A SINGLE COPY OF THIS ARTICLE MAY BE DOWNLOADED FOR PERSONAL AND NGO USE. THE DISTRIBUTION OF MULTIPLE COPIES, OR ANY COMMERCIAL USE, MAY RESULT IN A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. PLEASE TAKE CARE TO CITE THE SOURCE WHEN USING ANY OF THE MATERIAL.

THANK YOU

Source: Recovering Energy from Waste: Various Aspects. Edited by Velma I. Grover, Vaneeta Kaur Grover and William Hogland. Science Publishers, Inc. Enfield (NH) USA and Plymouth, UK 2002, pp. 307-314. ISBN: 1-57808-200-5

SOCIALLY-RESPONSIVE ENERGY FROM URBAN SOLID WASTES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Christine Furedy1 and Alison Doig2

1. Introduction

That technological development should serve the purposes of poverty alleviation and, in particular, that small-scale technologies introduced to communities should bring benefits to the less wealthy has long been a tenet of appropriate technology (Schumacher 1973; McRobie 1981).

Nevertheless, most technological projects and undertakings in cities of developing countries experience problems in incorporating any social perspective, let alone being geared to the needs of low-income residents. In the majority of cases, the community and its needs are not the starting point for technological imports. Technologies are developed by engineers and are introduced with support from an aid agency, the national government or the private sector. A project proposal may have a section referring to social acceptance or adaptation, or the ‘education’ needed to attain co-operation with the technology. Such nods towards social concerns are a far cry from the ideal of wedding technology to the needs of the poor.

The argument made here is that to co-ordinate social objectives and technological innovation one can rarely start with the application of a pre-selected technology. Rather, some basic questions have to be asked about the community’s resources, technology options and potential beneficiaries. The decision on what technology will be most appropriate should follow such an assessment. In most cases, socio-economic considerations must take priority over technological ones. This argument is made with particular reference to ideas for capturing the values inherent in urban solid wastes.

The social aspects of WtE projects are a concern of ITDG3. This chapter illustrates an approach that gives initial emphasis to social and economic considerations in designing and implementing small or intermediate technologies in cities of developing countries. Project work in Nairobi on briquettes from charcoal dust is used to illustrate the methodology.

2. The allure of energy from urban solid wastes

The possibility of recovering value from solid wastes to create energy has a long history (Barnard and Kristoferson 1985). With the collection and disposal of solid wastes growing steadily more difficult for cities of developing countries, it is not surprising that WtE continues to appear, in principle, an attractive concept. Attempts at introducing WtE in these cities, however, have had little success.

It is not the purpose here to examine the technological difficulties of WtE with respect to urban solid wastes, but these difficulties serve to reinforce the social concerns about what is ‘appropriate.’

It is broadly accepted in international solid waste management that municipal solid wastes in most cities of developing countries are too low in calorific value, have too much organic material, and are subject to too much seasonal variation in moisture content to permit conversion to energy by incineration (see UNEP-IETC 1996; Merritt chapter 2 in this book). Most proposed WtE plants have assumed that the feedstock would consist not of regular municipal solid wastes, but special streams of urban wastes that have a high content of combustible material. In notable cases, such assumptions have proved to be wrong, as recyclable materials such as newsprint, office paper and plastics are usually diverted from the municipal system to recyclers. Landfill gas extraction, certainly a possibility where municipal wastes have high amounts of organic matter, as is the case in many cities, requires expensive infrastructure built into a designed disposal site, and there are few examples of effective gas extraction for energy production (UNEP-IETC 1996).

The few experiments with WtE incineration plants or other processes such as pelletisation of solid wastes for fuel have been plagued with planning and design problems. Government ministries and aid agencies that receive private sector proposals for funding of innovations, such as pelletisation, often lack the expertise to assess the proposals, which may not contain details of the waste streams where the technology is to be applied, information on the local demand for energy, or reliable cost-benefit studies. National ministries devoted to promoting alternative energy technologies may be more concerned with funding initiatives than assessing them. Lack of transparency and corruption may play a part in funding inappropriate ventures.

Most failures documented to date have had physical or technological deficiencies, but they have also, importantly, lacked social insight. They have not been planned together with the local stakeholders and possible beneficiaries. Statements about benefits to needy residents have been pro forma, lacking research to understand the behaviours, values and needs of local actors. Hence, even without the technical problems, it is hard to argue that support to past urban WtE in developing countries has been warranted.

Yet, even given the past performance of WtE projects, the principle of extracting the maximum value from wastes, and thus reducing the solid wastes requiring treatment and disposal, remains important, especially in view of ever-increasing energy needs, and the desire to limit greenhouse gases. Successes in rural areas with small-scale energy production suggest that ways can also be found in towns and cities to serve the goals of poverty alleviation, waste management and environmental improvement. The breakthrough in WtE in urban areas will depend more on waste-generator co-operation and on social insight, than on advances in technology.

3. The social context of solid waste reuse in developing countries

Conventional WtE projectsin urban areas have not been geared to poverty reduction.. Socially-responsive approaches aim to utilize untapped or under-used waste materials to alleviate resource needs of the urban poor. These initiatives seek first to understand how wastes are currently used.

Many poor people depend upon gathering and using urban wastes to meet basic needs and for livelihoods. In addition to the manufactured recyclable materials that are traded in large quantities in most cities of developing countries, urban organic wastes are also accessed and reused: green and food wastes are used as fodder and feed, and decomposed organics are applied to fields (Furedy 2001). Organic wastes are extensively used for fuel, not just in rural areas. Dung from urban cattle is an important fuel in Northern India (Barnard and Kristoferson 1985), and women and children waste pickers gather wood, coconut shells, cinders and coal dust both for household fuel and for sale to households and small enterprises (Furedy 1990, 1984).

There are several questions that should be carefully researched to ensure a socially-responsive approach in technology choice:

1. Are the ‘wastes’ designed to be exploited truly going to waste? What reusable wastes in the area are accumulating ? Answering such questions requires waste stream analysis together with observations of informal waste recovery and reuse, livelihood and stakeholder analysis. In general, it is not thought desirable to interfere with existing livelihoods derived from waste reuse; that is, poor people should not lose work or access to resources on account of the introduced technology.

2. If wastes are being used, are there ways to increase the efficiency and income-earning potential of this use, with affordable technology, or by training in accessing raw materials or in marketing?

3. Are there alternative ways of using wasted or underutilized resources that would serve poverty alleviation better? With respect to urban solid wastes, this might mean examining whether composting of solid wastes, or treating selected wastes for animal feed are simpler, more efficient and more viable routes to waste recovery linked to the livelihoods of the poor.

An organization devoted to appropriate technology is now attempting to make these questions central to small-scale WtE undertakings.

4. Socially-responsive small-scale energy production from urban wastes

The ITDC is an NGO (founded by Dr. E. F. Schumacher in the 1960s) that specializes in helping people to use technology for practical answers to poverty. The organization became interested in WtE because, although urban areas have higher rates of energy use than rural ones, the urban poor do not have adequate access to electricity or other forms of clean energy. Moreover, they cannot readily collect biomass from their surroundings, so are forced to use commercial fuels such as charcoal or kerosene. A high proportion of the income of households and small enterprises is spent in this way.

ITDG recognizes urban solid waste management problems and that some of the solid wastes requiring disposal contain the potential for use in energy production. At the same time, the organization has noted that thousands of livelihoods in these cities are intimately linked to the collection, recovery and recycling of waste materials, whether in the informal economy, in linked formal sector enterprises, or among public sector employees.

Taking a socially-responsible view, ITDG has argued that “if sufficient consideration is given to the whole waste management system, particularly to the role of the poor as energy consumers who are also dependent upon waste for livelihood activities, energy access and solid waste management can be improved” (Doig 2001).

ITDG’s project on Urban Waste Management for Small Scale Energy Production (part of an international project supported by UK Dept for International Development Knowledge and Research) is investigating the opportunities for applying WtE technologies to support urban livelihoods4. Case studies in five countries (Senegal, Kenya, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Cuba). The case studies are considering waste streams, the stakeholders involved in SWM, livelihood opportunities from WtE, and different WtE technology options. In all cases, the focus is on low-value wastes that are not being extensively reused.

5. General methodology of ITDG WtE projects

The WtE projects are initiated with data gathering on the waste streams of the city. This includes characterization of broad waste streams (the sources, quantities and composition of different streams) and an assessment of ‘low-value wastes’, that is, ones that are not reused to any extent. These are the wastes that end up at disposal sites in significant amounts. (For wastes that are difficult to track at dumps, such as coal, charcoal and sawdust point sources have to be investigated). Such an assessment is crucial for ITDG projects. Once it is established that there are significant quantities of wastes available, other questions can be addressed.

The energy needs assessment is the next step. This is designed to to gain a broad picture of the energy supply and demand of the target groups, at national and city levels, and also the specific locality where a new technology may be implemented. The information analysed includes: the types and distribution of energy consumed; access of proposed beneficiaries to fuel; the markets for fuels; household expenditure on fuel against income; convenience of use by fuel type; fuel preferences of different groups.

This detailed analysis must be related to the WtE technologies under consideration. This means attempting to identify and quantify the energy service needs that could be provided for by the WtE technologies. Sound research on energy access and needs is needed to judge whether any intervention will benefit needy members of the community.

The livelihoods and stakeholder analysis combines an understanding of the major stakeholders in waste management and energy provision in the city with the analysis of livelihoods of the poorer communities in the study. Livelihood here refers to the means of gaining a living, including income-earning activities (whether formal or informal) and also the activities in which people engage to ensure longer-term security. It includes people’s access to assets and financial resources, their legal status,and rights to government services.

ITDG bases its livelihoods analysis on the CARE Household Livelihood Security framework (Sanderson 1999), which judges factors such as livelihood strategies, the rules and regulations pertaining to households, and vulnerability to natural disasters or significant social and economic changes.

The health impacts study gathers information on waste-related injuries and disease, as well as assessing the probable health effects of introducing new techniques of waste reuse.

When a WtE technique appears applicable, there is a detailed assessment of it in the light of the local data , including technical/physical requirements, health aspects, financial feasibility, and markets for the energy produced.

This model addresses the assets (social, human, economic, natural and physical) of the affected communities, and considers their capacity for adopting relevant changes. In addition, it also considers the wider context, the policies and institutional structures, which will influence the success of interventions. It helps to identify the non-technical inputs required to introduce the WtE technology, such as financing, capacity building, changes in policy, or local institutional development to support the intervention. The markets for the products of the new technology are investigated, and the impact on various actors who will be affected by its introduction.

Although the application of this method is limited by the availability of background data and the capacity to conduct some of the wide-ranging research required, the methodology itself represents a substantial advance in small-scale technology development.

6. Pilot work on briquettes from charcoal dust in Nairobi

Background

Nairobi was considered a suitable city to explore WtE production because it is experiencing drastic fuel shortages, as well as suffering a crisis in solid waste management. It is a city where there is some interest in organic waste recycling, as the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements is supporting composting from market wastes by community groups.

Background research was conducted on the nature of solid wastes and the stakeholders for energy and waste management, including those primarily involved in waste recovery.

Access to energy by the poor

The main fuel used by urban small enterprises is charcoal. Commercial cooking is a very important livelihood activity for the urban poor; it accounts for 52% of energy-using activities. Other main activities are metal working (28%), baking (8%) and welding (4%). Firewood is of secondary importance, followed by kerosene. The entrepreneurs who own kiosks (commercial cooking) use saw dust, firewood and sometimes charcoal. A major source is residues from carpentry workshops.

The main energy used by households for cooking in the urban poor areas is charcoal; kerosene, and then firewood are secondary fuels. The poorer families in the slums where monthly incomes are less than KES 3000 (US$45), however, can hardily afford charcoal or kerosene. The survival strategy is to use charcoal dust and firewood. Often they reduce their cooking by eating in kiosks.

The charcoal is produced from wood in rural areas and sold by charcoal vendors strategically placed in residential and industrial areas. Large amounts of charcoal dust accumulate at these dealers’ shops. On average each sack of charcoal (0.12 m3) generates about 10 litres (0.01 m3) of charcoal dust. It is estimated that about 10% of all the charcoal dust is disposed as waste, amounting to approximately 15000-20000 tons of dust per year.

Focus on charcoal dust briquettes

Of the wastes that might be used for low-cost energy, charcoal dust was judged to be the most preferable for technical development.

The table summarizes the pros and cons of the wastes considered in the Nairobi case.

Charcoal dust briquetting is currently practised by women in Nairobi by combining charcoal dust with mud or other binders to create a low efficiency fuel. This is mostly for their own consumption, but they may also sell small quantities. It must be noted that this fuel is used by very low-income households, whose only alternatives for fuel are lower efficiency biofuels or no fuel for cooking at all. Originally, the charcoal dealers would give this dust free, but with increased demand, they now sell it at Ksh.10 (approx. 10 p) for a 20-litre tin of dust. The dust when molded into briquettes is adequate to provide for a week's cooking.

ITDG has identified the need to assist these women in number of ways, in particular by improving the technology for briquetting by introducing a simple low-cost hand press for production of briquettes and also by improving the ratio of charcoal dust to binder, to create a higher efficiency and cleaner fuel. The project aims to increase the opportunities for these women to create small enterprises and improve their marketing. The aim is to provide training too about 100 individuals, and that the improved technique will spread locally.

7. Monitoring energy projects

Most WtE projects in developing countries have not undertaken systematic socio-economic research in target areas, along the lines illustrated in the ITDG work. Even if the original planning was deficient in social awareness, however, monitoring can help to reorient projects, as long as there is a willingness to considerably modify or even cancel the initiative if the monitoring shows that the process has negative consequences for the community’s needy persons –that is, they will suffer difficulties in access to energy or to other resources upon which they depended for their livelihood and daily living.

In general, laboratory testing of the waste processing technology should be a pre-condition for application. If there are serious questions about the safety of a process, it should not be promoted, even if social conditions seem appropriate. For example, fuel briquettes or pellets made from mixed municipal wastes should not be promoted without prior testing, as the occurrence of much plastic and some toxic materials in municipal solid wastes throughout the world means it is highly likely that such fuel cannot be burned in homes and small industries. The standards for the safety of an energy process or product should, if anything, be higher for less developed countries, where supervision of the production over a period of time is likely to more lax than in countries with high levels of education and training.

8. Conclusion

The potential for energy from solid wastes is not as great as has been sometimes assumed. For the developing countries, bioconversion of wastes (mainly through composting) is more feasible for small-scale projects than WtE. However, there are specific options that are worth exploring. The most promising small-scale projects are those that capture single-source, separate, relatively uncontaminated, wastes such charcoal, cinders, lumber-yard sawdust, organic market wastes, and food wastes from factories, hotels and restaurants. The ITDG is making headway in small-scale projects with designated wastes, as illustrated here.

The next phase of the ITDG project is to move to implementing WtE interventions in at least two of the case study countries. The implementation will not only entail the introduction of a technology, but the establishment of markets, financial, and institutional support, and other supporting mechanisms to support an enterprise based on WtE. There will also be a detailed impact assessment of the interventions, using sustainable livelihood approaches. The aim is not only to develop a few individual enterprises, but to further knowledge and understanding of such small-scale, socially-responsive WtE interventions.

This work illustrates opportunities to apply socially-responsive approaches to WtE technologies. Indeed, concern for the needs of local communities should be a priority in these projects. Advances in small-scale WtE applications is more likely to come about through changes in waste generator behaviour, whereby suitable wastes are secured as separate streams, and through socially-aware planning, than via technological breakthroughs. In these ways, solid waste disposal requirements can be reduced and poorer residents can enhance their access to cheaper fuel or energy.

References

Barnard, Geoffrey and Kristoferson, Lars. (1985). Agricultural Residues as Fuel in the Third World. London: Earthscan.

Doig, Alison. (2001). “Urban waste management for small scale energy production.” Unpublished report. Rugby: ITDG.

Furedy, Christine.(2001). “Reducing health risks of urban organic solid waste use.” Urban Agriculture Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 3. March: 23-25.

Furedy, Christine.(1990). Social Aspects of Waste Recovery in Asian Cities. Environmental Sanitation Reviews series, No. 30. Bangkok: Environmental Sanitation Information Centre.

Furedy, Christine. (1984). "Survival strategies of the urban poor: scavenging and recuperation in Calcutta." GeoJournal, Vol. 8: 129?136.

ITDG. (2001). “Fuel use survey in Nairobi.” Unpublished report.

McRobie, George. (1981). Small is Possible. New York: Harper and Row.

Sanderson, David. (1999). “Briefing notes on household livelihood security in urban settlements.: CARE International UK. Unpublished.

Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is Beautiful. London: Vintage.

(UNEP-IETC) International Environmental Technology Centre, United Nations Environment Programme. (1996). International Source Book on Environmentally-Sound Technologies for Solid Waste Management. Edited by Larry Rosenberg and Christine Furedy. Osaka: UNEP/ International Environmental Technology Centre.

1 Professor Emerita, Urban Studies, York University, Toronto; e-mail: furedy@yorku.ca.
2 ITDG, Rugby, U.K.; e-mail: alisond@itdg.org.uk.
3 Formerly called International Technology Development Group.
4 The project manager is Dr. Smail Khennas, the senior energy specialist at ITDG; e-mail: smailk@itdg.org.uk. We thank him for providing information on the project for this chapter.