schematic.


5.2 Colombia CDM Projects Overview and Experience Overall experience in developing CDM projects in Colombia has been generally unsatisfactory since the majority of projects seeking CDM status have had difficulties in completing the registration process. As shown in Figure 16, only 29 of 154 CDM candidate projects that have been identified in the country (taking into account all CDM sectors) have been registered by the United Nations, and only 10 of these projects have successfully obtained Certified Emission Reduction (CER) status. According to the MADS, these 10 projects derived a total of USD $91 Million in economic benefits due to CER sales from 2007 to 2010.

Executive secretaryMADS

Consulting groups

Executive Commission on Climate Change

Preside: DNPParticipants: MADS, MHCP, MVCT,

MME, MT, MPS

Committee of Financial management

Technical Secretary: DNP

Orienting group

Economic sectors sub-commission

Territorial sub-commission

International negotiation and cooperation sub-commission

Information management transversal group

Interdisciplinary working groups

Figure 15 Source: Hill Consulting (Bogotá), 2012.

Figure 16: Colombian CDM Projects portfolio Source: Hill Consulting (Bogotá), 2012.


The implementation pattern reflected in Figure 16 also applies to waste sector projects. The Colombia CDM portfolio includes 43 solid waste related projects, the vast majority of which (73%) have been proposed at landfills where landfill gas is combusted through flaring. In the current portfolio, there are also composting and energy generation projects. As shown in Figure 17 below, only a small number of the Colombian waste-related CDM projects that started the validation process have been registered with the UNFCCC. Of these, only 4 have obtained CERs benefits. All four successful projects involve landfill gas treatment processes and none of the other waste-related projects (wastewater, composting or energy generation) have managed to obtain CER’s.

Figure 17: Waste Related CDM projects in Colombia Source: Hill Consulting (Bogotá), 2012.


Bionersis Pasto CERs 25La Pradera Medellín CERs 169Doña Juana Bogota CERs 724El Carrasco Bucaramanga Monitoring 59Guabal Yotoco Validation 247El Guacal Medellín Monitoring 109El Guayabal Cucuta Registration 159El reciclante Villavicencio Registration 27La Esmeralda Manizales Registration 56Los Pocitos Galapa LoA 72Montería Montería Registration 26Pirgua Tunja Registration 11Los Corazones Valledupar LoA 21Palangana Santa Marta LoA 130El Oasis Sincelejo LoA 40La Miel Ibague LoA 68Montenegro Quindío Registration N/ALa Glorita Pereira Validation N/A

CDM Projects in Colombia (with Letter of Approval of MADS)

Landfill Name Location Project Phase

Emission

Reduction Gg CO2eq

Today, there are only 18 CDM projects formally registered and endorsed by MADS listed in Table 27. On average, these projects are estimated to mitigate about 120 Gg of CO2-equivalence each year. Recent experience has shown that other CDM projects in Colombia face difficulties in achieving registration status. As in other countries, one of the biggest constraints in achieving registration has been long delays in the registration application process to the detriment of projects that were seeking registration. Another important factor relative to the Colombian experience with CDM projects is that the GHG reductions estimated by project proponents (which usually served as a basis for estimating their expected cash and income flows) were rarely close to the reductions effectively certified. Figure 18 presents the proportion (%) of CER´s issued compared to the estimated emission reductions for the four Colombian waste sector CDM projects that have received CER's.

Table 27 Source: Hill Consulting (Bogotá), 2012.


Figure 12: CERs Issued/Estimated Reductions from CDM Waste Projects Source: Hill Consulting (Bogotá), 2012.


Section 6: Alternative ISWM Scenarios – Viability and GHG Mitigation Potential As shown in Table 2, there are both GHG emissions sources and mitigation opportunities in conventional ISWM processes and technologies. The current business-as-usual extent of GHG emissions in any Colombian municipality that result from solid waste management is a function of the physical characteristics and performance of their existing programs and facilities. The processes currently in use in Colombian municipalities are primarily basic core services (collection, transport and disposal) along with limited recycling and composting activities. In some instances, new facilities have been developed to improve SWM system performance which have the co-benefit effect of also decreasing GHG emissions. For example, a state-of-the-art transfer station was constructed in Cali to optimize the municipality’s overall solid waste collection and transport system. The transfer station significantly improves the cost effectiveness of Cali’s collection system and also results in a reduction in GHG emissions by decreasing travel requirements for vehicles directly involved in the waste collection and transport process. Medellin is considering a similar transfer station to optimize their collection system because of the travel distance (about 60 kilometers) between the city center and its principal La Pradera disposal site. Based on the assessment site visits and subsequent investigations, CCAP believes that, in general, core collection and disposal services in Colombia are effective in the target municipalities and function at good environmental and performance effectiveness standards. This provides a good foundation for the development of the next tier of SWM actions that seek to manage generated solid waste as a potential resource thereby decreasing the amount of solid waste requiring final disposal. To date, formal systems designed to recover solid waste materials either for direct reuse, recycling, composting or energy recovery purposes have not been extensively developed in Colombia. Recycling is primarily a function of the informal sector due to economic and national policy factors including the existing tariff formula framework which does not consider solid waste diversion from landfills in calculating tariff allocations and other policy limitations that preclude passing on the cost of new initiatives to generators above existing baseline levels for current services. In general, the current tariff framework does not affect the function of the informal sector recycling network since cash flow in this informal process essentially consists of the revenues derived from sale of recovered materials by the informal recyclers which provides for their livelihood. Core SWM service development work is still necessary in some municipalities (Medellin, for example) which is likely to be viewed as a higher investment priority than the development of new recovery projects especially if they are not mandated by national regulations or increase overall solid waste management costs. However, in municipalities where core services are currently effective and viable for


existing and future solid waste management needs (such as in Cali, for instance), consideration is being given to the development of waste diversion projects and programs as components of a comprehensive ISWM program as defined in their SWM plans. For this evaluation, CCAP believes that there are a number of alternative scenarios and processing technical configurations by which individual municipalities (or groups of municipalities in regional configurations) can achieve waste diversion in a manner consistent with their SWM plans (PGIRS) to both improve SWM effectiveness and achieve GHG mitigation benefits. Two conventional scenarios exist which focus on the:

1. Processing of mixed municipal solid waste for materials and/or energy recovery (the Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Processing Scenario); and

2. Source separation and independent collection of recyclable and organic materials for direct sale or processing into secondary products (compost, biogas, etc.) (the Source Separation Scenario)

Each of these scenarios has been successfully utilized in other countries to achieve solid waste recovery and diversion objectives and to realize the intrinsic economic value of municipal solid waste components. However, the full spectrum of potential alternative design configurations and technologies available within each scenario may not be universally applicable to individual municipal and solid waste management situations in Colombia for a number of reasons. Technologies with high capital and operating costs such as mass burn incineration may be viable in the United States and European Union because of the prevalent high cost of disposal and the typical physical composition of municipal solid waste streams. However, in countries where disposal costs are significantly lower and where typical MSW has high organic content (as is the case in Colombia), these systems may not be economically or technically viable. For evaluating potential treatment alternatives to determine which may be viable and applicable to Colombian solid waste management situations, the following conventional technical configurations were initially investigated: Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Processing

• Waste to Energy (WTE) - incineration for energy recovery • Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility - utilizing anaerobic digestion as the core

biological process • Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility – utilizing windrowed and aerobic

composting as the core biological process • Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility – utilizing In-Vessel composting as the

core biological process • Materials Recovery facility (MRF) - including recyclables and/or the production of refuse

derived fuel (RDF) for offsite utilization.


Source Separation

• Source separation and independent collection of organic waste - from residences (yard waste, food scraps, non-recyclable paper, etc.) or specific large-scale generators such as markets, restaurants, etc.

• Source separation and independent collection of recyclable materials - from specific high-volume commercial/industrial generators and from residential sources

Landfill gas collection and treatment

• Landfill gas collection and treatment - in closed and active landfills throughout Colombia

The scale of any of the above applications is a function of the type and amount of solid waste to be managed. In Colombia’s large municipalities (such as Cali and Medellin), mixed waste processing facilities could be developed that are designed to treat the most of the residential and commercial solid waste stream utilizing a variety of different processing systems. Based on the current amount of solid waste generated in Cali, a comprehensive processing facility would require a daily processing capacity of about 1,500 tons per day. A moderately sized municipality such as Ibague would require a much smaller facility (In Ibague, about 250 tons per day). Obviously, as is the case with the existing regional landfills in Colombia, combinations of municipalities in regional configurations can lead to a wide spectrum in design processing capacities. Since processing technologies normally experience an economy of scale, regionalization can help provide the scale necessary to help justify the high investments that may be required to implement some processing technologies. While the amount of solid waste to be processed may determine the required design throughput capacity, the extent and nature of available markets for processing output will, most likely, determine the technical design of the processing system. This consideration may include limiting the throughput capacity design of a specific facility if there is a limit on the amount of output material that can be absorbed by available local and regional markets. This could be the case in designing a processing facility that produces RDF for a local kiln facility, for example, where the processing design capacity may be limited to produce the amount of RDF that can be effectively marketed. Logically, the strength and availability of local markets (and the resulting value for recovered energy, recyclables, RDF, or compost) will define the viability and sustainability of any technology applications. If there are no market outlets for recovered energy, for example, it would not make sense to implement an energy recovery facility. Similarly, low revenues that may be available from selling recovered commodities can have a major impact on economic viability of some technologies. In Colombia where a significant proportion of electricity generation is derived through hydroelectric sources, the market value of recovered electricity from a waste to energy facility is expected to be lower than that which could be derived from a WTE facility constructed in a location where competing high-cost electricity from fossil fuel generation sources are offset.


Figure 19: Mixed Solid Waste Processing Alternatives and Outputs The schematic above provides an illustration of the processing functions and outputs that may be derived through conventional mixed solid waste processing system designs. CCAP views that the processing path shown in red in the schematic is the most probable processing scenario that may be viable in Colombia. There are a number of commercially available processing technologies and systems that are capable of achieving the processing and outputs illustrated in the above schematic. Many of these have been successfully used in a variety of SWM settings throughout the world. For reference purposes, additional descriptive information on alternative SWM technologies and processes can be found at the following internet link which presents a detailed SWM manual prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). http://www.unep.org/ietc/informationresources/ solidwastemanagementpublication/tabid/79356/default.aspx

http://www.unep.org/ietc/informationresources/


For indicative purposes and for the intent of this assessment, CCAP utilized cost and design performance data from facilities in other countries similar in size to what would be required in a municipality such as Cali. This was done solely to assess the impact of prevailing conditions in Colombia on the viability of alternative technologies and to observe the impact of local factors on economic viability and sustainability. For comparison purposes, the alternative technical approaches were evaluated in a manner that focused on product output categories as may be viable in Colombia including energy markets for electricity, markets for compost from either mixed waste processing (low quality compost) or source separated organics (high quality compost), markets for recyclables, and outlets for RDF utilization such as the cement kilns located throughout the country. This assessment sought to determine the economic viability of the various approaches within the specific economic circumstances (landfill disposal tipping fees, energy value determined by current sources of electricity, recyclable revenues currently derived by the informal sector, etc.) applicable to the evaluation case. Subsequent to the assessment and the review of market factors, a potential processing scenario was defined to further refine CCAP’s understanding of the impediments that exist for implementing any mixed waste recovery technology in Colombia. Based on this assessment, the most probable commodity production path was identified and is shown in the above output schematic. Clearly, the economic viability of any processing approach will be a function of the value of recovered commodities and the total cost of deriving them. In evaluating the mixed municipal solid waste processing scenario, CCAP attempted to relate expected costs to derive these output materials to the competing costs of existing core disposal services. The source separation scenario for organics and recyclables was subjected to the same evaluation to determine the viability of this approach and the potential effect that it may have on GHG emissions. In conjunction with the processing and source separation scenarios, other SWM processes such as collection and transport can also be enhanced to provide GHG mitigation benefits. In addition, the potential impacts of Extended Product Responsibility (EPR) policies and construction and demolition waste management were also evaluated to determine their possible effect on GHG mitigation as a component of a comprehensive Waste NAMA in Colombia. CCAP’s findings concerning these later two issues are presented in the Annex of this report. GHG Effects and Mitigation - The ability to estimate GHG emissions from existing and future SWM processes to determine their overall climate change impact and to meet MRV requirements is an important element of a successful Waste NAMA. This has led to considerable research aimed at defining an accurate and practical protocol for estimating emissions from SWM scenarios such as those listed above. Some SWM management technologies (such as conventional waste to energy mass burn incinerators, for example) have an inherent ability to accurately measure most of the direct emissions derived during processing through annual stack emission tests and continuous emission monitors that


provide an accurate and continuous means for monitoring primary emissions. However, controlled and uncontrolled landfills and dump sites (and processing systems such as mechanical processing and composting facilities) do not have this monitoring ability to directly measure emissions. However, this does not mean that an effective means for monitoring GHG impact as a component of an effective Waste NAMA is not required. For assessment purposes, the full GHG impact of SWM processes needs to consider two types of mitigation elements. Since most SWM processes are a source of GHG emissions, the net effect of these processes must be considered where:

Net Emissions = Direct Emissions - Avoided Emissions

Both the direct and avoided emissions are important elements in determining the actual net effect of new SWM processes and facilities. For various purposes, research and evaluations of the effect of various SWM technologies and approaches on GHG emissions have been completed by a number of international agencies including Environment Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency. In these evaluations, direct and avoided emissions were characterized as follows:

• Direct emissions: The emissions that occur as a direct consequence of a particular SWM activity including, for example, methane from landfills or carbon dioxide from stack emissions resulting from the incineration of waste materials.

• Avoided emissions: The emissions that are avoided as a direct or indirect consequence of the SWM activity such as the emissions from energy production using other fuels due to the production of primary materials that could be eliminated through the use of recovered recyclable materials.

In defining avoided emissions, the life cycle steps of any product that eventually becomes a component of the municipal solid waste stream must be considered. The various component materials in MSW represent what is left over after a long series of product life cycle steps including:

1. Extraction and processing of raw materials; 2. Manufacture of products; 3. Transportation of materials and products to markets; 4. Use by consumers; and 5. Waste management (including collection, transport, processing, and disposal of residual

material).

Each of the above steps along a product’s life cycle chain impacts GHG emissions. As a result, solid waste management decisions can help to reduce GHGs by affecting the various steps of the life cycle chain including:


1. Energy consumption associated with making, transporting, using, and disposing of a product or material that becomes a component of an MSW stream.

2. Non-energy related manufacturing emissions, such as the CO2 released when limestone is converted to lime in the case of steel manufacturing.

3. CH4 emissions from landfills where some of the organic components of a municipal solid waste stream are placed and anaerobically decompose.

4. Direct CO2 and N2O emissions derived from combustion of solid waste at WTE facilities or through the combustion of refuse derived fuel.

5. Carbon sequestration through the natural or manmade processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it for long periods or permanently in a physical location or condition where it will not contribute to climate change impacts.

The first four of the above mechanisms physically increase GHG emissions while the fifth (carbon sequestration) reduces GHG concentrations by removing carbon-based CO2 from the atmosphere. Using life-cycle considerations, the avoided emissions reflected in the above listing can be translated into CO2-equivalents and factored into estimates of GHG emission impacts due to new or existing SWM processes. The actual net reduction or increase in GHG emissions is a consequence of two factors including: 1) the amount of decrease in the direct emissions associated with the process and 2) the amount of increase in avoided emissions. Avoided energy production can also include contribution from landfills where methane is recovered and used as an energy source, thereby substituting alternative (mostly fossil-fuel based for this element to be consequential) energy production. Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released guidelines for estimating GHG emissions, there is still some uncertainty related to the actual emission levels that can be realized given the complexity of the physical issues involved. While research on waste degradation chemical, biological and physical dynamics in typical landfill environments have been completed, the inherent variability in waste characteristics and landfill configurations/operations limits the value of this research in predicting reliable and accurate results in all locations. However, this does not eliminate the need for an inventory of GHG emission from various SWM processes and facilities in order to gauge their environmental and economic impact particularly during planning and decision-making activities. Currently, most countries estimate GHG emissions for various SWM applications based on IPCC guidelines. However, as more experience is gained in monitoring GHG mitigation effects through waste sector initiatives in a number of countries with significantly different physical characteristics (solid waste composition, climate, etc.), the means for estimating emission levels will become more reliable and accurate. To this point, the predominant estimation schemes for GHG emissions and mitigation effects were developed in and for industrialized countries. As SWM initiatives in other countries evolve, additional performance measurement schemes may evolve that are more applicable to specific locales in non-industrialized countries. For this assessment, a model developed by IFEU Heidelberg was utilized


to evaluate the relative impact of investigated scenarios. This model is the basis for the net impacts reported in this assessment. Actual GHG mitigation impacts associated with any new SWM processes and facilities in any country is a function of existing specific circumstances and the net impact created by implementing the new processes and facilities. In developing countries, existing GHG emissions will be significantly affected by the nature of existing disposal facilities. As improved landfill designs and operating standards are developed, countrywide methane emissions may actually increase until landfill gas collection and treatment systems are also incorporated into the improved landfills. This is the evolving situation in Colombia as new landfills have come into service over the past 7 years. In this assessment, the estimation of GHG effects in the test case is based on comparing the new ISWM processes to emissions realized at the Cali landfill which includes an active landfill gas collection and treatment system. If this were not the case, the net GHG mitigation effects would be greater. The following presents basic parameters associated with the GHG impact of various solid waste management processes relevant to this assessment.

6.1 Waste Reduction Any initiative that reduces the amount of municipal solid waste that must be managed will have a positive impact on GHG emissions. Accordingly, the evolution and adoption of EPR programs will have the effect of possibly decreasing the amount of generated solid waste through producer supported modifications in product manufacturing and packaging as well as in the development or support of end-of-product life programs that foster recycling and reuse. This is discussed in greater detail in the Annex of this report.

6.2 Collection and Transport GHG emissions are derived from collection and transport processes. The level of emissions associated with collection and transport has increased in the last 30 years due to a general increase in the amount of solid waste that must be managed and the need to transport solid waste to more distant locations where landfills have been developed outside of urban areas in remote locations. While the actual GHG emission levels from collection and transport processes are relatively small, they are still estimated to be approximately 1/3 of the net GHG emissions for the entire solid waste sector. This is particularly the case in developing countries where collection and transfer vehicles are often utilized well beyond their useful lives and are poorly maintained. A number of alternative approaches to the collection and transport process that can be considered as a means for mitigating GHG emissions including:

1. Development of transfer systems - Transfer systems (such as that in the Cali region) can increase the effectiveness of collection programs and decrease travel requirements for collection vehicles thereby reducing GHG emissions.


2. Better operations and maintenance of collection and transport vehicles - This can improve the efficiency and performance of collection and transport vehicles thereby decreasing GHG emissions.

3. Alternative fuels - Landfill methane and biogas are being explored as potential alternative motor vehicle fuels similar to compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

4. Improved diesel engine systems that lower emissions - Improved diesel engine designs can help to reduce emissions which include particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons.

5. Collection route optimization - The optimization of collection routes can maximize tons of waste collected per mile. This reduces the overall GHG emissions from the collection process. In addition, truck size and collector performance efficiencies are also factors in ensuring that full trucks are derived as close as possible to the final disposal location thereby minimizing GHG emissions.

6.3 Recycling, Processing and Recovery There are a variety of alternative solid waste processing technologies that have been developed for processing municipal solid waste streams. The selection of the best technical approach for treating MSW in any locale is a function of solid waste stream physical characteristics (quantity and composition of the material to be processed) and the availability of output markets for recovered material and energy end-products. There are alternative commercially available and proven technologies that can recover energy from MSW streams. Conventional waste-to-energy facilities that utilize mass burn incineration (where solid waste is combusted in the physical condition that it is received at the incineration facility) is a reliable, common process utilized throughout the world but particularly in industrialized countries such as the United States, countries of the European Union, and Japan where there are high costs for landfill disposal. The high cost and scarcity of landfill capacity help to justify the high cost of incineration in those countries. Because of the high organic content of the typical municipal solid waste in Colombia (and in many other countries throughout the world) the utilization of mass burn technologies may not be appropriate without significant preconditioning. The combustibility triangle shown in Figure 20 illustrates the relationship of waste composition ash, combustibles and moisture content that establishes solid waste combustibility. The shaded area in the triangle represents the waste characteristics that are necessary for auto-ignition (the ability of the combustion process to continue solely with the continual addition of the solid waste feedstock). The general physical characteristics of municipal solid waste in Colombia places its position near to the extremity of the combustible zone.


Figure 20: Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Combustibility Triangle However, there are a number of alternative technologies by which energy can be recovered from Colombia's municipal solid waste stream. This includes the segregation and use of sorted dry combustibles for the production of RDF which may be combusted at offsite locations such as the numerous cement kilns located throughout Colombia. In addition, there are also a number of emerging technologies that may be available in the future. Some of these have not yet been commercially proven with the resulting effect that there is still considerable technical risk associated with utilizing them in a full-scale application. Because of these high technical risks, these emerging technologies (gasification, pyrolysis and plasma processing) have not been considered as viable options within this assessment. Mechanical biological treatment is a common term utilized for a processing approach where both mechanical separation and biological treatment processes are utilized to derive output products including recovered materials and energy. There are alternative configurations for MBT systems particularly in terms of the biological component incorporated into the treatment design. Biological processes can include anaerobic digestion and composting. Typically, the capital cost associated with anaerobic digestion facilities is considerably higher than that for compost facilities as a result of their


increased technical complexity. Accordingly, MBT facilities utilizing anaerobic digestion facilities may not be cost-effective in some locations while facilities that utilize simpler compost production processes as the core biological element may lead to project economics that are viable under local conditions. Naturally, this depends on the viability of available markets for output materials. Mechanical biological treatment facilities that utilize anaerobic digestion generate biogas which can then be used for direct purposes or for generation of electricity. However, these systems, along with conventional waste-to-energy technologies, are usually the most costly technologies available for mixed solid waste processing and, as such, may not be economically viable in Colombia because of low (competing) current disposal costs and electricity value. The various technologies that use biological decomposition to produce compost reduce GHG emissions by sequestering biogenic carbon in soils, improving soil physical properties, adding soil nutrients, and diverting organic material away from landfill anaerobic processes where methane and carbon dioxide emissions are generated and emitted. Throughout the world, the organic component of the municipal waste stream (e.g. paper, cardboard, food waste, garden waste, etc.) ranges from 30-70% of total municipal waste production. Typically, the organic content of municipal solid waste in Colombia is approximately 50 to 60% of the total amount collected. If accessible, the recovery and processing of this organic material could contribute significantly to GHG emissions reduction if processed into marketable quality compost that complies with Colombia certified compost standards. However, the ultimate value of processing outputs has to be carefully evaluated within the context of the total cost to achieve it. Additionally, the ability to process source separated organic materials that have not been contaminated by contact with other solid waste forms greatly enhances the ability to generate marketable and good quality compost. This is also generally the case for source separated recyclables since market value is often determined by the level of contaminants associated with a recyclables delivered to available markets. In most cases, the economic viability of solid waste processing facilities will be a function of the value of derived end-products and the costs associated with achieving them to the required quality standards. A compost production facility, for example, will not be successful where there is little need, value or market for the produced compost. Unfortunately, past experience with some mixed MSW compost facilities have led to situations where initially available markets have ceased taking produced compost as a result of its poor quality. In Colombia, any compost produced from any processing feedstock must comply with minimum standards for product certification if the material is to be used for agricultural purposes. These standards provide the technical and performance basis for any compost facility design and operations to assure that the value of the output material can be achieved and sustained. In one of the municipalities evaluated during this assessment (Sogamoso), solid waste material from the local traditional market is regularly delivered to the current landfill site for processing and production of compost. However, the lack of operational effectiveness and the poor quality of material received for


processing has not allowed the municipality to meet certification standards thereby affecting the value and marketability of the material that they produce. To evaluate GHG mitigation effects of various recovery approaches, international agencies such as Environment Canada and the USEPA investigated alternative SWM processes to determine their individual GHG emission impacts. (While the typical solid waste composition in Colombia is different than that of typical MSW in Canada and the United States, the relative impact of recovering individual materials as a component of a mixed solid waste stream is still relevant to the Colombian situation on a unit basis.) The Environment Canada evaluation concluded the following:

• In general, recycling reduces GHG emissions relative to landfilling. The emission reductions, on a per tonne basis, are quite significant in some cases.

• The effect of including or excluding carbon sinks has an important effect on the results for paper, food scraps, and yard trimmings. For comparisons between combustion and landfilling for newsprint and yard trimmings, it changes the sign from positive (combustion increases emissions when carbon sinks are included) to negative (combustion decreases emissions when carbon sinks are excluded). This is particularly evident for newsprint, which has a large landfill carbon storage factor.

• On a per-ton basis, the metals (aluminum, copper wire, steel), paper, plastic, and several of the composite materials (PCs, microwaves, white goods), and tires have the greatest magnitude of negative net emissions through recycling due primarily to reductions in energy use in the raw material acquisition and manufacturing step and (for paper) forest carbon sinks.

• For metals and glass bottles, there is almost no distinction in GHG emissions between any of the “downstream” waste management methods, i.e., landfilling, combustion, anaerobic digestion, and composting – with the exception of steel combustion as a result of the ability to recover metal from incineration process ash residue. For the other materials, such as paper, plastics, organics, electronics, and tires, the choice of management method can have significant implications.

• The emissions factors for the landfilling of paper and organics are quite sensitive to whether the landfill has a gas collection system (and to a lesser extent, whether gas capture is accompanied by flaring or by energy recovery).

• Recycling of both metals and plastics is associated with relatively high energy consumption benefits.

• The impact of landfill gas recovery and energy generation is clearly evident when comparing landfill disposal for forest products and organics. Fine paper in particular has nearly a 1 GJ/tonne differential when comparing landfills with and without landfill gas collection and energy generation.


• The combustion of steel presents some energy benefits due to the recovery of ferrous materials at the combustion facility and subsequent recycling of the material.

Similarly, the USEPA undertook a study to determine the impact of SWM processes on GHG emissions and mitigation processes. One of USEPA's primary reasons for undertaking the study was to develop material-specific GHG emission factors that could be utilized to estimate and measure GHG mitigation effects based on various ISWM scenarios. These emission factors were not intended to establish absolute values by which GHG mitigation effects can be determined for application of any solid waste management process but were intended to provide a means for comparing decisions related to any particular solid waste management approach in comparison to alternatives. As was the case in the Environment Canada study, the USEPA evaluation concluded that the effective management of municipal solid waste presents numerous opportunities for GHG emission mitigations and included the following:

• Source reduction, in general, represents an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions in a significant way. For many materials, the reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions from the raw material acquisition and manufacturing process, and the absence of emissions from waste management, combine to reduce GHG emissions more than other options do.

• For most materials, recycling represents the second best opportunity to reduce GHG emissions. For these materials, recycling reduces energy-related CO2 emissions in the manufacturing process (although not as dramatically as source reduction) and avoids emissions from waste management. Paper recycling increases the sequestration of forest carbon.

• Composting is a management option for food discards and yard trimmings. The net GHG emissions from composting are lower than landfilling for food discards (composting avoids CH4 emissions), and higher than landfilling for yard trimmings (landfilling is credited with the carbon storage that results from incomplete decomposition of yard trimmings). Overall, given the uncertainty in the analysis, the emission factors for composting or combusting these materials are similar.

• The net GHG emissions from combustion of mixed MSW are lower than landfilling mixed MSW (under national average conditions for landfill gas recovery). Combustors and landfills manage a mixed waste stream; therefore, net emissions are determined more by technology factors (e.g., the efficiency of landfill gas collection systems and combustion energy conversion) than by material specificity. Material-specific emissions for landfills and combustors provide a basis for comparing these options with source reduction, recycling, and composting.

6.4. Disposal Landfill gas is formed as a natural by-product of the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste materials in landfills. Typically, LFG is composed of about 50% methane, 45% carbon dioxide, and 5% other gases, including hydrogen sulfide and volatile organic compounds. The pattern of LFG generation is a function


of the amount of solid waste accumulated and time required for the anaerobic decomposition process to evolve in the accumulated solid waste mass in the landfill. Methane is a potent GHG, with up to 25 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. LFG can also contribute to odor problems and present health and safety hazards if it is not well controlled. Many landfill sites throughout the world have installed landfill gas to energy systems to recover the energy value of LFG and to minimize its environmental effects. In some cases, LFG has been collected and simply combusted through flaring as a means of treatment. This type of system has been incorporated into some Colombian landfills and has been the basis for CDM applications prepared on behalf of those landfills. In the United States and the European Union, flaring systems are utilized to meet regulatory emission standards. In addition to the consideration of the conventional technologies available for treating landfill gas, there are a number of other considerations that are being explored in landfill technologies and operations that may have an impact on gas production and, therefore, on GHG emissions. Some of these include the following:

• Landfill Bioreactors - Bioreactor technologies attempt to control the gas generation process in landfills by increasing the rate of solid waste decomposition and stabilization. From the landfill gas generation perspective, a bioreactor design will lead to earlier generation of landfill gas at a higher production rate thereby increasing the potential technical and economic viability of landfill gas energy recovery systems. This has the added benefit of also decreasing the time required for post closure care after the landfill has closed. It may also lead to a favorable economic impact through the use of leachate as a means for increasing moisture content as part of the bio-reaction process. In settings where there is high value to landfill airspace, the accelerated rate of solid waste decomposition helps to also salvage landfill airspace for future disposal needs through accelerated subsidence.

• Compost as Landfill Cover - Some research has implied that using compost on closed landfills may reduce methane emissions. This may be appropriate for small landfills where active gas collection and treatment economics are not viable. This may have the added benefit of potentially utilizing compost derived from waste diversion processes if more viable markets do not exist for actual sale of the material.

• Additional Landfill Gas Capture and Energy Recovery – Opportunities may exist to install landfill gas to energy systems at a number of the existing landfills in Colombia. This may include landfills that have already installed gas flaring systems through the retrofit of those systems for energy recovery. In a recent study funded by the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), an existing landfill treatment (flaring) system was evaluated to determine the potential of energy recovery in the landfill’s service area. This USTDA funded project in the Valle de Aburrá region (where Medellin is located) provided insight into some of the factors influencing waste to energy applications in Colombia. This study can be found at the below link:

http://www.ustda.gov/program/regions/lac/downloads/us/LAC_Task15_ElGuacalLandfill_Nov11.pdf

http://www.ustda.gov/program/regions/lac/downloads/us/LAC_Task15_ElGuacalLandfill_Nov11.pdf


6.5 Integrated Solid Waste Management Processes By its nature, integrated solid waste management utilizes different processes to manage various components of the solid waste stream. The design basis for ISWM systems is often focused on the recovery of end products that are determined by available market conditions. The specific situations in the different municipalities in Colombia are such that market conditions are apt to vary significantly with the result that a viable ISWM program in one locale may be very different than that in another. One of the opportunities explored during this assessment was the potential for utilizing refuse derived fuel in the various cement kilns located throughout the country. (A listing of some of the major kilns and their locations is shown in the Annex 4.) Accordingly, the potential demand for RDF as an alternate fuel in any region of Colombia may support a recovery focus on the production of RDF. In addition, an ISWM program does not necessarily mean that all manner of treatment is accomplished at single facilities. For example, a compost facility developed in one locale may become the destination for collected organic material from multiple municipalities or from other processing facilities that provide a means for separating recoverable organics. The evolution of regional landfills and strong private sector participation in the development of those landfills may provide a basis for developing regional processing facilities that receive materials from different locales.

6.6 Net GHG Mitigation Effects The net mitigation effects created by the application of any solid waste management approach in Colombia are a function of the specific characteristics of individual projects and programs. The amount of solid waste that is managed and the processes utilized will determine the net GHG emission or mitigation effects. Accordingly, the overall effect of any specific project will need to be based on the technical definition and performance criteria for that project including the nature of current processes and facilities. For example, the active landfill in Cali already collects landfill gas and treats it through flaring. This establishes the baseline against which alternative recovery processes and facilities must be evaluated. In locales where landfill gas is not collected and treated, the net effect of new initiatives will be greater. In addition, the economic value of the mitigation effects will be a function of the cost associated with achieving it. Accordingly, the overall costs associated with a solid waste management process will lead to varying economic values for the GHG mitigation benefits. In some cases, high costs will significantly decrease the unit value of potential GHG benefits. However, the nature of solid waste management is such that decisions related to alternative processes will, most likely, be made on a basis of overall economic viability for individual projects rather than on the economic benefit of the GHG mitigation effects. However, the unit value of the climate change benefits may be important in increasing the incentive for supporting agencies in providing assistance for the development of initiatives associated with a Colombian Waste NAMA.


For evaluation purposes, the following tables present a generalized listing of potential unit GHG mitigation effects associated with the scenarios and technical configurations previously listed based on potential project processing capacity consistent with the Cali solid waste stream. This is only intended to be illustrative and the individual impact of potential projects will need to be determined on a case by case basis and on general understanding of existing baseline conditions in Colombia (solid waste characteristics, power generation sources, etc.)

Key Assumptions from GHG Model

Total Waste Amount 495000 Population 2294293 Waste Composition

Organics 64% Recyclables 27%

Other 8.6%

Waste Characteristics High water

content GHG emission factor for generation of electricity 155 CO2-eq/KWh % of collected landfill gas vented 20% % of collected landfill gas flared 80%

Table 28


Alternatives GHG Reduction ($US/ton CO2e )

Absolute emission reductions/yr (t)

GHG Reduction (tCO2e/ton of

processed waste)

Best Avg Worst Best Avg Worst Best Avg Worst Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case

1. Waste To Energy 53 96 138 512,801 512,801 512,801 1.04 1.04 1.04 2. MBT (Anaerobic Dig.) 31 52 73 667,297 667,297 667,297 1.35 1.35 1.35 3. MBT (Windrowed Compost) 4 21 38 667,297 667,297 667,297 1.35 1.35 1.35 4. MBT (In-Vessel Compost) 14 30 48 667,297 667,297 667,297 1.35 1.35 1.35 5. MRF (With RDF Generation) 10 27 43 721,232 721,232 721,232 1.46 1.46 1.46 6. Source Separation - Organics 5 36 66 297,162 297,162 297,162 0.6 0.6 0.6 7. Source Separation - Recyclables 6 39 73 162,287 162,287 162,287 0.33 0.33 0.33 8. Landfill Gas Recovery* n/a n/a n/a

Table 29: Greenhouse Gas Impact of 8 Alternatives * Landfill gas recovery was not included in the model because its economics are very site specific. Table 29 summarizes the estimated GHG impact for implementing the 7 alternatives identified in this assessment report. The above tables are intended to provide insight into what impact various technologies and waste management strategies may have on GHG emissions in the waste sector in Colombia when compared to the standard landfill disposal method, with an active landfill gas collection and treatment system. It is important to note that these figures are estimations and will change depending on location specific conditions and a more detailed on-the-ground analysis. For example the level of GHG emission mitigation would increase significantly if the landfill from which solid waste is diverted had no landfill gas collection and treatment system. Additionally, the model was unable to incorporate some technical details of the identified technologies, such as the GHG impact of biogas generation as a byproduct of the anaerobic digestion facility. Some general observations can be made, however, regarding the above summary. The more capital intense facilities (options 1 &2) have a much higher GHG reduction cost relative to options 3-7, which is a key consideration when considering financially viable waste management scenarios. Options 3-5 have lower GHG reduction costs due to lower capital costs and a relatively high emissions factor (tCO2e/ton of


processed waste) because they divert methane-producing organics from the landfill and capture the indirect emission reductions from recycling. Option number 5 (MRF with RDF generation) has a particularly high absolute emissions reduction and emissions factor, in part, because of the additional fuel produced that could offset more carbon intense fuel sources, such as the coal used in cement kiln operations. While options 6 & 7 have low GHG reduction costs, their absolute emissions reductions are relatively low, due to the lower yearly tonnage processed at these facilities and the fact that they divert only organics or recyclables but not both at the same facility.


Section 7: Economic and Financial Considerations Economic viability and sustainability is a critical element in the development of ISWM services and facilities that can achieve emissions reductions. The enhancement of core service provision and the development of new facilities and programs will often increase the overall costs of SWM in municipalities. This was undoubtedly the case in Colombia when new sanitary landfills were developed to replace the open dumps that were commonly used for disposal. Unfortunately, this is also apt to be the case in developing new solid waste diversion programs and facilities. Accordingly, the development of the means for accomplishing the various programs that could increase ISWM functions and, as a result, achieve emissions reductions will be a function of development drivers that must be sufficient to support and cause the actual implementation of the necessary programs and facilities. The following is a listing of the standard SWM development drivers for the physical activities required to develop effective ISWM programs. Some of the final Waste NAMA recommendations resulting from this assessment are aimed at increasing the strength of the following ISWM project drivers.

• Regulatory - Are laws and regulations in effect (and enforced) that mandate specific physical actions? (The landfill directives in the EU are an example of an extremely strong regulatory driver.)

• Political - Is there strong and vocal political support or opposition for particular SWM approaches and initiatives?

• Technical - Are standard integrated SWM technologies and processes technically appropriate for the local setting?

• Economic - Are there economic reasons for developing individual ISWM projects based on the high cost of alternatives? Is preferential financing or governmental economic incentives available for any particular ISWM approach?

• Social - Is there strong local public or media support or opposition for new or enhanced ISWM projects?

Each of these drivers can have an important influence on national and local perspectives on SWM decisions. In particular, the economic aspects associated with individual SWM programs and projects become extremely important and are often the principal driver or impediment to ISWM project development. A good example of an effective economic driver is the decision made in Cali to construct a new transfer station to optimize their solid waste collection programs. CCAP expects that such a decision would have had a significant positive impact on the cost of collection and transport in Medellin. Unfortunately, experience throughout the world has shown that the development of ISWM projects and programs have often led to increased costs that must be offset by the perceived value of the benefits derived. This is expected to be the case in Colombia as well. The ability to bear these increased costs will


be an important factor in determining the viability of some of the scenarios and technical configurations available to municipalities to achieve the desired results stipulated in their SWM plans. The above, in general, presents the basis by which projects and initiatives inherent to a Colombian Waste NAMA must be evaluated. However, it also illustrates the need for clearly establishing the economic viability of any new process or facility created to increase solid waste diversion and processing. The need to accomplish the desired results to an appropriate performance and output standard establishes the minimum technical requirements for the process. In turn, sufficient economic resources must be available to sustain any developed program or facility. This does not change in situations where either the public or private sector provides the necessary services or facilities. In each case, economic resources need to be sufficient to accomplish and maintain the desired level of service for the entire design life of a new ISWM facility. In many examples throughout the world, facilities or new programs have been implemented that have not been economically sustainable with the result that they have failed even after the significant capital investment to create them. This is somewhat seen in the current operational status of the recovery facilities constructed in Ibague and Santa Marta. Accordingly, this emphasizes the need to clearly understand the economic ramifications of any decision made in developing a new SWM process or facility. This is the basis for the detailed feasibility studies that are required prior to deciding whether to go ahead with a capital intensive ISWM project.

7.1 ECONOMIC VIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY In order to evaluate the prospects of the various scenarios and technical configurations available to municipalities in Colombia for achieving ISWM and emissions reductions, CCAP undertook a preliminary economic assessment of technical alternatives based on possible configurations for mixed waste processing facilities as well as source separation programs for organics and recyclables. To this end, CCAP developed a basic economic model to investigate the impact of the important variables that will affect the economic viability of specific applications. This included variables such as: possible financial terms for capital facilities, output revenues from sale of output commodities, capital and operating costs, recovery potential based on prevailing solid waste characteristics and technology capabilities, output market characteristics, etc. In considering any specific projects, each of the important variables potentially affecting technical and economic viability must be carefully evaluated and considered in an effective feasibility study. For the purpose of this assessment, a generalized throughput capacity was selected as a basis for investigating the possible economic ramifications of various technology applications. For this purpose, a throughput capacity of 1,500 tons per day (the approximate amount of solid waste generated each day in Cali and Medellin was utilized solely to test the impact of project variables for various technical configurations. General results of the economic model showed that, in all cases, increased costs would be expected as a result of the implementation of conventional waste processing technologies above and beyond the current cost of disposal.


Summary of Economic Model Results – Through this assessment, CCAP reviewed eight (8) ISWM facility and process alternatives that may serve as technical elements of an integrated Waste NAMA as part of Colombia’s current policy actions in the solid waste management sector. While the assessment’s technical and economic aspects focused on the Cali solid waste stream, the assumptions and findings inherent to the developed economic model can be adjusted to the conditions present in similarly sized cities such as Medellin or to smaller service areas found in smaller cities or regional configurations in Colombia. Some of the assumptions made by CCAP for the economic analysis used data received from the municipal authority responsible for SWM in Cali (DAGMA) while other assessment assumptions were derived from relevant national and international sources. Ultimately, the detailed evaluation that will be necessary to determine the feasibility of specific projects will need to be based on data that defines the specific circumstances in any service area for a planned facility or program. It should be noted that due to the complex nature of waste management technologies and the significant impact that location can have on costs and revenue, this economic analysis should be considered only as indicative to help explore initial economic viability of the application of various technologies and SWM approaches. It should also be noted that the cost data presented in this report relates to an assessment of economic factors consistent with a waste stream in a city similar to Cali. However, it is not intended to fully economically evaluate the exact prospects for technology applications in Cali which may require a detailed feasibility study. However, the economic model developed by CCAP for this assessment can be utilized as a tool for other cities in Colombia if local factors and scale issues are taken into account. Economic Model Assumptions - A summary of the key assumptions can be found in table 30. These illustrate the categories of technical, financial, revenue, and cost factors assumed by CCAP to develop the economic model. The values attributed to these key assumptions reflect initial scoping research performed by CCAP obtained from a variety of sources including international best practices, official Colombian government documents, and standard industry practices. (A more comprehensive list of sources can be found in annex 7) While imprecise, the purpose in this scoping study was to obtain a range of numbers based on accessible data that would help provide a best case, average case, and worst case scenario. These scenarios then guided an initial evaluation of the proposed waste management alternatives, in addition to other country specific conditions such as current waste management practices, national and local waste management priorities, and political leadership. The assumptions used in the economic analysis were divided into two separate scenarios related to 1) mixed solid waste processing and 2) source separated material collection and processing. Some of the key differences in these assumptions are 1) the annual tonnage of waste being processed 2) the market


value of high and low quality compost 3) the recovery rate and value of recyclables and 4) the percent of compost generated from 1 ton of processed mixed solid waste. Due to the smaller percentage of the waste stream being captured and processed in a source separation scenario, less tonnage will be processed on an annual basis. Also, due to the material pre-screening and independent collection inherent to a source separation program, outputs such as compost and recyclables will be of a higher grade and quality and are, therefore, expected to have a higher market value. Additionally, a source separated program would be more effective at recovering a greater percentage of available recyclables in the solid waste stream as well as being more effective at converting the processed waste into compost due to the pre-separation and the resulting lower level of contamination. The assumptions for financing a capital project in Colombia for both the mixed solid waste and source separated waste scenarios are held constant in the economic assessment at a 7% annual interest rate for 10 years in the best case, average case, and worst case. The financial terms (10 years at 7%) is based on previous energy projects sponsored by IDEA (Instituto para el Desarrollo de Antioquia) that have been financed. The debt to equity ratio was assumed to be 100% debt financing for all three cases. The financial assumptions were held constant to highlight the economic conditions of each alternative, rather than to investigate the impact of different financing scenarios (which could have a significant impact on the economic viability of proposed projects). The economic model can be adapted to investigate the impact of various interest rates, loan terms, and debt to equity ratios. However, it was

Summary of Key Assumptions Units

Technical

Daily Processing Capacity – Cali tons/day Number of Processing Days/year Days Solid Waste Composition % Recyclables Recovery Rate % Unit generation - electricity WTE KwH/ton processed Unit generation - electricity AD KwH/ton processed Unit generation – compost tons/ton processed Unit generation – RDF tons/ton processed

Financial Annual Interest Rate % Term of Loan Years

Revenues

Tipping Fee USD/ton Unit Revenue from Electricity USD/KwH Unit Revenue from Compost USD/ton Unit Revenue from RDF USD/ton Unit Revenue from Recyclables USD/kg

Costs Facility Capital Cost million USD Facility Operating Cost USD/ton processed

Table 30


considered outside the scope of this initial assessment. Favorable or unfavorable financing terms could have a major impact on the economic feasibility of each alternative and should be considered in future evaluations and feasibility studies. The key assumptions and results of the assessment economic analysis are shown below. Again, these are only intended to serve as a basis for understanding the relative importance of the variables that will establish the economic viability of alternative approaches in various local areas.

Mixed Waste Key Assumptions

Best Case

Avg Case

Worst Case

Other Assumptions:

Annual Interest Rate 7% 7% 7%

Annual Tons of MSW 495,000

Term of Loan (Years) 10 10 10

Daily Processing Capacity (tons)

1,500

Tipping Fee 16 14 12

Annual Days of Processing 330 Price of Electricity ($/kWh) 0.066 0.057 0.049

% compost from ton MSW 10%

Price of Compost ($/ton) 41 21 -

KwH/ton MSW WTE 500 Price of Refuse Derived Fuel ($/ton)

30 15 -

KwH/ton MSW AD 150

Price of Recyclables ($/ton):

% of RDF per ton of MSW 40 Paper 140 117 93

Newspaper

Cardboard

Glass 36 30 24

Aluminum 1,344 1,120 896

Scrap metal 180 150 120

Plastics 168 140 110

Table 31: Mixed Waste (Alternatives 1-6) (prices in USD)


Mixed Waste Key Assumptions

Best Case

Avg Case

Worst Case

Other Assumptions:

Annual Interest Rate 7% 7% 7%

Annual Tons of MSW 495,000

Term of Loan (Years) 10 10 10

Daily Processing Capacity (tons)

1,500

Tipping Fee 16 14 12

Annual Days of Processing 330 Price of Electricity ($/kWh) 0.066 0.057 0.049

% compost from ton MSW 10%

Price of Compost ($/ton) 81 41 -

KwH/ton MSW WTE 500 Price of Refuse Derived Fuel ($/ton)

30 15 -

KwH/ton MSW AD 150

Price of Recyclables ($/ton):

% of RDF per ton of MSW 40 Paper 140 117 93

Newspaper

Cardboard

Glass 36 30 24

Aluminum 1,344 1,120 896

Scrap metal 180 150 120

Plastics 168 140 110

Summary of Alternatives –Table 33 is a summary of the economic results for the eight previously described alternatives that are included in this scoping analysis. The first five alternatives assume the processing of a mixed municipal solid waste stream under traditional collection conditions, while alternatives 6 and 7 assume separation at source of organic and recyclable materials. Economic results for alternative 8 (landfill gas recovery) are not shown in the model results because the economic aspects of such applications are very site specific and require individual analysis. Based on economic analysis performed by CCAP, conventional waste to energy and anaerobic digestion (options 1 &2) are, most likely, not viable in Colombia for economic reasons. (The application of conventional commercially available waste to energy technologies may also not be viable for technical reasons associated with the high organic content of the solid waste to be processed.) Options 3 through 7 could be economically feasible depending on specific local circumstances and market factors and, therefore, should be further evaluated as a potential component of an integrated Waste NAMA in Colombia.

Table 32: Source Separated Waste (Alternatives 6 & 7) (prices in USD)


Alternatives Cost to Treat MSW (USD/ton)

GHG Reduction (USD/ton CO2e )

GHG Reduction (ton CO2e/ton of

processed waste)

Best Avg Worst Best Avg Worst Best Avg Worst Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case

1. Waste To Energy -55 -99 -143 53 96 138 1.04 1.04 1.04 2. MBT (Anaerobic Digestion) -42 -70 -98 31 52 73 1.35 1.35 1.35 3. MBT (Windrowed Compost) -6 -28 -51 4 21 38 1.35 1.35 1.35 4. MBT (In-Vessel Compost) -19 -41 -64 14 30 48 1.35 1.35 1.35 5. MRF (With RDF Generation) -15 -39 -63 10 27 43 1.46 1.46 1.46 6. Source Separation - Organics -3 -21 -40 5 36 66 0.6 0.6 0.6 7. Source Separation - Recyclables -6 -39 -73 6 39 73 0.33 0.33 0.33 8. Landfill Gas Recovery* n/a n/a n/a Table 33 * Landfill gas recovery was not included in the model because its economics are very site specific. The following is a summary of the results shown in table 33. Waste to Energy & Anaerobic Digestion (Options 1 &2) - The high organic (and resulting moisture) content of typical municipal solid waste in Colombia prevents conventional incineration technologies to effectively combust the solid waste without significant preconditioning of the waste prior to direct combustion. In addition, the high capital and operating costs associated with these systems and typical air pollution control systems normally utilized would significantly increase the cost of solid waste management in the locales where they would be developed. Similarly, the utilization of mixed solid waste Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facilities that utilize anaerobic digestion as the core biological process would also be cost prohibitive based on the expected capital and operating costs of such systems. This is demonstrated in the above economic summary table where the waste to energy and anaerobic digestion alternatives result in the highest cost per ton of solid waste processed. In addition to the high capital and operating and maintenance costs of these facilities, the expected low value for recovered electricity (0.049 to 0.066 per KwH) and questionable compost markets for mixed solid waste derived compost act as further significant barriers to the financial viability of these options.


Table 34 illustrates MBT (Compost), MRF (With RDF Generation), Source Separation-Organics, Source Separation-Recyclables, Landfill Gas Collection and Treatment (Options 3 through 8) - A number of these alternatives may be a technical component of a composite mixed solid waste processing facility utilizing various treatment processes as will be defined in the proposed integrated Waste NAMA model.

3. MBT (Windrowed

Compost) 4. MBT

(In-Vessel Compost)

5. MRF (With RDF

Generation)

MIN AVG MAX

MIN AVG MAX

MIN AVG MAX

Capital Cost (millions USD)

25 43 60

35 53 70

32 50 67

COSTS ($ per ton MSW)

Best Case

Avg Case

Worst Case

Best Case

Avg Case

Worst Case

Best Case

Avg Case

Worst Case

Operation & Maintenance

25 37 50

35 47 60

40 50 60

Debt Payment

7 12 17

10 15 20

9 14 19 TOTAL COSTS

32 49 67

45 62 80

49 64 79

REVENUES (USD/ton)

Tipping Fee

16 14 12

16 14 12

16 14 12 Electricity

Compost

4.1 2.1 0

4.1 2.1 0

Refuse Derived Fuel

12 6 0

Recyclables:

- Paper

1.82 1.52 1.22

1.82 1.52 1.22

1.82 1.52 1.22

- Cardboard

0.54 0.45 0.36

0.54 0.45 0.36

0.54 0.45 0.36 - Glass

0.13 0.11 0.09

0.13 0.11 0.09

0.13 0.11 0.09

- Aluminum

0.85 0.71 0.56

0.85 0.71 0.56

0.85 0.71 0.56 - Scrap metal

0.16 0.13 0.11

0.16 0.13 0.11

0.16 0.13 0.11

- Plastics

2.56 2.13 1.71

2.56 2.13 1.71

2.56 2.13 1.71 - Plastic Bags

3.47 2.89 2.31

3.47 2.89 2.31

3.47 2.89 2.31

TOTAL REVENUE

26 21 16

26 21 16

34 25 16

Estimated Revenue less Cost (USD/ton of MSW)

-6 -28 -51

-19 -41 -64

-15 -39 -63

Table 34


• MBT (Windrowed Compost). A mechanical biological treatment facility with a windrowed compost component as the primary biological element may be a viable alternative to pursue as part as an integrated Waste NAMA because of its lower capital cost (25-60 million USD based on the scenario evaluated in the model) and low cost per ton of CO2e reduction ($4/ton in the best case scenario). A key sensitivity in the economic analysis of this technology is the value and marketability of the compost produced. As compost markets in Colombia are highly fragmented and prices are volatile, a full market study is needed to ensure sufficient demand for the low-grade compost that may be generated in this type of MBT facility when processing a mixed solid waste stream.

• MBT (In-Vessel Compost). A MBT facility with an in-vessel composting technology application shares some of the same favorable aspects of the windrow composting facility. While In-vessel systems are more capital intensive (35-70 million USD based on the scenario evaluated in the assessment) than the windrow composting approach, their advantage is that they require less space, have lower processing times (3-28 days) and better control of odor and leachate. However, compost values and sufficient demand will determine the economic feasibility of this technology as was the case in evaluation of the windrow and aerobic composting approach.

• MRF (with RDF Generation). There is a positive economic case for the inclusion of Materials Recovery Facilities where Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) is generated in the development of the integrated Waste NAMA, especially when considering the potential demand for RDF in some Colombian communities where cement kilns are located. While these facilities may be more expensive with capital costs between 32 to 67 million USD for the evaluated scenario, market conditions for RDF in cities such as Sogamoso offer an opportunity to offset high capital and operating & maintenance costs and achieve considerable GHG reduction impacts (1.46 ton CO2e/ton processed waste) through energy substitution. Cities or regions that have robust cement industries that rely on fossil fuels for kiln operation may be suited for RDF use as an alternate fuel. Assessing market technical and market conditions for RDF in each local area will be critical for assessing the economic feasibility of this technology in various local settings. In addition, regulatory issues will need to be clearly evaluated and addressed to assure that the proper regulatory approvals can be secured for use of the refuse derived fuel in the cement kiln applications.


Source Separation (Organics)

Source Separation (Recycling)

MIN AVG MAX

MIN AVG MAX

Capital Cost (millions USD) 3.5 3.5 3.5

9 11 13

COSTS (USD per ton MSW)

Best Case

Avg Case

Worst Case

Best Case

Avg Case

Worst Case

Operation & Maintenance 10 10 10

40 55 70 Collection Costs 32 32 32

64 64 64

Debt Payment 10 10 10

26 32 38 TOTAL COSTS WITH COLLECTION 52 52 52

130 151 172

REVENUES (USD/ton) Tipping Fee 16 14 12

16 14 12

Compost 32 16 0

Refuse Derived Fuel

Recyclables:

- Paper

31.4 28.3 25.1

- Cardboard

2.1 1.9 1.7 - Plastic

17.3 15.5 13.8

- Bags

48.6 43.8 38.9 - Scrap Metal

9.1 8.2 7.3

- Glass

0.1 0.1 0.1 TOTAL REVENUE 48 30 12

125 112 99

REVENUE MINUS COSTS WITH COLLECTION (USD/ton) -3 -21 -40

-6 -39 -73

• Source Separation and Processing of Organics. The economic feasibility of the source

separation organics (SSO) alternative is highly dependent on the generation and sale of the high quality compost which can be produced through composting source separated organics. It should be noted that collection costs are site specific and it is assumed that any SSO program will utilize the route structure of the existing waste management collection system to the degree possible and possibly decrease the requirements (frequency, etc.) of the conventional collection process for the generator sources where organic materials are independently collected. This alternative is also considered an important component of any Colombian integrated Waste NAMA because it is consistent with the existing waste management strategies and goals as commonly stipulated in the PGIRS plans of many Colombian municipalities.

• Source Separation and Sale of Recyclables. Strong markets for recovered recyclables exist in Colombia, which may provide a basis for developing a program that formally collects source

Table 35


separated recyclable materials. However, this approach will, most likely, directly compete with the existing informal sector recycling process (which currently collects about 10% of the total waste stream in Colombia). This may make it difficult to formally collect available recyclable materials set out by generators for collection. Source separation set-outs could provide a greater opportunity for informal recyclers to simply take the material prior to a formal collection process thereby affecting the recovery rate that could be achieved through the formal source separation process. Therefore, the amount of recyclable material available for recovery was cut by 50% in the economic model to reflect the potential impact of the informal sector.

• Landfill Gas Collection and Treatment. In addition to the above, the possible installation of landfill gas to energy systems in landfills with no landfill gas collection and treatment systems could lead to significant GHG mitigation benefits. A recent study funded by the United States Trade and Development Agency related to the CIS El Guacal landfill site in the greater Medellin region concluded that an enhancement of the existing landfill gas collection and treatment system to recover energy is economically feasible based on the continued receipt of the current amount of solid waste at the site throughout the life of the project. Similar situations at other landfills in Colombia would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The GHG mitigation benefits associated with this type of application would be limited to the avoided GHG emissions that would be accrued as a result of the energy generation using the landfill gas as a fuel source.

In considering the above recommended options (3 through 8) as part of an integrated Waste NAMA in Colombia, there are factors that could significantly affect or reverse the negative numbers shown in the above summary table:

• Reduced collection and transport costs. Although the model already factors in avoided disposal costs by considering the avoided tipping fee as potential revenue, it does not include avoided collection and transportation costs. The collection and transport system is very site specific depending on where a mixed waste processing facility would be located in relationship to the current landfill site. There could be significant cost savings and an increase in the operational efficiency in the collection and transport system (which in Cali represents 78% of total SWM costs, or USD 42/ton as defined by the current tariff assessment in Cali). These savings could be passed on from municipalities to SWM service providers to incentivize diversion of solid waste going to landfills.

• Tariff reform. Incentives provided to municipalities or service providers could be greatly enhanced by the upcoming tariff reform process. It is anticipated that, at a minimum, tariff reform will seek to allocate tariff funds to recovery projects based on the avoided costs for both disposal and collection/transport elements of the tariff allocation. If the government decided to include an incentive element to the tariff to support recovery projects and initiatives, this could also reduce the additional costs associated with recovery projects. However, if the CRA seeks to accomplish tariff reform without increase tariff charges to generators, the economic reason for


diverting solid waste components is reduced and the added costs associated with recovery processes will need to be offset through another funding mechanism.

• Reduced need for future landfills. Deferred capital investments in landfill expansion due to decreased landfill airspace utilization may also result since landfill airspace will be utilized at a slower rate because of the diversion of solid waste components from landfills.

• More attractive financing terms. Especially for capital-intensive facilities, the viability of each scenario is highly dependent on financing terms such as interest rates, loan term, and debt to equity ratios. The Government of Colombia, either local or national, could also drive the diversion of waste away from landfills by providing concessional terms to ISWM projects. Incentives for renewable energy could also boost the viability of those scenarios that produce electricity or use RDF as an alternate fuel (RDF).

7.2 COLOMBIA'S CURRENT TARIFF STRUCTURE AND ALLOCATION In 2010, the SSPD completed a study of tariff allocations affecting solid waste management services based on information reported by 135 solid waste service providers in Colombia. The SSPD calculated the cost of each component of the solid waste service tariff, divided according to value chain service into four components including: 1) sweeping and cleaning of public areas, 2) collection and transportation, 3) disposal, and 4) service billing costs. The collection and transportation component of the tariff allocation is a major proportion of the tariff bill (42%), followed by the sweeping and cleaning of public areas (28%), and disposal (17%). The billing cost component had the lowest share of the tariff allocation, (15%). Current tariff allocations for 3 of the investigative municipalities are shown in the following table.

Current Tariff Allocations in Evaluated Municipalities

Concept/Tariff Component Units Cali • 2012 Medellín • 2012 Ibagué

COP USD COP USD COP USD Street Sweeping $/KM 21,200 12 21,600 12 18,600 11 Collection and Transport $/Ton 75,140 42 67,600 38 Excess Transportation* $/Ton 14,450 9 24,600 14 Final Disposal $/Ton 19,200 11 26,600 15 21,400 12 Commercialization Costs $/User 900 1 880 1

Table 36 Source: Hill Consulting (Bogotá), 2012. *This is an extra cost that is included in the tariff when landfills are more than 20 km (12.5 miles) COP – Colombian Pesos

Currently, the CRA is exploring ways to modify the existing tariff framework to accommodate projects and programs that divert solid waste from landfill disposal. It is CCAP’s understanding that they are considering the inclusion of waste diversion through the concept of avoided costs as a factor in a revised tariff formula. Accordingly, recycling and recovery processes would be paid the money saved in the collection and final disposal processes. Unfortunately, this places a significant burden on total cost of


any recovery projects to match the offset cost of collection and disposal. The existing low cost of disposal in Colombia would, therefore, become a major impediment towards the implementation of any process that may achieve a desired recovery purpose but at a higher cost than the offset costs. This reinforces the need for a thorough and detailed feasibility study pertaining to any new ISWM facilities that would be developed in the future to assure that they are able to be competitive with current collection and disposal costs. The feasibility studies will need to closely focus on the potential savings in collection and transport costs in alternate process designs to achieve acceptable economics based on the modified tariff formula. This may influence site selection activities for processing facilities to optimize collection and transport cost savings and their impact on tariff allocations.

7.3 FINANCING AND SERVICE PROVISION ALTERNATIVES The general rule for providing public services in Colombia is an open process which allows any contractor or operator to start providing services without having an exclusive right to do so. Nevertheless, exclusive service areas can be designated and these establish the presence of a specific operator who is responsible for providing a service in a given time and place. A Sectoral Study of Waste Management Public Service in 2010, conducted by the Technical Group of Waste Management of the SSPD, provided a detailed analysis of the financial, administrative, commercial and technical information submitted by the public services providers, municipal mayors and CARs. Since the development of the public service regime in 1994 through Law 142, public solid waste management service has experienced an evolution, both in the nature of service providers and the scenarios by which they deliver their services. In the last decade, there has been a significant increase in the participation of the private sector (especially in municipalities with more than 25,000 inhabitants). This has normally focused on one or more of standard core components of the SWM services including collection, transport, and disposal. Contracted services have also typically included street sweeping and cleaning. This open market approach has often led to situations where the same services in a municipality are provided by two or more contractors (particularly in commercial collection and transport functions). The increased involvement of the private sector has also led to an increase in the number of regional disposal facilities where several collection and transport service providers serving different market service areas (municipalities) deliver solid waste to the same regional landfill. To the benefit of solid waste management in Colombia, this scenario has also led to the formation of strong business organizations and specialized companies seeking to provide services. Currently, the waste management service industry in Colombia is a growing business, with significant and increasing incentives for foreign participation. Within the sector, there are companies that have ventured into the provision of the service in other countries, as it is the case of Interaseo which provides SWM services in Panama and Venezuela. Interaseo also provides SWM services in 16 cities in Colombia. (A description of a number of the major private sector SWM service providers is presented in Annex 5 of this report.)


In 2012, 93.5% of the entities registered as waste service providers are classified as companies. The municipalities that are direct service providers constitute the remaining 6.5% of the registered SWM service entities. Since 2002, the most frequent type of company service providers are the industrial and commercial State companies (EICE) and those with shared capital (with mostly private capital). These represent about 43% of solid waste services companies in Colombia. As shown in figure 21, the number of private sector companies providing SWM services has been increasing while municipalities that provided direct services has been decreasing.

Figure 21: Waste Management Service Providers Legal Structure. Source: Renaser (2002) RUPS (2006) SSPD.

Figure 22 below presents a summary of investment sources for recent solid waste management facilities as reported by SSPD in its Waste Management Sectorial Assessment. As shown, municipal governments are the main source of investments. The Participation General System investment category is the legal mechanism, through which the national budget is divided into fixed expenditures and investments categories and, later, allocated to municipal budgets. Similar financial sources are anticipated to be utilized in developing the capital elements of the proposed integrated Waste NAMA in Colombia.


Figure 22: Financing Sources of Facilities Investments in Colombia in 2010. Source: SSPD, 2011.


Section 8: Colombia Waste NAMA Alternatives and Design

8.1 Waste NAMA Related Activities and Initiatives As illustrated in Figure ES-1, there are a number of baseline evaluations and studies that are required to develop a Waste NAMA and provide a foundation for determining what a potential Waste NAMA can be accomplished and the means for doing so. In Colombia, some of these baseline evaluations have already been completed at both the national and local levels as part of an ongoing process to improve solid waste management in the country. Various reports pertaining to these evaluations are identified in the Annex References. National level planning work already completed includes:

1. An evaluation of current national waste practices and performance 2. An assessment of waste quantities (generated and recovered) and waste composition 3. An analysis of current waste policies and regulations 4. A review and analysis of status and performance of the existing informal waste recycling sector 5. Development of a (baseline) general greenhouse gas Inventory 6. Development of a national waste management and recycling strategy 7. A database of active and closed disposal sites

The planning work reflected in the above was driven by an effort to improve SWM practices and facilities throughout Colombia and to move toward the national solid waste management policy objective of creating a “zero waste” culture by supporting the development of ISWM programs. This work also contributes to a fundamental Waste NAMA objective of using the enhancement of SWM practices in Colombia as a meaningful GHG mitigation mechanism. Based on worldwide experience, the development of effective ISWM programs is very difficult involving many diverse factors, issues and stakeholder perspectives that can significantly affect ISWM process design and implementation choices as well as their technical and economic viability and sustainability. Through this assessment, CCAP sought to identify the potential structure of an integrated Waste NAMA model that would achieve the co-benefits of improving SWM conditions while also achieving the highest degree of GHG emission mitigation. In doing so, CCAP also sought to identify the principal impediments to continued solid waste improvements beyond what has already been accomplished throughout Colombia. Logically, current SWM development impediments are also the impediments that will hinder the development and implementation of an effective Waste NAMA. As a result of its assessment, CCAP believes that the application of some conventional solid waste processing technologies will not be viable in Colombia based on both technical and economic considerations. A summary of potential economic impacts of various ISWM scenarios (for an example application in Cali) available to process or recover solid waste stream components is presented in


Section 7. The identification and evaluation of the various SWM scenarios and configurations defined in Section 4 of this report led to the following conclusions relative to the viability of some of the identified alternatives:

1. Conventional waste to energy technologies such as those utilized in the United States and European Union are, most likely, not viable in Colombia for both technical and economic reasons. The high organic content of typical municipal solid waste in Colombia makes it difficult for conventional incineration technologies to effectively combust the solid waste without significant preconditioning of the waste prior to combustion. In addition, the high capital and operating costs associated with these systems would significantly increase in the cost of SWM in the locales where they were implemented. CCAP does not foresee incineration as an option for Colombia in the near to medium term except for isolated areas, such as the WTE facility that is near implementation on San Andres island, which will soon be the country’s first incinerator. Similarly, the utilization of mixed solid waste mechanical biological treatment facilities that utilize anaerobic digestion (such as that utilized in the E.U.) as the core biological process would also be cost prohibitive.

2. Markets for recyclable materials recovered from the municipal solid waste stream are strong and sufficient for a significant increase in the amount of recyclable materials recovered through formal recovery processes. However, the current status and organizational strength of informal recyclers may be an impediment to developing formal materials recovery programs for the solid waste components currently sought by the informal recyclers.

3. Markets for compost in Colombia need to be developed if composting is to be adopted as a basic process for treating solid waste organic content. The potential market for high-quality compost derived from processing source separated organics is anticipated to be stronger than that which will exist for marketing compost derived from mixed solid waste processing.

4. Potential opportunities exist to utilize refuse derived fuel derived through mechanical processing for co-firing in the numerous cement kilns located throughout Colombia. Important regulatory issues will need to be addressed if the cement kilns are to be allowed to combust RDF as an alternate fuel.

5. As a result of emerging regulations in Colombia, disposal facilities and services have significantly improved in recent years where most of the solid waste generated throughout the country is now disposed of in effective sanitary landfills. This has resulted in the closure of the dump sites previously used for disposal. Some of the existing active landfills were developed by the private sector as regional landfills serving multiple municipalities thereby improving the prospects for similar regional approaches in developing waste processing and recovery facilities.

6. Some landfills in Colombia have already installed landfill gas collection and treatment systems in an attempt to achieve CDM certification and its resulting economic benefits. Additional opportunities may exist for installing landfill gas treatment systems (flares or landfill gas to energy) systems thereby helping to mitigate ongoing methane emissions. With a lack of a


regulatory requirement mandating landfill gas treatment, new landfill gas projects will need to be economically viable to generate such investments.

7. For the most part, SWM plans prepared by the municipalities that were reviewed by CCAP emphasized an intent to develop source separation processes for organics and recyclables as a means for 1) reducing the amount of solid waste delivered in landfills and 2) complying with national SWM policies and strategies.

Each of the above observations lead to CCAP’s proposed design of an integrated Waste NAMA which considers both source separation and mixed solid waste processing approaches as target GHG mitigation activities. The potential Waste NAMA framework is described in greater detail below.

8.2 Recommended Colombia Integrated Waste NAMA Based its findings, CCAP recommends that the Colombia Waste NAMA consist of an integrated process model that recognizes the diverse elements affecting SWM in Colombia. The proposed integrated process model correlates with probable new activities that reflect current SWM planning initiatives at both the national and local levels. Development factors were identified as a result of this assessment that may provide some guidance into the most appropriate activities and technologies that may be best suited to accomplish the desired SWM and GHG mitigation benefits in specific local areas in Colombia. An integrated process model recognizes that there are a number of technical alternatives available to manage various components of the Colombian solid waste stream and that viable uses for recovered commodities (recyclables, compost, refuse derived fuel and energy) must exist and be sufficient to assure success and sustainability of any recovery process. The utilization of an integrated model must also recognize that many of the factors that may affect the development potential of the model’s technical components are local or may evolve over time as SWM conditions change and national policies and strategies evolve into meaningful regulations or development incentive programs. This includes contemplated changes to the SWM economic framework affecting development choices such as reform of the existing SWM tariff framework currently being considered. For example, the manner by which tariff reform is accomplished may provide an economic incentive for recovery projects in the manner by which reform is accomplished. For illustration purposes, the proposed integrated function Waste NAMA model is shown in the following schematic:


Municipal Solid Waste

Manual/Partial Mechanical Separation

Refuse Derived FuelRecyclables

Landfill Disposal

Informal Recyclers

INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT MODEL SCHEMATIC

Dry Organic and Other Materials

Formal Source Separation

Source Separated Organics

H

L

Compost

Mixed Waste Processing Element

Landfill Gas Energy Recovery

High Moisture Organics

H L Denotes Potential for High and Low quality compost

Through an integrated process where multiple existing and prospective activities and processes are utilized, the integrated model seeks to accomplish target results in a manner that may vary in different locales in Colombia because of prevailing local conditions that affect the development potential of the model’s individual technical elements. The model implementation must be flexible since local conditions may actually preclude the utilization of some technical elements of the integrated approach shown in the above schematic. The integrated Waste NAMA model seeks to optimize GHG mitigation benefits by optimizing the recovery and effective utilization of solid waste components or output products by whatever means that may be technically viable and economically sustainable. The model driver will be the existence, viability and economic effect of market outlets for recovered commodities. This commodity basis will define the technical elements (and resulting economic impact) of the model’s implementation. In some cases, multiple opportunities (and design choices) will exist for recovering some materials in the solid waste stream. For example, solid waste stream organic content may be recovered for processing (composting, most likely) as either source separated organic material (food waste, leaf and yard waste, etc.) and or as organic material derived from mixed solid waste processing. The means for accessing organic content can affect the ultimate value of developed compost. Organic material derived through separation at source and independent collection will be less contaminated as it enters a composting process than


organic material derived through mixed waste mechanical processing. This will result in an enhanced ability to produce high quality compost from the source separated organic material when compared to what could be produced through the use of organic material derived from mixed waste processing. As a result, two separate market conditions may exist for compost materials depending on the nature of the material that was used in producing it. This is reflected in the above schematic for the integrated process model which shows both the source separated and mixed solid waste processing organic streams. Landfill gas recovery and treatment projects are also a component of the integrated model but are generally independent of the overall ISWM system except in the manner that the requirements of the landfill gas management system may influence the ISWM development process. For example, in the USTDA funded feasibility study for the CIS El Guacal landfill in the Medellin region, it was determined that the evaluated modification of the existing landfill gas flaring system at the landfill to include energy recovery would be economically viable only if the quantity of solid waste currently delivered to the landfill continues at the same general level throughout the financing life of the landfill gas system enhancement. Contractual commitments of solid waste to any facility that required the delivery of a minimum amount of solid waste may preclude other recovery projects that seeks to divert a portion of the solid waste stream away from the landfill. However, the model considers that, in some circumstances, enhanced landfill gas management may be the best approach to achieve GHG mitigation goals in some local areas if there are significant local impediments to implementing other recovery elements. However, it should be noted that the proposed CIS El Guacal project is based on enhancing an existing landfill gas active management system where a significant amount of gas collection infrastructure already exists. In any landfill where there is no landfill gas collection system in place, the added economic burden of installing such a system may affect the economic viability of a landfill gas to energy project where CDM benefits are no longer available. In addition, it should also be noted that the GHG mitigation benefits of enhancing an existing active landfill gas management system for energy recovery may be limited to the avoided GHG emissions associated with the displaced energy generation. To be successful, the integrated Waste NAMA model must also fit within the overall solid waste management development plans of the municipalities who are responsible for the provision of SWM services and that may also be responsible for implementing facilities and programs that meet current and emerging standards and regulations. This allows the model implementation process to utilize all work to date by national and local solid waste planners and decisions made during that planning. The model also provides linkage to the political considerations and input that went into the development of the local SWM plans by building off the work done to date in developing them. The model must also clearly recognize the importance of integrating the informal recycling process in Colombia into the ISWM program envisioned for individual local areas. The proposed components of the integrated Waste NAMA are compatible with the organized informal recycling activities. At a minimum,


the detailed feasibility study of any capital element of the ISWM process must consider the impact and incorporation of the informal sector’s interests and activities.

8.3 Technical and Economic Basis for the Integrated Model As proposed, the technical definition and viability of model technical elements are based on output commodities that may be successfully utilized in Colombia. These “market” conditions will define the magnitude and viability of the technical elements of the model as reflected in the schematic. For further definition, the effect of commodity positions is described below: Recovery of Recyclables – Well defined and strong markets exist in Colombia for recyclable materials. Market studies undertaken by the Colombian government indicate that demand for various recyclable materials significantly exceeds supply thereby providing an opportunity to increase the proportion of recyclable material recovered and marketed. However, this market strength also creates a situation where there is a strong informal recycling sector that currently achieves recovery for recyclable components from commercial and residential sources. This informal process may directly compete with any formal processes implemented by municipalities. Viability of a formal recovery process will be achieved by either recognizing and accepting this level of competition or attempting to incorporate the informal recyclers into the formal SWM activities. This illustrates the need for the model to adapt to the specific local conditions in the manner by which its individual elements are defined and developed. Production of Marketable Compost – Certification standards exist in Colombia for the production and use of compost. To achieve certification, compost must meet minimum quality standards based on defined physical and chemical parameters. The marketability of compost will be a function of its quality and experience has shown that good quality compost can best be achieved through the processing of source separated organic material where compostable materials do not become contaminated through direct contact with other waste forms as would be the case in the conventional physical handling (collection, transport, etc.) of mixed solid waste. Accordingly, the model recognizes that there are potentially two compost streams that may be developed in some municipalities from either source separated materials or through mixed waste processing (or possibly both). Similarly, an effective source separation collection and treatment program may preclude the development of a formal mechanical processing facility unless there is an alternative compelling reason for developing such a facility such as the desire to produce RDF for use as an alternative energy source in locations where this material can be used (cement kilns locations, for example). Utilization of Solid Waste Energy Content – CCAP’s assessment analysis has shown that the application of conventional waste-to-energy technologies commonly utilized in many industrialized countries may not be applicable in Colombia because of the physical characteristics of Colombia's solid waste stream and the high costs associated with this technology. The economic aspects of the CCAP assessment demonstrated that the economic viability of such applications will be affected by the current


low generation costs of electricity as a result of the high proportion of hydroelectric power in Colombia's power generation base. While low energy costs are a benefit to the country as a whole, they become an impediment towards any SWM approach seeking to recover energy and generate electricity for sale. However, there may still be opportunities throughout Colombia to utilize the energy content of the solid waste stream through the production of refuse derived fuel for utilization in cement kilns as a replacement for the fossil fuels commonly used by these facilities in their cement production operations. During the assessment process, a representative of the CCAP team met with a major cement manufacturer with facilities throughout Colombia and was told that there was strong interest in the utilization of RDF as an alternate fuel for their production process. This opportunity will depend on the value of RDF energy content as will be determined through the development of an RDF supply agreement with possible outlets in the various local areas where they are located. The opportunity will also depend on the regulatory requirements that will be imposed on the owners of the cement kilns in seeking to use RDF as an alternate fuel. Collection and Treatment of Landfill Gas - Due the high impact of uncontrolled landfill gas emissions on GHG emissions, the ability to collect and treat this gas can have an important GHG mitigation benefit. Accordingly, all landfills that do not already collect and treat landfill gas may become candidates for future gas recovery projects. While a strong regulatory driver has led to the development of landfill gas treatment systems in the U.S. and the E.U., this is not the case in Colombia under the current regulatory framework. Accordingly, an economic incentive may be required (such as that perceived from CDM certification) to support the development of this model element. National Applicability and Regional/Demographic Variation - The proposed integrated Waste NAMA is intended to be a national instrument that seeks to achieve GHG mitigation benefits throughout Colombia. Accordingly, implementation of the model requires detailed investigations to address prevailing conditions in all locales particularly in the municipalities with sufficient population and solid waste generation to justify and support the development of the model elements. Given the wide spectrum of municipal demographics in Colombia, the model must adapt to the conditions that exist in individual local areas to determine which elements are viable and that can achieve the best results. Regionalization effects as demonstrated in some of the existing landfills throughout the country can be beneficial in achieving the scale necessary to justify specific applications. Accordingly, the model must also be viewed as a flexible instrument that may involve both the private and public sector in developing the required elements. It should also be noted that there may be a viable interaction between different technical elements. For example, a contractor or municipality could decide to construct a composting facility that would receive organic material from multiple jurisdictions including possible processing facilities in the locales that separated compostable organics from the mixed solid waste stream.


8.4 Waste NAMA Related Factors and Processes in Colombia Based on CCAP’s preliminary assessment, there are a number of important factors that influence the development of all elements of the proposed integrated Waste NAMA model. These include the following: National Policies and Regulations – Colombia’s SWM policies are stressing the development of ISWM processes such as that reflected in the proposed integrated Waste NAMA framework. However, there are other policy and regulatory elements that currently work against the development of these processes. The necessary reform to the national tariff formula is an important action that must occur if a major impediment to waste diversion processes is to be eliminated. Economic Implications – CCAP expects that developing solid waste programs that increase recovery and landfill diversion objectives will increase the overall cost of SWM in Colombia. Economic factors such as the low cost of disposal services and the low value of recovered energy make it difficult for potential recovery projects to compete with the status quo since they may require additional financial resources to assure successful function and sustainability. An enhanced political or regulatory driver can help to offset the economic impact of achieving recovery processes. This has already occurred in the enhancement of core disposal services through the regulatory impact that led to the closure of the dump sites and the development of sanitary landfills throughout the country. Informal sector recycling – The informal sector accounts for most of the recycling that currently occurs in Colombia. Informal recyclers in Colombia are generally organized and have an influence on SWM decisions particularly those that relate to their livelihood. This is a factor that must be addressed in planning any specific elements of the model in any locales. Examples do exist, however, of the manner by which the informal sector could be incorporated into the formal SWM process while also improving the health and welfare of people historically involved in the informal recycling process. Recovered Commodity Output markets – Individual opportunities for recovery output must be evaluated in planning any element of the model in any locale. For example, municipalities with cement manufacturing industries may be supportive of developing model mixed solid waste processing elements where derived refuse derived fuel is generated as a means to help ensure the business strength of a major local industry and the security of local jobs involved in the industry. This may include a willingness to pay more for a SWM element and process as a means of supporting a local industry and assuring local employment.

8.5 Waste NAMA Development Drivers – Strengths and Weaknesses As a result of this assessment, CCAP recognizes that the effectiveness of conventional ISWM development drivers will continue to be important in implementing the elements of the proposed


integrated Waste NAMA model. The following is a characterization of the status of existing development drivers in Colombia. Regulatory - The government of Colombia has demonstrated that the adoption and enforcement of effective regulations can achieve improved SWM conditions. This is demonstrated in the development of new solid waste disposal facilities throughout the country. While national policies are aimed at urging a “zero waste” culture and local SWM plans reflect this policy, recovery processes and projects are not mandated and must be determined to be technically and economically viable on their own merits including the willingness of affected stakeholders to bear the possible increased cost associated with such facilities and processes. Economic – CCAP’s assessment determined that the application of conventional recovery processes will, most likely, increase the cost of SWM in the locales where they are implemented. The extent of this increase will be a function of local conditions affecting the market value of any recovered materials and produced commodities such as compost or refuse derived fuel. Accordingly, the economic driver for development of recovery projects is generally weak in Colombia because of existing low cost of current disposal services. This situation could change depending on the manner by which the CRA achieves tariff reform. Political - The political driver for developing recovery projects will be determined by the willingness of national and local elected officials to implement programs that are aimed at supporting the stated policy of achieving a “zero waste” culture. This will occur at the national level through the possible development of support programs as incentives for recovery projects and also at the local level where local elected officials may seek to develop recovery initiatives as a means of expressing the municipality’s “green” environmental position or providing support to local industries that may use recovered materials (such as cement kilns that may utilize RDF, for example). Institutional - The current institutional structure in Colombia is strong with active involvement of well qualified private sector contractors involved in providing various core SWM services. This can enhance the possibility of developing recovery projects so long as these projects are determined to be economically viable and sustainable based on the business principles that drive the private sector participants in their current SWM roles. Social - A social driver exists in Colombia through active concern about informal recyclers expressed by a number of individuals with whom CCAP met during the assessment process. However, this concern may be significantly buffered when compared to the potential economic implications of developing facilities that could incorporate informal sector participants into formal activities.


8.6 Waste NAMA Implementation Impediments Based on the evaluation of the national and local information gathered during this assessment, CCAP believes that there are a number of development impediments that will impact the implementation of the integrated Waste NAMA and its various elements. A component of the proposed Waste NAMA may be work aimed at minimizing or eliminating these impediments. Some of the key impediments include the following:

1. Low Cost of Disposal Services - While significant progress has been made in core collection and disposal services and facilities throughout Colombia, the cost of disposal remains low thereby minimizing the economic driver for developing new recovery projects. Preliminary economic analysis of the available alternatives for developing ISWM projects that can achieve GHG mitigation benefits showed that the cost of SWM will, most likely, go up as a result of various recovery initiatives.

2. National Policy Issues – Current national policies associated with solid waste cost control and the priority order allocated to public investments in SWM create impediments to achieving sufficient cash flow to support the development and sustainability of new solid waste processing initiatives.

3. Tariff Reform – The existing tariff framework for SWM services does not take into consideration any new projects or processes that divert solid waste components from landfill disposal. While tariff reform is being considered by the Colombian government, it is not anticipated that this will be accomplished until late 2013 at the soonest. In addition, current considerations indicate that tariff reform may revise the tariff formula so that the economic considerations allocated to diversion processes will be based solely on the actual costs offset from collection, transport and disposal services. CCAP expects that major investments in SWM diversion initiatives will not occur until tariff reform is complete and that the economic viability of model elements may be affected by the manner by which tariff reform is achieved. Public and private sector investments in feasibility studies for specific integrated Waste NAMA model elements may be affected by questions related to the manner by which tariff reform will be eventually accomplished.

4. Private Sector Contracts – The private sector has made significant investments in Colombia in the development of new regional landfills. Contract terms may exist between the owners of these regional landfills and solid waste suppliers (municipalities, other private contractors, commercial/industrial sources, etc.) that may require a minimum amount of solid waste to be delivered on a regular basis. This could prove to be a disincentive to the development of diversion projects particularly given the potential economic impact of diversion projects on solid waste generators. The integrated Waste NAMA development process needs to consider the investments made by the private sector and their anticipated rate of return on those investments.

5. Energy Value – The economic value of recovered energy is a function of the value of the energy that would be displaced as a result of the energy recovered from solid waste. In


Colombia, a high proportion of electricity generated in the country is derived from hydroelectric sources and this results in low electricity prices. Since the competing prices of energy from current sources is the basis for potential revenues that could be derived from any project that recovers energy from solid waste, the economic viability of conventional waste to energy facilities will be affected by potentially low revenues. In the case of RDF, the fuel that the RDF would displace (for example, fossil fuels) establishes the potential value of the RDF alternate fuel.

6. Competition from the Informal Sector – Colombia has a well-organized and strong informal recycling network that currently recycles up to 10% of the country’s total waste stream. This informal process may be in direct competition with any formal project aimed at recovering recyclable materials unless the informal recyclers were incorporated into a formal solid waste management process. If placed into a competing position, the informal sector recycling process may affect the viability of formal recovery initiatives. Unlike the ability to control informal recyclers at disposal sites, it is significantly more difficult to control informal recyclers accessing solid waste components in collection locations.


Section 9: Conclusions and Recommendations

Assessment Conclusions Based on its assessment of current conditions, CCAP derived the following general conclusions:

1. The general solid waste management situation in Colombia has progressed and evolved to a point where a good level of service is provided in core collection, transport and disposal processes in most municipalities.

2. Solid waste management improvements over the past decade have been supported by the modification and strengthening of Colombia's national institutional framework. This has led to the active participation of multiple service providers where private capital is playing a significant role in the development of upgraded services and facilities. As a result of this, disposal facilities throughout the country have been upgraded to a point where a significant proportion of the solid waste generators in Colombia is now disposed of in facilities that are classified as sanitary landfills.

3. Colombian solid waste management policy seeks to achieve a “zero waste” culture by promoting integrated solid waste management approaches that will recover the intrinsic value of solid waste components through a variety of means. This policy is reflected in the local solid waste management plans (PGIRS) prepared by municipalities throughout Colombia.

4. Colombia still has a significant way to go in terms of implementing integrated solid waste management processes. This is primarily due to the institutional and policy impediments that currently exist. Important impediments to the development of ISWM processes relate to overall economic sustainability where the existing solid waste management tariff structure does not recognize recovery processes as a formula factor in defining tariff allocations. However, the government of Colombia recognizes this impediment and is currently working on revising its tariff framework to include waste recovery processes. Other legal requirements such as the limitation capping any costs associated with solid waste recovery processes to be passed on to generators to the offset cost of core collection and disposal services may also create an impediment to the development of recovery programs and facilities that may achieve important environmental benefits but at a higher cost than current core services.

5. Implementation of policy based programs such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) initiatives or the diversion and recovery of construction and demolition waste can derive some GHG mitigation benefits. EPR elements that help to reduce the overall amount of municipal solid waste generated or that improve the prospects for marketing output materials from recovery projects will have a beneficial impact as will the recovery of construction and demolition waste components that will decrease the total amount of solid


waste placed in landfills or displace the use of virgin materials through recovery. (An effective program to manage construction and demolition waste will have the major added benefit of helping to rectify one of the most solid waste management visible problems in Colombian municipalities.)

6. The regionalization of final disposal sites with the significant participation of the private sector has been accomplished in many locations in Colombia with the result that there is a strong basis for future regional applications of solid waste processing facilities and the availability of sufficient solid waste from multiple sources to take advantage of economies of scale that may affect the technical and economic viability of some ISWM processes and elements of the proposed Waste NAMA integrated model.

7. Recycling in Colombia is primarily accomplished through the informal sector which is viewed to be an important element for future solid waste management in the country. This includes the need to incorporate the informal sector into future processes as well as consider its impact on the viability of alternative formal programs and facilities with which the informal sector may compete.

8. Analysis of available outlets for recyclable materials in Colombia demonstrates that there are strong markets with significant demand for materials for use in manufacturing new products. Currently, supply has not kept up with demand to a point where recyclable materials are imported into Colombia for manufacturing purposes. Current available markets are expected to support significantly greater levels of recovery in Colombia in the future.

9. Source separation cost remains as one of the main obstacle for the implementation of some municipal waste recovery strategies. Increased incentives will be necessary to achieve an effective level of source separation of various materials. In addition, the strengthening of ongoing public education programs will be required to help assure the effective participation and cooperation of residential, commercial and industrial solid waste generators in new or expanded source separation initiatives.

10. New programs and facilities that can achieve greater material or energy recovery levels from the municipal solid waste stream are expected to increase the overall cost of solid waste management in Colombia. The ability to accept and accommodate these increased costs will be an important element in decision-making relative to the development of any new solid waste management process that may be included as a component of a Colombian Waste NAMA. However, all potential locale specific cost savings (such as those associated with the impact on the efficiency and cost of conventional collection and transport processes) must also be considered through the development and utilization of full cost accounting principles.

Assessment Recommendations Based on this assessment, CCAP recommends the following:


1. A Waste NAMA in Colombia should be developed based on an integrated solid waste management approach where mechanical biological treatment facilities could generate refuse derived fuel, recyclables, and/or compost depending on the local market conditions for the recoverable elements. The next steps for developing such a NAMA would include:

a. Conduct a feasibility study for an MBT facility in 1-2 municipalities which would include an evaluation of the market potential for RDF, recyclables and compost.

b. Conduct a national scoping analysis to identify other municipalities in which favorable conditions exist for MBT facilities

2. The upcoming tariff reform presents a critical opportunity to align stakeholder incentives with integrated waste management goals. The current tariff should be analyzed as to how potential revisions could strengthen the feasibility of a waste NAMA. CCAP would be open to directly supporting the CRA (Comisión de Regulación de Agua Potable y Saneamiento Básico) in researching alternative tariff adjustment scenarios affecting the upcoming tariff reform process, dependent on the CRA’s willingness for this collaboration.

3. There may be opportunities to implement electric generation projects on sites that are currently collecting and flaring landfill gas. A scoping analysis should be done to fully evaluate this potential.

4. Source separation for organics and recyclables can be an effective part of an integrated solid waste management program in the longer term. Because the economic feasibility of source separation is highly dependent on the generation and sale of compost and recyclables, additional analysis should be conducted on the market for compost and recyclables, and should specifically address the informal sector recycling process.


Annex 1: Principal Active MSW Landfills in Colombia

Num Departamento Municipio NombreAño

aperturaAño

clausuraResiduos Ton/año

Profundidad media(mts)

Vida útil(años)

Capacidad

(m3)N° de municipios N° de municipios

Población atendida 2010

Residuos Ton/dia

kg/hab dia

32 Cundinamarca Bogotá Doña Juana 2,010 2,096,560 - 5 7 7,422,001 5,744 0.7713 Antioquia Donmatías La Pradera 2,005 691,112 - - 14 11 2,840,316 1893 0.6717 Val le del Cauca Yotoco El Guabal 2,005 2,039 616,159 30 29 18,559,802 11 8 2,867,629 1688 0.5941 Bol ivar Cartagena Loma de los Cocos 2,005 2,025 460,887 39 15 5,568,357 3 1 944,481 1,263 1.3440 Atlántico Galapa Los Poci tos 2,005 2,039 304,063 5 29 19,862,846 3 4 1,271,686 833 0.661 Cundinamarca Bojacá Nuevo Mondoñedo 2,007 2,037 283,809 18 27 7,698,592 72 69 1,894,305 778 0.417 Risara lda Perei ra La Glori ta 2,007 278,637 - - 22 13 891,610 763 0.869 Norte de Santander Cúcuta Guayabal 2,007 2,074 259,048 20 64 6,500,000 19 18 897,884 710 0.79

48 Tol ima Ibague La Miel 2,005 212,689 - 1 526,527 583 1.1114 Santander Bucaramanga El Carrasco 2,005 184,635 40 - 14 12 1,114,621 506 0.458 Córdoba Montería Loma Grande 2,005 2,025 142,016 5 15 803,407 20 13 875,976 389 0.44

10 Val le del Cauca San Pedro Pres idente 1,997 129,523 20 - 18 18 768,977 355 0.4623 Atlántico Baranoa Puerto Rico 2,005 120,251 15 8 9 779,119 329 0.4215 Caldas Maniza lez La Esmera lda 2,005 2,016 115,943 27 6 814 13 18 785,757 318 0.4037 Quindío Montenegro Andalucía 2,005 2,019 114,728 22 9 190,000 4 10 445,363 314 0.7149 Magdalena Santa Marta Palangana 2,005 114,312 12 - 1 447,963 313 0.7020 Cesar Val ledupar Los Corazones 2,005 110,790 2 9 4 458,405 304 0.6619 Meta Vi l lavicencio Bioagrícola del Llano 2,005 2,043 108,510 22 33 310,517 10 5 506,130 297 0.5916 Hui la Neiva Los Ángeles 2,005 2,053 92,118 - 43 - 13 13 504,705 252 0.505 Boyacá Sogamoso Terrazas del porvenir 2,005 2,072 90,880 7 62 38,257 31 20 339,880 249 0.732 Cundinamarca Girardot Praderas del Magdalena 2,005 2,021 83,297 12 11 669,612 37 24 467,125 228 0.49

34 Cauca Popayán El Oji to 2,005 2,022 77,692 - 12 576,000 4 1 265,839 213 0.8033 Sucre Sincelejo El Oas is 2,005 2,030 76,304 - 20 2,145,531 5 5 337,251 209 0.6239 Antioquia Puerto Naré El pescao 2,005 76,251 - 3 4 480,223 209 0.4447 Antioquia Itagüi La Aurora 2,009 2,025 73,653 15 NR 2 2 260,122 202 0.786 Nariño Pasto Antanas 2,009 2,027 73,594 15 17 3,770,342 22 11 518,318 202 0.394 Boyacá Oicatá Pirgua 2,009 2,018 68,591 - 8 204,420 33 43 466,296 188 0.40

31 Nariño Ipia les La Victoria 2,005 43,118 45 6 6 214,909 118 0.5550 La Guaji ra Riohacha Riohacha 2,005 37,647 - 1 213,091 103 0.4812 Casanare Yopal Macondo 2,005 2,051 32,712 14 41 81,773 16 10 169,339 90 0.533 Santander San Gi l El Cucharo 2,005 2,015 31,185 - 5 492,000 35 38 324,528 85 0.26

30 Hui la Pi ta l i to Biorgánicos del sur 2,005 29,714 7 6 15 347,769 81 0.2329 Caldas La dorada Doradita 2,003 27,066 - 6 6 154,373 74 0.4851 San Andrés San Andrés Magic Garden 2,005 26,280 3 - 1 68,283 72 1.0511 Antioquia Hel iconia Centro Industria l del Sur 2,005 2,031 23,875 33 20.5 5,160,234 16 9 184,381 65 0.3545 Magdalena Aracataca Aracataca 2,009 2,038 22,466 15 28 NR 3 5 185,109 62 0.3324 Norte de Santander Pamplona La Cortada 2,005 20,113 - 8 7 113,802 55 0.4818 Cesar Aguachica Aguachica 2,005 2,017 20,102 4 7 4,786 10 2 103,372 55 0.5326 Norte de Santander Ocaña La Madera 2,005 17,577 11 7 2 130,635 48 0.3722 Sucre Coroza l La Candelaria 2,005 16,264 - 9 3 93,118 45 0.4821 Quindío Calarca Vi l la Karina 2,005 14,935 15 270,000 9 2 104,299 41 0.3946 Meta Granada La Guaratara 2,005 2,035 14,750 6 25 8,000 3 3 78,564 40 0.5127 Atlántico Santo Tomás Las Margari tas 2,005 2,035 10,426 18 25 221,000 6 3 77,615 29 0.3736 Hui la La Plata Biorgánicos 2,005 10,257 - 4 1 57,389 28 0.4935 Guaviare San José del Guaviare El Algarrobo 2,005 8,960 - 4 2 80,309 25 0.3125 Sucre Toluviejo Los cerros de Toluviejo 2,005 8,720 - 8 1 48,172 24 0.5038 Antioquia Ciudad Bol ivar Buenavis ta 2,002 2,018 6,571 - 8 NR 3 3 23,639 18 0.7656 Putumayo Mocoa Rel leno sani tario de Mocoa 2,005 5,326 - 1 38,564 15 0.3842 Caldas Marqueta l ia La Vega 2,005 2,106 4,392 - 96 NR 3 3 65,482 12 0.1844 Casanaré Vi l lanueva La Esperanza 2,005 3,617 - 3 1 22,808 10 0.4343 Caquetá Florencia San Juan del Barro 2,005 2,037 1,482 - 27 961,085 3 4 37,998 4 0.1128 Boyacá Chiquinquirá Chiquinquira 2,005 1,143 10 6 2 16,546 3 0.1955 Cundinamarca Paratebueno Rel leno sani tario Don Juanito 2,005 694 - 1 7,578 2 0.25

TOTAL 697.5 17 697.5 74097375 563 477 32,332,603 20530764 45,509,584 2267062% 71% 91%

Annex 1: Principal Active MSW Landfills in Colombia


Annex 2: Solid Waste Composition in Colombian Departments

Annex 2: Solid Waste Composition in Colombian Departments

Department Food Paper and

carton

Yard residues Wood

Rubber, leather, bones

Textiles Toilet paper

Other organics Diapers Metals Construction

debris Glasses, pottery Plastic Other

inorganics

Amazonas 69,80% 3,60% 7,80% 0,60% 1,10% 1,70% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,50% 0,00% 3,30% 10,40% 0,40% Antioquia 52,40% 8,60% 6,20% 3,20% 0,20% 2,60% 0,00% 0,50% 0,00% 1,30% 0,00% 3,10% 14,80% 7,10% Arauca 52,00% 7,20% 5,50% 1,40% 1,20% 2,50% 2,50% 3,00% 3,50% 1,00% 3,00% 2,00% 10,40% 5,00% Atlántico 26,40% 10,90% 24,30% 1,90% 0,00% 3,90% 0,00% 0,60% 5,50% 1,40% 10,00% 3,00% 8,70% 3,30% Bogotá DC 56,30% 8,20% 6,40% 1,90% 0,50% 4,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,80% 0,00% 1,00% 18,70% 2,30% Bolívar 58,00% 10,30% 6,40% 3,20% 1,10% 1,40% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 3,50% 3,80% 2,00% 10,30% 0,00% Boyacá 42,30% 14,20% 4,50% 2,80% 0,20% 1,00% 0,00% 1,70% 0,00% 2,30% 2,30% 8,70% 8,60% 11,40% Caldas 50,40% 15,40% 2,50% 4,00% 0,80% 4,70% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,40% 0,00% 3,20% 16,10% 1,50% Caquetá 69,80% 3,60% 7,80% 0,60% 1,10% 1,70% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,50% 0,00% 3,30% 10,40% 0,40% Casanare 52,00% 7,20% 5,50% 1,40% 1,20% 2,50% 2,50% 3,00% 3,50% 1,00% 3,00% 2,00% 10,40% 5,00% Cauca 57,90% 8,50% 6,70% 0,70% 0,70% 5,80% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,60% 10,10% 0,90% 7,00% 1,00% Cesar 51,80% 14,60% 6,10% 3,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,40% 0,00% 7,90% 15,20% 0,00% Choco 58,80% 7,40% 6,40% 0,70% 1,00% 3,80% 0,00% 0,00% 3,60% - - - - 18,20% Córdoba 65,00% 3,10% 5,90% 1,00% 1,00% 2,20% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,60% 1,00% 11,20% 8,90% Cundinamarca 54,70% 8,60% 6,40% 3,20% 0,30% 3,70% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,80% 0,00% 1,00% 17,80% 3,50% Guajira 40,90% 10,00% 20,00% 2,20% 1,00% 0,90% 0,00% 2,80% 0,00% 1,60% 2,20% 5,60% 11,10% 1,80% Guainía 69,80% 3,60% 7,80% 0,60% 1,10% 1,70% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,50% 0,00% 3,30% 10,40% 0,40% Guaviare 69,80% 3,60% 7,80% 0,60% 1,10% 1,70% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,50% 0,00% 3,30% 10,40% 0,40% Huila 68,50% 1,50% 8,10% 4,00% 0,40% 0,80% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,40% 0,00% 0,50% 3,60% 12,20% Magdalena 30,10% 5,40% 33,90% 1,40% 1,90% 1,80% 0,00% 5,60% 0,00% 1,70% 4,40% 3,20% 7,10% 3,50% Meta 52,00% 7,20% 5,50% 1,40% 1,20% 2,50% 2,50% 3,00% 3,50% 1,00% 3,00% 2,00% 10,40% 5,00% Nariño 58,80% 7,40% 6,40% 0,70% 1,00% 3,80% 0,00% 0,00% 3,60% - - - - 18,20% Nte Santander 49,80% 15,90% 5,10% 2,00% 2,20% 2,80% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,70% 0,00% 6,70% 4,70% 10,10% Putumayo 69,80% 3,60% 7,80% 0,60% 1,10% 1,70% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,50% 0,00% 3,30% 10,40% 0,40% Quindío 44,10% 4,40% 4,70% 4,10% 2,70% 9,70% 0,00% 0,00% 9,50% 1,20% 0,40% 4,20% 13,70% 1,50% Risaralda 56,10% 7,50% 3,70% 1,60% 1,50% 4,20% 0,00% 0,00% 1,50% 0,80% 0,50% 1,50% 19,00% 2,10% San Andrés 51,10% 11,80% 6,00% 3,00% 1,50% 2,60% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,10% 0,00% 9,30% 9,20% 4,40% Santander 45,70% 5,70% 5,20% 6,40% 3,10% 7,00% 2,30% 0,20% 2,10% 1,00% 4,90% 1,10% 11,90% 3,50% Sucre 65,00% 3,10% 5,90% 1,00% 1,00% 2,20% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,60% 1,00% 11,20% 8,90% Tolima 61,00% 9,40% 7,10% 2,80% 0,50% 1,20% 1,10% 0,10% 0,00% 2,70% 0,10% 4,50% 9,20% 0,20% Valle del Cauca 59,70% 6,40% 6,10% 0,60% 1,30% 1,90% 0,00% 0,00% 7,20% - - - - 16,80%

Vaupés 69,80% 3,60% 7,80% 0,60% 1,10% 1,70% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,50% 0,00% 3,30% 10,40% 0,40% Vichada 52,00% 7,20% 5,50% 1,40% 1,20% 2,50% 2,50% 3,00% 3,50% 1,00% 3,00% 2,00% 10,40% 5,00%

Source: EPA, 2011.


Annex 3: Companies Currently Active in Buying Recovered Recyclables in Colombia

ASSETS NET YEAR PROFITColombianaKimberlyColpapelS.A. Itagüí Paper 1.834.407 216.699 PazdelRío Bogotá Steel 1.811.627 13.079 CartónColombia Yumbo Cardboard 1.787.628 51.889 PropalS.A. Yumbo Paper 1.145.499 57.779 ProductosFamilia Medellín Cardboard and paper 1.132.657 19.496 Peldar Envigado Glass 906.139 103.745 BiofilmS.A. Cartagena Plastics 710.044 53.387 PapelesdelCaucaS.A. Puerto TejadPaper 619.026 32.007 EnkadeColombia Medellín Polymers 609.556 27.003 AceríasdeColombia,ACESCO Bogotá Steel 599.413 3.854 KimberlyClark Tocancipá Cardboard and paper 494.869 11.887 CartonesAméricaS.A. Cali Cardboard and paper 410.447 1.645 Corpacero Bogotá Metals 360.433 4.476 PapelesNacionalesS.A. Pereira Cardboard and paper 329.265 2.041 SiderúrgicadelNorte,SIDUNOR Barranquilla Metals 31.191 17.305 FamiliadelPacíficoLtda. Caloto Cardboard and paper 267.752 3.541 SiderúrgicaNacional Bogotá Metals 215.886 29.039 Tablemac Medellín Cardboard and paper 172.827 742 TecnoglasProductosdeVidrio Barranquilla Glass 164.512 3.654 SiderúrgicadelPacífico Yumbo Metals 154.687 1.291 DistribuidoradePapelesS.A. Bogotá Paper 153.495 5.797 EmpacorS.A. Bogotá Cardboard 145.124 2.084 PapelesyCartonesS.A. Barbosa Cardboard and paper 136.303 7.405 CristarSAS Envigado Glass 131.058 14.622 CompañíaColombianadeEmpaques Palmira Cardboard and paper 127.987 10.356 KimberlyClarkAntioquiaGlobal Barbosa Cardboard and paper 124.106 1.795 EmpaquesColombianosIndustriales Soledad Cardboard and paper 98.924 698 SiderúrgicadelOccidente Yumbo Metals 96.157 23.293 TetrapakLtda Bogotá Tetrapak 93.218 22.464 SaintGobaindeColombia Bogotá Glass 8.177 357 Sonoco Cali Cardboard and paper 66.684 8.945 ColombianadeMoldeadosS.A. Cali Cardboard and paper 64.973 4.309 UnibolS.A. Soledad Cardboard and paper 57.292 371 EmpresaMetalmecanicadeAluminios Itagüí Metals 68.091 3.951 CorrugadosdelDarién Apartado Cardboard and paper 52.366 423 CypdelRisaralda Dos QuebradCardboard and paper 50.937 205 OccidentaldeEmpaquesS.A. Girardota Cardboard and paper 41.439 1.128 PackingS.A. Tocancipá Cardboard 40.904 4.558

YEAR 2008 (million COP)COMPANY CITY SECTOR


Annex 4: Cement Manufacturing Plants in Colombia Because cement kilns require high temperatures to produce cement, they are ideal for safely incinerating various solid waste elements such as chipped tires, sewage sludge, municipal solid waste, and biomass such as rice and coffee husks, sawdust, and palm residues while recovering energy for production in the process. Kilns enable cement producers to provide an alternative to landfilling while, at the same time, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and avoid related emissions of greenhouse gases. In Colombia there are three principal cement companies:

1. ARGOS - Colombia/Sindicato antioqueño (50% of market share): Has 12 cement plants (kilns) in Colombia (mainly in Antioquia, Valle del Cauca and Atlantic Coast) with a cement production installed capacity of 14 million tons/year.

2. CEMEX - Mexico (35% of market share): 5 plants in Colombia (in Tolima, Cundinamarca and Santander) with an installed capacity of 5 million of tons/year.

3. HOLCIM - Switzerland (15% of market share): 2 plants in Cundinamarca and 1.8 millions of tons/year of capacity.

4. The cement price is about 11.7 USD per bulk (50 Kg).

Plant name Company Location Annual cement production

Barranquilla Cementos del Caribe SA (Argos)

Vía 40, Las Flores, Atlántico 1.50 Mt/yr

El Cairo Cementos el Cairo SA (Argos)

Santa Bárbara, Antioquía 0.39 Mt/yr

Puerto Inmarco Cementos Nare SA (Argos) Cra 46 # 56-11. Piso 12 Medellín

0.38 Mt/yr

Sabanagrande Concrecem S.A. (Argos) Sabanagrande, Atlántico 0.18 Mt/yr Argos-Sogamoso Cementos Paz del Rio SA

(Argos) Km 6 vía Sogamoso Corrales, Sogamoso, Boyacá

1.40 Mt/yr

Toluviejo Cales y Cementos de Toluviejo SA (TOLCEMENTO) (Argos)

KM 26 Sincelejo Tolu, Toluviejo, Sucre

0.85 Mt/yr

Bucaramanga Cemex Km. 4 Vía Rionegro, Bucaramanga, Santander

0.17 Mt/yr

Caracolito Cemex Caracolito Km 6 Via Buenos Aires, Payandé, Tolima

2.53 Mt/yr

Cúcuta Cemex Km 7 Los Patios vía Pamplona, Norte de Santander

0.33 Mt/yr

La Calera Cemex Planta Santa Rosa, Km 14 vía La Calera, Cundinamarca

--

Cementos San Marcos SA Yumbo, Valle del Cauca 0.16 Mt/yr Rioclaro Cementos Rioclaro SA Km 160, Sonson-Antioquia 1.4 Mt/yr


Antioquia-Medellin

Cementos el Cairo SA Cra 49#24-398, Medellin 0.390 Mt/yr (grinding facility)

Colclinker Cementos del Caribe SA Cartagena 1.25 Mt/yr Puerto Isaacs Cementos del Valle SA

(Argos) Yumbo, Valle del Cauca 1.5 Mt/yr

Neira, Caldas Cementos de Caldas SA Los Llanos, Municipio de Neira, Caldas

0.25 Mt/yr

Nobsa Cementos Boyaca SA Via a Nobsa, Nobsa, Boyaca 1.70 Mt/yr Santa Rosa Cemex Km 14, Via Bogota, La Calera,

Cundinamarca 0.894 Mt/yr (grinding facility)

La Siberia Cemex Km 5 Via La Calera Temporarily shut down

Tolima Cemex Km 22 Via Ibague, Espinal Temporarily shut down

Montebello, Antioquia

Cementos el Cairo SA Carretera Medillin km 60, Montebello, Antioquia

0.187 Mt/yr


Annex 5: Major Private Sector Contractors Active in Colombia Overview of Waste Management Companies in Colombia According to the “2010 Ranking of water and sanitation companies in Colombia”, by lanota.com, there are a number of SWM companies in the top five ranking according to annual revenue. Those are Sociedad de Acueducto, Alcantarillado and Aseo de Barranquilla (Triple A), with total sales of approximately US$149 millon, 2.1% more than 2009, followed by Group Ethuss with its companies: Interaseo (US$62 million), Aseo Técnico de La Sabana (Atesa) (US$29 million); Aseo Técnico (US$20 million); Atesa de Occidente (US$14 million); Interaseo del Valle (US$9 million) and Aseo Soledad (US$8 million); which collectively account for a total of US$143 million, growing 16,4% compared to 2009. Other companies included in this ranking are shown in the next table:

Company Annual Sales (USD million)

Annual growth 2009 - 2010

Empresas Varias de Medellín 72 4,4% Aseo Capital 50 6,4%; Limpieza Metropolitana (Lime) 47 2,9%; Servigenerales 23 10,9%. Aseo Urbano - Sala Group 17 1,9% Empresas Metropolitana de Aseo (Emas) - Sala Group 11 20,2% Ciudad Limpia 35 5,5%;

Source: Lanota.com 2011

Company profiles

ETHUSS GROUP (Colombia) - www.interaseo.com.co - ETHUSS is a Colombian group that, in 1993, established itself as a waste management company under the law that established the ability for private investors to operate public services (Law 142). Currently, Interaseo S.A. (its main subsidiary company) has a major presence in several Colombian departments and capital cities, such as Barranquilla, Valledupar, Sincelejo, Santa Marta, Riohacha, Bogotá, Ibagué, Pereira and Cali. In addition, the company also provides international services and operates landfills in San Miguel (Panama) and Quito (Ecuador). GROUP SALA (Colombia) - www.gruposala.com.co - Created in 1996, Group SALA manages five landfills receiving about 7% of the waste generated by the country. The two head companies, Aseo Urbano and EMAS are certified with ISO 9000; other companies of the group are in the process of certification. TRIPLE A S.A E.S.P (Colombia) - www.aaa.com.co – Since 1991,Triple A provides water, sanitation and solid waste management services to over 1.5 million people in the city of Barranquilla. This company also has operations in the Dominican Republic and Mexico. IMPSA (Argentina) - IMPSA is a 100 year-old Argentinean company that provides integrated solutions for power generation from renewable resources, equipment for the process industry and environmental services. Today it holds a portfolio of projects for power generation from renewable resources which exceed 40,000 MW in more than 25 countries.

http://www.interaseo.com.co/

http://www.gruposala.com.co/

http://www.aaa.com.co/


SERVIGENERALES (Colombia) - www.servigenerales.com - SERVIGENERALES is a private company created in Colombia in 1996 which currently operates in medium size cities including Armenia, Buga, facatativa, Montería, Soacha, Tunja and Yumbo. This company recently associated with ASEO CAPITAL (which is also private), created in 1992 for provision of solid waste collection service for about 25% of Bogota´s service subscribers. VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT (France) - A French company in existence for about 155 years in Europe, in Central and Latin America, Veolia Water is present via a Colombian subsidiary (Proactiva Medio Ambiente) of the Veolia Environment Group and the FCC group (United Kingdom). In the solid waste sector, Veolia owns Onyx - C.C.L. (Ciudad Limpia) which is involved in solid waste collection. The following is a general listing of the municipalities where private companies are currently active.

LOCATIONS WHERE MAJOR PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANIES ARE WORKING GROUP Company name Year Department Municipality Ethuss Aseo Caldas Empresa De Servicios Publicos 1997 Antioquia Caldas Ethuss Aseo Siderense S.A. E.S.P. 1998 Antioquia La Estrella Ethuss Empresa De Aseo Sabaneta S.A. E.S.P. 1998 Antioquia Sabaneta Ethuss Serviaseo Itagui S.A.E.S.P. 1997 Antioquia Itagui Ethuss Sociedad De Aseo De Bello S.A. E.S.P. 1996 Antioquia Bello Ethuss Aseo Especial Soledad S.A. E.S.P. 2005 Atlantico Barranquilla Ethuss Aseo Tecnico De La Sabana S.A E.S.P 2003 Bogota, D.C. Bogota, D.C. Ethuss Aseo Tecnico S. A. 1994 Bogota, D.C. Bogota, D.C. Ethuss Aseo Del Norte S.A. E.S.P. 2000 Cesar Valledupar

Ethuss Empresa De Servicios De Aseo De Valledupar S.A

1998 Cesar Valledupar

Ethuss Interaseo De La Frontera S.A E.S.P 2000 La Guajira Maicao Ethuss Interaseo S.A E.S.P 1996 Magdalena Santa Marta Ethuss Interaseo Del Valle S.A E.S.P. 2007 Valle Del Cauca Yotoco

Grupo Triple Aaa Sociedad De Acueducto, Alcantarillado Y Aseo De Barranquilla S.A. E.S.P.

1991 Atlantico Barranquilla

Impsa Limpieza Metropolitana S.A E.S.P. 2003 Bogota, D.C. Bogota, D.C. Sala Aseo Urbano De La Costa S.A. E.S.P 2005 Bolivar Cartagena Sala Empresa Metropolitana De Aseo De Chinchina 1995 Caldas Chinchina Sala Empresa Metropolitana De Aseo S.A. E.S.P. 1994 Caldas Manizales

Servigenerales - Aseo Trash Busters S.A. E.S.P. 1995 San Andres San Andres Servigenerales – Aseo Consorcio Aseo Capital S.A. 2001 Bogota, D.C. Bogota, D.C. Servigenerales – Aseo Ecocapital Internacional S.A Esp 2004 Bogota, D.C. Bogota, D.C. Servigenerales - Aseo Servigenerales Ciudad De Duitama S.A. Esp 2009 Boyaca Duitama Servigenerales - Aseo Servigenerales Ciudad De Tunja S.A. E.S.P. 2007 Boyaca Tunja

Veolia Centro De Gerenciamiento De Residuos Doña Juana S.A. E.S.P

2010 Bogota, D.C. Bogota, D.C.

Veolia Ciudad Limpia Bogotá S.A. E.S.P. 1998 Bogota, D.C. Bogota, D.C. Veolia Ciudad Limpia Del Huila S.A. E.S.P. 2007 Huila Neiva Veolia Proactiva Oriente S.A. E.S.P. 2000 Norte De Santander Cucuta Veolia Aseo Ambiental S.A. E.S.P. 2001 Valle Del Cauca Yumbo Veolia Aseo El Cerrito S.A. E.S.P. 1997 Valle Del Cauca El Cerrito Veolia Aseo Pradera S.A. E.S.P. 1997 Valle Del Cauca Pradera Veolia Bugueña De Aseo S.A. E.S.P. 1996 Valle Del Cauca Guadalajara Veolia Empresa Regional De Servicio Público De 2009 Valle Del Cauca Candelaria

http://www.servigenerales.com/


Candelaria S.A. Esp. Veolia Palmirana De Aseo S.A. E.S.P. 1997 Valle Del Cauca Palmira Veolia Proactiva De Servicios S.A. E.S.P. 2000 Valle Del Cauca Cali Veolia Tulueña De Aseo S.A. E.S.P. 1997 Valle Del Cauca Tulua


Annex 6: Economic Model Assumptions

Model Input Values

Units Best Case

Average Case

Worst Case Sources

Technical Daily Processing

Capacity - Cali tons/day - 1500 - Morales, Guido Escobar. 2011. Number of Processing

Days/year days - 330 - Based on 365 day calender year with average industry standard 35 days taken for maintenance and repairs

Solid Waste Composition

Organic Content % - 64 - Arbeláez, Johannio Marulanda. 2009. Paper % - 3.8 - Arbeláez, Johannio Marulanda. 2009. Cardboard % - 2.4 - Arbeláez, Johannio Marulanda. 2009. Glass % - 3.0 - Arbeláez, Johannio Marulanda. 2009. Aluminum % - 0.5 - Arbeláez, Johannio Marulanda. 2009. Scrap metal % - 0.5 - Arbeláez, Johannio Marulanda. 2009. Plastics % - 3.0 - Arbeláez, Johannio Marulanda. 2009. Plastic Bags % - 6.9 - Arbeláez, Johannio Marulanda. 2009.

Recyclables Recovery Rate-Mixed Solid Waste Paper % - 15 - Based on Anticipated "dirty" MRF Performance Cardboard % - 15 - Based on Anticipated "dirty" MRF Performance Glass % - 15 - Based on Anticipated "dirty" MRF Performance Aluminum % - 15 - Based on Anticipated "dirty" MRF Performance Scrap metal % - 15 - Based on Anticipated "dirty" MRF Performance


Plastics % - 15 - Based on Anticipated "dirty" MRF Performance Plastic Bags % - 15 - Based on Anticipated "dirty" MRF Performance

Recyclables Recovery Rate-Source Separated

Waste

Paper % - 38 -

Fundación Carvajal. Informe No. 2 Estudio De Factibilidad Para El Montaje De Una Empresa De Separación Y Reciclaje Para Los Recicladores De La Zona 1 De La Ciudad De Cali. 2011.

Cardboard % - 19 -


Plastics % - 16 -


Bags % - 50 -


Scrap Metal % - 80 -


Glass % - 10 -


Unit generation - electricity WTE kWh/ton processed - 500 - Hogg, Dominic, et. al. Unit generation - electricity AD kWh /ton processed - 150 - Hogg, Dominic, et. al.


Unit generation - compost tons/ton processed - .10 - Hogg, Dominic, et. al. Unit generation - RDF tons/ton processed - .40 - Hogg, Dominic, et. al.

Financial

Annual Interest Rate % 7 7 7 10 years at 7% is based on previous energy projects sponsored by IDEA that have been financed. (Cambridge Project Development Inc. 2011.)

Term of Loan years 10 10 10 10 years at 7% is based on previous energy projects sponsored by IDEA that have been financed. (Cambridge Project Development Inc. 2011.)

Debt to Equity Ratio % 100/0 100/0 100/0

In a U.S. municipal solid waste project, 100% debt would be a viable assumption but in Colombia lenders would expect a certain % of equity. For a city project this would be a cash contribution to the project costs. For purposes of this analysis, 100% debt was assumed however equity contributions will have a measurable impact on the level of annual debt service payments. (Resource Mobilization Advisors.)

Revenues Tipping Fee USD/ton 16 14 12 Hill Consulting based on primary research with solid waste operators. Unit Revenue for Electricity USD/kWh 0.066 0.057 0.049 Cambridge Project Development Inc. 2011.

Unit Revenue for Compost USD/ton 41-81 21-41 0

Correal, Magda C. et al. 2008. Ranges in best case scenario and average case scenario reflect the expected price difference for high quality compost produced from source separated organics.

Unit Revenue for Refuse Derived Fuel USD/ton 30 15 0

Caputo C., Antonio and Pelagagge M., Pacifico. RDF production plants: Design and costs. Applied Thermal Engineering. Volume 22, Issue 4, March 2022, pages 423-437. Print.


Unit Revenue for Recyclables

Paper USD/kg +20% 0.17 -20%

Fundación Carvajal. Informe No. 2 Estudio De Factibilidad Para El Montaje De Una Empresa De Separación Y Reciclaje Para Los Recicladores De La Zona 1 De La Ciudad De Cali. 2011. Best and worst case assume a 20% increase and 20% decrease, respectively.

Newspaper USD/kg +20% 0.10 -20%


Cardboard USD/kg +20% 0.08 -20%


Glass USD/kg +20% 0.03 -20%


Aluminum USD/kg +20% 1.12 -20%


Scrap metal USD/kg +20% 0.15 -20%



Plastics USD/kg +20% 0.14 -20%


Paper USD/kg 620 +10% +20%


Bags USD/kg 500 +10% +20%


Cardboard USD/kg 285 +10% +20%


Glass USD/kg 80 +10% +20%


Scrap metal USD/kg 410 +10% +20%


Plastics USD/kg 747 +10% +20%



Costs Capital Cost:

Cali (1500 tons per day)

Waste to Energy million USD 242 197 152 Wheeler, P.A., and L de Rome. 2002. MBT (Anaerobic Digestion) million USD 215 149 83 Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (defra). 2007.

MRF-Compost (Windrow) million USD 60 42.5 25

Tsilemou, Konstantinia and Panagiotakopoulos, Demetrios. Economic Assessment of Mechanical-Biological Treatment Facilities. No.1 (39) p.55-63. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 2007.

MRF-Compost (Advanced) million USD 70 52.5 35

Database of Waste Management Technologies (epem.gr/waste-c-control/database/default.htm)

MRF-RDF million USD 67 49.5 32 Database of Waste Management Technologies (epem.gr/waste-c-control/database/default.htm)

MRF (recyclables only) million USD 13 11 9 Tsilemou, Konstantinia and Panagiotakopoulos, Demetrios. 2007. Operating Cost:

Cali (1500 tons per day)

Waste to Energy USD/ton 110 85 60 Database of Waste Management Technologies (epem.gr/ waste-c-control/database/default.htm)

MBT (Anaerobic Digestion) USD/ton 120 100 80

Database of Waste Management Technologies (epem.gr/ waste-c-control/database/default.htm)

MRF-Compost (Windrow) USD/ton 50 37.5 25



MRF-Compost (Advanced) USD/ton 60 47.5 35


MRF-RDF USD/ton 60 50 40 Database of Waste Management Technologies (epem.gr/ waste-c-control/database/default.htm)

MRF (recyclables only) USD/ton 70 55 40 Database of Waste Management Technologies (epem.gr/ waste-c-control/database/default.htm)


Annex 7: Construction and Demolition Waste Management Throughout the world, the management of construction and demolition waste (C&D) has become an important urban and environmental issue. This is primarily due to increasing construction activities particularly in urban areas that result in growing quantities of construction-related waste. An increase in construction activities usually results in the increased demand for construction materials that deplete raw materials and, in some cases, cause environmental damage. Since construction is often associated with demolition activities, waste from demolition activities is also similarly increasing. In many countries, some types of the construction waste is used as fill or base material in road and building construction often without any standards or regulations governing such activities. Some of the C&D waste stream is also delivered to municipal landfills that are primarily designed for municipal solid waste thereby using up airspace capacity. Unfortunately, in many countries with evolving environmental and regulatory standards, much of the waste derived from construction and demolition activities is dumped randomly along roads, in ravines, or in any convenient but inappropriate open space. Uncontrolled disposal of C&D in this manner can cause contamination of soil, water and air. However, these effects have not been properly evaluated and quantified in many countries. In addition, the proper management of this material has often not been a high priority when compared to other potential environmental and urban issues such as those associated with managing municipal or hazardous solid waste. While there is a common understanding that recovered components of a C&D waste stream can replace the need for raw materials for new construction products or for other uses, the systems and programs required to accomplish this have not been established in many countries including Colombia. Description of Construction and Demolition Waste - C&D waste can make up a significant proportion (up to 50%) of all the solid waste generated in a country. The material can be as diverse in composition as the structures from which it derives. The material can be of mineral or organic origin, inert or hazardous, homogeneous or mixed. The following are commonly accepted definitions of the type and properties of typical C&D waste.

• Construction waste is derived from building construction and renovation, and results from excess material beyond that required for a particular construction task. Construction waste can also be derived from damaged or broken material, cut-off pieces, processing waste such as sawdust, old tools and accessories, packaging and the general solid waste generated by construction personnel during their work activities.

• Demolition waste can be derived from a number of activities including: 1) natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes, 2) wars or civil conflict, 3) vandalism and 4) accidents (explosions, fires, collapse of weak structures, etc.). Demolition material can also logically result from the purposeful demolition of structures (building, roads, etc.) that are being renovated or completely removed to make room for new structures. Every part of a structure, from the roof


to a foundation can be a source of demolition waste and this contributes to its composition variation.

Colombian legislation also classifies various solid waste forms as “special waste” including construction and demolition materials, as well as hazardous and hospital waste. According to applicable guidelines construction and demolition material must be managed separately in accordance with existing regulations. Resolution 541/1994 is the main regulation regarding construction and demolition materials in Colombia. In addition, Decree 1713 of 2002 (Article 44) states that debris generators are responsible for collection, transport and disposal of these materials in authorized places. Local or regional authorities and public services companies must coordinate the control of these activities using the PGIRS as the local guideline. Decree 838 of 2005 further modified Title VIII of Decree 1713/2002, and established the current policy relative to final disposal of solid waste. An important aspect of subsequent modifications is that Law 1259 of 2008 and 1466 of 2011 created a legal instrument to fine individuals or companies who do not meet national standards. Problems of C&D disposal - When distances to formal disposal sites are too great or if the tipping fees for disposal are high, C&D is often dumped illegally at roadsides, in depressions, in rivers, etc. Once this has happened, there is often a high cost to remove the accumulated waste from these informal and inappropriate locations. These costs usually have to be borne by municipalities or by private landowners who own the property where the material was dumped. Disposing of C&D in municipal solid waste landfills and in uncontrolled locations while also producing new materials and components for the construction industry contributes to the depletion of natural resources. This use of virgin materials can also cause environmental damage by generating noise, dust, air pollution while also requiring higher energy consumption that results in increased CO2 emissions. While this clearly supports the need for C&D processing and recycling, the necessary systems and facilities that are required to copy this are difficult to implement without sound enforcement of effective regulations that govern the management of the material from its source to the manner by which it is disposed of. In addition, the recovery of C&D components will usually not occur without fostering an economic reason to recover specific components of the C&D waste stream for various productive purposes. Recycling or reuse of C&D - Efforts to promote the reuse and recycling of C&D have been difficult to develop throughout the world. The material has generally been considered as waste with little recovery value. In recent years, however, there has been change in perception where construction and demolition waste is now perceived as a potential source of recoverable materials with some value. In some situations, the value of the recovered materials has justified the work required to separate the target components. However, to be accomplished at a significant scale, a regulatory driver has often been necessary mandating recovery processes or prohibiting disposal of the material at municipal solid


waste landfills. In some cases, high charges for disposal or steep fines for inappropriate disposal have created a sufficient incentive for the development of recovery processes. In addition, markets for recovered materials must be available or developed to support the economic function of recovery processes which must be capable of meeting market specifications concerning the physical characteristics of the recovered materials. These dynamics are not currently available in Colombia to drive the development of construction and demolition recovery processes to the degree required to deal with the C&D problem in most cities. For C&D to be reused or recycled, the demolition of buildings should be carefully planned, properly organized and strictly controlled to assure that recoverable materials are not affected to the degree where their value is lost. In its most strict sense, deconstruction can take place in the reverse order of construction to derive recoverable materials in their purest form. However this is often difficult and time-consuming when compared to simply demolishing a building in its entirety. To optimize recovery opportunities, care must also be taken to prevent potential environmental or health problems that may be associated with dangerous materials that may be found in some structures such as asbestos or asbestos-containing materials. The table on the following page shows the common materials that comprise C&D waste streams. The table also identifies the recovery processes often used to secure the material and the end uses for which the material can be utilized. As shown, the opportunities that are available for reusing individual components are often a function of the manner by which they are derived with greater opportunities available for clean materials. Difficulties In Establishing Effective C&D Management Systems - C&D management is not being practiced in a systematic way in many countries. However, some individual activities can be found in almost all countries. In the United States and European Union, C&D management has evolved to a point where the material is effectively managed as a result of both regulatory and economic factors. However, it took a long time for this to be the case because of the early perception that this material was not as dangerous as other forms of solid waste. The main reasons why there has been slow progress in establishing effective C&D management practices in some countries include the following:

1. The lack of awareness on the part of the general public about the problems associated with the uncontrolled disposal of construction and demolition waste - There is often a general perception that some forms of construction and demolition debris are not as dangerous as industrial or municipal solid waste.

2. The lack of public acceptance that wastes of all forms may be a source of recoverable components - in some cases, public purchasing approaches is often biased to products made from virgin materials rather than recycled. This is often the case even if the materials produced from recycled content are less expensive than those produced from virgin materials.


3. The ease of disposing of waste legally or illegally especially when there is little or no enforcement of applicable regulations - A lack of enforcement of regulatory standards regarding the disposal of construction and demolition debris make it easy for C&D generators or haulers to dump the material in inappropriate locations. Once dumped, it is practically impossible to determine the origin of the material and cleanup becomes the responsibility of municipalities or private property owners.

4. The lack of clear and effective C&D management policies at the national and local level - While municipalities generally recognize that the inappropriate disposal of C&D material as a problem, there is often a lack of clear management policies and regulations concerning this material. However, even if the policies and regulations are in place, they must be accompanied with strict and effective enforcement.

5. The lack of technology, knowledge and standards in many countries - The progress that has been made in locations such as the United States and the European Union can be utilized to develop effective practices in Colombia for managing C&D materials. This would allow municipalities in Colombia to learn from both the successful and unsuccessful practices that have been developed in the locations with evolved C&D management standards.

6. The lack of markets for reusable or recycled C&D components - As is the case with the recovery of any recycled content, effective markets must exist for recovered materials. If readily identifiable markets do not currently exist, it is necessary to establish markets through education or incentive programs that provide better opportunities for the sale of recovered materials.

7. The lack of funds to establish effective programs or to construct C&D processing centers - Typically, municipalities face many different urban environmental issues that they must address. As a result, the funds available to develop effective C&D programs or to develop processing centers are often difficult to secure given the priority often placed to other issues.

8. The lack of information on good practices - Sound practices can be defined from the lessons learned in industrialized countries where C&D management practices have evolved. However, the ability to educate C&D generators on these practices is often difficult. This is compounded by the fact that these sound practices are often significantly more costly than their direct cost of inappropriate dumping whether this is done by the generator or by a hauling contractor that is commissioned to take the material away from the construction or demolition site.

COMMON CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION MATERIALS AND THEIR USES

Type of Material Recovery Process End uses Plain concrete (DW) 1. Crushed 1. Aggregate

Fresh concrete (CW) 1. Washed to remove cement and recover aggregate

1. Aggregate

Reinforced concrete 1. Crushed and steel bars removed 2. Steel recycled

1. Crushed concrete reused as aggregate 2. New reinforcement steel


Clay bricks and roof tiles 1. Cleaned 2. Crushed 3. Pulverized

1. Reused for masonry 2. Aggregate 3. Mixed with lime to produce mortar

Calcium silicate bricks 1. Cleaned 2. Crushed 3. Pulverized

1. Reused for masonry 2. Aggregate 3. Recycled into new calcium silicate bricks

Natural stone masonry 1. Cleaned 2. Crushed

1. Reused for masonry 2. Aggregate

Natural stone slabs 1. Cleaned 2. Crushed

1. Flooring, cladding 2. Aggregate

Ceramic tiles 1. Cleaned 2. Crushed

1. Flooring, cladding 2. Aggregate

Asphalt paving 1. Crushed and cold-mixed 2. Crushed and hot-mixed

1. Road base, fill material 2. Road construction

Mixed DW (asphalt, bricks, concrete)

1. Crushed 1. Road base, fill material

Steel 1. Cleaned 2. Recycled

1. Reused steel components 2. New steel components

Aluminum 1. Cleaned 2. Recycled

1. Reused Alum. Components 2. New Alum. Components

Timber beams, doors, etc. 1. Cleaned 1. Reused as beams, doors, etc.

Timber boards 1. Cleaned 1. Reused for various products 2. Feedstock for engineered woods

Timber (miscellaneous items) 1. Cut to suitable sizes 2. Chipped

1. Firewood, co-processing 2. Landscape mulch, soil conditioner, fuel, etc.

Plastics 1. Recycled 1. New products Gypsum plasterboard 1. Cleaned

2. Crushed 3. Recycled

1. Reuse as boards 2. Soil conditioner 3. New gypsum products

Glass 1. Cleaned 2. Crushed 3. Recycled

1. Reused for windows, mirrors, etc. 2. Aggregate 3. New products

Electrical and sanitary fixtures

1. Clean 2. Separate unusable items into individual components to facilitate recycling

1. Reuse 2. New products

Insulation 1. Clean 2. Recycle

1. Reuse 2. New products

Packaging materials 1. Recycle 1. New packaging material


Benefits of introducing C&D Management and recovery Systems Experience in industrialized countries has shown that the benefits of effective C&D management programs outweigh any drawbacks that are encountered. The main benefits of introducing sustainable C&D Management Systems are:

1. Environmental and aesthetic improvement - Municipalities are faced with significant aesthetic issues associated with the inappropriate dumping of construction and demolition debris waste. Once inappropriately dumped, the cost of cleaning up this material is high and must be borne either by municipalities or landowners on which the material is dumped.

2. Healthy conditions - In addition, people living or working near inappropriate dumping sites are often exposed to potential health issues derived from the exposure to the materials contained in the accumulated C&D waste.

3. Increase of landfill life spans - C&D recovery processes will decrease the amount of material that eventually must be placed into landfills. This can help to extend the life of any formal disposal site.

4. Saving natural resources, as well as foreign exchange for imports - The use of recovered components from a C&D stream will offset the need for raw materials derived from natural resources, both those produced domestically or imported.

5. Saving energy for production of new materials - The reuse of construction and demolition waste components will save energy that would otherwise be used from producing new products. This will result in beneficial GHG mitigation impacts. In a study of the effects of recycling C&D materials in the United States, the USEPA estimated that increasing recycling of construction and demolition debris materials to 100% will mitigate up to 150 MMTCO2e per year; to 50% 75 MMTCO2e per year; and to 25% 40 MMTCO2e per year.

6. Reduction of costs of new constructions - Recovered materials may be less costly than new products manufactured with virgin materials. This could have the effect of reducing the overall cost of new constructions

Important prerequisites and recommendations for efficient C&D management in Colombia A number of measures are necessary for the development of effective C&D management systems and programs in Colombia. These may be viewed as the types of actions that may be required to accomplish the effective management of C&D materials in the country.

1. Research and development - Research concerning the effects of inappropriate dumping of C&D materials will help to establish the basis by which effective regulations and enforcement can be achieved. In addition, research may be required to provide a basis by which the construction industry will accept the quality of recovered materials in meeting appropriate building and construction standards thereby increasing the market opportunities for recovered materials.

2. Legislation and enforcement - Effective C&D management requires legal status and proper enforcement of rules and regulations to prevent poor and illegal practices. This enforcement


needs to be accompanied with sufficient fines that will serve as a strong incentive for properly managing the material from its source to final disposal or recovery.

3. Economic incentives to support the market - In addition to research and development concerning the characteristics of recovered materials, economic factors such as the lower cost of construction materials derived from recovered C&D components will increase the opportunity for reusing or selling recovered materials. In addition, public procurement practices in construction that give preference to recycled materials that meet required specifications will create greater demand for this materials. Such actions will be important in establishing sufficient outlets for the materials.

Conclusions and Recommendations As a result of this initial assessment, CCAP concludes the following in regard to including construction and demolition waste initiatives in an integrated Waste NAMA in Colombia:

1. The improper disposal of construction and demolition waste is a major environmental and anesthetic problem in many Colombian cities.

2. While laws and regulations exist to address construction and demolition waste, enforcement is lacking with the result that indiscriminate disposal of the material in inappropriate locations continues.

3. Experience in industrialized countries has shown that various components of construction and demolition waste can be recovered and sold if markets exist for the recovered material.

4. Due to the typical composition of construction and demolition waste in Colombia, climate change (GHG mitigation) benefits may be primarily derived through avoided emissions resulting from the use of recovered materials in lieu of virgin materials for producing new construction products or through direct reuse in construction projects.

5. Even with the maximum recovery of construction and demolition waste components through reuse, processing and recycling, GHG mitigation benefits are expected to be significantly lower than what could be achieved through processing and recovery processes associated with municipal solid waste stream which can contribute significant levels of organic material to anaerobic decomposition and resulting methane generation processes in Colombian landfills.

Based on these conclusions, CCAP recommends the following:

1. The national and municipal governments of Colombia should continue their efforts to improve the management of construction and demolition waste through further research into alternative uses of C&D materials and through enhanced enforcement of existing laws and regulations.

2. The management of construction and demolition material involves processes and output markets that are unique to the specific physical characteristics of the C&D waste. Since GHG mitigation benefits are greater from new approaches associated with managing municipal solid waste and its high organic content, CCAP recommends that the management of construction and demolition waste not be part of the integrated Waste NAMA based on potential resources available to accomplish meaningful progress in implementing the Waste NAMA in the near term.


Annex 8: Extended Product Responsibility In the original discussion concerning the content of a possible Waste NAMA in Colombia, consideration was given to including Extended Product Responsibility as an element of the waste NAMA. With this inclusion, EPR implementation would create a regulation for specific sectors where the responsibility of the producer over the whole life cycle of a product is established. In the waste management sector, this will encourage recycling and source reduction. An EPR policy is characterized by: (1) the shifting of responsibility (physically and/or economically; fully or partially) upstream toward the producer and away from municipalities who are totally responsible for solid waste management; and (2) the provision of incentives to producers to take into account environmental considerations when designing their products. The Ministry of the Environment has already started to produce mandatory regulations for the post-consumption treatment of several goods (including pesticide containers, medicines and expired drugs, and batteries and other electric accumulators); under which manufacturers must establish adequate channels so clients can return the products once they are used. Extending these efforts to other sectors will require overcoming barriers such as: a lack of technical capacities to implement such a program, a lack of education in the general population about the importance and benefits of recycling, and the presence of a very strong informal sector that depends on recycling for a living. Support from contributing countries would help promote EPR by providing financial assistance for the transition to a system that produces less landfill waste and emissions, capacity building, and the development and implementation of a comprehensive educational initiative.

1. Proposed core components of the EPR Waste NAMA element would include the following activities:

2. An analytical study to identify GHG emission reduction potential in different sectors and co-benefits of such a policy in order to identify priority sectors. The study would also identify possible legal and other barriers for implementing EPR in the identified priority sectors.

3. Proposal to define the mechanism of EPR that will be implemented for each selected sector, in the case that a different mechanism is required for particular sectors (e.g., deposit refunds, quotas, product bans, etc.).

4. Creation of an educational component to improve public consciousness about the importance of recycling.

5. Propose any necessary legal and regulatory changes to achieve the objective. EPR Basics Extended Producer/Product responsibility (EPR) is a strategy designed to promote the integration of environmental costs and responsibility associated with products throughout their life


cycles into the production of the products. In this way, policies are adopted that require producers to be financially or physically responsible for their products after their useful life. The concept was first formally introduced in Sweden by Thomas Lindhqvist in a 1990 report to the Swedish Ministry of the Environment. Subsequently, the following definition was initially adopted which still applies over 20 years later.

EPR is an environmental protection strategy to reach an environmental objective of a decreased total environmental impact of a product, by making the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life-cycle of the product and especially for the take-back, recycling and final disposal of the product.

In many cases, EPR uses governmental policy and regulations as well as economic incentives to encourage manufacturers to design environmentally responsible products by holding producers responsible for the costs of managing their products at the end of their life cycles. This policy approach attempts to relieve local governments of the full cost of managing priority products by requiring manufacturers to internalize the cost of recycling or disposal within the product price. EPR is based upon the principle that because producers have the greatest control over product design and marketing and these same companies also have the greatest ability and responsibility to reduce toxicity and the quantity of waste derived from using the product. EPR across the world can take the form of a reuse, buy-back, rake-back or recycling programs. In addition, the producer may choose to delegate responsibility for managing the end of life material to a third party paid by the producer for end-product management. In this way, EPR shifts the responsibility for waste management from the government to private industry. In the last 20 years, EPR programs grew in popularity in Europe and Asia. Some countries, such as the United States, consider mandated EPR programs, as in Europe, too costly and, therefore favor voluntary programs where producers participate by agreement. In addition, the concept of EPR is somewhat controversial with differing opinions as to its value and results. The end results and effects are difficult to measure which makes it difficult to consider the approach as a possible element of a Waste NAMA in Colombia. A number of economic approaches are currently employed to achieve EPR objectives including:

• Deposit refund systems: Deposit refund systems can encourage reuse and, at a minimum, provide an economic incentive to consumers to return products or containers.

• Targeted Product Taxes: Product taxes influence the choice of materials used to manufacture a product. For example, a targeted eco-tax is levied in Belgium that reduced the consumption of PVC which, when combusted contributes to the generation of trace organic emissions such as dioxin.


• Advanced disposal fees: These fees are designed to influence the choice of materials used, and can generate substantial funds which may or may not be used by government for environmental projects. They are sometimes refunded to consumers, but generally the consumer is unaware of the fee.

The principle of Extended Product Responsibility is an outgrowth and modification of the term Extended Producer Responsibility which is intended to not solely place the responsibility strictly on the producer. This is the basis for the German Packaging Ordinance and other European policies where responsibility is shared. The German Packaging Ordinance, for instance, is a system of shared responsibility among the retailers of packaged products, the producers of packaging, and consumers. The term Extended Product Responsibility has gained greater acceptance in the United States because it implies shared responsibilities in the product chain, although often the producer is in the best position, both technically and economically, to influence the rest of the product chain in reducing life-cycle environmental impacts. Extended Producer Responsibility in Colombia In Colombia, there are some EPR regulations that encourage product producers to take care of the whole life cycle of their products. The sectors with Colombia’s EPR regulation, at this point, are pesticide containers; medicines and expired drugs; used acid lead batteries; batteries and electric accumulators; used tires; fluorescent light bulbs; computers and peripherals. These are some quantifiable results of these initiatives:

• Pesticide containers: Between 1998 and 2010, 31,695 people participated and 3,146 tons of containers were reused, with coverage of 386 municipalities in 24 departments.

• Expired Drugs: 110 collection points in Bogota, 75 in the metropolitan area of Valle de Aburra, and a total of 7.4 tons of expired drugs collected.

• Used Acid Lead Batteries: this program started in September 2010, no conclusive information available yet, but many mechanic shops have installed collection units.

• Batteries and Electric Accumulators: 6 collection points in Bogota, 4 in Medellin, 3 in Cali and 2 in Manizales. About 120 collection points in the whole country. By 2010, 300 kilograms had been collected.

• Used Tires: 20 collection points in Medellin, about 80 in Bogota and 20 in Cali. By 2010, 162 tons of tires were collected.

Climate Change Aspects of Extended Producer Responsibility In addition to increasing product innovations and resource conservation benefits associated with EPR policies, these initiatives can frequently lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by:


• Reducing emissions from energy consumption due to manufacturing. Products reconfigured or redesigned to reduce materials require less energy to produce. Similarly, products made from recycled materials, and more durable products, are also more energy efficient. When less energy is used, fewer fossil fuels are burned and less carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere.

• Reducing emissions from incinerators where these technologies are used. Diverting certain materials from incinerators through waste prevention or recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

• Reducing methane emissions from landfills. Waste prevention and recycling diverts waste from landfills, reducing methane emissions.

• Increasing absorption of carbon dioxide by trees (carbon sinks). More efficient use of paper and wood resources, through source reduction and recycling, leaves more trees standing in the forest, to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Policies and Processes for Implementing Extended Producer Responsibility in Colombia EPR policies and initiatives have been implemented in many forms which are represented by three principal approaches where the EPR programs are mandatory, negotiated or voluntary. As is the case with most environmental based endeavors, mandatory programs will achieve the best results but are often the most difficult to implement. This is especially the case for EPR programs because of their inherent controversy relative to their actual value. Irrespective of whether the programs are mandated or not there are different instruments that are available to governments to achieve the desired results through EPR programs and policies. These include the following categories and instruments that are available to the government of Colombia: Regulatory instruments can include:

• Mandatory take-back; • Minimum recycled content standards; • Secondary materials utilization rate requirements; • Energy efficiency standards; • Disposal bans and restrictions; • Materials bans and restrictions; and • Product bans and restrictions

Economic instruments can include:

• Advance disposal fees; • Virgin materials taxes; • Removing subsidies for virgin materials; • Deposit/refund; and


• Environmentally preferable products procurement Information instruments can include:

• Seal-of-approval types of environmental labeling (Green Seal, Blue Angel); • Environmental information labeling (energy efficiency labeling, CFC use); • Product environmental profiles for the whole life cycle of materials; • Product hazard warnings; • Product durability labeling

A number of reasons are usually presented as to why EPR should be considered as a preferred policy approach for the end of life management for materials such as packaging and printed paper. The four common stated benefits represent that EPR:

1. Causes producers to alter packaging design and material selection leading to increased recyclable content thereby leading to higher recycling rates and/or less packaging use.

2. Provides additional funds for recycling programs, resulting in higher recycling rates. 3. Improves recycling program efficiency, leading to less cost, which provides a benefit to society. 4. Results in a fairer system of waste management in which individual consumers pay the cost of

their own consumption, rather than letting governments and general taxpayers pay the cost of managing the resulting waste materials.

In recent investigations, the above benefit claims have been challenged where data has shown that the benefits accrued in locations where aggressive EPR programs have been in existence for a while are not greater than those accrued in regions with aggressive recycling policies and programs. In implementing EPR policies and regulations in Colombia, lessons can be learned from the countries where similar programs have already been developed. The various studies of the program development that occurred in these countries indicated the following:

• Characteristics of products affect the management of the EPR programs and their effectiveness. • Mandatory programs give better results in the case when desired recycling level is economically

unprofitable. • Mandatory numerical collection/reuse/recycling targets have been effective in achieving higher

results. • Substance/landfill bans drive product re-design and development of alternative substances. • An effective and convenient collection system is a prerequisite for consumer participation. • Establishment of a financial mechanism for durable, complex products poses more challenges

than that for non-durable, simple products. • Individual financial responsibility presents an important opportunity to stimulate design changes

if it works for the product system.


As a result, the following can be viewed as essential elements of an effective EPR program which could form the basis for a more formal implementation of such programs in Colombia. Effective EPR programs have the following characteristics:

• Mandatory • Focus on products • Assignment of responsibility • Physical or financial responsibility • Performance standards and deadlines • Mandated phase-out of hazardous materials • Ban waste disposal and exports • Flexibility and accountability

Conclusions and Recommendations As a result of its initial assessment, CCAP concludes the following in regard to including EPR initiatives in an integrated Waste NAMA in Colombia:

1. Successful EPR programs throughout the world have helped to manage various solid waste materials thereby reducing the amount of solid waste placed in landfills while supporting the recovery and proper management (recycling, etc.) of specific materials through producer support and initiatives.

2. Controversy exists regarding the actual benefit and results associated with EPR programs where some believe that aggressive recycling initiatives and programs can achieve the same benefits that are accomplished by the most successful EPR programs but with less institutional complexity.

3. Because of the major impact of EPR programs on manufacturers, these programs are extremely difficult to develop and implement. To date, successful programs have focused on solid waste elements that may not contribute to significant GHG mitigation benefits. EPR associated with materials with significant organic content such as the German packaging EPR initiative is driven by regulatory requirements (Landfill Directives) that preclude the placement of untreated organics in E.U. landfills.

4. It is very difficult to measure the actual results attributable to EPR programs and initiatives. This may make it difficult to include the development of such a program in an integrated Waste NAMA which must include MRV considerations to accurately measure the NAMA component impacts and results.

Based on the above general conclusions, CCAP recommends the following:

1. The government of Colombia should continue to explore the potential benefits that could be accrued through developing effective EPR programs similar to that which have been successful in other countries.


2. Because of the difficulties in measuring the results and performance of conventional EPR initiatives and because of the evolving nature of landfill regulations in Colombia, CCAP recommends that the development of EPR policies should not be included in the development and implementation of the Colombia integrated Waste NAMA because of the long-term aspects for developing such programs and the difficulty in measuring program results after EPR programs have been implemented.


Annex 9: References

1. Alcaldía De Santiago De Cali. Primer Informe Proyecto NAMA. Santiago De Cali: Alcaldía De

Santiago De Cali, Colombia, 2012. Print.

2. Alcaldía Municipal De Ibagué. Plan De Gestión Integral De Residuos Sólidos. Primera

Actualización. Ibagué Tolima, Colombia, 2009. Print.

3. Aluna Consultores Limitada. Aproximación Al Mercado De Reciclables Y Las Experiencias

Significativas. Estudio Nacional Del Reciclaje Y Los Recicladores. 2011. Print.

4. Aluna Consultores Limitada. Informe Condensado Del Estudio Nacional De Reciclaje. 2011. Print.

5. AMVA, Universidad De Antioquia, and AINSA. Plan De Gestión Integral De Residuos Sólidos

Regional Del Valle De Aburrá. Rep. no. Convenio 325 De 2004. Medellín, Colombia, 2006. Print.

6. Arbeláez, Johannio Marulanda. Evaluación Y Ajuste De Plan De Gestión Integral De Residuos

Sólidos PGIRS 2004-2019. Alcaldía De Santiago De Cali. Departamento Administrativo De

Planeación Municipal. Santiago De Cali, Colombia, 2009. Print.

7. Barrera, Luis G and Luis B Castillo. Plan De Gestión Integral De Residuos Sólidos Municipio De

Sogamoso. Compañía De Servicios Públicos De Sogamoso SA ESP. Municipio De Sogamoso,

Colombia, 2005. Print.

8. Boulet, Emmanuel, et al. Inter-American Development Bank. Landfill Guidelines. An Approach to

Support Climate Change Friendly Landfill Investments. Washington, DC, USA, 2010. Print.

9. Caicedo, Apolinar Salcedo. Alcaldía Municipal De Cali. Plan De Gestión Integral De Residuos

Sólidos PGIRS 2004-2019. Santiago De Cali, Colombia, 2004. Print.

10. Cambridge Project Development Inc. Waste to Energy Facility at El Guacal Landfill. Feasibility

Study. Task 15 Report: Final Report. USTDA. 2011. Print.


11. Comisión De Regulación De Agua Potable Y Saneamiento Básico (CRA). Bases De Los Estudios

Para La Revisión Del Marco Tarifario Para El Servicio Público De Aseo. Bogotá, Colombia, 2011.

Print.

12. Comisión De Regulación De Agua Potable Y Saneamiento Básico (CRA). Opción Tarifaria Para

Multiusuarios Del Servicio De Aseo. Bogotá, Colombia, 2006. Print.

13. Consejo Nacional De Política Económica Y Social. Departamento Nacional De Planeación.

Lineamientos Y Estrategias Para Fortalecer El Servicio Público De Aseo En El Marco De La Gestión

Integral De Residuos Sólidos. Documento Conpes 3530. Bogotá, Colombia, 2008. Print.

14. Consorcio NAM Ltda and Velzea Ltda. Gestión De Los Residuos Orgánicos En Las Plazas De

Mercado De Bogotá, Principales Resultados. No. Contrato PNUD (COL/96/23). Print.

15. Correal, Magda C. et al. Superintendencia De Servicios Públicos. Diagnóstico Sectorial. Plantas

De Aprovechamiento De Residuos Sólidos. Bogotá, Colombia, 2008. Print.

16. Corredor, Martha. El Sector Reciclaje En Bogotá Y Su Región: Oportunidades Para Los Negocios

Inclusivos. FUNDES, No. 2. 2010. Print.

17. Dávila, José L., and G. A. Stege. Manual Del Usuario. Modelo Colombiano De Biogás. Versión 1.0.

2009. Print.

18. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (defra). Mechanical Biological Treatment of

Municipal Solid Waste. Enviros Consulting Limited. 2007. Print.

19. Fundación Carvajal. Factibilidad Para El Montaje De Una Empresa De Separación Y Reciclaje Para

Los Recicladores De La Zona 1 En Cali. Santiago De Cali, Colombia, 2011 Print.

20. Fundación Carvajal. Informe No. 2 Estudio De Factibilidad Para El Montaje De Una Empresa De

Separación Y Reciclaje Para Los Recicladores De La Zona 1 De La Ciudad De Cali. Santiago De Cali,



21. Gobierno de Chile, GTZ, Eco Ing. CONAMA. Infome Final. Estudio de Evaluación de Impactos

Económicos, Ambientales y Sociales de la Implemntación de la Responsabilidad Extendida del

Productor en Chile. Santiago, Chile. 2010. Print.

22. Gráficas Ducal Ltda. Resultados De Los Estudios Realizados Por El DANE Y La UESP Sobre El

Reciclaje En Bogotá, 2001-2003. El Reciclaje En Bogotá. Actores, Procesos Y Perspectivas. Rep.

no. Convenio OEI' UESP No 007-03. 2004. Print.

23. Hogg, Dominic, et. al. U.K. Eunomia Research and Consulting. Economic Analysis of Options for

Managing Biodegradable Municipal Waste, Final Report to the European Commission. Bristol,

UK. Print.

24. Jaramillo, Gladys, and Zapata, Liliana M. Universidad De Antioquia Aprovechamiento De Los

Residuos Sólidos Orgánicos En Colombia. Medellín, Colombia, 2008. Print.

25. Juan, Fonseca. Foro Reciclaje Y Saneamiento Básico Para Una Mejor Calidad De Vida. Asociación

Nacional De Empresas De Servicios Públicos Y Comunicaciones (ANDESCO). Medellín, Colombia,

2012. Lecture.

26. Lettieri, P., and Al-Salem , S. M. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Municipal Solid Waste

Management in the State of Kuwait. Rep. Vol. 34. European Journal of Scientific Research. 2009.

Print.

27. Marco Político Y Normativo Para La Gestión Integral De Residuos Sólidos En Colombia. Proyecto

Selección De Tecnologías Para La Recolección, Transporte, Recuperación, Tratamiento Y

Disposición Final En Torno Al Manejo Integral De Residuos Sólidos En Municipios Menores De

50.000 Habitantes. Rep. no. Convenio IDEAM-UNICEF-CINARA. Santiago De Cali, Colombia, 2005.

Print.


28. Ministerio De Ambiente, Vivienda Y Desarrollo Territorial. Generación Y Gestión De Residuos O

Desechos Peligrosos En Colombia - Año 2009. Bogotá, Colombia, 2011. Print.

29. Ministerio De Ambiente, Vivienda Y Desarrollo Territorial. Política Ambiental Para La Gestión

Integral De Residuos O Desechos Peligrosos. Dirección De Desarrollo Sectorial Sostenible.

Bogotá, Colombia, 2005. Print.

30. Ministerio De Ambiente, Vivienda Y Desarrollo Territorial. Reglamento Técnico Del Sector De

Agua Potable Y Saneamiento Básico Y Ambiental- RAS. Sección II Título F Sistema De Aseo

Urbano. Bogotá, Colombia, 2009. Print.

31. Morales, Guido Escobar. Cali en Cifras. Alcaldía De Santiago De Cali. Departamento

Administrativo De Planeación Municipal. Santiago De Cali, Colombia, 2011. Print.

32. Organización Panamericana de la Salud, Organización Mundial de la Salud. Análisis Sectorial de

Residuos Sólidos en Colombia. 1996. Print.

33. Ortega, María N. América Latina: Casos De Éxito En Reciclaje De PET. Tecnología Del Plástico.

2011. Print.

34. Reyes, Jonathan R. Inventario De Gases De Efecto Invernadero –GEI. Instituto De Hidrología Y

Estudios Ambientales IDEAM. Subdirección De Estudios Ambientales. Bogotá, Colombia, 2011.

Print.

35. Resolución 1459, No 46058 Diario Oficial et seq. 2005. Print.

36. Sierra, Carlos Alberto Pacheco, Natalie Arteaga Duarte, and Rocio Tibocha Tatino. Compania de

Servicios Publicos de Sogamoso. Ampliacion Relleno Sanitario-Diseno Terraza Doce. Sogamos,



37. Stege, Alex and Jim Michelsen. Environmental Protection Agency. Landfill Methane Outreach

Program. Landfill Assessment and Pre-Feasibility Study for Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization

at El Navarro Landfill. SCS Engineers. Cali, Colombia, 2008. Print.

38. Superintendencia De Servicios Públicos. Informe Anual Del Servicio Público De Aseo 2008.


39. Superintendencia De Servicios Públicos. Estudio Sectorial De Aseo 2010. Bogotá, Colombia, 2011.

Print.

40. Superintendencia De Servicios Públicos. Situación De La Disposición Final De Residuos Sólidos En

Colombia- Diagnóstico 2011 Bogotá, Colombia, 2011. Print.

41. Terraza, Horacio, and Sturzenegger, Germán. Dinámicas De Organización De Los Recicladores

Informales. Tres Casos De Estudio En América Latina. Tech. no. No. 117. Banco Interamericano

De Desarrollo. 2010. Print.

42. Tsilemou, Konstantinia and Panagiotakopoulos, Demetrios. Economic Assessment of

Mechanical-Biological Treatment Facilities. No.1 (39) p.55-63. Environmental Research,

Engineering and Management. 2007. Print.

43. UNFCCC. CDM Executive Board. Project Design Document Form (CDM PDD): The Colomba-

Guabal Gas Project, 2010.

44. UNFCCC. CDM Executive Board. Project Design Document Form (CDM PDD): Curva de Rodas and

La Pradera Landfill Gas Management Project, 2010.

45. UNFCCC. CDM Executive Board. Project Design Document Form (CDM PDD): El Guacal Landfill

Gas Flaring Project, 2010.

46. Unidad Administrativa Especial De Servicios Públicos. Programa Para La Gestión De Los Residuos

Sólidos Orgánicos Para La Ciudad De Bogotá, D.C. Bogotá, Colombia, 2010. Print.


47. Uribe, Eduardo, and Carolina Domínguez. Evolución Del Servicio De Aseo Domiciliario Durante La

Última Década. Publication No. CEDE 2005-20 ISSN 1657-7191. Universidad De Los Andes.


48. Wheeler, P.A., and L de Rome. Waste Pre-Treatment, R & D Technical Report. Environment

Agency UK. 2002. Print.

49. World Bank. Solid Waste Management Program Project. Rep. no. Report No. 48592- CO. 2009.

Print.

750 First Street, NE, Suite 940 Washington, DC 20002p +1.202.408.9260 f +1.202.408.8896www.ccap.org

SupportED by:

CENTER FOR CLEAN AIR POLICYccap.org/assets/Evaluation-of-NAMA-Opportunities-in-Colombias... · CENTER FOR CLEAN AIR POLICY EVALUATION OF NAMA OPPORTUNITIES ... SSPD - Superintendence

Documents