Sustainable waste management in Africa through CDM projects

R. Couth, C. Trois

CRECHE, Centre for Research in Environmental, Coastal and Hydrological Engineering, School of Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 13 August 2011
Accepted 28 February 2012
Available online 10 April 2012
Keywords:
Waste management
Waste hierarchy
Sustainable development
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
Africa
a b s t r a c t
Only few Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects (traditionally focussed on landll gas combus-
tion) have been registered in Africa if compared to similar developing countries. The waste hierarchy
adopted by many African countries clearly shows that waste recycling and composting projects are gen-
erally the most sustainable. This paper undertakes a sustainability assessment for practical waste treat-
ment and disposal scenarios for Africa and makes recommendations for consideration. The appraisal in
this paper demonstrates that mechanical biological treatment of waste becomes more nancially attrac-
tive if established through the CDM process. Waste will continue to be dumped in Africa with increasing
greenhouse gas emissions produced, unless industrialised countries (Annex 1) fund carbon emission
reduction schemes through a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol. Such a replacement should calculate
all of the direct and indirect carbon emission savings and seek to promote publicprivate partnerships
through a concerted support of the informal sector.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
This paper assesses the sustainability of practical options for the
management of urban municipal waste in Africa against disposal to
landll and the recovery of landll gas. The paper is the conclusion
of a study to quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from waste
management activities in Africa and evaluate sustainable methods
for controlling and reducing these emissions with the ultimate aim
to propose to local authorities a philosophy for the sustainable
management of these refuse. The study is part of a larger research
project on Zero Waste and Waste Management Strategies for the
effective reduction of carbon emissions in the atmosphere from
developing countries (with focus on Africa), which has been con-
ducted by the University of KwaZulu-Natal since 2002.
An extensive review of waste management practices across
Africa (Couth and Trois, 2010) has concluded that the most sustain-
able way to manage waste in the majority of urban communities is
to:
remove dry recyclables by scavenging, through door to door col-
lection, and/or a dirty materials recovery facility (MRF);
compost the remaining biogenic waste in windrows, using the
maturated compost as a substitute fertilizer; and
dispose reject fossil carbon (plastics, synthetic textiles, metals)
and inert waste in sanitary landlls. If biogenic waste is
removed the landlls should not require biogas extraction sys-
tems as the wastes will comprise mainly inert and fossil carbon
wastes.
This waste management practice is in accordance with the
internationally adopted waste hierarchy. It will require limited
capital investment in comparison to complex and expensive waste
treatment and landll disposal systems which are typically used in
developed countries. It will also require less technology and
complexity.
The UNFCCC had sought to initiate GHG emission reductions
through the Kyoto Protocol, which includes the CDM (United
Nations, December 1997). The Kyoto Protocol has two objectives,
rstly to support developed countries to reach their emission
reduction targets through the mobilisation of more cost efcient
reduction options in developing countries, and secondly to provide
funding for sustainable development in developing countries
(Couth and Trois, 2010). Round One of the Kyoto Protocol
0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.02.022
Abbreviations: AD, Anaerobic Digestion; CDM, Clean Development Mechanism;
CDIAC, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center; CER, Certied Emission
Reduction; CO
2
e, carbon dioxide equivalent; DAT, Dome Aeration Technology;
DM, dry matter; EU, European Union; EU-ETS, European Union Emissions Trading
Scheme; EF, emission factors; EfW, energy from waste; GHG, greenhouse gas; GWF,
Global Warming Factor; HDPE, high density polyethylene; IVC, in-vessel
composting; LCA, life-cycle assessment; LDC, Least Developed Country; LDPE, low
density polyethylene; MBT, mechanical biological treatment; MRF, materials
recovery facility; MSW, municipal solid waste; MWh, Mega Watt hours; PAS,
Publicly Available Specication; PDD, Project Design Document; REFIT, Renewable
Energy Feed-In Tariff; UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change; UNSD, United Nations Statistics Division; VER, Veried Emission Reduc-
tions; ww, wet waste.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 31 260 3065/55; fax: +27 31 260 1411.
E-mail address: troisc@ukzn.ac.za (C. Trois).
Waste Management 32 (2012) 21152125
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Waste Management
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ wasman
concludes for the Validation and Registration of new projects in
December 2012. There is less appetite for the Round Two period
after December 20122017 or 2020, with no new initiatives
planned to 2020. The caution of funders, the bureaucracy of the
CDM process, and the limited market for Certied Emission Reduc-
tions (CERs) in Round Two of Kyoto make it less likely that many
new CDM projects will be initiated across Africa, although many
countries in Africa are Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and will
be favoured for the purchase of CERs by the European Union Emis-
sions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS). The CDM is dying and a new
replacement mechanism is needed to control carbon emissions
from waste management in all developing countries.
This paper seeks to quantify the cost, in terms of carbon reduc-
tions and social benets, of different recycling and windrow com-
posting options for municipal waste against disposal in landlls
(with or without landll gas and energy recovery systems). Follow-
ing this introduction, the paper quanties the emission reduction
benets of recycling wastes and composting biogenic wastes. The
paper summarises CDM waste opportunities in Africa, before mak-
ing a sustainable development comparison of ve scenarios for
waste management for the three elements of sustainability: eco-
nomic, environmental and social. This paper provides conclusions
on sustainable waste management in Africa and recommendations
to the UNFCCC for an improved replacement to CDM beyond 2012.
2. Waste recycling and composting
Solid waste managed by municipalities is generally referred to
as municipal solid waste (MSW). The specic types of wastes in-
cluded in MSW vary signicantly, but essentially comprise of
materials, which can be recycled or composted.
2.1. Waste recycling
Every waste management practice generates GHG, both directly
(i.e. emissions from the process itself) and indirectly (i.e. through
energy consumption). However, the overall climate impact or ben-
et of the waste management system will depend on net GHGs,
accounting for both emissions and indirect, downstream, GHG
savings. The actual magnitude of these impacts varies signicantly
between nations due to different energy production and consump-
tion trends. Estimates of GHG emissions from waste management
practices tend to be based on life-cycle assessment (LCA) methods.
However, there is a lack of data to carry out waste management
LCA studies in many countries in Africa due to the key assumptions
being based on such variables as local/regional waste composition,
country-specic energy mix, and technology performance (Couth
and Trois, 2010). These data are not necessarily transferable be-
tween countries. This makes it very difcult to make global com-
parisons regarding the GHG performance of different waste
management technologies. This is illustrated in Table 1 (UNEP,
2010) where the amount of GHG emitted is expressed as carbon
dioxide equivalent and is relative to a unit of activity (e.g. kgCO
2
e
per unit input) (BSI, 2007). Table 1 show a signicant range in
kgCO
2
e for materials (paper, aluminium, steel, glass and plastic)
recycled in different countries demonstrating the difcultly in
making global comparisons for emissions savings from recycling.
GHG emission savings from applying the waste hierarchy are
achieved through: reduced raw material extraction and manufac-
turing, recycled materials replacing virgin materials, compost
replacing organic fertilizers, recovery of energy, avoided landll
emissions, and the carbon storage of the remaining fossil materials
in landll.
The climatic benets of waste avoidance and recycling far out-
weigh the benets from any waste treatment technology (e.g.
Anaerobic Digestion (AD), energy from waste (EfW), pyrolysis, gas-
ication), even where energy is recovered during the process (EU
2008/98/EC (2008)).
The approach to calculating emissions from recycled inputs de-
pends on the material (e.g. aluminium, ferrous metals, glass, plas-
tic, paper) and whether the material recycling is part of a closed
loop system or not. A closed loop system implies that when recy-
cled, the material does not change and is used again for the same
purpose. Greenhouse gas emissions from recycling materials are
calculated in the European Union (EU) using British Standard Insti-
tution Publicly Available Specication (PAS) 2050 (BSI, 2008). The
PAS 2050 method assesses the impact of GHG emissions arising
from the life cycle of products over a 100-year period following
the formation of the product. Where the life cycle of a product in-
cludes a material input with recycled content originating from the
same product system, the emissions arising from that material
shall reect the product specic recycled content and/or recycling
rate based on the calculation given below:
Emissions=unit 1 R1 EV R1 ER 1 R2 ED
Where R1 = proportion of recycled material input, R2 = proportion
of material in the product that is recycled at end-of-life, ER = emis-
sions arising from recycled material input, per unit of material,
EV = emissions arising from virgin material input, per unit of mate-
rial, ED = emissions arising from disposal of waste material, per unit
of material.
Research into GHG emission factors (EF) for recycling are pub-
lished for developed countries as provided in Table 2. The gures
are expressed as CO
2
e. GHG emissions are sometimes quoted in g-
ures of mass of carbon equivalent, rather than CO
2
e. References in
Table 2 are included in the References at the end of this paper. To
convert carbon equivalents into CO
2
e, a multiplication factor of 44/
12 must be applied. The producers of recycling emission factors for
developed countries do not recommend that the factors are used
by organisations or individuals in other countries, as the emission
factors are specic to the country for which they are produced and
many will vary to a very signicant degree for other countries
(Defra, 2009a). There are no such tables for countries across Africa,
although gures have been prepared for other developing coun-
tries, e.g. India (Chintan, 2009). The gures in Table 2 do, however,
give an indication of the emission savings that can be gained by
recycling dry materials. It is recommended that similar tables
should be developed for each country in Africa.
The UNFCCC is developing methodologies for GHG emissions
savings from dry waste recycling projects. There is currently a
methodology for the recovery and recycling of high density poly-
Table 1
UNEP, 2010 CO
2e
benets of recycling.
Material KgCO
2
-e saved per tonne of material recycled Northern Europe Australia USA Range Mean
Paper 6002500 670740 838 937 6002500 1047
Aluminium 10,000 17,720 4079 407917,720 10,600
Steel 2000 400440 540 4002000 987
Glass 500 560620 88 88500 393
Plastic 01000 01180 0507 01180 448
2116 R. Couth, C. Trois / Waste Management 32 (2012) 21152125
ethylene (HDPE) and low density polyethylene (LDPE) materials in
municipal solid wastes to process them into intermediate or n-
ished products, e.g. plastic resin to displace production of virgin
HDPE and LDPE materials in dedicated facilities, thereby resulting
in energy savings and emission reductions (UNFCCC, 2011). Emis-
sion reductions can only be claimed under this methodology for
the difference in energy use for the production of HDPE/LDPE prod-
ucts from virgin inputs versus production from recycled material.
The methodology only applies to plastics manufactured in non-
Annex 1 countries. Plastics must be sourced and processed within
a radius of 200 km from the recycling facility. Further methodolo-
gies need to be prepared for metals (ferrous and non-ferrous),
paper and glass, although this methodology for plastics recycling
does recognise other materials such as glass and paper found in so-
lid wastes that are manufactured in industrial processes can be
potentially recycled. Project proponents are encouraged to submit
a revision of this methodology to include additional materials pro-
posing conservative default values for specic energy consumption
for the production from virgin raw materials (UNFCCC, 2011).
The difculty with developing a standard methodology for
emission reductions from energy savings from all dry recyclable
materials is that the energy use and energy saving is very country
and project specic, and is dependent upon the emissions gener-
ated in producing the energy source. In 2006 Africa was attributed
as having a grid emission factor of 733 kgCO
2
/MWh for electricity
consumed (Defra, 2009b). The grid emission factor is the kgCO
2
emitted per MWh generated. However, CO
2
e emissions attributed
to electricity production vary signicantly and range from
18 kgCO
2
/MWh (hydroelectric) to 1033 kgCO
2
/MWh (coal) (Dey
and Lenzen, 2000). Over 84% of electricity in Angola is generated
from hydro (Trading Economics, 2011a) whilst 93% of electricity
generated in South Africa is from coal (Eskom, 2010), so that the
electricity used in managing waste in Angola has signicantly less
impact than the same amount of electricity used for similar activ-
ities in South Africa.
2.2. Waste composting
The total carbon content of MSW can be divided into two main
categories biogenic carbon and fossil carbon (Moller, 2007). Bio-
genic carbon is mainly found in biodegradable fractions, such as or-
ganic kitchen waste and cardboard (bio-waste), and paper. Fossil
carbon is non-degradable and is found in plastic and synthetic
fabric.
The anaerobic degradation of biogenic waste in landlls gener-
ates CH
4
which is a signicant GHG with a global warning potential
21 times greater than CO
2
. However, the volume of methane pro-
duced can be signicantly reduced by the composting of MSW
prior to disposal. Anaerobic Digestion (AD) in purpose built engi-
neered facilities is an alternative method to composting for the
treatment of biogenic wastes. The main outputs from AD facilities
are digestate (solid and/or liquid dependent on the type of technol-
ogy used) and energy. The digestate may be used as a fertilizer as
an alternative to compost. The advantage of AD over composting is
energy recovery, providing that there is suitable infrastructure in
place to harness and export the energy produced. Also, AD requires
less land than compositing. However, it has the fundamental disad-
vantage that the process in technologically more complex to man-
age than composting, as well as requiring signicant nancial
investment, and the effective management of AD technology is
therefore questionable in the long term for many countries in
Africa.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to composting of or-
ganic waste and the use of compost include use of electricity and
fuels in plant operation, and emissions of methane and nitrous
oxide from the composting process itself. These process emissions
are far outweighed by GHG emission savings from methane emis-
sions from organic waste which would otherwise have been dis-
posed to landll; electricity and fuels used in the production of
inorganic fertilizers or the excavation of peat; and use of the com-
post. Compost applied to land also reduces the need for pesticides,
tillage (by improving soil structure and reducing erosion) and irri-
gation (by increasing water retention of the soil). The composting
GHG emission savings depends on waste type and composition
(kitchen organics, garden waste, MSW), technology type (open sys-
tems in Africa (open windrow, Dome Aeration Technology (DAT)),
and the use of the compost. The overall global warming factor
(GWF) for composting varies between signicant savings (900
kgCO
2
e per tonne of wet waste (ww)) to a net load (300 kgCO
2
e
per tonne ww) (Boldrin et al. 2009). GHG savings from the avoid-
ance of the manufacture of synthetic fertilisers are around 4
13 kgCO
2
e per kg of synthetic Nitrogen, whilst the substitution of
peat has been estimated to save between 4 and 81 kgCO
2
e per
tonne of composted waste (PROGNOS, 2008; Boldrin et al., 2009).
Compost is dened as the solid particulate material which has
been sanitised and stabilised as the result of composting (Haug,
1993; Joint Research Centre, 2008). Composting consists of two
stages, active composting followed by maturation. For biogenic
Table 2
Researched CO
2e
benets of recycling.
Material waste
stream
Item Benet Recycling kgCO
2e
/t
ACR + (European
Cities) 2009
WARM, US
EPA
(2010)
UK, Defra
(2009a,b)
(Closed loop)
NSW,
Australia
(2005)
Scotland, Zero
Waste Plan
2010
Range Mean
Paper 840 3510 713 400 1080 4003510 1309
Plastics HDPE (high density
polyethylene)
1380 1500 500 1340 5001500 1180
LDPE (low density
polyethylene)
1670 1300 13001670 1485
PE/PP (Polyethylene/
Polypropylene)
160 160
PET (Polyethylene
Terephthalate)
1640 1520 1500 15001640 1553
PS (Polystyrene) 1700 1700
PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) 740 740
Glass 180 280 315 300 838 180838 383
Steel 1000 1800 1300 800 4229 8004229 1826
Aluminium 11,000 13,610 9000 15,200 9132 9000
15,200
11588
R. Couth, C. Trois / Waste Management 32 (2012) 21152125 2117
waste composting to be successful (Haug, 1993) the oxygen con-
centration should be maintained above 15%; the temperature in
the composting process should be 5060 C; the moisture content
should be 5055%; the carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio should be be-
tween 25:1 and 40:1 (Trois et al., 2007; SNIFFER, 2011); the pH
should be neutral, i.e. between 6.5 and 8; there should be a small
particle size to allow greater surface area for aeration; and the Res-
piration Index of the composted waste must be reduced to less
than 5 gO
2
/kgDM (dry matter).
Crop residues and animal manure have traditionally been com-
posted in long rows referred to as windrows. There are several op-
tions for the management of oxygen and moisture in windrows:
the windrows can be turned with moisture added; air can be
sucked on blown into the windrow; or pathways for air movement
can be provided by Dome Aeration Technology (DAT) (Parr et al.,
1999; Trois et al., 2005, 2007). In-vessel composters (IVCs) are an
alternative to windrow composting and generally consist of metal
tanks or concrete bunkers in which air ow and temperature can
be more readily controlled, using the principles of a bioreactor
(e.g. VCU, http://www.vcutechnology.com). IVCs are not consid-
ered applicable to many territories in sub-Saharan Africa due to
reasons of cost, availability of technology and maintenance
requirements.
In developed countries there is legislation for the quality of
MSW compost that can be applied to land. Compost from MSW
in Europe must comply with PAS 100: 2011 Specication for com-
post material (BSI, January 2011). This only permits compost from
source segregated biowaste to be applied to land. The authors have
researched similar standards for the application of biowaste to
land in Africa and can nd no similar legislation. For example,
South Africa has no comparable legislation.
Likewise for composting projects, there is no market for com-
posting projects without nancial support. It is cheaper in the short
term to dump waste than compost it. Markets for waste compost
are not established in countries across Africa.
3. GHG emission saving opportunities in Africa
3.1. African potential
UNFCCC data show that of the fty countries in sub-Saharan
Africa, all but ve (Botswana, Mauritius, Reunion, Seychelles and
South Africa) had emissions below the 2.256 tCO
2
per capita re-
ported threshold to control global warming (UNFCCC, October
2005). The mean for sub-Saharan countries in 2004 was
1.0215 tCO
2
per capita (Couth and Trois, 2009b). However, the
source data for these gures is very questionable with signicant
variations between countries. The sub-Saharan countries recorded
a massive increase in CO
2
emissions between 1994 and 2004, be-
tween 222% and 307% for UNSD (United Nations Statistics Division)
and CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) gures
respectively. These indicators show that 8% of the GHG emissions
for Africa are from waste, greater than the average of 4.2% for
Non-Annex I parties (Couth and Trois, 2009b). The GHG emissions
from waste will continue to increase as the urban population
grows and people seek higher living standards. Consequently,
there is a signicant potential to limit GHG emission increases
from urbanisation in Africa through improved waste management.
This study has concluded to date that the average urban MSW
waste production in Africa is around 230 kg/head/year of which
the organic content is around 56% (Couth and Trois, 2010). With
an urban population of over 0.4 billion, and a global warming po-
tential (GWP) of CH
4
of 21 compared with CO
2
, the GHG emissions
from landll gas for Africa equate to around 35 MtCO
2
e/year
(Couth et al., 2011). The global warming impact of landlling
operations may be reduced by capturing and combusting the land-
ll gas. However, landll gas management systems in Africa are
typically only effective at collecting around 50% of the generated
gas (World Bank, 2007), and would therefore only reduce this g-
ure to 15 MtCO
2
e/year if all waste was disposed to landll with
effective landll gas management systems (Couth et al., 2011). In
comparison, composting schemes would prevent up to 100% of
the landll gas emissions by pre-treating the biogenic waste prior
to nal disposal. If dry recyclable materials are removed from the
MSW before composting then there are further considerable emis-
sion reductions related to excavation of materials and manufacture
of goods. Additionally, the compost will be of a quality to apply to
land.
3.2. MSW compost GHG emission savings
GHG emission savings from MSW compost are calculated using
methodological tool AM0025 and Annex 10 (IPCC, 1996, UNFCCC
AM0025, 2008 and UNFCCC Annex 10, 2008). This calculates emis-
sions (tCO
2
e) of CH
4
fromwaste based on a rst order decay landll
gas production curve. The quantity of emission reductions that can
be claimed by a composting project is the emissions reductions
that would have been gained from a landll gas combustion pro-
ject. This is only 50% of the GHG emissions over the period of the
CDM project (7 years twice renewable, or 10 years).
Composting has the advantage that 98% of the emissions can
theoretically be avoided during the period that the waste is dis-
posed, whereas CDM landll gas projects can only capture and
combust around 50% of the emissions from the landll gas produc-
tion curve for the Registered CDM project period. Fig. 1 illustrates
the bulk landll gas production over a period of 40 years for the
case study of MSW production of 230 kg/head/year at a 56% organ-
ic content for a population of 1,000,000. It shows the quantity of
gas that can be practically captured and combusted over the
40 years, and that a composting project can theoretically avoid
98% of gas emissions over a period of 10 years. Fig. 1 shows that
AM0025 does not provide CERs for 40 years of the landll gas emis-
sions avoided during the 10 year composting period. It also does
not even provide for the bulk landll gas emissions avoided during
the CDM project period.
Consequently, whilst composting CDM projects lead to the
immediate avoidance of nearly all methane emissions, CDM in-
come is reduced and delayed. It is considered that this anomaly
should be addressed by the UNFCCC, and that if the Kyoto Protocol
is replaced, CERs should be paid for the CH
4
emissions avoided
from composting the waste as illustrated in Fig. 1. This would
encourage waste composting projects in Africa which conform
more closely to the waste hierarchy than landll gas combustion
and landll gas to energy projects.
Fig. 1. GasSim2 predictions on landll gas emissions for cost benet analysis.
2118 R. Couth, C. Trois / Waste Management 32 (2012) 21152125
3.3. CDM opportunities
In February 2011, the CDMPipeline web site (http://cdmpipeline.
org/) (CD4CDM, February 2011) was reporting:
i. 5872 CDM projects in the pipeline (Validated or awaiting
Validation);
ii. 157 CDM projects in 24 African territories. This represents
2.7% of Validated projects or projects at Validation;
iii. six countries in Africa with 10 or more CDM projects (Egypt,
Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda, with
South Africa having the most (39, 23.7%));
iv. 101,144 ktCO
2
e CERs from these projects by 2012;
v. 30 (19.1%) of the projects and 17% of the CERs were for the
reduction of landll gas emissions which includes landll
gas aring, landll gas power generation, combustion of
MSW, gasication of MSW and landll composting;
vi. four of the projects were landll composting in Lagos, Nige-
ria (CDM 5034) (UNFCCC PDD, 2009)); Jinja, Uganda (CDM
2956) (UNFCCC PoA, 2009); Cairo, Egypt (CDM 3268)
(UNFCCC PDD, 2007) and Khartoum, Sudan (CDM 6344)
(UNFCCC PDD, 2010);
vii. 10 of the 30 projects in v. above include landll gas to elec-
tricity; and
viii. 17 of the 30 projects in v. above include landll gas aring.
It is recognised that recycling and composting projects are
poorly represented amongst all CDM projects. Composting projects
only represent 9% of the UNFCCC CDM waste projects in 2010
(Rogger et al., 2011).
The rst example of CDM applied to waste composting in Africa
is the Cairo CDM project, which involves mechanical and manual
sorting of dry waste, followed by the shredding and turned wind-
row composting of the wet waste (UNFCCC PDD, 2007). The second
PDD is for small scale waste composting projects through a Pro-
gramme of Activities in Jinja Municipality in Uganda. The third
CDM waste composting project in Lagos (UNFCCC PDD, 2009) in-
volves the shredding of unloaded waste to <7 cm followed by
windrow composting. The fourth CDM waste-composting project
is in Khartoum, (Tawg et al., 2009; UNFCCC PDD, 2010). In this
fourth project the MSW is rst sorted through a dirty materials
recovery facility (MRF). The sorting stage is divided into waste
receiving and pre-sorting, and sorting to remove bulky items (e.g.
furniture, electrical equipment), plastics, glass, metals and card-
board. The selected biodegradable fraction is then aerobically com-
posted in linear windrows (approximately 100 m long and 5 m
wide). Water is added to the windrows using specialised spraying
equipment to maintain optimum moisture content and facilitate
the composting process. Purpose built machinery is used to turn
the windrows regularly to maintain the aerobic degradation of
the waste materials, enhance the composting process and improve
homogeneity of the product. The oxygen and moisture content of
the windrow composting material is monitored and controlled.
After a period of about one month, the windrow material is
screened and stockpiled for a further month long maturation per-
iod. Following completion of the maturation and screening pro-
cesses, the nal product is sold as organic soil conditioner. The
initial processing capacity is 960 tons MSW daily and is expected
to double by 2013. After that, the capacity may be further ex-
tended, depending on the volumes of waste collected and market
demand for compost. The project is estimated to lead to
1,197,250 tCO
2
e emission reductions during the crediting period,
at an average amount of 119,725 tCO
2
e per year.
The four projects use the AM0025 CDM methodology and do
not claim CDM credits for recycled materials. The UNFCCC does
not have a methodology for the full reduction in carbon emissions
from mechanical biological treatment projects.
4. Sustainable development comparison
Sustainable development was dened in the 1987 report of the
Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future, as development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Report
was welcomed by the UN General Assembly in its resolution 42/
187 (United Nations, December 1987). The 2005 World Summit
further dened sustainable development as poverty eradication,
changing unsustainable patterns of production and consumption
and protecting and managing the natural resource base of eco-
nomic and social development (United Nations, 2005). Conse-
quently, to provide sustainable development three elements
must be achieved, namely economic, environmental and social
capital. The UNFCCC has methodologies for calculating carbon
emission reductions but has no parallel methodologies for assess-
ing sustainable development. A comparison of these three ele-
ments of sustainability is considered below for the following
scenarios for waste management in Africa:
1. MSW composting in static DAT windrows;
2. shredded MSW composting in turned windrows;
3. dry recyclable material recovery and shredded MSWcomposting
in turned windrows (MBT - mechanical biological treatment);
4. landlling with gas aring; and
5. landlling with gas combusted to generate electricity.
The factors that need to be considered in a holistic approach to
sustainable waste management are summarised in Table 3.
4.1. Economic sustainability comparison
The economic comparison between recycling and composting,
and engineered landll has been considered with and without
CDM income. The economic comparison is based upon a cost-effec-
tiveness model produced using Microsoft Excel, with spreadsheets
for each of the above scenarios. Costs are based on capital expen-
diture (capex) and operational expenditure (opex) from the
authors knowledge and experience of waste management and
composting contracts in Africa. A quantitative cost comparison
model has been prepared but the reported costs are subjective
and project specic. The quantitative model calculates net present
value and allows for ination at the current South African rate, to-
gether with the cost of nancing.
A cost comparison between composting and landlling options
is dependent on the amount of MSW that needs to be disposed. The
Table 3
Sustainability factors.
Sustainability factors
Capex
Opex
Income
Discount rate
Ination rate
Venture debt rate
Emissions from material resources
Emissions from transport
Emissions from energy use
Emissions from waste treatment
Emissions from waste storage/disposal
Employment
Welfare and well being
R. Couth, C. Trois / Waste Management 32 (2012) 21152125 2119
cost comparison model applies to urban waste and assumes a pop-
ulation of 1,000,000 generating 230 kg/head/year. An organic con-
tent of 56% has been used for the rst order decay model
calculation for the landll gas generated. The assumption for the
three composting scenarios is that the windrows are placed on a
constructed hard standing and the surface water runoff is managed
as dirty water. The dirty water is discharged and managed through
a reed bed. All three windrow options include for the monitoring of
oxygen, temperature, moisture content and C:N. None of the com-
posted options include for the forced aeration of the windrows
although the moisture content can be controlled.
For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the assumptions which have
been applied to all scenarios are given in Table 4 and are explained
below:
(a) the CDM income is 16/tCO
2
e per CER with 1.33 $/
exchange and 7R/$ exchange. It is assumed that it takes
12 months for CER Verication and Issuance by the UNFCCC,
although some projects have taken considerably longer than
this;
(b) a 10 year project life is taken, assuming a 10 year CDM life is
selected. A project will be more viable if the 3 7 year CDM
life option is selected;
(c) a 7 year life for plant and equipment is assumed;
(d) a compost income of $2.3/t (WRAP, 2008) for sorted and
shredded MSW composting with no income from other
unsorted composting options;
(e) the land costs are 100,000/ha. This will be very variable in
countries across Africa; and
(f) a discount rate of 3.5% (Treasury, 2011) to convert all capital
(capex) and operational cost (opex) to net present values
(NPV); an ination rate of 3.7% (Trading Economics,
2011b); and venture debt of 20% (8.68% cost of the South
African government borrowing for 10 years (Trading Eco-
nomics, 2011c), plus 1112% risk premium).
The cost-effectiveness model for the two landll gas scenarios
has been based on GasSim2 (Gregory and Rosevear, 2005) model-
ling of the above parameters using average African waste analysis
(Couth and Trois, 2010). The cost-effectiveness model for the com-
posting scenarios has continuous composting with 6 weeks com-
posting followed by 11 weeks maturation. It is also assumed that
the compost can be applied to land, with the compost from the
sorted and shredded MSW in turned windrows option having a
market value and being sold. The compost from MSW in static
DAT windrows and shredded MSW in turned windrows options
is not of a quality to be sold but may be used as an organic fertil-
izer. CDM income can theoretically be claimed for the emission
savings from the avoided manufacture of compost achieved by
the alternative use of waste compost. However, as such compost
is not commercially generated in many countries in Africa, no
allowance is made for this in the cost-effectiveness model. Organic
compost does not substitute chemical fertilizers.
Income for the ve scenarios is calculated as follows:
1. MSW composting in static DAT windrows;
a. CERs from landll gas at 98% avoidance; and
b. avoided landll disposal costs.
2. Shredded MSW composting in turned windrows;
a. CERs from landll gas at 98% avoidance; and
b. avoided landll disposal costs.
3. Sorted and shredded MSW composting in turned windrows
(MBT (Mechanical, biological treatment));
a. CERs from landll gas at 98% avoidance;
b. CERs from recycled materials;
c. avoided landll disposal costs;
d. sale of recyclable materials; and
e. sale of compost.
4. Landlling with gas aring;
a. CERs from landll gas at 50% landll gas recovery and 97%
combustion efciency.
5. Landlling with gas to electricity;
a. CERs from landll gas 50% landll gas recovery and 97%
combustion efciency;
b. CERs from the emission savings for the generation of elec-
tricity by fossil fuel (the 2010 published Eskom grid emis-
sion factor of 0.00103 tCO
2
e/kWh is used); and
c. sale of electricity (standard purchase prices, no REFIT)
(Couth et al., 2011).
The sorted and shredded MSW composting in turned windrows
provides CDM income for the tCO
2
e emission saving from the
reprocessing of dry recyclable materials against use of virgin mate-
rials together with the CDM income from avoided landll gas gen-
eration. The CDM income is calculated from the rising landll gas
collected curve (50% of the gas generated) over 10 years in Fig. 1.
Ten years is the selected CDM time period. The CDM income from
carbon emissions saved in tCO
2
e from the reprocessing of recycled
materials against manufacture from virgin materials is based upon
Table 1 which is described in the environmental sustainability
comparison made below. An income of $0.02/kWh is used for the
sale of electricity. $0.02/kWh was the rate quoted by Eskom for
the eThekwini Municipality CDM projects in 2009 (Couth et al.,
2011). Eskom average prices have increased four times from since
2008 by 260% from $0.02/kWh (Aquasolar, 2011), however Eskom
pay less than their average price for the supply of electricity to cov-
er their transmitting and management costs.
The landlling with gas to electricity option could provide addi-
tional income from higher prices paid for electricity generated by
renewable fuels. However, few countries in Africa have renewable
energy tariffs for electricity. The South Africa Government passed
into law the Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff (REFIT) mechanism
in March 2009 to promote the deployment of renewable energy
(NERSA, 2009), but this has yet to be applied to landlling with
gas to electricity projects in South Africa (Couth et al., 2011). The
cost-effectiveness model includes a nominal avoided landll dis-
posal cost for the composting scenarios, $2/t. This equates to a cost
saving to a municipality of $1.15 m/year in avoided landll of the
wastes for the modelled population of 1,000,000. Gate prices for
disposal to landll in the EU are calculated on the whole life costs
for the management of the waste disposed in the landlls, and with
Landll Taxes can be of the order of $100/t. Gate prices for the dis-
Table 4
Cost effectiveness model assumptions.
No. Factor Data
1 CDM income per CER tCO2e 16.00
2 Project life 10 years
3 CDM income per CER tCO2e 7 years
4 Compost income $2.30
5 Land cost 100,000/ha
6 Discount rate 3.50%
7 Compost period 6 weeks
8 Compost maturation period 11 weeks
9 Composting landll gas emission avoidance 98%
10 Landll gas extraction efciency 50%
11 Landll gas combustion efciency 97%
12 Grid emission factor tCO2e/kWh 0.00103
13 Electricity income per kWh $0.02
14 Landll disposal cost per tonne $2
15 Compost density kg/m
3
550
16 Dry recyclables capture rate 80%
17 Dry recyclables recovery rate 80%
2120 R. Couth, C. Trois / Waste Management 32 (2012) 21152125
posal of wastes to landll are minimal in most countries in sub-
Saharan Africa.
In calculating the costs for the options, the same land area is ta-
ken for the three composting options. DAT windrows may be larger
as their size is not restricted by turning equipment and require a
slightly smaller land area, however they have a lower overall den-
sity due to bulky material. The density of the compost depends on
source material. For comparison, green waste windrow compost
has a density around 550 kg/m
3
and composting results in a reduc-
tion in the weight of around 35% (Defra, 2009b). The MBT option
requires additional land for sorting and storage of dry recyclable
materials, but less area for composting.
For the MBT option, it is recognised in Africa that recyclable
materials are sorted and recovered when the waste is collected.
However, in urban areas there remains a certain amount of dry
recyclable materials in the waste (Couth and Trois, 2011). The
cost-effectiveness model assumes 80% of the dry recyclables are
captured from collected waste with an 80% recovery rate. Of the
remaining materials, 80% are recovered at the MRF. Glass, paper
and card recovered at the MRF will have little value, but ferrous
metals, aluminium cans and plastic bottles will have a greater va-
lue. Net income from the sale of these materials is calculated based
upon the tonnage of material captured multiplied by the net prices,
where the net prices are the international prices for the materials
less the collection, handling and transfer costs. The net income
from CDM credits is based on the mean tCO
2
e UNEP gures in Ta-
ble 1, although it is considered that these underestimate the emis-
sions saved as illustrated in Table 2. The costs for landlling with
gas aring and landlling with gas to electricity calculates capex
and opex for the operational costs for the landll gas management
systems for 10 years, but does not include any costs for the long
term management of the landlls.
The ranking from the cost-effectiveness model with and with-
out CDM income is identical and is as follows:
1. MBT sorted and shredded MSW in turned windrows;
2. MSW in static DAT windrows;
3. shredded MSW in turned windrows;
4. landlling with gas aring; and
5. landlling with gas to electricity.
Considering the cost-effectiveness model ranking:
1. Sorted and shredded MSW in turned windrows. This is the most
favourable option from the cost-effectiveness model due to the
income derived from dry recyclables and compost, although the
value and security of the income from the sale of recyclables
and compost is uncertain. The amortization period for this sce-
nario is calculated as 3 years but is very dependent on income
from recyclate. The ve sources of income for this scenario
listed above makes this scenario considerably more nancially
attractive than the other options. The most valuable income
source is CERs from the recyclates. A tonne of aluminium cans
gives a CDM income of $169,600 ($16 10,600 tCO
2e
/t). It
should however be noted that sorted and shredded MSW in a
turned windrow project requires considerably more capital
investment than just windrow composting, and such projects
will therefore be dependent on the availability of funding which
will be difcult in less stable African countries. The 4 year
amortization is dependent on the availability of dry recyclable
materials and the CDM income from dry recyclable materials.
The UNFCCC currently does not have a combined mechanical
biological treatment methodology. If recyclable CDM income
is excluded the amortization is 6 years which is longer that
the other two composting options. The shredded MSW in
turned windrows and MSW in static DAT windrows options
could be favoured over the sorted and shredded MSW in turned
windrows option as they have an existing UNFCCC CDM meth-
odology, a lower capex, and therefore the need to resource less
funding.
2. MSW in static DAT windrows. The cost for the static DAT wind-
row composting is slightly cheaper than the shredded MSW in
turned windrow option although there is little difference in
the capex costs. The cost benet of the MSW in static DAT win-
drows option is very similar to the shredded MSW in turned
windrows option. It is questionable whether turning, air injec-
tion/exhaustion and moisture control equipment for windrow
composting is technically viable in sub-Saharan Africa. How-
ever, if CDM or other funding is available, it would be recom-
mended that the static piles are turned and the moisture is
controlled. Turning will control oxygen, and moisture can be
managed by monitoring the windrows and adding water to
trenches before they are turned. The shredded and turned
windrow system should therefore produce better compost from
MSW than the DAT system.
3. Shredded MSW in turned windrows. The three CDM compost-
ing options are considerably more nancially favourable than
landll disposal and gas collection options, as the waste is con-
verted into a useable product and there are a number of sources
of income. Also, 98% of the landll gas is avoided (assuming 2%
anaerobic conditions in the windrow), compared with 50% cap-
tured and combusted in the gas aring and gas to electricity
scenarios. It is assumed in the three composting options that:
CDM income is based upon the rising prole of the bulk landll
gas production curve (Fig. 1); all three composting options gen-
erate the same CERs; composting is continuous and not a batch
process; and there is no difference in the composting times in
the static dome and turned windrows. The amortization period
for this scenario is calculated as 5 years. The composting
options are not attractive without CDM income. The compost-
ing options will not pay back in 10 years without CDM income.
4. Landlling with gas aring. Landll gas aring projects should
be amortized within 7 years. Landll gas aring projects are
not viable without CDM income (Couth et al., 2011). The Gas-
Sim2 analysis shows that a maximum of 8400 m
3
/hr of gas
could be generated after 10 years of landll disposal for typical
African waste. If the gas extraction system has 50% recovery
efciency, then this equates to 4200 m
3
/hr of landll gas or
around 2100 m
3
/hr of CH
4
gas combusted as extracted landll
gas typically contains around 50% CH
4
. Landll gas systems will
need continued operation and management to capture carbon
for at least 10 years after the landll is closed. This cost is not
included in the model. Landll gas extraction with aring is
not viable without CDM income.
5. Landlling with gas to electricity. Landll gas to electricity CDM
projects are only viable on the largest landlls in Africa (Couth
et al., 2011). Landll gas to electricity projects are not viable in
Africa for waste from urban populations of less than 1,000,000
as the cost per 1 MW engine installed with a gas extraction sys-
tem is over $1,000,000, and the engines require expert mainte-
nance. The amortisation for this scenario is 8 years. Given the
term of the investment and the uncertainty of technology for
gas engines in Africa over 8 years, this option is not nancially
attractive.
The discounted cash ow for the ve options is summarised in
Table 5. The costs for the sorted and shredded MSW in turned win-
drows do not include CDM recyclate income. The nal column of
the table calculates the income per tonne of waste received aver-
aged over the 10 year CDM period.
Similar simulation studies carried out in the early 2000s in India
(Yedla, 2003). These compared a landll system with gas recovery
R. Couth, C. Trois / Waste Management 32 (2012) 21152125 2121
against aerobic composting. The conclusion from this study was
that the energy generating potential from MSW in the form of
landll gas performed better than aerobic composting for rates of
waste generation greater than 10002000 tons per day (365,000
730,000 tons per year). The landll system with gas recovery
showed a better performance irrespective of the landll collection
system installation and operation costs. For both methodologies,
unit cost of disposal was most sensitive to land rent followed by,
in the case of landll system with gas recovery, the organic con-
tent. This conclusion does not accord with the above modelling.
4.2. Environmental sustainability comparison
There are considerably greater environmental short and long
term risks and liabilities from the disposal of waste to land (land-
lling) against recycling dry waste materials and composting wet
biogenic waste. Landlled waste gives rise to hazards and adverse
environmental impacts caused by its degradation, i.e. odour; po-
tential hazardous air emissions; GHG emissions; leachate produc-
tion and potential groundwater pollution; visual intrusion; litter
nuisance. Waste that is dumped to land remains an environmental
burden for future generations. Wet biogenic waste that is com-
posted avoids the carbon emissions associated with landll.
Dry waste that is recycled avoids the carbon emission associ-
ated with the excavation and processing of virgin materials against
the reprocessing of recycled materials, and the depletion of natural
resources. Signicant research has been undertaken for developed
countries to dene the benets of recycling plastics, metals, glass
and paper (Astrup et al., 2009; Damgaard et al., 2009; Larsen
et al., 2009; Merrild et al., 2009). However, the benets have not
been sufciently quantied for the majority of countries in Africa.
The informal waste sector makes a signicant, but typically ig-
nored, contribution to resource recovery and GHG savings in cities
of developing nations.
The ranking of the projects in order or emission reductions is:
1. MBT sorted and shredded MSW in turned windrows;
2. MSW in static DAT windrows;
3. shredded MSW in turned windrows;
4. landlling with gas to electricity; and
5. landlling with gas aring.
This ranking reects the cost-effectiveness model described
above, with the exception of a reversal of landlling with gas to
electricity, and landlling with gas to aring.
Further commentary on the ranking of the emissions compari-
son is as follows:
1. MBT sorted and shredded MSW in turned windrows. Up to
98% of the emissions of CH
4
produced at solid waste disposal
sites can be theoretically avoided (captured). This assumes that
anaerobic conditions occur in 2% of the composting windrow
(Trois et al., 2007). It also assumes that the compost is utilised
as a fertilizer, avoiding the emissions which would otherwise
occur from the production of manufactured fertilizer. In addi-
tion, there are considerable potential emission savings from
the recovery of recyclable material. Emission savings from the
use of recyclables is dependent on the material and the energy
used in their production and processing. For example, the Zero
Waste Plan for Scotland calculates the following emission sav-
ings from recycling: 9132 kgCO
2
e/t aluminium; 1340 kgCO
2
e/t
ferrous metals; 1080 kgCO
2
e/t paper; and 180838 kgCO
2
e/t
glass (Scottish Government, 2010). Whilst it is recognised that
recycling materials does provide emissions benets, African
waste will not provide as many CO
2
e savings from recycling
as waste from developed countries (Christensen et al., 2009).
Without dry waste materials recycling, the carbon emissions
benet of avoiding landll disposal is calculated as around
35 MtCO
2
e per annum in Africa (Couth et al., 2011).
2. MSW in static DAT windrows. This will give the same savings of
emissions of CH
4
produced at solid waste disposal sites as the
sorted and shredded MSW in turned windrows MBT scenario,
but the quality of the compost will not be as good from MSW
as dry recyclable material will remain within the waste.
Whether the compost can be used as a fertilizer (soil substitute)
will depend upon any laws within the individual country
regarding the application of compost to land.
3. Shredded MSW in turned windrows. The emission savings from
this scenario is very similar to composting MSW in static DAT
windrows, but is slightly worse as energy needs to be used in
turning the windrows.
4. Landlling with gas to electricity. Landlls typically capture
approximately 50% of the gas generated (World Bank, 2007).
Consequently, whereas composting can theoretically avoid up
to 98% of the landll gas emissions, landll gas extraction and
combustion can save around 50% of the emissions (Fig. 1). Land-
lling with gas to electricity allows emissions from the combus-
tion of fossil fuels to generate electricity to be saved, so it is
ranked above landlling with gas aring, a reverse of the eco-
nomic ranking. The two landlling options are environmentally
less sustainable than the composting option as waste which is
disposed to land biodegrades and produces landll gas and
leachate which are hazards to the environment and humanity
for generations.
5. Landlling with gas aring. This is the least environmentally
favourable of options, but it is still more environmentally
favourable than allowing landll gas to vent to atmosphere. It
is the main solution that has been adopted for UNFCCC CDM
waste projects.
The climate benets of waste practices result from avoided
landll emissions, reduced raw material extraction and manufac-
turing, recovered materials and energy replacing virgin materials
and fossil-fuel energy sources, carbon bound in soil through com-
post application, and carbon storage due to recalcitrant materials
in landlls. In particular, there is general global consensus that the
climate benets of waste avoidance and recycling far outweigh
the benets from any waste treatment technology, even where
energy is recovered during the process (WRAP, 2006; UNEP,
2010).
Table 5
Discounted cash ow summary.
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average $/t
1 Sorted and shredded MSW windrows $8.22 $12.05 $12.01 $9.68 $5.34 $3.02 $23.77 $35.42 $46.75 $122.88 $12.29
2 MSW in static DAT windrows $2.95 $4.96 $3.09 $1.07 $10.59 $19.32 $29.81 $41.83 $53.29 $68.75 $6.87
3 Shredded MSW in turned windrows $3.17 $5.69 $4.35 $0.72 $4.92 $17.47 $27.58 $39.24 $50.44 $65.42 $6.54
4 Landlling with gas aring $6.31 $8.31 $8.52 $7.68 $5.92 $3.29 $0.14 $13.76 $19.03 $25.73 $2.57
5 Landlling with gas to electricity $8.75 $11.38 $11.63 $10.84 $9.12 $6.54 $3.14 $2.58 $19.59 $26.71 $2.67
Discounted cash ow in $1,000,000.
2122 R. Couth, C. Trois / Waste Management 32 (2012) 21152125
The Scottish Government is now setting carbon targets for
waste management with focus on targeting dry recyclable materi-
als (Scottish Government, 2010). It is recommended that the car-
bon baseline from waste management is calculated for countries
in Africa; targets are proposed to manage and reduce these emis-
sions; and the UNFCCC introduces a new mechanism for Annex 1
countries to fund developing countries to meet these carbon
targets.
4.3. Social sustainability comparison
This second objective of CDM of sustainable development has
been assessed by many projects (Olsen, 2007; Rogger et al.,
2011; Sutter and Parreo, 2007). It is concluded that many CDM
projects do not contribute signicantly to sustainable develop-
ment, and that the CDM does not offer adequate incentives to host
countries to achieve the second goal of sustainable development. A
shift in mind set in favour of the second objective will only happen
when value is attributed to sustainability. Climate change organi-
sations have sought to develop a measure for sustainable CDM pro-
jects (e.g. the Gold Standard) but this has yet to be adopted by the
UNFCCC (Gold Standard, 2011). The Gold Standard rewards CDM
Projects in terms of their contribution to sustainable development
leading to a higher value for CERs generated. There are Gold Stan-
dard CERs and VERs (Veried Emission Reductions). However these
currently exclude landll projects, including composting.
Waste management projects have the social benet of provid-
ing employment opportunities with improved working conditions
for waste pickers; an increase in the number of jobs for the local
community; and reduced health risks to the neighbouring commu-
nities. They also contribute to knowledge and technology transfer.
The social ranking of the ve options is:
1. MBT sorted and shredded MSW in turned windrows. This
option has the advantage of providing direct local employ-
ment through waste picking, with the potential for over
100 jobs per scheme, and the advantage of providing indi-
rect employment through waste reprocessing (Tawg
et al, 2009);
2/3. MSW in static DAT windrows and shredded MSW in turned
windrows. These options will provide similar employment
opportunities from the management of waste composting
and application to land. More people should be directly
employed through waste composting than landlling. Peo-
ple currently living on landlls who pick waste as it is
dumped can be employed in the managed picking of wastes
prior to composting;
4. landlling with gas to electricity. This provides some local
employment through the engagement and training of engi-
neers to manage the engines. However well being is reduced
though exposure of the local community to landll and
landll related activities; and
5. landlling with gas aring. Similar to landlling with gas to
electricity but slightly less employment and technician
training.
4.4. Sustainability comparison conclusions
The overall sustainability ranking of economic, environmental
and social impacts of the ve options is:
1. MBT sorted and shredded MSW in turned windrows;
2. MSW in static DAT windrows;
3. shredded MSW in turned windrows;
4. landlling with gas to electricity; and
5. landlling with gas aring.
However, landlling with gas to electricity is only viable for
large projects and requires greater funding and technological
management.
The sustainability ranking accords with the waste hierarchy as
detailed in the EU Waste Framework Directive (EU 2008/98/EC
(2008)). It demonstrates that where waste is generated, it will be
most sustainable to prepare the waste for re-use and recycle,
rather than landll with landll gas combustion and energy recov-
ery. It is difcult to have a Waste Management Strategy for Africa,
but one should focus on the waste hierarchy. All Waste Manage-
ment Strategies for countries in Africa should be holistic, providing
a sustainable integrated approach with consideration to econom-
ics, the environment and social issues.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
In a global context, the management of wastes was estimated to
produce 35% of the total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2005
(UNEP, 2010). The percentage in Africa is higher due to largely
uncontrolled waste disposal practices (Couth and Trois, 2011).
Although a reasonable proportion of emissions are released
through waste disposal, the prevention, recycling and composting
of waste avoids signicant emissions in other sectors of the econ-
omy, i.e. energy, forestry, agriculture, mining, transport, and
manufacturing.
Africa has the highest proportion of Least Developed Countries
(LDCs) of the ve continents (Africa, Americas, Asia, Australasia
and Europe). Sub-Sahara Africa has 33 LDCs, whilst there are only
14 LDC in Asia and one LDC in the American Pacic. The majority of
the people in sub-Saharan Africa live in a rural setting with an
average income per capita as low as $596 (Couth and Trois,
2009a). The urban population is however increasing at a signicant
rate but there is not the income to treat and dispose of wastes
(Couth and Trois, 2009a). Urban waste in sub-Saharan Africa has
a high biodegradable content (around 56%), it is dumped and it
therefore produces a high percentage of carbon emissions per capi-
ta (Couth and Trois, 2010). The high and increasing rate of carbon
emissions per capita and the non availability of reliable data for
waste management and the population in sub-Sahara Africa is a
challenge.
The sustainability analysis shows that waste recycling and com-
posting is benecial over controlled landlling, although uncon-
trolled dumping of waste as practiced across sub-Saharan Africa
is cheaper in the short term. Of the composting options, it is attrac-
tive to have an upstream materials recovery facility (MRF) to re-
move dry recyclables from the waste which will signicantly
improve the quality of the compost and will also provide local
employment. Under this option, compost and recyclable materials
may be sold; CDM income gained from recycled materials and dis-
placed landll gas; and landll disposal costs may be avoided.
Waste recycling and composting projects full the CDM objec-
tives better than landll disposal projects. Composting projects
provide twice the reduction in GHG emissions when compared to
landll gas combustion projects. The GHG emission reductions
can be effectively provided over the period of waste production
rather than over a generation. They are more sustainable in devel-
oping countries and do not leave an environmental hazard for fu-
ture generations.
Landll CH
4
emissions are increasing in developing countries
because of larger quantities of MSW from increasing urban popu-
lations, increasing economic development and, to some extent,
the replacement of open burning and dumping by engineered land-
lls. Without additional measures, a 50% increase in landll CH
4
emissions from 2005 to 2020 is projected, mainly from the Non-
Annex I countries (IPCC, 2007; Couth et al., 2011).
R. Couth, C. Trois / Waste Management 32 (2012) 21152125 2123
The UNFCCC does not currently have an approved CDM meth-
odology to value the emission savings from recycled materials; it
does not have a methodology for composting that correctly calcu-
late the emissions avoided; and it does not have a methodology
that rewards the second CDM objective of sustainable develop-
ment. Landll gas CDM projects do not contribute as signicantly
to sustainable development as waste recycling and composting
projects. The UNFCCC should distinguish between the sustainabil-
ity of landll category CDM projects and value CERs accordingly,
similar to the Gold Standard (Gold Standard, 2011). More sustain-
able CERs should then achieve a higher value on the world markets.
CDM methodologies need to be developed for these parameters.
In summary, it is considered that the UNFCCC should:
(a) renew and develop CDM through a replacement to the Kyoto
Protocol focusing on sustainable projects in developing
countries. MBT and composting projects in Africa are unli-
kely to proceed without funding from Annex 1 developed
countries through a replacement to the CDM;
(b) develop a mechanism to grade CDM projects and the result-
ing CERs depending upon their sustainability (as in the Gold
Standard). The denition of sustainability for these pro-
jects should be dened. CERs from more sustainable projects
should have a higher value and thereby generate more
income. CDM methodologies should take account of the
wider social costs and benets of proposals, and the need
to ensure the proper use of public resources. These CDM
methodologies should reward the informal sector;
(c) establish the current direct and indirect baselines for carbon
emissions from waste management for individual countries
in Africa and set carbon emission targets. Most countries
in Africa have universities and the waste management car-
bon emission baselines could be determined by the univer-
sities against UNFCCC criteria. These carbon emission
targets should then be met through new projects funded
by the replacement to the Kyoto Protocol;
(d) develop a CDM methodology for small scale mechanical bio-
logical treatment (MBT) projects. This should include all dry
recyclable waste materials and wet compostable biogenic
wastes. CERs should be for the total gas emissions avoided
by composting biogenic wastes, not the landll gas captured
and combusted over the CDM landll period;
(e) calculate tables for emission savings from closed loop recy-
cling and use of dry materials for each country in Africa;
(f) specify a standard for the application of waste compost to
land in countries in Africa; and
(g) amend the existing AM0025 composting methodology to
provide CERs for the total emissions avoided during the life
of the composting project.
Waste generation is related to population, afuence and urban-
isation. Recycling and composting can provide an affordable, sus-
tainable alternative to engineered landlls, especially where
more labour-intensive, lower-technology strategies are applied to
the recyclable and biodegradable waste streams. The truth is that
there are millions of informal poor, including recyclers, whose
work contributes to emissions reductions, but who remain unac-
counted for, and unrewarded for protecting our global community.
Mechanisms should be adopted to ensure that such efforts are ac-
counted for, and that those involved are rewarded accordingly.
Whereas developed countries such as the United States, Canada,
and Australia all emit over 20 tCO
2
e per capita per year (Chintan,
2009), sub-Saharan African countries emit an average of just over
1 tCO2e per capita per year (Couth and Trois, 2009b). UNFCCC tar-
gets to reduce carbon emissions by 85% by 2050 to control the glo-
bal temperature rise to 2 C (Metz, 2008), will only be met if
initiatives are progressed with regard to waste management prac-
tices in developing countries.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge to Lindsay Strachan
(SLR Consulting UK), John Parkin, Marc Wright and Logan Moodley
(Durban Solid Waste) for their support in the DAT composting tri-
als; Grant Pearson for reviewing the paper, and Andy Chapman of
Quilter for advice in the economic sustainability modelling.
References
Aquasolar, 2011. Eskom electricity price increases. <http://aquasolar.co.za/eskom-
electricity-price-increases-just-in-time-for-winter/>.
Astrup, T., Fruergaard, T., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Recycling of plastic: accounting of
greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management &
Research. <http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/27/8/763>.
Boldrin, A., Andersen, J.K., Mller, J., Christensen, T.H., Favoino, E., 2009. Composting
and compost utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming
contributions. Waste Management & Research 27, 800812. ISSN 0734-242X.
<http://wmr.sagepub.com/>.
BSI, 2007. Guide to PAS 2050: How to Assess the Carbon Footprint of Good and
Services. ISBN 978-0-580-64636-2. <http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/Browse-by-
Sector/EnergyUtilities/PAS-2050/>.
BSI, 2008. PAS 2050 Assessing the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods
and Services. ISBN 978 0 580 50978 0. <http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/Browse-
by-Sector/EnergyUtilities/PAS-2050/>.
BSI, 2011. PAS 100 2011 Specication for Composted Materials. ISBN 978 0
580 65307 0. <http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/PAS_100_2011.d04491e0.
10478.pdf>.
CD4CDM (February 2011). Capacity Development for the Clean Development
Mechanism. <http://cd4cdm.org/>.
Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group, 2009. Cooling agents. An
analysis of climate change mitigation by the informal recycling sector in India.
<www.chintan-india.org>.
Christensen, T.H., Simion, F., Tonini, D., Mller, J., 2009. Global warming factors
modelled for 40 generic municipal waste management scenarios. Waste
Management & Research 27, 871. <http://www.uk.sagepub.com/dicken6/
Additional_Resources_for_International_Business/Online_journal_readings/
christensen_et_al_2009.pdf>.
Couth, R., Trois, C., 2009a. Comparison of waste management activities across Africa
with respect to carbon emissions. In: Twelfth International Waste Management
and Landll Symposium October 2009, Santa Margherita di Pula, Cagliari,
Sardinia, 2009. ISBN 978-88-6265-007-6.
Couth, R., Trois, C., 2009b. Calculation of carbon emissions from waste management
across Africa and potential for reduction. Sardinia 2009. In: Twelfth
International Waste Management and Landll Symposium October 2009,
Santa Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Sardinia, 2009. ISBN 978-88-6265-007-6.
Couth, R., Trois, C., 2010. Carbon reduction strategies in Africa for improved waste
management: a review. Waste Management 30, 23362346. <http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science>.
Couth, R., Trois, C., 2011. Waste management activities and carbon emissions in
Africa. Waste Management 31, 131137. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science>.
Couth, R., Trois, C., Vaughan-Jones, S., 2011. Modelling of carbon emissions
reduction potentials from municipal solid waste disposal in Africa. Waste
Management 5 (6), 14431453.
Couth, R., Trois, C., Parkin, J., Strachan, L.J., Gilder, A., Wright, M., 2011. Delivery and
viability of landll gas CDM projects in Africa a South African experience.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (1), 392403. <http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science>.
Damgaard, A., Larsen, A.W., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Recycling of metals: accounting
of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management &
Research 27, 773. <http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/27/8/773>.
Defra, 2009a. Guidelines to Defra/DECCs GHG Conversion Factors for Company
Reporting. Version 2 September 2009. <http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/
business/reporting/pdf/20090928-guidelines-ghg-conversion-factors.pdf>.
Defra, 2009b. A preliminary assessment of greenhouse gases associated with
growing materials. University of Warwick, Defra Project Code IF0154.SID 5
Research Project Final Report. <www.hdc.org.uk/industry-reports/les/A_
prelinary_assessment_of_the_greenhouse_gases_associated_with_growing_
media_material.pdf>.
Department of Environment and Conservation, NSW, 2005. Benets of Recycling.
ISBN 1 74137 311 5. <www.environment.nsw.gov.au>.
Dey, C., Lenzen, N., 2000. Greenhouse gas analysis for electricity generation
systems. ANZSES international solar conference. In: Conference Proceedings,
31st Nov1st Dec, 2000, pp. 658668. <www.technicart.com/Environmental_
work_Swedish)/Environmental_links/Solar_2000_Conference_-_Grifth_Univer
sity_Australia.pdf>.
Eskom, 2010. Integrated report 2010: On the path to recovery. <www.eskom.co.za>.
2124 R. Couth, C. Trois / Waste Management 32 (2012) 21152125
EU 2008/98/EC, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and the
Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:EN:pdf>.
Gold-Standard, 2010. Current GS rules and case studies. The Gold Standard
Foundation. <http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/> (assessed March 2011).
Gregory, R.G., Rosevear, 2005. GasSim 2: Landll gas management quantied:
Gregory R.G. and Rosevear. Tenth International Waste Management and
Landll Symposium October 2005, Santa Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Sardinia,
2005.
Haug, R.T., 1993. The Practical Handbook of Compost Engineering. Lewis Publishers,
ISBN 10:0873713737.
IPCC, 1996. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.
jp/public/gl/invs1.html>.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change, 2007. Workgroup III. Cambridge
University Press (Chapter 10). ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. <http://www.ipcc.ch/
ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm>.
Joint Research Centre, 2008. End of Waste Criteria, Final Report. European
Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies. <http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Endofwastecriterianal.
pdf>.
Larsen, A.W., Merrild, H., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Recycling of glass: accounting of
greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management &
Research 27, 754. <http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/27/8/754>.
Merrild, H., Damgaard, A., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Recycling of paper: accounting of
greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management &
Research 27, 746. <http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/27/8/746>.
Metz, B., 2008. Emission reductions from stabilization and mitigation potentials.
Information for the IPCC Working Group III AR4 and new studies. IPCC
December 2009. <http://unfccc.int/les/kyoto_protocol/application/force-
download>.
Moller, J., 2007. Greenhouse gas balance of different waste management strategy.
Eleventh International Waste Management and Landll Symposium October
2007, Santa Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Sardinia, 2007.
NERSA, 2009. Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff (REFIT) South Africa. National Energy
Regulator of South Africa. Regulator Guidelines 26 March 2009. <http://
www.nersa.org.za/UploadedFiles/ElectricityDocuments/
REFIT%20Guidelines.pdf>.
Olsen, K., 2007. The clean development mechanisms contribution to sustainable
development: a review of the literature. Climatic Change 84, 5973. <http://
www.springerlink.com/content>.
Parr, S., Brummack, J., Mollekopt, N., 1999. The Advantages of DAT for the
composting of Solid Waste. SARDINIA 99, 7th International Landll
Symposium, Conference Proceedings, Cagliari, Italy, 1999.
PROGNOS, 2008. Resource savings and CO
2
reduction potential in waste
management in Europe and its possible contribution to the CO
2
reduction
target in 2020. www.prognos.com/leadmin/pdf/aktuelles/Results_CO2_
wasteproject.pdf.
Rogger, C., Beaurain, F., Schmidt, S.T., 2011. Composting projects under the Clean
Development Mechanism: sustainable contribution to mitigate climate change.
Waste Management 31 (1), 138146. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science>.
Scottish Government, 2010. Scotlands Zero Waste Plan. The Scottish Government
June 2010. ISBN 978-0-7559-8306-3. <http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/>.
SNIFFER ER15, 2011. Assessment of carbon/nitrogen ratios in various composting
waste streams. Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research
(SNIFFER), Scottish Charity No. SC022375.
Sutter, C., Parreo, J., 2007. Does the current Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
deliver its sustainable development claim? An analysis of ofcially registered
CDM projects. Climatic Change 84, 7590. <http://www.springerlink.com/
content>.
Tawg, M., Couth, R., Pearson, G., Strachan, L., 2009. Development of sustainable
waste disposal in Sudan. Twelfth International Waste Management and Landll
Symposium October 2009, Santa Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Sardinia, 2009.
ISBN 978-88-6265-007-6.
Trading Economics, 2011a. Angola, IMF data and forecasts. Trading Economics.
<http://www.tradingeconomics.com/angola/indicators/>.
Trading Economics, 2011b. South African ination rate. Trading Economics. <http://
www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Ination-CPI.aspx?Symbol=ZAR>.
Trading Economics, 2011c. Government Bond yields, 10 year notes. Trading
Economics. <http://www.tradingeconomics.com/World-Economy/Bonds.aspx>.
Treasury, H.M., 2011. The green book: appraisal and evaluation in central
government. London TSO. <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/green_book_
complete.pdf>.
Trois, C., Grifth, M., Mollekopf, N., Brummack, J., 2005. A comparative study of
aerobic waste treatment: a solution for developing countries. Sardinia, 2005,
Tenth International Waste Management and Landll Symposium, October 2005,
Santa Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Sardinia. ISBN 978-88-6265-007-6.
Trois, C., Grifth, M., Brummack, J., Mollekopf, N., 2007. Introducing mechanical
biological waste treatment in South Africa: a comparative study. Waste
Management 27, 17061714 <www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman>.
UNEP, 2010. Waste and Climate Change: Global Trends and Strategy Framework.
United Nations Environmental Programme. Division of Technology, Industry
and Economics, <www.unep/Publications/spc/Waste Climate Change/Waste
Climate Change.pdf>.
UNFCCC, 2005. Sixth compilation and synthesis of initial national communications
from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention. United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). <http://unfccc.int/
resource/docs/2005/sbi/eng/18a02.pdf>.
UNFCCC, 2011. Indicative simplied baseline and monitoring methodologies for
selected small-scale CDM project activity catorgies. III.AJ./Version 02. Sectoral
Scope 13, EB 53. March 2010. <http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/
FileStorage>.
UNFCCC AM0025, 2008. Approved baseline and monitoring methodology AM0025.
Avoided emissions from organic waste through alternative waste treatment
processes. AM0025/Version 11 Sectoral Scope: 01 and 13 EB 44. <http://
cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/
CDMWF_AM_PJSD36RRF6X16OA7CSTR7H38OXVJTG> (accessed 28.11.08).
UNFCCC Annex 10, 2008. Methodological tool Tool to determine methane
emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site
(Version 04). EB 41 Report Annex 10 Page 1. <http://cdm.unfccc.int/
methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-04-v4.pdf> (accessed
02.08.08).
UNFCCC PDD, 2007. Land Filling and Processing Services for Southern Zone in Cairo.
DNV (Det Norske Veritas). <http://www.dnv.com/focus/climate_change/
Upload/02_-_MENA.Egypt.ECARU.PDD_7Feb08_.pdf> (accessed 12.12.07).
UNFCCC PDD, 2009. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) composting facility in Ikorodu,
Lagos State, Nigeria. <http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/
YVWT6LP5GD8O4BI3J2SUA0KZE79FX1> (accessed 10.01.09).
UNFCCC PDD, 2010. Omdurman Landll Municipal Solid Waste Composting Project.
<http://cdm.unfccc.int/lestorage/LQK9O8I2XS6HB4V037TPYCGEMN5DZW/
Project_Design_Document.pdf?t=aXZ8MTI5Njk3NTI2Ni4yNw==|zAptLt540aM-
lvnQb0Ka0Vmzy3c=> (accessed 19.04.10).
UNFCCC PoA, 2009. Uganda Municipal Waste Compost Programme. Municipal
waste composting Project for Jinja Municipality. <http://cdm.unfccc.int/
lestorage/J/P/8/JP8B72CIZM46NOL0VRKHSY5ADTWU1E/CPA-DD_Lira.pdf?t=
T0Z8bHgwYXNvfDD06Mnr_ff8Tjv4Ro417hH0> (accessed 12.04.09).
United Nations, 1987. General Assembly 42/187. Report of the World Commission
on Environment and Development. United Nations, Brundtland Commission,
Our Common Future. <http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-
187.htm>.
United Nations, 1997. Kyoto Protocol 1997: United Nations Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). UNFCCC. <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php>
(accessed 11.12.97).
United Nations, 2005. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 60/1 World
Summit Outcome. <http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/
un/unpan021752.pdf> (accessed 24.10.05).
World Bank, 2007. Comparison of forecast and reported methane recovery rates at
selected landlls in developing countries. SGS Engineers 2007. <http://
siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/
MSW.LFG.CDM.Newsletter_Feb09_.pdf>.
WRAP, 2006. The environmental benets of recycling. An international review for
life cycle comparisons for key materials in the UK recycling sector. Waste &
Resources Action Programme. <http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Recycling_
LCA_Report_Executive_Summary_Sept_2006.5c2fce82.2839.pdf>.
WRAP, 2008. Realising the value of organic waste. Market situation report April
2008. Waste and Resources Action Programme. <http://www.wrap.org.uk/
downloads/Organics_MSR_Final_v2.49fc9a3f.5238.pdf>.
Yedla, S., 2003. Development of Techno-economic Integrated Models: LFSGR and
Aerobic Composting for Municipal Waste Management. Cambridge University
Press, Environment and Development Economics 8, 655677. <http://journals.
cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=176455>.
R. Couth, C. Trois / Waste Management 32 (2012) 21152125 2125