Ministry of Environment

National Solid Waste Management Program

PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION (LOT A) ASSIUT & GOVERNORATES

ISWM Options Report

Final version December 2017

This report is prepared within National Solid Waste Management Programme, . Funded by EU, Swiss, German Financial and Technical Cooperation with Egypt, Under Consulting Services for Waste Management Programme Implementation.

Name: Review of Priority investment measures Version: Final Date: 14.12 2017

Prepared by the Consortium

CDM Smith‐AHT‐KOCKS‐CES‐AAW

Published by: Waste Management Regulatory Authority

Ministry of Environment House Building‐ Fustat Misr El Quadima, Cairo ,Egypt

Supported by:

MoE

ISWM Options Report Qena

TABLE OF CONTENT

Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 11 2. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES ...... 14

INTRODUCTION ...... 14 OBJECTIVES ...... 14 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF QENA GOVERNORATE ...... 15

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ...... 15 CLIMATE ...... 16 GEOLOGY ...... 17 3.3.1 Geomorphology ...... 17 3.3.2 Hydrogelogy ...... 18 POPULATION AND POPULATION GROWTH...... 18 3.4.1 Population ...... 18 3.4.2 Population Forecast ...... 20 ECONOMIC ASPECTS ...... 21 TRANSPORTATION ...... 21 4. CURRENT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SITUATION ...... 22

INTRODUCTION ...... 22 WASTE GENERATION ...... 22 4.2.1 Municipal Waste ...... 22 4.2.2 Municipal Solid Waste Characterization survey ...... 23 SWM EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS ...... 24 WASTE COLLECTION ...... 25 4.4.1 In the Cities ...... 25 4.4.2 In the Villages ...... 26 4.4.3 Primary Waste Collection; Pilot Project ...... 26 EXISTING SWM FACILITIES IN QENA GOVERNORATE ...... 26 4.5.1 Mechanical‐ Biological Treatment facilities ...... 26 4.5.2 Transfer stations ...... 28 4.5.3 Disposal sites ...... 28 5. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT ...... 30

THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...... 30 5.1.1 Sustainable Development Strategy: Egypt’s vision 2030 ...... 30 5.1.2 Solid waste management legislation ...... 30 5.1.3 Law No. 38/1967 on general public cleaning...... 30 5.1.4 Law 4/1994 – The Environmental Protection Law...... 31 5.1.5 Other laws and regulations related to SWM...... 32 5.1.6 Local Enforcement Authority ...... 33 TARIFF AND COST RECOVERY LEGISLATION ...... 34 ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page i

5.2.1 Law no. 10/2005...... 34 5.2.2 Financial systems in local administration ...... 34 5.2.3 Private sector participation legislation ...... 35 FORTHCOMING LEGISLATION IN MSWM ...... 36 5.3.1 Draft new solid waste management law ...... 36 5.3.2 Establish a holding company ...... 36 EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ...... 37 5.4.1 Overview of the sector ...... 37 5.4.2 The Ministry of Environment ...... 38 5.4.3 The Ministry of Local Development ...... 38 5.4.4 The Ministry of Finance ...... 38 5.4.5 The Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation...... 38 5.4.6 The Ministry of Housing Utilities and Urban Communities ...... 38 5.4.7 The Ministry of Health ...... 39 5.4.8 The Ministry of Electricity and Energy ...... 39 5.4.9 The Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) ...... 39 5.4.10 The Waste Management Regulatory Agency (WMRA) ...... 39 5.4.11 The Programme Management Unit (PMU) ...... 41 5.4.12 The Regional Branch Offices of the Ministry of Environment ...... 41 5.4.13 The Central Agency for Organisation and Administration (CAOA) ...... 41 5.4.14 At the Local Village Unit ...... 47 5.4.15 Conclusion ...... 47 PRESENTATION OF THE OPTIONS ...... 48 5.5.1 Option 0: Public holding ...... 50 5.5.2 Option 1: Governorate ...... 51 5.5.3 Option 2: regional SWM agency (Cairo, Gizeh Cleaning and Beautification Agency model) .... 52 5.5.4 Option 3: Private sector participation ( private sector participation model) ...... 53 RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FUTURE SWM INSTITUTIONAL SET UP ...... 53 6. TECHNICAL ISWM OPTION ANALYSIS ...... 56

GENERAL ...... 56 OPTION ANALYSIS APPROACH...... 56 SELECTION OF SWM TECHNOLOGIES PER SWM STAGE ...... 58 PRIMARY WASTE COLLECTION ...... 58 SECONDARY WASTE COLLECTION ...... 60 WASTE TRANSFER ...... 61 WASTE SORTING & TREATMENT ...... 62 FINAL DISPOSAL ...... 63 CONCLUSION ...... 64 7. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED OPTIONS ...... 65

WASTE COLLECTION TARGETS (2018‐2038) ...... 65 RECYCLING TARGETS (2018‐2038) ...... 66 ANALYSIS OF CONCEPT SCENARIOS (OPTIONS) ...... 66 OPTION 1: RESULT OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY 2007 (DISPOSAL) ...... 68 7.4.1 Description ...... 68 7.4.2 Logistical Set‐up of Option 1 ...... 69 7.4.3 Waste Flow Analysis ...... 70 7.4.4 Economic & Financial assessment of Option 1 ...... 72 ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page ii

OPTION 2: RESULT OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY 2007 (REDUCED DISPOSAL) ...... 75 7.5.1 Description ...... 75 7.5.2 Logistical Set‐up of Option 2 ...... 76 7.5.3 Waste Flow Analysis ...... 77 7.5.4 Economic & Financial assessment of Option 2 ...... 79 OPTION 3 (TRANSFER STATIONS ‐ DISPOSAL) ...... 82 7.6.1 Description ...... 82 7.6.2 Logistical Set‐up of Option 3 ...... 83 7.6.3 Waste Flow Analysis ...... 85 7.6.4 Economic & Financial assessment of Option 3 ...... 86 OPTION 4 (TRANSFER STATIONS ‐ TREATMENT – DISPOSAL) ...... 89 7.7.1 Description ...... 89 7.7.2 Logistical Set‐up of Option 4 ...... 90 7.7.3 Waste Flow Analysis ...... 91 7.7.4 Economic & Financial assessment of Option 4 ...... 93 COMPARISON OF OPTIONS ...... 96 7.8.1 Waste Collection ...... 96 7.8.2 Installed Treatment Capacity ...... 96 7.8.3 Total Recovery & Recycled waste ...... 98 7.8.4 Waste Disposal ...... 99 7.8.5 Economic & Financial Comparison of Options ...... 99 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 101

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page iii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1‐1:: INVESTMENT AND O&M COSTS – ALL OPTIONS, 2017‐2038 (IN €) ...... 13

FIGURE 3‐1: LOCATION OF QENA GOVERNORATE ...... 15

FIGURE 3‐2: DISTRICTS OF THE GOVERNORATE ...... 16

FIGURE 3‐3: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION 2017 ...... 19

FIGURE 3‐4: PERCENTAGE OF MALES AND FEMALES ...... 20

FIGURE 4‐1: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION ...... 23

FIGURE 4‐2: NUMBER OF WORKERS AND DRIVERS ...... 24

FIGURE 4‐3: COMPARISON BETWEEN WORKERS AND EQUIPMENT ...... 25

FIGURE 4‐4: COLLECTION SYSTEM IN QENA ...... 26

FIGURE 4‐5: NAGA HAMMADI (MBT)...... 27

FIGURE 4‐6: WTS NAGA HAMADI ...... 28

FIGURE 4‐7: TERAMSA CONTROL DUMPSITE ...... 29

FIGURE 6‐1. APPROACH TO ISWM ANALYSIS PER COMPONENT ...... 57

FIGURE 6‐2: APPROACH TO ISWM ANALYSIS OF COMPLETE ISWM SYSTEMS...... 57

FIGURE 6‐3: STANDARD TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES ...... 62

FIGURE 7‐1: CONFIGURATION OF OPTION 1 ...... 68

FIGURE 7‐2: PROGRESSIVE INCREASE OF WASTE COLLECTION COVERAGE IN THE GOVERNORATE (OPTION‐1) ...... 71

FIGURE 7‐3: WASTE RECOVERY AND TREATED BY OPTION‐1, 2017‐2038 ...... 72

FIGURE 7‐4: INVESTMENT COSTS FOR OPTION‐1, 2017‐2038 ...... 74

FIGURE 7‐5: O&M COSTS FOR OPTION‐1, 2017‐2038 ...... 74

FIGURE 7‐6: CONFIGURATION OF OPTION 2 ...... 75

FIGURE 7‐7: PROGRESSIVE INCREASE OF WASTE COLLECTION COVERAGE IN THE GOVERNORATE (OPTION‐2) ...... 78

FIGURE 7‐8: WASTE RECOVERY AND TREATED BY OPTION‐2, 2017‐2038 ...... 79

FIGURE 7‐9: INVESTMENT COSTS FOR OPTION‐2, 2017‐2038 ...... 81

FIGURE 7‐10: O&M COSTS FOR OPTION‐2, 2017‐2038 ...... 81

FIGURE 7‐11: CONFIGURATION OF OPTION‐3 ...... 82

FIGURE 7‐12: PROGRESSIVE INCREASE OF WASTE COLLECTION COVERAGE IN THE GOVERNORATE (OPTION 3) ...... 85

FIGURE 7‐13: WASTE RECOVERY AND TREATED BY OPTION 3, 2017‐2038 ...... 86

FIGURE 7‐14: INVESTMENT COSTS FOR OPTION‐3, 2017‐2038 ...... 88

FIGURE 7‐15: O&M COSTS FOR OPTION‐3, 2017‐2038 ...... 88

FIGURE 7‐16: CONFIGURATION OF OPTION ‐4 ...... 89

FIGURE 7‐17: PROGRESSIVE INCREASE OF WASTE COLLECTION COVERAGE IN THE GOVERNORATE (OPTION‐4) ...... 92

FIGURE 7‐18: WASTE RECOVERY AND TREATED BY OPTION‐4, 2017‐2038 ...... 93

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page iv

FIGURE 7‐19: INVESTMENT COSTS FOR OPTION‐4, 2017‐2038 ...... 95

FIGURE 7‐20: O&M COSTS FOR OPTION‐4, 2017‐2038 ...... 95

FIGURE 7‐21: WASTE COLLECTED FOR ANALYZED OPTIONS, 2017‐2038 ...... 96

FIGURE 7‐22: MBT INSTALLED CAPACITY COMPARISON, 2017‐2038 ...... 97

FIGURE 7‐23: COMPARISON OF RDF PRODUCTION BY DIFFERENT OPTIONS, 2017‐2038 ...... 97

FIGURE 7‐24: WASTE RECOVERED & RECYCLED FOR DIFFERENT OPTIONS, 2017‐2038 ...... 98

FIGURE 7‐25: WASTE LANDFILL AMOUNTS FOR DIFFERENT OPTIONS, 2017‐2038 ...... 99

FIGURE 7‐26: INVESTMENTS AND O&M COSTS – FOUR OPTIONS, 2017‐2038 ...... 100

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page v

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1‐1: ANALYSED OPTIONS ...... 12

TABLE 1‐2: EXPECTED SPECIFIC TREATMENT COSTS ...... 13

TABLE 3‐1: INHABITED AREA ...... 16

TABLE 3‐2: CLIMATE DATA FOR QENA GOVERNORATE ...... 17

TABLE 3‐3: POPULATION OF QENA GOVERNORATE 2017 ...... 18

TABLE 3‐4: PERCENTAGE OF MALES AND FEMALES 2017 ...... 19

TABLE 3‐5: POPULATION FORECAST WITH ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 2.1% ...... 20

TABLE 3‐6: POPULATION FORECAST WITH ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 2.1% IN URBAN AND RURAL AREA ...... 20

TABLE 4‐1: MSW GENERATION IN 2017 ...... 22

TABLE 4‐2: NUMBER OF EQUIPMENT AND THE WORKERS ...... 24

TABLE 5‐1: PRESENTATION OF OPTIONS ...... 49

TABLE 5‐2: COMPARISON OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF OPTIONS ...... 53

TABLE 6‐1: WEIGHTED COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR PRIMARY WASTE COLLECTION ...... 59

TABLE 6‐2: WEIGHTED COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR SECONDARY WASTE COLLECTION ...... 60

TABLE 6‐3: WEIGHTED COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR WASTE TRANSFER ...... 61

TABLE 6‐4: WEIGHTED COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR WASTE RECOVERY AND TREATMENT ...... 63

TABLE 6‐5: WEIGHTED COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR FINAL DISPOSAL ...... 63

TABLE 7‐1: WASTE COLLECTION TARGETS IN THE GOVERNORATE (URBAN AREAS), 2018‐2038 ...... 65

TABLE 7‐2: WASTE COLLECTION TARGETS IN THE GOVERNORATE (RURAL AREAS), 2018‐2038 ...... 65

TABLE 7‐3: RECOVERY AND RECYCLING TARGETS FOR THE GOVERNORATE, 2017‐2038 ...... 66

TABLE 7‐4: OPTION COMPARISON ...... 66

TABLE 7‐5: OVERVIEW OF OPTION‐1 ...... 69

TABLE 7‐6: LOGISTIC SETUP OF OPTION 1 ...... 69

TABLE 7‐7: DISTANCES WITHIN THE LOGISTIC SETUP OF OPTION 1 ...... 70

TABLE 7‐8: AMOUNTS OF WASTE IN OPTION‐1, 2017‐2038 ...... 70

TABLE 7‐9: WASTE FLOW FOR OPTION‐1, 2017‐2038 ...... 71

TABLE 7‐10: INVESTMENTS AND O&M COSTS OF OPTION‐1, 2018‐2038 (EURO) ...... 73

TABLE 7‐11: INVESTMENTS AND O&M COSTS OF OPTION‐1, 2018‐2038 (EGYPTIAN POUND) ...... 73

TABLE 7‐12: OVERVIEW OF OPTION‐2 ...... 76

TABLE 7‐13: LOGISTIC SETUP OF OPTION 2 ...... 76

TABLE 7‐14: DISTANCES WITHIN THE LOGISTIC SETUP OF OPTION 2 ...... 77

TABLE 7‐15: AMOUNTS OF WASTE IN OPTION‐2, 2017‐2038 ...... 77

TABLE 7‐16: WASTE FLOW FOR OPTION‐2, 2017‐2038 ...... 78

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page vi

TABLE 7‐17: INVESTMENTS AND O&M COSTS OF OPTION‐2, 2018‐2038 (EURO) ...... 80

TABLE 7‐18: INVESTMENTS AND O&M COSTS OF OPTION‐2, 2018‐2038 (EGYPTIAN POUND) ...... 80

TABLE 7‐19: OVERVIEW OF OPTION‐3 ...... 83

TABLE 7‐20: LOGISTIC SETUP OF OPTION 3 ...... 83

TABLE 7‐21: DISTANCES WITHIN THE LOGISTIC SETUP OF OPTION 3 ...... 84

TABLE 7‐22: AMOUNTS OF WASTE IN OPTION‐3, 2017‐2038 ...... 84

TABLE 7‐23: WASTE FLOW FOR OPTION‐3, 2017‐2038 ...... 85

TABLE 7‐24: INVESTMENTS AND O&M COSTS OF OPTION‐3, 2018‐2038 (EURO) ...... 87

TABLE 7‐25: INVESTMENTS AND O&M COSTS OF OPTION‐3, 2018‐2038 (EGYPTIAN POUND) ...... 87

TABLE 7‐26: OVERVIEW OF OPTION‐4 ...... 89

TABLE 7‐27: LOGISTICSL SETUP OF OPTION 4 ...... 90

TABLE 7‐28: DISTANCES WITHIN THE LOGISTIC SETUP OF OPTION 4 ...... 91

TABLE 7‐29: AMOUNT OF WASTE IN OPTION 4, 2017‐2038 ...... 91

TABLE 7‐30: WASTE FLOW FOR OPTION‐4, 2017‐2038 ...... 92

TABLE 7‐31: INVESTMENTS AND O&M COSTS OF OPTION‐4, 2018‐2038 (EURO) ...... 94

TABLE 7‐32: INVESTMENTS AND O&M COSTS OF OPTION‐4, 2018‐2038 (EGYPTIAN POUND) ...... 94

TABLE 7‐33: COMPARISON OF NPV OF THE PROPOSED OPTIONS (2017‐2038) IN € ...... 100

TABLE 7‐34: COMPARISON OF NPV OF THE PROPOSED OPTIONS (2017‐2038) IN EGYPTIAN POUND ...... 100

TABLE 7‐35: TECHNICAL SUMMARY OF OPTIONS FOR QENA GOVERNORATE ...... 101

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page vii

LIST OF ANNEXS

Annex‐1: Population and Population Forecast Annex‐2: Estimated Waste Generation (2016) Annex‐3: List of Workers and Drivers Annex‐4: Existing Waste Management Equipment Annex‐5: Waste Treatment Facilities Annex‐6: Disposal Sites Annex‐7: Documentation Letters Annex‐8: Waste Generation Rates Annex‐9: Waste Generation (2017‐2038) Annex‐10: Waste Collection Rates (2017‐2038) Annex‐11: Waste Collected (2017‐2038) Annex‐12: Service Coverage Rates for Calculations Annex‐13: ISWM Performances for Options 1 to 4 Annex‐14: Assumptions for SWM Calculations Annex‐15: Recycling and Treatment System for Options 1 to 4 Annex‐16: Final Disposal for Options 1 to 4 Annex‐17: Investments and O&M Costs for Options 1 to 4 Annex 18: Comments & Consultant’s Replies

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AMC Accompanying Measures Consultant A.S.L. Above Sea Level BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development CAOA Central Agency for Organization and Administration CD Capacity Development CDS Controlled Dump Site CDW construction & demolition waste CPI Consultant/Consultancy for Programme Implementation DTL Deputy Team Leader EEAA Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency ESIA Environmental (and Social) Impact Assessment EGP Egyptian Pound EPR Extended Producer Responsibility EU European Union ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan FC Financial Cooperation GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH IM Immediate Measures ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management IT Information Technology KfW KfW Development Bank LGU Local Government Unit MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment M&E Monitoring & evaluation MENA Middle East and North Africa MoE Ministry of Environment MURIS Ministry of State for Urban Renewal and Informal Settlements MSW Municipal Solid Waste NGO Non‐governmental organization NSWMP Egyptian National Solid Waste Management Programme OECD Organization of Economic Development and Cooperation PEA Project Executing Agency PM Person month PMU Programme Management Unit ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page ix

PSC Programme Steering Committee RDF Refuse Derived Fuels 3R Reuse – Reduce ‐ Recycle SDS Sustainable Development Strategy SECO Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SWM Solid Waste Management SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit TA Technical Assistance TC Technical Cooperation TC‐C Technical Cooperation Consultancy ToR Terms of Reference WMRA Waste Management Regulatory Agency

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page x

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The present Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Options Report for Qena Governorate is an important milestone for deliverables within the National Solid Waste Management Program (NSWMP). The objective of the current project phase (Work Package 1: Assistance to the Governorates in the development of master plans and decentralized investment planning together with support to the establishment of functioning SWMUs) is to develop a regional solid waste management Masterplan, taking into consideration technical, financial, institutional, managerial, and operational aspects. The aim is to lay out the technical, institutional and economic options of the project, to assess them, and recommend the most suitable solution that will be analysed in detail in the following project task. The analysis of SWM in Qena Governorate during the Inception Phase indicated that the present SWM system is technically inefficient, consumes considerable government funds, is environmentally unacceptable, and its services are only provided to a minority of inhabitants. The major constraints are of economic, institutional and technical nature. They result in a number of negative environmental impacts and public health risks. The implementation of the new SWM system is designed for a planning horizon of 20 years (2017 to 2037) and considers 3 implementation phases (short‐, mid‐, and long‐term horizon). The design principles of the project are to establish a safe, efficient, environmentally friendly, and sustainable (cost recovering) waste management system, to treat and dispose of the waste at jointly used engineered facilities in Qena Governorate, to involve private sector activities, and create employment. Qena Governorate is located in the southern part of Egypt and extends over a length of approximately 180 km on both the East and West Banks of the River. It covers an area of 9,434 km2, of which approx. 14% is inhabited by a population of 3,128,566 (year 2017). The total household waste generation in the project area was 487,960 t/y in 2017 and varies between 0.37 kg/cap/d in rural areas and 0.66 kg/cap/d in urban areas. Over the planning horizon, the annual waste generation will increase to 754,363 t/y in 2037 (see Annex 9 for detailed waste generation rates and numbers). The Waste Management Regulatory Agency (WMRA), which was established in 2015, oversees the development of the waste management sector, formulates policies, prepares legislative and regulative measures, and assists the Governorates of Qena and Assiut in the implementation of an ISWM project within the national SWM programme. SWM units have been established to rationalize resources, centralize capacities, and enhance professionalization to create an effective SWM system at the Governorate level. The institutional setup of SWM in Qena Governorate has been analyzed, and the following aspects have been specifically addressed and are still under work: . The establishment of SWMUs in the selected Governorates, including definition of staffing requirements, human resources, organizational development, and capacity building with a focus on planning and client functions . Support to improving and implementing cost recovery instruments . Support to financial planning of SWMUs . Knowledge management and communication . Provide assistance to SWMUs in formulation, implementation and popularization of operator models for primary collection and recycling services . Implement and evaluate pilot projects for primary collection including separate collection . Provide assistance to the SWMUs in order to:

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 11

 Support local administration units in developing waste management master plans  Support the organization of primary collection, including separate collection  Support identification of staffing requirements and cost estimations  Support development of tariff systems and management of revenue collection

Furthermore, some open questions have been addressed that are related to institutional, technical and financial arrangements regarding holding companies, which are under discussion and expected to be established. Waste collection has been considered under different aspects, whether collection in rural areas (villages of Markaz) or urban areas (cities and larger mother villages). Collection points are recommended for low‐income areas, as well as urban areas that do not have access to service. In higher income areas a gradual extension of the door‐to‐door system is proposed by using trucks. In rural areas, the implementation of door‐to‐door collection by tractors and trailers, and the implementation of collection points are the most favourable approaches. To save waste transportation costs, standard transfer stations (TS) have been foreseen for some of the analysed options. Different clusters, that either include whole or only parts of a Markaz area, have been formed to serve as a SWM centre that consists of: . An upgrade of existing, or the construction of new facilities . Rehabilitating controlled dump sites (CDS) and constructing new sanitary landfills Option 1 is the proposed alternative that has been recommended in a previous Feasibility Study carried out for Qena Governorate in 2005. The following Table summarizes the 4 options that have been analysed: Table 1‐1: Analysed Options

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Groups None (Special None (Special 5 Clusters 5 Clusters Unit per Centre) Unit per Centre)

Primary waste Gradual extension of the door‐to‐door system by using tricycles in densely collection in urban populated areas. Place collection points in areas without service as well as low‐ areas income areas.

Primary waste Collection points in areas without service, as well as low‐income areas. In higher collection in rural income areas, a gradual extension of the door‐to‐door system by using tractors areas with trailers

Secondary waste Improve collection services with compactor trucks and open trucks in urban areas. collection In rural areas, implement collection services with trailers.

Transfer Station No No 5 stations 4 stations

* Upgrade 2 MBT * 6 New MBT * 1 New MBT * 2 New MBT Waste Treatment * Upgrade 2 MBT * Upgrade 2 MBT * Upgrade 2 MBT

CDS * 5 New CDS *8 New CDS * 5 New CDS * 5 New CDS

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 12

The analysis is based on technical, environmental, and financial aspects, where investment costs and operational costs are estimated. The financial conditions that have been fixed in the bi‐lateral agreement in 2004 as well as other assumptions (Annex 14) have been taken into account. The following financial ranking has been achieved:

Figure 1‐1:: Investment and O&M Costs – all Options, 2017‐2038 (in €)

Expected specific waste treatment costs per ton for each option in EGP/t are shown in the following table.

Table 1‐2: Expected Specific Treatment Costs

Options Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Specific Cost (EGP/t) 283 276 292 343 Since only waste landfilling has been considered in Option 1, it is not recommended due to environmental reasons. Option 4 shows higher specific costs for treatment. Based on the presentation of the ISWM Options Analysis to Qena Governorate, the consultants shall analyse in detail Option 2 and Option 3 within the Master Plan, and recommend one option for implementation. The present report is the final version of the ISWM options report, in which comments have been taken into consideration. Annex 18 summarizes the comments and the Consultants replies.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 13

2. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

INTRODUCTION The Egyptian Solid Waste Management (SWM) Sector currently suffers from critical and cross‐cutting ailments which hinder its effectiveness and severely undermine public health, environment & natural resources. These ailments must be addressed holistically in order to ensure sustainable reform and investments and equal opportunity in the sector. A SWM sector reform will create job opportunities that ensure environmental, health, and safety conditions are significantly improved, as well as establish necessary professional standards within an environment of accountable and effective institutions. A Feasibility Study of an Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Project in Qena Governorate, which was contracted by the Qena Governorate to the Consortium IGIP ‐ IU ‐ RODECO – ALDAR (year 2005), and financed by the KfW Development Bank, comprised of two phases: an initial Concept Phase and a Feasibility Phase. The objective of the Concept Phase was to develop a regional SWM concept, taking into consideration technical, financial, institutional, managerial and operational aspects. The objectives of the Feasibility Phase are to lay out the technical, institutional and economic design of the project and to assess its operational feasibility and risk. In response to the continuing serious waste management problems in the country, the Governments of Germany and Egypt agreed in 2011 on the implementation of the National Solid Waste Management Programme (NSWMP). The overall goal of the NSWMP is that the national SWM system contributes significantly to the sustainable protection of the environment and climate, the conservation of resources and the reduction of health‐ related hazards for the population in Egypt. On the strategic level, the NSWMP programme covers all waste types. It intends to catalyse a new development phase for the SWM sector in Egypt by developing a national SWM policy and legal framework, defining responsibilities, establishing competent institutions, capacity development, as well as creating financing and cost coverage instruments. The NSWMP will lay the foundation for a well‐coordinated and sustainable development of the whole solid waste sector. The NSWMP, in the context of municipal waste, will in particular comprise:  The development of dedicated institutions at national, regional and local levels.  The enhancement of professional capacity.  The development and implementation of cost recovery instruments on national and local level.  New investments in infrastructure and services.

OBJECTIVES The objective of this report is to formulate different options for the Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Master Plan in consultation with Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) and stakeholders in Assiut Governorate, to determine the corresponding options for waste transfer, recycling and treatment, to secure disposal in sanitary landfills, and ensure that this plan cover the geographical territory of Qena Governorate. The documentation and analyses that are presented in this document have been developed through extensive consultations and data gathering support that has been coordinated through the SWMU and local administrative units in cities and villages.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 14

3. CHARACTERISTICS OF QENA GOVERNORATE

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS Qena Governorate is located in the southern part of Egypt and extends over a length of approximately 180 km on both the East and West Banks of the River Nile. Qena Governorate covers an area of 9,434 km2, of which 1,336 km2 is inhabited, representing only 14% of the Governorate. The Governorate is located in . It is bordered by the Stern Mountains to the East, the Western Mountains to the West, Governorate to the North and Governorate to the South.

Figure 3‐1: Location of Qena Governorate

Qena Governorate is administratively divided into 9 Markaz (Districts), which are (from north to south) Abou Tesht, Farshot, Naga Hammadi, Deshna, El‐Waqf, Qena, Qeft, Qous, and Nakada. The City of Qena is the capital of the Governorate and at the same time the capital of the Qena Markaz. In total, there are 9 capital cities (subsequently called urban areas), 50 Local Governmental Units (LGUs) called mother villages (semi‐urban areas) and 111 satellites (rural areas).

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 15

Figure 3‐2: Districts of the Governorate

Table 3‐1: Inhabited area

Name of City Area (km2) Inhabited Area (%) Abo Tesht 205.39 199.4 97% Naga Hammadi 271.00 230.68 85% Deshna 728.68 170 23% Al Waqf 89.76 55.37 62% Qena 5101.65 244.6 5% Qeft 1860.33 88.67 5% Nakada 86.92 83.62 96% Qous 1013.4 191.4 19% Farshot 77.3 72.05 93% Total 9 434.43 1 335.79 14%

Table 3‐1 shows that the most inhabited areas are concentrated in the following Districts: Abo Tesht, Nakada, Farshot, and Naga Hammadi. Only 14 % of Qena Governorate is inhabited and the rest is sparsely populated desert area. Qena Governorate is characterized by a typical arid climate with hot and dry summers, cool winters, low rainfall, and bright sunshine throughout most of the year. The temperatures range between a mean minimum of 5.6 °C in January and a mean maximum of 41.2 °C in June. Relative humidity ranges between an average of 25% in May and an average of 55% in December. Precipitation is very low, averaging in less than 5mm annually.

CLIMATE According to the Köppen climate classification, Qena has a hot desert climate, with very hot summers and very little precipitation year round. Winters are warm during the daytime, but become cool at ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 16

night. The hottest months on average are equally July and August, while the coolest month is January. Luxor, Minya, Qena and have the widest range of temperatures between day and night of any city in Egypt, with almost 16 °C difference. The hottest temperature recorded was on May 15, 1991 at 50 °C and the coldest temperature was on January 6, 1989 at −1 °C. Table 3‐2: Climate data for Qena Governorate

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Record high 33 37 43 46 50 50 49 49 46 44 40 37 °C (°F) (91) (99) (109) (115) (122) (122) (120) (120) (115) (111) (104) (99)

Average high 21.4 23.7 28.1 33.6 38.4 39.8 39.8 39.8 36.6 33.7 28.4 23.2 °C (°F) (70.5) (74.7) (82.6) (92.5) (101.1) (103.6) (103.6) (103.6) (97.9) (92.7) (83.1) (73.8)

Daily mean °C 13.4 15.2 19.5 24.8 29.8 31.4 31.8 32 29.1 26.1 20.4 15.2 (°F) (56.1) (59.4) (67.1) (76.6) (85.6) (88.5) (89.2) (90) (84.4) (79) (68.7) (59.4)

Average low 5.4 6.7 10.9 16 21.2 23.1 23.8 24.2 21.7 18.5 12.4 7.3 °C (°F) (41.7) (44.1) (51.6) (61) (70.2) (73.6) (74.8) (75.6) (71.1) (65.3) (54.3) (45.1)

Record low −1 −1 1 6 12 12 15 13 13 10 1 0 °C (°F) (30) (30) (34) (43) (54) (54) (59) (55) (55) (50) (34) (32)

GEOLOGY

Several geologic, hydrogeological and geophysical studies have been carried out by many authors such as Said (1981), Abu El‐Ella (2004), Elewa et al. (2006), Elmalt (2008), El‐Shami (1988), Aggour (1997) Hassan (1985) El‐Hussaini et al. (1994), Galal (2005), Abdel Gowad (2010), Wilmsen et al., 2012, Seleem et al. (2013), Seleem (2014) and Abdel Moneim et al. (2015)

3.3.1 GEOMORPHOLOGY Elewa et al. (2006) pointed out that the area of Wadi Qena basin is divided into the following main landforms: 1. Platforms. a. The Limestone Plateau is dissected and consists mainly of beds of hard, jointed and fractured limestone. The flat‐topped surface at Gebel Aras (524 m above sea level [A.S.L.]) represents a hard, massive, structurally controlled landform and provides a suitable catchment area. b. the plateau of Nubian Sandstone is mainly composed of hard, massive sandstone beds forming dissected patches. These patches contain some beds of clay sand iron oxides that highly affect the groundwater conditions and quality. This plateau is also cut by few main faults. 2. In the north‐eastern corner of the investigated area, Tors appear representing Precambrian basement rocks exposures. They are also highly weathered and represent a part of the groundwater aquifers catchment areas. 3. Fault Scarps: The area is affected by structural disturbances that created major fault scarps with steep slopes (38‐75%). These scarps moderate in NW‐SE and N‐S directions. 4. Alluvial Deposits

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 17

a. Alluvial Fans, which are dispersed in the area of investigation due to the presence of fault scarps, induce topographic differences between the plateaus and the wadis. These fans are composed mainly of sands, clay and gravel. b. Flood Plains are nearly flat and completely cultivated. They are part of to the Pre‐Nile, of Quaternary age (Said, 1981), and are composed mainly of mud, silt and clay with some sands.

3.3.2 HYDROGELOGY Groundwater in the may be found in both shallow and deep formations. Shallow groundwater occurs in the alluvial deposits and shallow carbonate rocks and is discharged either naturally through springs, or through drilled wells of shallow depth. The deeper water‐bearing formations, however, are more extensive and generally provide larger and more reliable well yields (Carr and Khafagi, 1981). The effective erosion of surface layers and the undulation of subsurface strata in other places in Wadi Qena cause a variation in the Quaternary alluvial deposits from place to place. The thickness of the layers increases further downstream and reaches 100 m (Seleem, 2013). The middle‐downstream parts of Wadi Qena have groundwater reserves in the Quaternary Aquifer System and Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System. The Quaternary Aquifer System is considered as an unconfined aquifer layer and the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System is treated as a confined aquifer layer.

POPULATION AND POPULATION GROWTH

3.4.1 POPULATION The population of Qena Governorate reached 3.128.566 citizen in 2017, 19.8% live in urban areas while 80.2% live in rural areas1. The rate of growth (2.1%)2., the population in Qena Governorate is shown in Table 2‐3 Qena Governorate is considered one of the highly populated Governorates, where the population density of inhabited areas is 2,371 citizens/km2. The highest population of the Governorate can be found in Qena and Naga Hammadi (40%), while the lowest populated areas are Qeft and Al‐Waqf districts (8%). Table 2‐3 presents the percentage of population in each district in 2017, and Figure 2‐3 shows the percentage of population. Table 2‐4 shows the percentage of male and female in each district. In general, the ratio of males to females is 50%. Table 3‐3: Population of Qena Governorate 2017 Total Population Population City 2017 (%) Naga Hammadi 565516 18% Qena 681333 22% Qous 449823 14% Deshna 182118 13% Abou Tesht 388581 14% Qeft 84470 5% Farshot 153026 6% Nakada 452666 5% El‐Waqf 171033 3% Total 3128566 100%

1 SWMU Qena 2 Annual statistic book ‐ Central Agency for public mobilization and statistics ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 18

Figure 3‐3: Percentage of Population 2017

Table 3‐4: Percentage of Males and Females 2017 Total Males % of Total Females % of City 2017 males 2017 females Naga Hammadi 288075 51% 277441 49% Qena 343855 51% 337478 49% Qous 225391 50% 227275 50% Deshna 196677 51% 191904 49% Abou Tesht 219861 49% 229961 51% Qeft 78298 51% 74727 49% Farshot 92350 51% 89767 49% Nakada 81932 48% 89100 52% El‐Waqf 42891 51% 41579 49% Total 1569330 50% 1559232 50%

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 19

Figure 3‐4: Percentage of males and females

3.4.2 POPULATION FORECAST The population in Qena Governorate will rise from 3.128.566 in 2017 to 4.740.893 in 2037, Table 2‐5 shows the population forecast to 2037, and table 2‐6 shows the population forecast to 2037 in urban and rural area. Table 3‐5: Population Forecast with Annual Growth Rate 2.1% Expected population forecast for the next 20 years City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Naga Hammadi 565516 627442 667807 696149 740934 772380 822069 856958 Qena 681333 755941 804573 838720 892676 930563 990428 1032462 Abo Tesht 449823 499080 531187 553731 589354 614367 653890 681642 Farshot 182118 202061 215060 224187 238609 248736 264738 275974 Deshna 388581 431132 458868 478343 509115 530723 564865 588839 El‐Waqf 84470 93720 99749 103982 110672 115369 122791 128002 Qeft 153026 169783 180705 188375 200493 209002 222448 231889 Qous 452666 502235 534544 557231 593079 618250 658023 685950 Nakada 171033 189762 201970 210541 224086 233596 248624 259176 Total 3128566 3471155 3694462 3851259 4099019 4272986 4547877 4740893

Table 3‐6: Population Forecast with Annual Growth Rate 2.1% in Urban and Rural Area

Expected population growth for the next 20 years 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Urban 618320 686028 730162 761151 810117 844500 898828 936975 Rural 2510246 2785127 2964300 3090108 3288902 3428486 3649049 3803918 Total 3128566 3471155 3694462 3851259 4099019 4272986 4547877 4740893

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 20

Annex (1) gives details on population and population forecast.

ECONOMIC ASPECTS Qena is an agri‐industrial governorate. It ranks first in the production of sugar cane, tomatoes, bananas, sesame, and hibiscus. Several factories operate in the Governorate including three sugar factories, and one spinning and weaving factory, in addition to the Aluminum Complex known as the largest industrial facility in the Middle East. Qena also hosts two industrial zones; the first Industrial Zone is situated in the village of Kalaheen near Qeft city and the second Industrial Zone is in the village of Haw close to Naga Hammadi. Another small cluster of industries is located in Salhyia near Qena city.

TRANSPORTATION Qena has a network of well‐paved streets, roads and highways with abundant greenery. From the city, there is a road that crosses the Eastern Desert to port on the .

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 21

4. CURRENT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SITUATION

INTRODUCTION All Districts generally follow the directions as defined by law 38/1967. Accordingly, the cities and villages are responsible for cleansing through the city cleansing departments. Waste collection and sweeping takes place on a regular basis in the main cities, i.e. two to three times a week. A “machinery yard” is responsible for the mechanical maintenance of trucks and equipment. Villages suffer from non‐provision of regular services. However, some villages execute cleaning activities using limited equipment and very limited personnel. In some villages non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) provide waste collection services. Through previous and ongoing project support (e.g. GIZ programs), some collection equipment is available for villages with acute demand. However, due to a shortage of drivers and operational budget the efficiency of SWM in villages is generally low. Current and projected waste collection rates can be found in Annex 10.

WASTE GENERATION

4.2.1 MUNICIPAL WASTE Field visits and the data collected from MSWU and all districts and villages have confirmed that the total municipal solid waste generated is approximately 1,134 tons/day in 2017. 3‐1 shows the MSW generated in each district. Annex 2 provides detailed information regarding waste generation in each city and village in 2016, Annexes 8 and 9 provide a projection of rates from 2017 – 2038 in waste per person and total waste per district. Table 4‐1: MSW generation in 2017 City MSW generated 2017 (ton/day) % of total waste generated Naga Hammadi 234 21% Qena 319 28% Qous 122 11% Deshna 164 14% Abou Tesht 55 5% Qeft 62 5% Farshot 104 9% Nakada 67 6% El‐Waqf 7 1% Total 1134 100%

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 22

1. 49 % of total MSW are generated from 2 cities (Naga Hammadi and Qena) 2. 51% from the rest cities

Figure 4‐1: Municipal solid waste generation

4.2.2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY Based on international and national experience and the draft Municipal Solid Waste Management Code, the consultant selected three different areas with distinct socio‐economic categories and a variety of economic activities.

The three different areas (Al‐Thanawia Banat, El‐Nahal, and Dandara village) reflect different socio‐ economic levels. Al‐Thanawia Banat represents the urban area with medium to high income, while El‐Nahal area represents the semi‐urban area with low to medium income, and Dandara village represents the rural area with low income. The average waste generation rate per capita in Al‐Thanawia Banat is 0.66 kg/capita/day, El‐Nahal is 0.52 kg/capita /day, and Dandara village is 0.37Kg/capita /day (Annex 9). The study shows different waste composition for the different socio‐economic levels. The highest percentage of organic matter (60%) was in urban areas, followed by semi‐urban areas (57%), and the lowest in rural areas (46%). It was also found that the percentage of cardboard in the MSW for semi‐urban areas was the highest with 3% on average, while urban and rural areas were similar with an average of 2%. The highest percentage of PET waste were generated in rural areas with an average of 1.5%, and 0.9% and 0.5% in urban and semi‐urban areas. The highest percentage of waste plastic bags was generated in semi‐urban areas with an average 8.8%, and 6.6% and 8.3% in urban and rural areas. Glass in MSW was more in rural area with an average of 3.2%, and 2.1% and 2.5% in urban and semi‐urban areas. The average uncompact waste density found in urban area was 0.21 ton/m3, 0.19 ton/m3 in semi‐urban areas, and 0.18 ton/m3 in rural areas.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 23

A collected waste forecast separated into mixed wastes, recyclables, and biodegradables can be found in Annex 11.

SWM EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS Based on the data collected from the SWMU and the different districts and MSW facilities:  A total of 1,545 workers are employed in the SWM field  A total of 56% workers are concentrated in Naga Hammadi and Qena district  There are 278 drivers working in the SWM field  Throughout Qena district 361 different pieces of equipment are used  Out of the total number of equipment, 39% is located in Naga Hammadi and Qena district.

Table 4‐2 summarizes the number of equipment and the workers in each district.

Table 4‐2: Number of equipment and the workers % of % of City Workers Drivers Total Workers Total Equipment workers Equipment Naga Hammadi 280 78 358 23% 54 15% Qena 450 59 509 33% 85 24% Qous 114 43 157 10% 44 12% Deshna 158 35 193 12% 68 19% Abou Tesht 43 12 55 4% 47 13% Qeft 57 14 71 5% 18 5% Farshot 61 11 72 5% 12 3% Nakada 64 18 82 5% 17 5% El‐Waqf 40 8 48 3% 16 4% Total 1267 278 1545 100% 361 100%

56% of all workers in Naga Hammadi and Qena provide services to 37% of the total population

Figure 4‐2: Number of workers and drivers

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 24

The total number of equipment does not match the number of drivers.

Figure 4‐3: comparison between workers and equipment

Annexes 3 and 4 detail the situation of workers and equipment in each district of the Governorate and provide an assessment and analysis of the situation.

WASTE COLLECTION

4.4.1 IN THE CITIES Cleansing departments execute the whole cleaning system through permanent workers and are in charge of the following:  Waste collection from households, commercial shops and markets  Sweeping streets and squares  Transporting collected wastes to treatment facilities and for final disposal  Operating treatment facilities Waste collection in the cities is designed to pick the waste bags from in front of households, housing blocks and commercial shops. In some cases, the bags are accumulated by the citizens at “temporary collection spots”. Collection service is performed during day shifts (one or two shifts ‐ depending on the number of employed workers). Most of the work is concentrated on the first shift in the morning (6:00 am ‐ 2:00 pm) when the whole area of the City needs to be served for collecting the waste accumulated in the streets during the night. The activities of the second shift (2:00 pm – 10:00 pm) concentrate on services in main streets and commercial zones.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 25

Figure 4‐4: Collection system in Qena

4.4.2 IN THE VILLAGES Due to a shortage of workers, drivers in the cleaning systems of villages are limited and only irregular services such as cleaning of main roads, and waste collection from waste accumulation areas takes place. The waste is transported to allocated dumpsites without any controls or securing of the site.

4.4.3 PRIMARY WASTE COLLECTION; PILOT PROJECT A study was conducted by EcoConServ in 2014 under the framework of the NSWMP titled ‘Suitable Operator/Business Models for Solid Waste Primary Collection and Recycling in Urban, Semi‐Urban and Rural Areas of Egypt.’ This research lead to the identification of 11 operator/business models or ‘pilot projects’ for primary collection and recycling in four Governorates (, Gharbeia, Assiut and Qena). The focus of the pilot projects is to significantly improve primary collection and recycling services provided to citizens within these areas, and to implement sustainable service delivery mechanisms/arrangements that can continue after the pilot project is initially implemented. Furthermore, the focus is to learn and share experiences from implementation of these pilot projects so that future initiatives in this frame can benefit from the practical work conducted.

EXISTING SWM FACILITIES IN QENA GOVERNORATE

4.5.1 MECHANICAL‐ BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES There are 2 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Plants in Qena Governorate:

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 26

1. Qena MBT The plant near El‐Salhyia in Qena district was constructed in 2001 according to the general design of the Aircraft Industry. The plant is operated by the local administration, and a contract between the Governorate and CEMEX (cement company) was signed on March 2015 to add a line for the production of Refused Derived Fuel (RDF). The MBT in Qena suffers mainly from the following constraints:  Insufficient performance and productivity: The main problem observed at the plant was that the quantities treated were very low compared to daily waste generated, and that the plant was not working optimal. The plant equipment, although not utilized very often since the plant has opened, is in poor condition and in need of maintenance.  Insufficient composting area: Although the designed capacity of the plant is said to be 160 ton/d, the available composting area (presently approximately 5 feddans) is too small to accommodate compost rows for this production level. Especially if a longer composting time than the current 30 days is applied to improve the quality of the compost. Lower throughput reduces the possible revenues, since the available equipment is not utilized sufficiently.  Inappropriate watering: Due to the extremely low air humidity combined with high temperatures, and due to the fact that the rotting area is exposed to the sun, the compost heaps are very dry. A water content of 6.3 % allows the conclusion that almost no degradation process is taking place.  Insufficient incentive for workers: The municipal council sells the recyclables separated from the waste. Since the workers at the plant earn a low fixed salary, which is independent from the number of recyclables they segregate, they have no incentive for increasing their productivity.

2. Naga Hammadi MBT The MBT in Naga Hammadi has an improved standard layout similar to all the plants in Egypt manufactured by Aircraft Industry. The main difference in Naga Hammadi is that the second screen is not mobile. The mesh sizes are 100 mm for the first stage and 15 mm for the second screen. The windrows have a triangular shape with a base of up to 2 m and a height of 1.5 m at most. They are aerated with the help of a turning machine. A shredder is available and functioning for the processing of agricultural waste. The plant is currently processing up to 30 tons/day in one shift.

Figure 4‐5: Naga Hammadi (MBT)

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 27

4.5.2 TRANSFER STATIONS There is only one TS in Abo Tesht District, but unfortunately still not in operation, and a second TS located in city of Nagaa Hamadi. The TS in Nagaa Hamadi City is in operation. Waste is emptied from collection vehicles into a subterranean container. When it is filled, the container is heaved onto a truck with a crane and hook lift trailer. The TS is old, and technically not state of the art. Moreover, the site is located in the City centre. There is no space for operation according to today requirements and public traffic is hindered.

Figure 4‐6: WTS Naga Hamadi

4.5.3 DISPOSAL SITES OPEN DUMPSITES Disposal of solid waste mainly takes place at uncontrolled dump sites. There are 10 uncontrolled dump sites distributed throughout the districts. Annex 6 provides an overview of the situation of uncontrolled dump sites. CONTROLED DUMPSITES Two new Controlled Dump Sites (CDS) have been constructed west of the Nile, funded by the Ministry of Environment, but not currently used. The have been designed for a use of up to five years. One CDS is in Teramsa; this location has a permit for the next 5 years, and a size of 0.3 ha, which may be sufficient for approximately 3 years. The second CDS is located in the district of Nagaa Hamadi, and also has a size of only 0.3 ha.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 28

Figure 4‐7: Teramsa control dumpsite

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 29

5. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK

5.1.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY: EGYPT’S VISION 2030 In February 2016, Egypt launched the final draft of the country's sustainable development strategy for the next 15 years. Environment is one of the 12 Pillars of the Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS). Environment is integrated in all economic sectors to preserve natural resources and support their efficient use and investment, while ensuring next generations’ rights. It is one of the strategic goals of the SDS related to solid waste management to reduce pollution through integrated waste management. Air pollution and pollution from untreated waste with its serious environmental and health impacts shall be reduced while maximizing the use of natural resources by taking advantage of solid waste, with a focus on municipal solid waste. It is a goal of the SDS that the proportion of total generated solid waste that is collected regularly and managed appropriately shall be increased and reach 80% in year 2030.) Egypt does not have yet a law exclusively tailored to tackle solid waste management. Further, there are no subsidiary regulations governing special waste streams such as E‐wastes, end of life vehicles, packaging waste and waste tyres etc. The current legal framework for waste management is made up by various pieces of bylaws, ordinances and regulations, as described in the sub‐sections below.

5.1.2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION The purpose of this Part is to

 review and analyze existing solid waste management laws and regulations,  assess the status of current enforcement efforts, and  recommend actions that the Governorate can take to improve enforcement. The recommendations in this report are general in nature and are designed to facilitate decisions by the Governorate about enforcement strategies. The laws and regulations that are the subject of this report are those dealing specifically with the management of municipal solid waste and construction and demolition debris.

The principal law and regulations governing solid waste management in Egypt are  Law Number 38 of 1967 on General Public Cleaning and  its executive regulations (issued by Minister of Housing Decree Number 134 of 1968).  The Environment Law (Law Number 4 of 1994) and its executive regulations (issued by Prime Minister Decree Number 338 of 1995) that contain some provisions governing general solid waste management. Several other laws address solid waste in specific situations but do not have general provisions governing solid waste management.

5.1.3 LAW NO. 38/1967 ON GENERAL PUBLIC CLEANING. This is the primary and principal legislation on waste management in the country.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 30

The law as amended by Law 31/1976 and the executive statute 134/1968 regulates the collection and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial and public areas.

In particular, the Law addresses the following aspects related to solid waste management:  Articles 1 through 7 of the Law covers waste collection, transportation and disposal in respect of public health, cleanliness and beautification of towns.  Article 8 of the Law imposes fees on residential and commercial building occupants for waste collection and cleaning activities.  Executive Regulations (134/1968) to the Law were issued by the Ministry of Housing and clearly define wastes, impure and dirty water and responsibilities of the entities undertaking public cleanliness work as regards to solid waste collection, transportation and disposal.  Article 22 of the Executive Regulations mandates fencing of open areas and removal of waste from these areas.

Law No. 38/1967 has been amended four times so far.

5.1.4 LAW 4/1994 – THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LAW. Law 4/1994, its amendments and executive regulations is the principal environmental Law of Egypt. The Law also addresses solid waste management, specifically waste treatment and disposal, hazardous wastes, C&D waste.

In particular, the Law addresses the following aspects related to solid waste:  Article 1 of the Law defines waste management, disposal and recycling  Articles 29 prohibits displacing hazardous waste without a license  Article 33 regulates pollution from hazardous waste and obligations of decontamination.  Article 37 prohibits dumping, treating and burning of waste from illegal sites.  Article 38 provides specifications for infectious hospital waste management.  Articles 39 & 41 govern the management of C&D wastes.

The most recent amendments to the law (concerning SWM) are:  Amendment dated. 15.03.2017 concerning consultants' certificates for work in the field of environment.  Decree 1095/2011 and 964/2015 concerning regulations/requirements for site selection, emission levels, incl. Annex 11 on distance to residential areas for landfills, incinerators etc. (1.5 km distance is required between residential areas and disposal sites. However, this requirement may be modified, subject to a specific EIA to be carried out).  Prime Minister Decree 1741/2005 as an amendment to the Executive Regulations of Law 4/1994 on environmental protection. The decree regulates site selection for recycling and landfilling and equipment requirements for collection and transfer of all wastes including hazardous and marine wastes. The decree also covers the need for an environmental impact assessment.  Law 9/2009. The Law amended Law 4/1994 on environmental protection. Law 9/2009 regulates collection, treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. Article 37(2) prohibits open burning and placement sorting and treatment of wastes in areas other than those specifies beyond residential industrial and agricultural areas and water ways.

As it is clear, the amendments laid down controls, conditions and penalties in the case of dumping, treatment and burning of garbage and solid waste as an environmental pollutant, and designated areas

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 31

away from residential, industrial, agricultural and watercourse areas (a major problem in the villages). Controls and the minimum number of places allocated for such purposes. The amendments also required local units, in agreement with the EEAA, to allocate dumping, treatment or burning of garbage and solid waste. (Which provides a legal cover for the activities proposed in the master plans for the management of solid waste in the governorates at the time of implementation). These amendments help to implement the standards for the integrated management of solid waste, especially the environmental dimension. In addition, these amendments (Law 9 of 2009) have helped in setting the requirements and specifications that must be taken into account in allocating, treating or incineration of garbage dumps or solid waste, such that the local administration shall undertake an integrated study of the topography of the area and the nature of the waste to be disposed of according to the nature of activities in the urban area And its population. The place should be away from the residential, industrial, agricultural and water areas and an environmental impact assessment study should be provided. This will have a positive impact when implementing the interventions in the different stages of solid waste management. These amendments will also help the governorates to change the of private operations as well as the behavior of individuals for successful implementation of the Master plan. In particular, the Governorate will have to be able to effectively enforce the laws and regulations governing three activities:  Scavenging.  Unlicensed collection of solid waste.  Management of construction and demolition activities.

5.1.5 OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO SWM. Other relevant laws and regulations related to solid waste management include the following:  Law 140/1956 on occupation of public ways. The law prohibits any occupation and works on public ways without license from the competent authority.  Law 84/1968 prohibits dumping of solid waste in public ways.  Law 48/1982 on protection of the Nile and its canals. The Law prohibits disposal of solid wastes in the Nile and its canals without permission of the Ministry of Irrigation. Executive regulations of the Law issued by the Minister of Irrigation Decree (8/1983) prohibit temporary or permanent placement of solid wastes on the banks of the Nile and its canals and specify water quality standards.  Presidential Decree 86/2010 Regulating the closure of existing dumpsites and landfills at , rehabilitation of its sites and allocating five new areas for sorting, recycling and disposal of solid waste.  Law 8/1960 and its amendments address legislations that protect ports and territorial waters from pollution. Related decrees include:  The Minister of War Decree 56/1962, which dictates the protection of the cleanliness of ports and territorial waters.  The Minister of Transport Decree 5/1991 discussing the disposal of all types of waste in territorial waters, ports and national water bodies.  Presidential Decree 45/1983 dictates the protection of the Mediterranean Sea from land pollution sources in Athens.  Law 79/1961 and its amendments address marine disasters and debris, decrees include:  Presidential Decree 421/1963 grants approval for the Arab Republic of Egypt to join the International Treaty on protection of sea water against oil spills pollution.  Presidential Decree 1947/1965 that dictates the establishment of a permanent committee to oversee oil spill prevention plans.  Minister of Petroleum decree 673/1999 lists the hazardous waste substances resulting from oil and gas activities to be used only when approved by the Ministry of Petroleum.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 32

 Minister of Health decree 192/2001 dictates the list of hazardous medical wastes that require approvals for circulation and handling.  Prime Ministerial Decree 2005/2015, which consists of 15 articles aims at establishing the Waste Management Regulatory Agency (WMRA) in Egypt whose role will be to catalyze the development of the solid waste management sector, as a national centre of competence.

Article 1 in Presidential Decree Number 272 of 1982 (PD 272/1982) transferred jurisdiction for general cleaning from the Ministry of Housing to local administrative units. These decisions and regulations are important to the project in order to ensure that the proposed plans and activities achieve the objectives of the project after an in‐depth study of the current situation. This will require an institutional and legislative environment that supports the other technical, economic, financial and social elements. Some of these decisions and laws have a direct impact on the project such as the decision of the President of (CAOA) to establish entities responsible for SWM at the (governorate, city, village) level as effective and specialized departments capable of managing programs and projects to ensure sustainability. And the Prime Minister's decision to establish a solid waste management and management system at the national level to organize and develop the waste sector at the local level, as well as provide technical support to the governorates in the preparation of strategies and master plans. The decision of the President of the Republic to assign cleaning tasks to the local administration instead of the Ministry of Housing It is important to determine the competent authority on the management of this sector and prevent duplication.

5.1.6 LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY

 Authority to enforce Law 38/1967

In 1976, the Minister of Justice issued Decree Number 3137 (MoJ 3137/1976), which identified the following local government employees as having the authority to enforce Law 38/1967. 1) Governorate housing administrators. 2) Governorate health department administrators. 3) Engineering Division administrators for town and district councils. 4) Municipal organization administrators and engineers. 5) Governorate or local unit general manager for urban environmental protection. 6) Governorate health affairs representatives working in environmental protection. 7) Physicians at health offices and units in towns, districts, and village units. 8) Environmental protection monitors in local units 9) Heads of village units in rural areas. 10) Technical personnel supervising cleaning services in local units. 11) Cleaning and draining monitors and supervisors.

 Authority to enforce Law 4/1994

Local authorities are empowered to enforce Law 4/1994 and its executive regulations. The articles in Law 4/1994 and its executive regulations that address general solid waste management identify local or municipal authorities as responsible for:

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 33

• Designating sites for treatment, burning and disposal of solid waste (in agreement with EEAA). • Granting permission (in conjunction with EEAA) for transporting infectious medical waste to hospitals for incineration. • Implementing the specifications for solid waste containers and collection vehicles. • Incorporating construction and demolition debris requirements into permits for exploration, excavation, construction and demolition and designating sites for disposal of those wastes.

TARIFF AND COST RECOVERY LEGISLATION Tariffs are collected by the Electricity Company (holding company at the national level). It has local companies in each governorate. Each local company collects tariffs in agreement with governorate/peoples committee. The company charges 0.15 LE per household for the tariff collection services. Thus, in principle, everybody who has access to electricity will also pay for SWM‐services. In villages, tariffs are collected either by NGOs or by private contractors (In the case of service). However, the tariff collection system is not fully effective. Approx. only 70‐80% of tariffs are actually paid.

5.2.1 LAW NO. 10/2005. Law 10/2005 amended some provisions of Law 38/1967 regarding the public cleanness.

The law cancelled article 8 and 9 of Law 38/1967 regarding the public cleanness and replaced them by two new articles where appropriate monthly waste collection fees were defined as:  10 EGP/month for households in capital cities;  1 to 4 EGP/month for households in other cities; and  10 to 30 EGP/month per shop  The solid waste collection fee shall be charged on electricity bills.

The law does not specify waste collection fees for villages. The governor can decide on this matter after the approval of the Public Council.

5.2.2 FINANCIAL SYSTEMS IN LOCAL ADMINISTRATION There are two main sources of finance in the existing local system:  the major one is governmental subsidies or grants, constituting round 80% of the resources;  And the other is additional/ local funding, mainly through Special Funds, of which the Services Development Fund "SDF" is more vital.

Financial dynamics in the existing local system can be described as follows:  Lack of funds in the local councils not only makes fund‐raising a major concern of these councils but also gives greater power to the executive branch of the system. Local finances represent the major channel through which the government influences the local administration system.  A major source of finance for local units and the Ministry of Local Development (MOLD) has been the Joint Revenues Account of Governorates. Yet, the Ministry of Finance approves the MOLD’s use of money on the condition that the Ministry of Planning gives prior approval for the MOLD’s projects. Governorates should submit their proposals for local developmental projects in accordance with the national plan directives.  Thus, it appears that the Ministry of Finance has traditionally discouraged the creation of a budgetary system at the local level that would be independent of the central government's overall

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 34

plans. However, a great deal depends on the negotiating powers of a governor and the weight of support “he /she” is receiving from the Minister of Local Development.  Although, in theory, each popular council is supposed to develop a draft budget outlining the four major categories (i.e. wages, salaries, bonuses; current expenditure; investments and capital transfer), the reality is different. A popular council does give a great input to the draft budget that is eventually sent forward to the higher level of administration; but most of these inputs which go beyond the initial guidelines stipulated by the ministerial representatives in the Governorates (i.e. sectorial directorates) are quietly ignored at the central government level.  The central government and line ministries, as well as the governor and Governorate's financial directorate, play important roles in the budgetary process. The more a governor is development‐ oriented and committed to decentralization, the more he allows for cooperation between local institutions (appointed and elected) and motivates popular council to raise funds locally and to activate community participation, instead of being greatly dependent on or clients of the central government. Moreover, there are no financial/accountancy departments at village level through which the villages can receive their allocations directly; not via the Markaz level.

5.2.3 PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION LEGISLATION There is a general trend in Egypt to allow the private sector to play a role in the solid waste system. The strategic directions and policies issued by the Ministry of Environment through the National Solid Waste Management Program indicated that: "The government, in consultation with the central regulatory entity, will provide more stable conditions for investment in the solid waste sector by simplifying administrative procedures, streamlining efficient tendering and contractual arrangements as well as setting a transparent and stable legal framework accessible to small‐to‐medium enterprises, community‐based organizations, and large corporations".

The participation of the private sector is regulated in a set of laws and regulations, the most important of which are:

Law No. 67 of 2010 regulating the participation of the private sector in infrastructure projects, services and facilities.

Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 238 of 2011 on the issuance of the executive regulations for the law of private sector participation in infrastructure projects, services and public utilities

Law No. 203 of 2014‐ Stimulate the production of electricity from renewable energy sources. Establishment of electricity production projects from renewable energy sources as follows:

(A) The Authority shall submit tenders for the establishment of electricity production plants from one of the renewable energy sources to be operated with its knowledge. The electricity produced from these stations shall be sold to the Egyptian Company for Electricity Transmission at a price proposed by the Authority according to a study submitted by the Authority and approved by the Council of Ministers.

(B) The Egyptian Electricity Transmission Company (EGEC) will submit tenders to investors to establish, own and operate electricity generation plants from a renewable energy source. The electricity generated from

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 35

these stations will be sold to the Egyptian Company for Electricity Transmission under the terms and prices contracted between them and the investor. In Qena Governorate the role of the private sector in the solid waste system is limited.

FORTHCOMING LEGISLATION IN MSWM

5.3.1 DRAFT NEW SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LAW The Ministry of Environment, through the National Program, has prepared a draft solid waste management law under the name of the General Waste Management Law.

Article (3): The purpose of the law: Establish the basic legal conditions to prevent and reduce waste production, recycling, processing or extraction Secondary raw materials and energy production, or safe disposal of waste for the purpose of protecting the environment and public health and sustainable development.

Article (4) Scope of Law: The provisions of this law shall apply to the following: 1. All categories and types of waste, except for the types of waste identified in paragraph (b) of this Article. 2. All types of waste management activities, processes and installations related to categories and types of waste covered by this law. 3. Waste from mining, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources and quarrying activities. 4. Liquid waste. 5. Animal waste (such as compost and dead animals) and other non‐hazardous substances of natural origin that can be used for agricultural purposes 6. Explosives that have been deactivated in the absence of any other legislation for such wastes. (B) The provisions of this Law shall not apply to: 1. Radioactive waste. 2. Gaseous emissions in the atmosphere. 3. Sewage and sludge resulting from it.

The proposed law is still a draft, and has not yet been submitted to the Council of Ministers or Parliament. Also, the draft law has not yet been put forward for community dialogue.

5.3.2 ESTABLISH A HOLDING COMPANY  The government intends to establish a holding company to manage the solid waste system with a capital of 7 billion pounds.  The government is considering several scenarios to choose the most appropriate form for the company and its entity technically and administratively, including its establishment along the lines of the Holding Company for Electricity, or water and sanitation, or commensurate with the nature of the task of establishing the company». ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 36

 The company will establish its subsidiaries in all governorates. The assets of the company's hygiene and beauty facilities will be included.  The subsidiaries in the provinces would implement, supervise, collect, optimize land use and sell waste, such as fertilizer and inorganic waste.  The purpose of the establishment of the company basically raise the efficiency of solid waste management system, reduce the overlap of the work of the bodies between them, and management of the system scientifically achieve a good economic success».  In April 2017, the Local Administration Committee of the House of Representatives proposed the establishment of a holding company for the recycling of solid waste, which will handle all matters of this vital file.

In July 2017, the Ministry of Local Development was sent to the governorates to present their proposals in the branch of the holding company in each governorate and answer the following questions. ‐ Is it applied in cities only or in cities and villages? ‐ Is implementation of villages through community development associations (CDA,s)?

EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

5.4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE SECTOR Until now, at the national level in Egypt, there has been no single ministry carrying the entire responsibility for SWM. In practice, responsibilities are divided between more than one ministry. At the local level, and in accordance with the principles of the national governorates policy, the Governorates are responsible for municipal solid waste management in their territories. This means that whilst the Central governorates set up policies, legislation and framework for implementation of SWM infrastructure implementation mechanisms Governorates are responsible for all SWM Activities either directly or by contracting private sector companies. It is the responsibility of Governorates includes setting regional strategies, regional planning, institutional and financial issues at the local level, site localization for SWM facilities, contracting, training, supervision and operation monitoring of private sector, enforcement of laws and regulations, training and public awareness. The organizational structure in the Governorates does not include a separate body responsible for SWM planning, management and service monitoring of the SWM and public cleanliness has operations. On this basis, the role of Local Governorates can be summarized as follows:  Selection of strategic alternatives and preparation of appropriate scenarios according to the conditions of each Governorate  Preparation of workshops and programs that is required for the implementation of the proposed scenarios.  Preparation of EIAs for different program activities and sending them to the EEAA Headquarters.  Setting up the suitable measures and regulations for work performance, as well as evaluation and follow‐up (control and monitoring), implementation of the proposed activities.  Implementation of the proposed programs and activities. The duties/responsibilities of Governorates, Markaz, City, District and local units at village level are further described below. ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 37

5.4.2 THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT In June 1997, the responsibility of Egypt's first full time Minister for Environmental Affairs was assigned as stated in the Presidential Decree no.275/1997. From thereon, the new ministry has focused, in close collaboration with the national and international development partners, on defining environmental policies, setting priorities and implementing initiatives within a context of sustainable development.

5.4.3 THE MINISTRY OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT This is the implementing ministry – therefore very important in relation to improvement of SWM‐systems. According to the Law of Local Administration 43/1979, the relevant roles and responsibilities of MOLD can be summarized as follows:  Provide advice and technical assistance to local administration.  Harmonizes legal views addressing local administration matters among local administration units.  Replicates successful experiences in Governorates.  Manages training to local administration personnel.  Propose legislations relevant to local administration systems.  Supports Local units preparing local budgets.  Supervise grants and loans provided to Governorates and follow‐up on the implementation of investment projects in the Governorates.  Assisting the Governorates in developing SWM facilities, mainly composting plants.

5.4.4 THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE The Ministry of Finance plans, prepares and manages the Government of Egypt’s budget and public debt. This is carried out by preparing legislation, planning revenues and expenditures, managing and supervising the budgetary spending process and preparing a framework for economic policy and development. The ministry is also responsible for the availability of financial resources at governorates, with regard to treatment and final disposal of waste.

5.4.5 THE MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES AND IRRIGATION The Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI) is the primary government agency charged with the management of water resources in Egypt. Escalating population growth, a desire for agricultural expansion, and increasing demands on surface water supply, play significant roles in water delivery capability. The Ministry is responsible for clearing canals and drains on a regular basis, and can issue penalties to those who dump waste in the waterways. However, the Ministry is not responsible for waste lying along the sides of canals and drains. Handling of such waste is the responsibility of the local administration. The Ministry of Irrigation faces many problems in the efficient use of water resources due to the dumping of solid waste in waterways and canals. Therefore, the Ministry of Irrigation projects solid waste management projects in some villages located on waterways.

5.4.6 THE MINISTRY OF HOUSING UTILITIES AND URBAN COMMUNITIES Since the General Public Cleansing Law 38 was issued in the year 1967, the Minister of Housing has been responsible for issuing related policies and regulations as per article 12 of the same law. The ministry is responsible for assigning areas for landfills.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 38

In 2012, the Minister issued Decree 475 to form a committee of experts to prepare the Egyptian code of SWM, which is still being discussed. There is an ongoing collaboration with WMRA and other stakeholders to complete the code.

5.4.7 THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH The Ministry of Health cooperates with the ministry of environment in the safe disposal of the medical waste as indicated in the environmental law #4 in 1994. The law abides the health Departments and hospitals to dispose of the medical waste in the reassigned Incinerators, the Ministry of Health supervises the process

5.4.8 THE MINISTRY OF ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY The ministry is in charge of the legislation on the collection of tariffs for waste management through the electricity bill. Furthermore, the ministry determines the "feed‐in‐tariff" for a purchase of electricity from Waste‐to‐Energy plants.

5.4.9 THE EGYPTIAN ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AGENCY (EEAA) According to the Law 4/1994 for the Protection of the Environment, the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) was restructured with the new mandate to substitute the institution initially established in 1982. At the central level, EEAA represents the executive arm of the Ministry. The Agency offers incentives to institutions and individuals engaged in activities and projects directed to environmental protection purposes. The main responsibility of the EEAA is to ensure implementation of the provisions of environmental legislation. In particular Law 4 of 1994 and its amendments Law 9 of 2009 (The Environmental Law), and associated regulation and decrees. The EEAA formally interacts with local waste management planning through the environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. Waste management facilities are granted licenses to operate subsequent to the approval of the (EIA). On this basis, the role EEAA can be summarized as follows:  Preparation of a strategic document concerned with municipal solid waste management.  Preparation of guidelines and codes of practice emphasizing different stages of the proposed system.  Coordination of efforts for establishing final waste disposal sites and facilities.  Provision of technical support for different Governorates emphasizing performance indicators.  Provision of financial support for the different Governorates within the available capacity as well as addressing the Governorates for applying for funding from donors.  Revision of EIAs prepared by specified administrative agencies.

5.4.10 THE WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATORY AGENCY (WMRA) According to a Ministerial Decree (The Prime Minister Decree No. 3005 for year 2015), the Waste Management Regulatory Authority (WMRA) was established in 2015. The main tasks and responsibilities of WMRA are as follows:  Formulation of policies for solid waste management.  Preparation of strategies and Master Plans and follows up on their implementation.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 39

 To prepare proposals to develop and update the legislation, laws, regulations, standards and technical rules governing integrated solid waste management.  Preparation of key performance indicators on solid waste management, and monitoring and follow‐ up and evaluation of waste management business indicators.  To propose tariffs needed to cover costs on implementation and operation of waste management measures and systems that have been agreed upon at national level.  To coordinate with international donors with respect to waste projects in cooperation with the ministries and departments concerned.  Provide technical consulting services and recommendations to the competent authorities, as well as actors in the waste management system.  Publication of guidelines necessary for the implementation of strategic plans at the provincial level.  Preparation of controls, standards and guidance models for all stages of the hiring and evaluation of bids for waste management services and provide technical support necessary to the central and local level  The preparation of studies of leading projects and pilot initiatives to develop waste management system and provide funding.  Encourage research and applied studies of individual and institutional measures and initiatives that contribute to improving performance, waste management and collaboration with third parties in achieving this in all areas of waste management.  Preparation of general requirements, rules and procedures necessary to obtain licenses to engage in waste management activities, and to ensure that this happens in harmony with other existing legislation  To approve proposed processing operations and waste recycling technologies in coordination with the ministries and departments concerned.  Organize and define the roles and responsibilities among the various actors in the waste management system in accordance with the provisions of laws, decrees and regulations in this regard.  Cooperation with the ministries and provinces and stakeholders in the policies and strategic plans for the management of different types of waste set up at the national level.  Preparation and implementation of programs to raise public awareness and enforcement of legislation in coordination with all the relevant authorities.  To ensure availability of data and information on waste management sector.  Suggest economic and financial mechanisms necessary to achieve the goals of the administration of WMRA in cooperation with the concerned authorities.  Preparation of technical studies and proposes tariff‐setting mechanisms for integrated waste management service fees.  To develop investment opportunities in the field of waste management.  To form a committee to examine the complaints of service providers contracted bodies and propose solutions to resolve complaints.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 40

5.4.11 THE PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT UNIT (PMU) The Government of Egypt has launched the National Solid Waste Management Program (NSWMP) with the support of EU/German development partners for sustainable development of the Solid Waste Management sector in Egypt. The support combines technical cooperation addressing the policy, legal and institutional framework and providing capacity building at the national and local levels (GIZ technical assistance component) and financial cooperation for investment in municipal solid waste management infrastructure and services (KfW/EU financial assistance component. A Program Management Unit (PMU) has been established to oversee the implementation of the NSWMP. The objective of the program is to build the capacities of government and non‐governmental actors to set up and sustainably operate an effective and cost‐covering waste management system at national, governorate and local level. On a national level, the program is supporting the Ministry of Environment (MoE) in the organizational development of the new regulatory agency for waste management in Egypt to catalyze the development of the solid waste management sector, as a national center of competence. On a regional level, the program is focusing on four governorates, namely Kafr‐El‐Sheikh, Qena, Gharbeya, and Assiut.

5.4.12 THE REGIONAL BRANCH OFFICES OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT This is a local representative structure for the MOE and it is an executive agency of the MOE. They support the Governorate on preparation of plans and policies, and monitoring and evaluation, inspection of facilities. Further, they receive EIA's from governorates for assessment.

5.4.13 THE CENTRAL AGENCY FOR ORGANISATION AND ADMINISTRATION (CAOA) CAOA is an Agency directly under the Prime Minister. They have the authority to approve any new or revised organizational charts and the roles/responsibilities within the entire public administration. They approve job descriptions and selection criteria for hiring of new staff. Even changes to existing positions/jobs must be approved by CAOA (this also includes the possible merging of departments etc.). They are responsible for administration, training, and capacity building of public employees. Establishment of SWMUs under the current Project (or any other new entities within solid waste management) must be approved by CAOA. Some of the tasks set forth by Law No. 118 of 1964, concerning the establishment of the Central Agency for Organization and Management:  Reform of public administration systems, and ensure the implementation of the responsibilities of government agencies.  Review projects create new devices as well as the organizational structures and study reorganization or modify the terms of reference devices list of proposals before being approved by the competent authority.  Develop policy and plans for employee training management training in the areas of management.  Inspection and performance evaluation and follow‐up to ensure the safety and efficiency of staff performance systems mode.  Propose laws and decrees and regulations for civilian workers in the country. CAOA has branches in all governorates since the publication of the Regulations Resolution No. 937 of 1974. The Central Organization for Administration and Management has approved new organizational structures at the governorate and city levels and functional elements in the local village units as follows.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 41

‐ At the governorate level General Department of Solid Waste under the direct supervision of the Secretary General. This department consists of three divisions (planning, technical support / training, capacity building, community communication / monitoring and follow‐up).

‐ At the city level Solid Waste Department under the direct supervision of the head of the city. This department consists of two divisions (operating, technical support/ monitoring, follow‐up and awareness).

‐At the level of rural local units Adoption of the functional elements of SWM (Under the supervision of the head of the local unit, with technical support from SWM in the city) Local governments Local government is divided into four levels: governorates, markaz, districts (sub‐divisions of the major cities) and local units (at the village level). A governorate is made up of a number of markaz. In each markaz, there is a main city and a number of mother villages. Each mother village has associated satellite villages and hamlets (ezab). Governorates approve the budget and investment plans for MSW management and distribute the budgets to the districts, cities and local units who are responsible for executing MSW management. The local authorities (districts, cities or units) are also responsible for the collection of street waste and waste from public spaces, operating existing composting plants and supervising the landfill and dumpsite operation. In case to contract private companies to carry out these survives, local authorities remain responsible for regulating and controlling the activities and the performance of these enterprises (contracts are signed by the heads of local units ‐ after their review by the Governorate). The local authorities are charged with monitoring the adherence to article 39 of the executive regulations to Law 4/ 1994, which stipulates that collectors of garbage and solid waste shall be held to maintain the cleanliness of garbage bins and vehicles At districts and local units, the provision of MSW management services is the responsibility of the “Cleaning Department”. In coordination with EEAA, the local authority specifies the site of solid waste treatment, burning or disposal facilities and issues the licenses related to the transport and disposal of these MSW. The specific structures of Qena Governorate is shown below:

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 42

Qena Governorate

Markazes (9)

Villages (41) Cities (9)

(Satellite villages)

(Kafr, Ezba)

N.B. Between brackets underlined communities are not local units; these are Functionally smaller area divisions.

The number of Local Administration Units in each of the two Governorates is as follows:

Villages Governorate Markazes Cities Districts LGU &Satellite Kafr, Ezba villages Qena 9 9 ‐ 41 152 1466

How to plan at the local level (planning cycle)

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 43

Parliament ‐ Approves the plan ‐ National Investment Bank (NIB) monitors

Expenditure and Imbrues budget's allowances (i.e. the four‐quarter

quarters System).

MOP & MOF

- Adjusting & modifying local plans with the 5‐y‐ plan

‐ Drafts the (annual) national plan for the fiscal year.

MOLD

Review of Governorates’ plans and finalization of the overall LU’s plan

Governorate

- Coordinating local plans.

- Popular council approves Governorate's overall plan. - Governor proceeds to higher (i.e. ministerial) levels.

Markaz/City

- Coordinating villages’ plans; and planning for areas that do not enroll in villages. - Jurisdiction - Popular council discusses & approve Markaz’/ City chief proceeds plan for higher levels

Village

- Preparation of initial plan (i.e. by planning section - Popular council discusses & approves - Village’ Chief proceeds plan for higher levels

MOP: Ministry of Planning; MOF: Ministry of Finance; MOLD: Ministry of Local Development

Local Popular Councils (LPCs) The local Popular Councils, within the limits of the state's general policy, supervises the various facilities (including solid waste management) and determines the value of the cleaning fees.  LPCs are formed at all levels of administrative units through direct elections

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 44

 At least 50% of LPCs members are workers and peasants.  Heads and deputies are elected by the members.  Gradual transfer of power to LPCs is granted by the local administration law 43 /1979. In general, the local system combines representative and administrative functions, as follows. Each local unit should be governed through the collaboration of a local popular council, elected by local population (Currently disabled since the revolution of 2011) and a local executive council appointed and controlled by the Governor. The major function of both is to better implement public policies at local level. This is the way in which the legislator perceived the raison‐to be of local administration. According to the constitution, the local units are (regional) organs of the Executive. Hence, the term "local governance" adopted in the law No.43/1979 had been inappropriate, and, therefore later, changed to "local administration" by the law No. 145/1988. Executive councils play two roles: representing the central government and implementing popular councils' recommendations, where not contradictory with public policies. The government appoints chiefs of executive councils as follows: * The President appoints Governors; * The Prime Minister appoints Chiefs of Markazes, Cities and Districts; * The respective Governor appoints Chiefs of Villages. The Environmental Management Units (EMUs) Each Governorate has Environmental Management Units (EMUs) that are responsible for monitoring and enforcing the provisions of environmental legislation. Salaries and operating expenses of the (EMUs) come from the Governorate budget, and technical advisory support from the Regional Branch Offices (RBO, s) of EEAA in some Governorates, EMUs play role in SWM. The SWMU (governorate level) The main duties of the solid waste management unit at the governorate level are:  Setting regulations and conditions governing the management of factories and landfills.  Review contracts with private companies and investors.  Implementation of infrastructure projects required for SWM.  Approve the budget and investment plans for MSWM.  Distribute the budgets to the districts and local units who are responsible for executing MSWM.  Determining the value of fees, according to the definition of the law (in coordination with the popular councils).  Follow up and monitor. The SWMU (city level) The provision of MSWM services is the responsibility of the “Cleaning Department”. The tasks of of the solid waste management unit at the city level are:  The collection, Transportation, disposal, operating existing composting plants and supervising the landfill and dumpsite operation.  In case to contract private companies to carry out these survives.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 45

 Responsible for regulating and controlling the activities and the performance of these enterprises.  Collection of fees The SWMU (Village level) The provision of MSWM services is the responsibility of the “Cleaning Department”. The tasks of the solid waste management unit at the village level are:  The collection, transportation of solid wastes  Collection of fees  Contracting with the private sector or NGOs Community Development Associations (CDAs) There are CDAs working in waste collection in both Governorates. However, some CDAs ceased working in this field as a result of lack of local transfer stations, which made their work economically unfeasible. CDAs are dependent on donor funded grants to operate their services or the Social Fund for Development (SFD) or renting equipment or sometimes using the equipment of the local unit. Some of the associations carry out community awareness campaigns in the field of solid waste (especially associations working with donors). The private sector There is no role for the private sector in the solid waste system in Qena Governorate. The informal sector ‐ Individual scavengers Scavengers are waste segregations who sort waste in dump sites, transfer stations or any other intermediate point. Until recently, governorate of Qena had no scavengers, but their numbers began to increase two years ago. Individual scavengers either work on a full‐time basis or on demand shifting between jobs, especially construction and agriculture. Their work is also directly related to the seasonality of the employment of the agriculture sector. Such workers are attracted to scavenging as an alternative temporary job. In addition to these reasons, street children are also engaged in segregation under this category. In villages, scavengers usually work close to where they live. And in temporary collection sites/landfills The informal sector ‐ Itinerant Waste Buyers (Sarreha) Sarreha buys recyclables directly from households and commercial establishments. They use 3‐wheeled equipment (Tricycle) donkey carts as their method of collection. The Sarrehaís operation is very closely linked to the waste dealers. At the end of the day, Sarreha sells their daily purchases to the dealer. Sarreha is more abundant in the urban areas, where there are more recyclables in the municipal waste. Although they also exist in rural areas. The informal sector ‐ Dealers They are spread in all Markzs and the biggest concentration in the capitals cities. They own storehouses and buy their recyclables from Sarreha, street pickers and scavengers. The income the dealers fluctuates depending on the quantity of recyclables they can collect, the demand in the market and the market price of recyclables. They deal in cardboard, plastics and soda cans. The regional university The regional university in the Qena governorate helps in the activities of community and environment development through (Environmental research and studies, Technical consultations, Organizing environmental conferences and workshops, Awareness activities). ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 46

Lobby groups The lobby groups here refer to the media and their capability of spreading awareness to the people and to institutions regarding SWM. Forthcoming institutional framework in MSWM - At the Governorate level - At the City level

5.4.14 AT THE LOCAL VILLAGE UNIT Adoption of the functional elements of SWM (Under the supervision of the head of the local unit, with technical support from SWM in the city)

5.4.15 CONCLUSION

MAIN TAKS AND DUTIES THEORETICAL RESPONSIBILITY ACTUAL HANDLING 1 Strategic planning WMRA WMRA / PMU 2 Operational planning Governorates Governorates/ WMRA 3 Regulation of the MSW sector WMRA WMRA 4 Technical monitoring WMRA WMRA / PMU 5 Environmental control EEAA EEAA 6 WMRA/ EEAA/ Governorates/ MOHP/ WMRA /EEAA/Governorates/ Permitting MOHP/Military /Archeology / Military / Archeology / Irrigation Irrigation 7 Capital expenditures MoE / Governorates MoE / Governorates 8 Operation expenditures Governorates Governorates / MoE 9 Cost recovery Governorates Governorates / MoE 10 Facility maintenance Governorates MoE / Governorates 11 Contract management Governorates Governorates/ WMRA

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 47

MAIN TAKS AND DUTIES THEORETICAL RESPONSIBILITY ACTUAL HANDLING 12 Technical assistance WMRA PMU 13 Capacity building WMRA / Governorates PMU 14 Communication and awareness Governorates /WMRA NA

The main issues and risks related the present institutional framework are:  Lack of good coordination with the WMRA, NSWMP, Ministers and governorates  Overlapping between WMRA and PMU  Responsiveness of governorates  Inadequate organisational set‐up and managerial practices  Lack of transparency / administrative corruption  Inability to enforce the law  Inability to apply occupational safety and health standards  Lack of familiarity with modern inspection and control systems  Lack of commitment to new systems  Lack of motivation to monitor the system  Lack of adequate human resources  Weak capacity and knowledge of staff  Lack of guarantees for investment  Lack of funding programs

PRESENTATION OF THE OPTIONS Four options have been presented in order to address solid waste management in Qena governorate. The first option is based on present strategy of the Egyptian government. The other three options are based on models developed in Egypt and elsewhere in the region.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 48

Table 5‐1: Presentation of Options OPTION 3: OPTION 2: CLEANING MAIN TASKS AND OPTION 0: OPTION 1: PRIVATE AND BEAUTIFICATION DUTIES PUBLIC HOLDING GOVERNORATE SECTOR AGENCY PARTICIPATION Strategic planning Public holding wi Governorate wi CBA with WMRA Governorate wi WMRA WMRA WMRA Operational planning Local branches Governorate CBA Private sector Regulation of the MS WMRA WMRA WMRA WMRA sector Technical monitoring Public holding wi Governorate wi Governorate with WMRA Governorate wi WMRA WMRA WMRA Environmental control EEAA EEAA EEAA EEAA Permitting EEAA EEAA EEAA EEAA Capital expenditures Public holding Governorate Governorate WMR Governorate WMR WMRA support support support Operation expenditures Public holding Governorate CBA Private operator Cost recovery Public holding Governorate CBA Governorate Facility maintenance Local branches Governorate CBA Private operator Contract management Public holding Governorate CBA Governorate local branches Technical assistance WMRA WMRA WMRA WMRA Capacity building WMRA WMRA WMRA WMRA Communication an Local branches wi Governorate wi CBA with WMRA Private operator awareness WMRA WMRA

Below, a short description is presented for each option.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 49

5.5.1 OPTION 0: PUBLIC HOLDING

EEAA Public holding Governorate (environmental control)

Branches

Operation Masterplan Financing of Administrative, Financing of investments financial and operation technical monitoring

WMRA (technical support)

In this option, the Egyptian government has planned to establish a holding company which will be in charge of elaborating SWM masterplans for each governorate, raising funds for the planned facilities, monitoring the administrative, financial, technical performances of the system and financing the operation of the facilities from national sources. Besides, the holding company will establish and run branches in every governorate, in order to set up appropriate management systems (procedures for management, control and disposal of wastes, procedures on how to behave in case of accident, training and staff awareness of the risks related to the activity, safety on maintenance workshops, etc.) and operate the waste treatment facilities. EEAA will approve the solid waste management system. EEAA will be responsible for environmental control and monitoring in order to check the compliance of these facilities with the national established standards. WMRA will give technical supporting to the public holding for designing the masterplans. WMRA will be as well in charge of technical monitoring of the facilities operation and will support regional branches of the public holding for facility operation (through training, coaching and technical assistance) . The governorate will be regularly informed by the other institutions (WMRA, EEAA and public holding) about emergency preparedness and response issues, the progress of the works and operation of the facilities and the technical and environmental performances of these SWM system.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 50

5.5.2 OPTION 1: GOVERNORATE

EEAA Governorate (environmental control)

Operation Masterplan Financing of Administrative, Financing of investments financial and operation technical monitoring

WMRA (technical support)

In this option, the governorate is the sole responsible for elaborating SWM masterplan, funding the planned SW treatment facilities (capital expenditures), building the facilities, monitoring the administrative, financial, technical performances of the system and financing the operation of the facilities. Therefore, the governorate will have to establish appropriate management systems (procedures for management, control and disposal of wastes, procedures on how to behave in case of accident, training and staff awareness of the risks related to the activity, safety on maintenance workshops, etc.) and operate and maintain by itself the waste treatment facilities. EEAA will approve the solid waste management system. EEAA will be as well responsible for environmental control and monitoring in order to check the compliance of these facilities with the national established standards. WMRA will give technical supporting to the governorate for designing the masterplans. WMRA will raise funds to help the governorate to finance the capital expenditures. The Agency will be as well in charge of technical monitoring of the facilities operation (through training, coaching and technical assistance) .

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 51

5.5.3 OPTION 2: REGIONAL SWM AGENCY (CAIRO, GIZEH CLEANING AND BEAUTIFICATION AGENCY MODEL)

EEAA Governorate (environmental control)

Administrative and financial Agency monitoring

Operation Masterplan Financing of Technical Financing of investments monitoring operation

WMRA (technical support)

In this option, the governorate will set up a specific agency, based on Cairo Cleaning and Beautification Agency (CCBA), Gizeh Cleaning and Beautification Agency (GCBA) models. This Cleaning and Beautification Agency will be in charge of elaborating SWM masterplan, funding the planned SW treatment facilities (capital expenditures), building the facilities, monitoring the administrative, financial, technical performances of the system and financing the operation of the facilities. Therefore, the Cleaning and Beautification Agency will have to establish appropriate management systems (procedures for management, control and disposal of wastes, procedures on how to behave in case of accident, training and staff awareness of the risks related to the activity, safety on maintenance workshops, etc.) and operate and maintain by itself the waste treatment facilities. The Agency will have the alternative to contract with the private sector for some tasks (construction, maintenance, operation, etc.). EEAA will approve the solid waste management system. EEAA will be responsible for environmental control and monitoring in order to check the compliance of these facilities with the national established standards. WMRA will give technical supporting to the Cleaning and Beautification Agency for designing the masterplans. WMRA will raise funds to help the governorate and the Cleaning and Beautification Agency to finance the capital expenditures. WMRA will be as well in charge of technical monitoring of the facilities operation (through training, coaching and technical assistance to the governorate) .

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 52

5.5.4 OPTION 3: PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION (ALEXANDRIA PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION MODEL)

EEAA Governorate (environmental control)

Private operator

Operation Masterplan Financing of Administrative, Financing of investments financial and operation technical monitoring

WMRA (technical support)

In this option, the governorate will contract with a private company, to design, build and operate the governorate SW treatment system. This option is based on Alexandria model. The governorate will elaborate SWM masterplan, fund the planned SW treatment facilities (capital expenditures), monitor the administrative, financial, technical performances of the system and finance the operation of the facilities. The private operator will have to establish appropriate management systems (procedures for management, control and disposal of wastes, procedures on how to behave in case of accident, training and staff awareness of the risks related to the activity, safety on maintenance workshops, etc.) and design, based on the SWM masterplan results, operate and maintain by itself the waste treatment facilities. EEAA will approve the solid waste management system. EEAA will be responsible for environmental control and monitoring in order to check the compliance of these facilities with the national established standards. WMRA will give technical supporting to the governorate for designing the masterplans. WMRA will raise funds to help the governorate to finance the capital expenditures. WMRA will be as well in charge of technical monitoring of the facilities operation (through training, coaching and technical assistance to the governorate staff).

RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FUTURE SWM INSTITUTIONAL SET UP Table 5‐2: Comparison of Strengths and Weaknesses of Options Recommendations/ Option Strengths Weaknesses Accompanying Measures 0 Obtaining competitive prices Lack of public holding skills and Change the legal framework for the procurement of waste capacities for solid waste (to make room for the new treatment equipments management public holding tasks and (grouped contracts) duties) Red tape Economies of scale for waste Establish participatory Insufficient coordination with treatment operation management of all local, regional authorities and (procurement contracts for stakeholders (including the potential exclusion of fuel, spare parts, solid waste generators and the governorate from SWM maintenance) informal sector)

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 53

Recommendations/ Option Strengths Weaknesses Accompanying Measures Financing of capital Set up information and expenditures not secured coordination mechanisms between the public holding Financing of operation company and the governorate expenditures not secured Set up a capacity building Lack of branches skills and program to the public holding capacities to comply with company and its branches performance standards staff related to SWM Technical assistance to the Budgetary constraints (if public holding company and its annual programming) may branches delay the realization of investments Set up a sustainable financing mechanism Producer‐recuperator principle not respected 1 Producer‐recuperator Lack of governorate skills and Set up a capacity building principle respected capacities for solid waste programme of governorate management staff Regional, local authorities are involved in SWM Red tape Technical assistance to the governorate Political will to manage solid waste system to be confirmed Establish participatory management of all Financing of capital stakeholders (including the expenditures not secured solid waste generators and the Financing of operation informal sector) expenditures not secured Set up a sustainable financing Lack of governorate skills and mechanism capacities to comply with performance standards related to SWM Coordination and collaboration with WMRA 2 Antecedents (Cairo, Gizeh) Limits of the institutional Set up cleaning and model (shortage of financial beautification agencies Open to professionalization resources and lack of Set up a capacity building Management independence professional skills) program to the agencies Accountability of regional, Real independence? Technical assistance to the local authorities in SWM No competencies in SWM agencies Producer‐recuperator Red tape Establish participatory principle respected management of all

stakeholders (including the solid waste generators and the informal sector)

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 54

Recommendations/ Option Strengths Weaknesses Accompanying Measures Set up a sustainable financing mechanism 3 Accountability of regional, Bad experiences in Cairo and Attract the interest of private local authorities in SWM Alexandria sector (road show, marketing, etc.) Producer‐recuperator Present context (at local, principle respected regional levels) not favorable Establish neutral and efficient to PSP arbitration mechanisms Good skills and references of the private sector Complex and long private Establish payment guarantee sector participation tendering mechanisms Possibility of initiating and contracting procedures innovative techniques for Technical assistance to the treatment by the private Lack of speficic competencies governorate for PSP tendering sector for PSP at governorate level and contracting Possibility of introducing Increasing of the cost of the Establish participatory monitoring mechanisms and service management of all performance indicators of stakeholders (including the No operating budget to services rendered by the solid waste generators and the finance PSP private sector informal sector) Lack of skills and competences Set up a sustainable financing of some operators mechanism Lack of governorate skills and means to monitor and control the private operator performances

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 55

6. TECHNICAL ISWM OPTION ANALYSIS

GENERAL Using available information and documentation, and building on the Feasibility Study for Qena Governorate, the Consultant prepared with the SWMU and local administrations the different options for the ISWM master plan and the corresponding options for the network of waste transfer, treatment and disposal facilities for waste covering the geographical territory of Qena Governorates. The focus of the analysis will be to identify a range of different configurations and combinations of waste management infrastructure, including different numbers of transfer stations, recycling, composting, RDF‐ production and treatment facilities and landfills, which could conceivably be developed to serve the ISWM needs of the Governorates. At least three different strategy options with different intensities of resource recovery and residual waste treatment should be developed. The network configuration options will be assessed at a strategic level in accordance with environmental, economic and institutional criteria, and ranked in accordance with the outcomes of the analysis. Ranking criteria will be developed in coordination with the SWMUs, and applied to achieve a recommended network configuration for ISWM in the Governorate, i.e. the preferred Option. The ranking includes economic analysis of the approximate investment and all‐in specific costs of options, and identification of the most cost‐effective solution on this basis. The purpose of the analysis is to arrive at notional concept scenarios, accompanied by rough estimates of investment cost and specific cost / cost per ton of different system configurations, so as to enable decision making, prioritization and programming to proceed. The advantages and disadvantages of each option will be qualitatively compared and discussed. The work conducted in a participatory manner with SWMU and local administration, to arrive at a broadly understood concept of clustering and sharing of facilities in ISWM. The part of the proposed network configuration recommended for the proposed first phase investments should be identified, reflecting the scale of financing available. The assessment analyses each option in terms of cost of transport, treatment and disposal of waste, availability of the lands, access routes, and environmental aspects, and this report is not dealing with the models of collection because it will not affect the assessment of the ISWM options.

OPTION ANALYSIS APPROACH The approach to perform the Option Analysis is divided into two main sections: 1. Analysis per SWM stage. This is the technical analysis of different technologies at every SWM stage in the ISWM system. The analysis consists mainly of a technical comparison between different technologies that exist for the same purpose, i.e. waste collection, waste transfer, etc. The main output of this analysis is the selection of suitable technologies at every ISWM stage that is environmentally and socio‐economically viable.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 56

Figure 6‐1. Approach to ISWM analysis per component

2. Analysis of complete systems. The selected technologies at every ISWM stage, obtained in the previous analysis, will be set into different logistical configurations. This will allow stand‐alone and regional systems to be analysed and compared in order to select the most suitable for the Governorate.

Figure 6‐2: Approach to ISWM analysis of Complete ISWM systems.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 57

SELECTION OF SWM TECHNOLOGIES PER SWM STAGE The first part includes an analysis of the main components of the system, i.e. primary collection, secondary collection, transfer, recovery & treatment, and final disposal. This analysis of components aims to identify the most suitable solutions to configure the ISWM System and achieve the relevant project targets. Unnecessary highly sophisticated/complicated technologies will be not considered in the following analysis. Instead, proven and standard technologies will be considered, as well as those technologies that have already been implemented in the project area. The evaluation process will be carried out as follows: ‐ A minimum of two options will be compared at every stage of the ISWM system for the end‐ recipient ‐ Options will be chosen according to regular and standardized waste management procedures, which fulfil the minimal requirements of corresponding legislation ‐ The options will aim at the most economic and efficient solution, without endangering human health and/or the environment ‐ Qualitative options will be weighed to obtain comparable values. These comparable values are given as follows: o Negative impact = Value of “0 points” o Negligible or minor impact = Value of “1 point” o Positive impact = Value of “2 points.”

The results given by this analysis are not meant to be conclusive, as the achievement of the project objectives and targets depends on the combined work of all components in the system. As previously mentioned, the results of this first analysis will be the suitable components to assemble the most suitable ISWM system for Qena Governorate.

PRIMARY WASTE COLLECTION The collection of waste from the point of generation is called “Primary Waste Collection”. These points could be located outside each individual household and commercial entity, communal containers serving a number of households, or waste skips taking waste from households and businesses in the surrounding area. The collected waste can be transferred to larger vehicles and/or directly transported to SWM facilities for sorting/treatment, and/or directly to final disposal. The technologies to perform primary collection can vary from basic to highly sophisticated. However, based on the main aim of this analysis, the approach/technologies to be considered for comparison are as follows: a) Door‐to‐door collection (mixed waste) b) Door‐to door collection (separate waste streams) c) Collection points (mixed waste) d) Collection points (separate waste streams)

In order to select a practicable solution that brings the most advantages to the system, we need to take into account the current status of the SWM system in Qena Governorate; as well as the urgent need of the Governorate to increase the coverage of SWM services. Considering all this, the following table presents a comparison, at a strategic level, of mentioned technologies/approaches for primary waste collection.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 58

Table 6‐1: Weighted comparison of technologies for primary waste collection Door‐to‐door Collection Collection points Door‐to‐door Criteria / Approach (Segregated points (Mixed (Segregated (Mixed waste) waste) waste) waste) In Urban areas Efficiency of service 2 1 2 1 Public acceptance 2 1 1 1 Proven technology 2 0 2 0 Cost 1 1 2 1 Feasibility 2 1 2 1 Total Urban areas 9 4 9 4 In Rural areas Efficiency of service 2 1 2 1 Public acceptance 0 0 2 0 Proven technology 0 0 2 0 Cost 1 1 1 1 Feasibility 1 0 2 0 Total Urban areas 4 2 9 2

The above table shows a preliminary evaluation between proposed technologies, which takes into account the current environmental, technical and socio‐economical standing of the Governorate; as well as experience gained in the assessed activity. Experience has shown that in urban and rural areas the approach of door‐to‐door collection functions well and is accepted by the community. Moreover, there currently are a number of pilot projects that encourage such types of primary waste collection, and provide incentives for entrepreneurs to engage in these kinds of activities in order to sort recyclables from collected waste and gain an income. In areas with no door‐to‐door services, it seems that collection points with containers of 1‐4 m3 capacity are a feasible solution. This is mainly due to the fact that these are low income areas in cities and rural areas in which the payment for door‐to‐door‐collection may represent an obstacle for implementation. The collection of mixed waste seems to be the most feasible solution to increase waste collection services in in the short term. This is mainly due to the following reasons: ‐ Current waste collection is low (app. 20% in urban areas and 10% in rural areas) ‐ Low public awareness about separate waste collection ‐ No experience with management of separate waste streams

The approach of door‐to‐door collection of mixed waste by tractors with trailers has proven most successful in rural areas. This is due to the following main reasons: ‐ Lack of paved streets ‐ Low population density areas ‐ Lower payment capacity ‐ Lower SW production

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 59

SECONDARY WASTE COLLECTION The transportation of waste that have been collected from the primary collectors is called secondary collection. This stage aims at reducing the travelled distances of primary waste collectors and thus increasing the efficiency of primary waste collection. Secondary collection starts in places within the collection area, i.e. at a location to which primary collectors transfer the waste collected during their rounds to where it is transported on with equipment of bigger capacities. The approaches/technologies that can be proposed for such activities are as follows: ‐ Compactor Trucks (16m3) ‐ Open trucks (4m3‐12m3) ‐ Trailers with a large capacity (20m3 ‐30m3) ‐ Roll off/roll on containers (20m3 ‐30m3)

The next table shows a preliminary evaluation, based on information collected in the field, on the advantages/disadvantages of a possible implementation of proposed technologies for secondary collection.

Table 6‐2: Weighted comparison of technologies for secondary waste collection Compactor Criteria / Approach Open Trucks Trailers (20‐30m3) Roll off/on containers trucks In Urban areas Efficiency of service 2 2 1 1 Public acceptance 2 2 1 0 Proven technology 2 2 0 0 Cost 1 2 2 1 Feasibility 2 2 1 1 Total Urban areas 9 10 5 3 In Rural areas Efficiency of service 0 2 2 1 Public acceptance 2 2 2 0 Proven technology 0 2 0 0 Cost 1 1 0 1 Feasibility 1 2 0 1 Total Urban areas 4 9 4 3

According to the above table, the most suitable technologies in urban areas are of compactor trucks and open trucks. This is for the following main reasons: ‐ It is a proven technology, currently in implementation ‐ Compactor trucks are suitable, but nor always possible to implement (e.g. narrow streets) ‐ Open trucks are suitable and able to navigate roads under any condition

The remaining options are not suitable mainly due to the lack of space needed for the collected waste to be transferred from primary to secondary collectors. In rural areas, secondary collection currently does not exist. However, in future the most suitable option will be the implementation of open trucks, since street conditions will remain difficult. These vehicles are highly suitable for such conditions and offer a fair solution.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 60

WASTE TRANSFER Waste transfer is performed mainly at Transfer Stations, where waste collected from primary & secondary collectors is transferred to vehicles of bigger capacities for temporary storage and transportation to the next ISWM stage, i.e. sorting, treatment and/or final disposal. Transfer Stations can include several grades of sophistication in its transfer process, these grades highly depend on climate, environmental and socio‐economic conditions. However, the more sophisticated the process, the higher the O&M costs are going to be, and higher investments and higher personal skills in operation are needed. The proposed approaches for waste transfer are as follows: ‐ No transfer stations ‐ Standard transfer station (ramp with steel bunker and transfer vehicles (20‐30m3) ‐ Improved transfer station (ramp with steel bunker, stationary compactors and transfer vehicles (20‐30m3) ‐ Improved transfer station (ramp with steel bunker, transfer vehicles with compaction (20‐ 30m3)

The next table shows the preliminary evaluation, based on field observation and consultant information, on the advantages/disadvantages of the implementation of proposed approaches for waste transfer.

Table 6‐3: Weighted comparison of technologies for waste transfer Improved TS Improved TS Criteria / Approach No TS Standard TS (stationary (compaction compactors) vehicles) Efficiency of service 0 2 2 2 Public acceptance 2 1 1 1 Proven technology 2 2 1 1 Cost 0 1 0 0 Feasibility 0 2 2 2 Total Urban areas 4 8 6 6

The above table shows that in any case, for urban and rural areas, the implementation of Transfer Stations is necessary in the Governorate, in order to reduce transport costs and costs due to the wear and tear of collection equipment. With regard to the level of sophistication of these Transfer Stations, the Consultants recommends keeping it simple by implementing facilities with ramps, steel bunkers and transfer vehicles. This provides a robust solution that ensures the operation under challenging conditions, usually found when there is no previous experience in the operation of such facilities.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 61

Figure 6‐3: Standard Transfer Station facilities

After gaining experience in the operation of these standard facilities, improvements can always be made to these facilities, such as installing stationary compactors or acquiring transfer vehicles with compaction.

WASTE SORTING & TREATMENT The recovery and treatment of waste streams is an important stage in every ISWM system. This stage aims at the following: ‐ Recovery of recyclable materials ‐ Stabilization of biodegradable materials in a controlled system to reduced GHG emissions ‐ Reduction of the volume of waste material being disposed of ‐ Increase of the span‐life of disposal facilities ‐ Incomes to the system selling recyclables and compost

However, a large number of technologies exist worldwide that can be implemented for such purposes. Each technology requires certain features in the quality of the input material, that is directly linked to the primary collection, as most of technologies are specifically designed to work either with mixed waste streams or with segregated waste streams. The related level of costs and quality of output depends on the level of sophistication of the technology as well as the skills of the operation personnel. In the case of the current Governorate, the proposed technologies for evaluation are as follows: ‐ Material Recovery & Composting Facility ‐ Biogas Production Facility ‐ Mechanical Biological Treatment with RDF production ‐ Mechanical Biological Treatment

In the next table, a preliminary evaluation is presented on the proposed options for waste recovery and treatment in urban and rural areas.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 62

Table 6‐4: Weighted comparison of technologies for waste recovery and treatment MRF & Biogas Criteria / Approach MBT & RDF MBT Compost Production Efficiency of service 0 0 2 1 Public acceptance 1 1 2 2 Proven technology 0 0 2 2 Cost 1 0 1 0 Feasibility 0 0 2 2 Total areas 2 1 9 7

A preliminary evaluation of the above table indicates that the favoured approach is the technology of MBT facilities with RDF production. This responds to the following existing conditions: ‐ Mixed waste collection is envisaged for future systems ‐ An existing market with cement plants to receive RDF ‐ Income generated by the system through the selling of RDF ‐ Current practices in the Governorate

The other approaches were not favoured for the following main reasons: ‐ Requiring separate waste streams as inputs ‐ Lack of operational skills on such facilities

FINAL DISPOSAL The main objective of the final disposal is the confinement of collected waste, minimizing negative impacts to the environment and complying with the corresponding legislation. The final disposal of waste can be performed through several different technologies. However, the degree of sophistication in some of them can vary depending on environmental, technical and socio‐economic conditions. The main technologies under evaluation are as follows: ‐ Dumpsite ‐ Controlled dumpsite ‐ Landfill (sanitary landfill Class 3 according to EU Standards) ‐ Incineration

The next table shows a comparison between the proposed approaches for final disposal for the future ISWM system in the Governorate. Table 6‐5: Weighted comparison of technologies for final disposal Controlled Criteria / Approach Dumpsite Landfill Incineration Dumpsite Efficiency of service 0 1 2 2 Public acceptance 0 1 2 0 Proven technology 1 1 2 1 Cost 0 1 1 0 Feasibility 0 2 2 0 Total areas 1 6 9 3

Based on the above table, the favoured approach is the final disposal trough landfill. This can be easily explained, as a landfill achieves the main targets of final disposal at a low cost and requires standard ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 63

operational skills. In comparison, incineration offers a sophisticated solution that requires very high investments and requires high operational skills. Currently, the Governorate is practising the final disposal in dumpsites and controlled dumpsites. These approaches do not comply with the international/Egyptian environmental standards; and therefore, these approaches shall be stopped in the near future. The estimated amounts of waste landfilled between 2017 and 2038 for each Option, as well as associated O&M costs are presented in Annex 16.

CONCLUSION The foregoing analysis on the components for ISWM in Qena Governorate presents the main quantitative and qualitative features of different technologies and approaches and provides a proposed configuration for an ISWM system which will be further analysed. The pre‐determined approaches at every SWM stage are as follows: - Waste storage. The main immediate objective is to increase the coverage of waste collection services. The non‐segregated residual waste (mixed waste) storage has advantages over the segregated scheme. - Primary Waste Collection. In Urban Areas, the door‐to‐door collection with motor tricycles in high density multifamily areas, and the implementation of collection points presents the highest advantages and possibilities for success. In rural areas, the implementation of door‐to‐ door collection by trailers pulled by tractors and the implementation of collection points are the most favourable approaches. - Waste transfer. The most feasible option for the general waste transfer is the direct transportation of waste to standard Transfer Station, equipped with ramps, steel bunker and standard transfer vehicles. - Recovery & Treatment. The MBT technology with RDF production has the most advantages and possibilities of success in the Governorate. - Final disposal. There are several areas in the Governorate that can be used for final disposal to implement the landfill approach (sanitary landfill according to EU Standards). This approach presents the most suitable solution for the Governorate.

The presented results of this first analysis indicate suitable components to assemble different options for a ISWM system in Qena Governorate. These options (Configurations) will be analysed as complete systems in order to show their performance as well as advantages/disadvantages. A more informed decision on the future ISWM system can thus be made.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 64

7. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED OPTIONS

WASTE COLLECTION TARGETS (2018‐2038) In order to assess different configurations for ISWM systems, it is necessary to set objectives and targets that allow a comparison of systems; this will provide a fair comparison and obtain structured information needed for a sound decision process. The main required elements to achieve an ISWMS within Qena Governorate can be summarized as follows: - Service coverage. Collection coverage system increases progressively in whole Governorate (current and projected waste collection rates can be found in Annex 10, service coverage rates used for calculations can be found in Annex 12) - Mixed waste collection. The waste collection will be in a single waste stream. No separate storage/collection is foreseen - Improved waste collection services. The number and type of containers, as well as collection vehicles will be adapted to fit current and future requirements

Table 7‐1: Waste collection targets in the Governorate (Urban Areas), 2018‐2038

Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 Urban Abo Tesht 60% 60% 65% 70% 80% 85% 90% Farshot 60% 60% 65% 70% 80% 85% 90% Naga Hammadi East 60% 60% 65% 70% 80% 85% 90% Naga Hammadi West 60% 60% 65% 70% 80% 85% 90% Deschna 60% 60% 65% 70% 80% 85% 90% ElWaqf 60% 60% 65% 70% 80% 85% 90% Qena East 60% 60% 65% 70% 80% 85% 90% Qena West 60% 60% 65% 70% 80% 85% 90% Qeft 60% 60% 65% 70% 80% 85% 90% Nakada 60% 60% 65% 70% 80% 85% 90% Quos 60% 60% 65% 70% 80% 85% 90% Waste Streams Collection in System Mixed Waste 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Recyclables 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Biodegradable 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Primary Collection (% of covered area) Motor Trycicles 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Collection Points 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Door-to-Door (tipping trucks) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 7‐2: Waste collection targets in the Governorate (Rural Areas), 2018‐2038 Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 Rural Abo Tesht 10% 20% 25% 30% 50% 60% 70% Farshot 10% 20% 25% 30% 50% 60% 70% Naga Hammadi East 10% 20% 25% 30% 50% 60% 70% Naga Hammadi West 10% 20% 25% 30% 50% 60% 70% Deschna 10% 20% 25% 30% 50% 60% 70% ElWaqf 10% 20% 25% 30% 50% 60% 70% Qena East 10% 20% 25% 30% 50% 60% 70% Qena West 10% 20% 25% 30% 50% 60% 70% Qeft 10% 20% 25% 30% 50% 60% 70% Nakada 10% 20% 25% 30% 50% 60% 70% Quos 10% 20% 25% 30% 50% 60% 70% Waste Streams Collection in System Mixed Waste 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Recyclables 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Biodegradable 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Primary Collection (% of covered area) ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 65

Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 Trailer/Tractor 100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Collection Points 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Door-to-Door (tipping trucks) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

The above rates will be used for all ISWM configurations in the analysis of complete systems (next Section).

RECYCLING TARGETS (2018‐2038) An ISWM system cares about not only about increase of collection services, but also about the recovery and recycling of waste streams collected. Therefore, in the Governorate, there is also needed to increase the current recovery/recycling rates. In order to find out the most suitable SWM configuration, within the Option Analysis, it is then required to take into a consideration a set of targets in this matter, in order to compare the technical performance of each option. The targets for recycling and recovery of waste (materials recycling and composting of biodegradable municipal waste, BMW) is shown in the following table.

Table 7‐3: Recovery and recycling targets for the Governorate, 2017‐2038 Item /Year 2018 2020 2025 2030 2037 Total recovered & 5% 10% 20% 25% 30% recycled, %

ANALYSIS OF CONCEPT SCENARIOS (OPTIONS) This section analyses different configurations for complete waste management systems, namely: - Option‐1. This configuration implements standalone ISWM in each district of the Governorate, implementing only collection and disposal in landfills - Option‐2. This configuration implements standalone ISWM in each district of the Governorate, implementing an ISWM concept with recovery and treatment of waste streams - Option‐3. This Option aims to optimize the SWM transport/ transfer logistics and for this to consider 5 district clusters; in regard of TS solution the serving area for the upgraded MBT can be increased - Option‐4. The Option covers nearly whole Governorate with MBT capacity to optimize RDF production (only Nakada and Qena West region are not connected to a MBT.

The following table presents a summary of the main features of each option. Table 7‐4: Option Comparison Feature Option‐1 Option‐2 Option‐3 Option‐4 Logistics Clusters - No Clusters - No Clusters - 5 Clusters: - 4 Clusters: - 9 ISWM systems 9 ISWM systems (1) Abo Tesht, (1) Abo Tesht, Farshot Farshot, Naga (2) Naga Hammadi Hammadi West & El West & El Waqf Waqf (3) Naga Hammadi (2) Naga Hammadi East, Deshna & Qena East, Deshna & Qena East East (4) Qena West & (3) Qena West & Nakada Nakada

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 66

Feature Option‐1 Option‐2 Option‐3 Option‐4 (5) Qeft & Quos (4) Qeft & Quos Waste segregation Waste source - No segregation at - No segregation at - No segregation at - No segregation at segregation source source source source - No segregation at - No segregation at - No segregation at - No segregation at point of collection point of collection point of collection point of collection Primary Collection Urban Areas - Progressive extension - Progressive extension - Progressive extension - Progressive extension of door‐to‐door of door‐to‐door of door‐to‐door of door‐to‐door collection services collection services collection services collection services with tipping trucks in with motor‐tricycles with motor‐tricycles with motor‐tricycles densely populated in densely populated in densely populated in densely populated areas areas areas areas - Collection points in - Collection points in - Collection points in - Collection points in previously unserviced previously unserviced previously unserviced previously unserviced areas and urban low‐ areas and urban low‐ areas and urban low‐ areas and urban low‐ income areas income areas income areas income areas Rural Areas - Progressive extension - Progressive extension - Progressive extension - Progressive extension of door‐to‐door of door‐to‐door of door‐to‐door of door‐to‐door collection services collection services collection services collection services with trailer/tractors with trailer/tractors with trailer/tractors with trailer/tractors - Collection points in - Collection points in - Collection points in - Collection points in previously unserviced previously unserviced previously unserviced previously unserviced areas and urban low‐ areas and urban low‐ areas and urban low‐ areas and urban low‐ income areas income areas income areas income areas Secondary Collection Urban Areas - Improvement of - Improvement of - Improvement of - Improvement of collection services collection services collection services collection services with with with with compactors/open‐ compactors/open‐ compactors/open‐ compactors/open‐ truck collectors truck collectors truck collectors truck collectors Rural Areas - Collection services - collection service - collection service - collection service with open‐truck with open‐truck with open‐truck with open‐truck collectors, if required collectors, if required collectors, if required collectors, if required Waste Transfer Transfer Stations - No TSs - No TSs - 5 Standard TS - 4 Standard TS Waste Treatment MBT with RDF - 2 MBT upgrades - 7 new MBT - 1 new MBTs - 2 new MBT Production - 2 MBT upgrades - 2 MBT upgrades - 2 MBT upgrades Final Disposal Landfill - 5 new sites - 7 new sites - 5 new sites - 5 new sites

It is important to note that the present analysis of the different scenarios seeks for those configurations that give priority to reduction of GHG emissions, ressource recovery and recycling as well as jobs creation.

The underlying data for the following calculations, as well as assumptions used are given in detail in Annexes 13 (ISWM Performance) and 14 (Assumptions used for SWM Calculations). Investment and O&M costs for all 4 Options are presented in Annex 17.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 67

OPTION 1: RESULT OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY 2007 (DISPOSAL)

7.4.1 DESCRIPTION The design principles of Option 1 are based on the result analysis out of the Feasibility Study of an Integrated Solid Waste Management Project in the Qena Governorate (the Consortium IGIP ‐ IU ‐ RODECO – ALDAR), and financed by KfW. The design principles are to establish a safe, efficient, environmentally friendly and sustainable (cost covering) waste management system, with suitable models for primary waste collection; upgrade recycling plants to reach 19% recycling of total waste generation; dispose of the waste at jointly used sanitary landfills in the desert; and to involve private sector activities and create employment. However, no increase in recovery and recycling targets is foreseen under this Option.

Figure 7‐1: Configuration of Option 1

This option includes the following main technical features:

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 68

Table 7‐5: Overview of Option‐1 Feature Option‐1 Logistics Clusters - No Clusters - Standalone ISWM systems Waste segregation Waste source - No segregation at source segregation - No segregation at collection Primary Collection Urban Areas - Progressive extension of door‐to‐door collection services with tipping trucks in densely populated areas - Implementation of collection points (big containers & trucks) in new collection areas and urban low‐income areas Rural Areas - Progressive extension of door‐to‐door collection services with tractor‐trailers - Collection points in new collection areas Secondary Collection Urban Areas - Improvement of collection services with compactors/open‐truck collectors Rural Areas - Collection services with open‐truck collectors, if required Waste Transfer Transfer Stations - No TSs Waste Treatment MBT with RDF - No new MBTs Production - 2 MBT upgrades (Naga Hamadi & Qena Salhyia MBT) with current capacity Final Disposal Landfill - 5 new facilities

7.4.2 LOGISTICAL SET‐UP OF OPTION 1 The configuration of the ISWM system for Option‐1, as shown in the Figure above, at every SWM stage is depicted in the following table.

Table 7‐6: Logistic setup of Option 1

District MBTs Disposal Abo Tesht → → - New Landfill Farshot Farshot → → - New Landfill Farshot Naga Hammadi → - Upgraded Naga Hammadi - Naga Hammadi west Deschna → → - New Landfill Deshna ElWaqf → - Upgraded Naga Hammadi - Naga Hammadi west Qena East → → - New Landfill Deshna Qena West → - Upgraded MBT Qena Salhyia - New Landfill Qena West → - Upgraded MBT Qena Salhyia - New Landfill Quos Qeft (Urban area) Nakada → → - New Landfill Qena West Quos → → - New Landfill Quos → : Direcon of waste streams

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 69

The configuration depicted above takes into account the following traveled distances, from the point where the capacity of the collection vehicle (primary/secondary) is exhausted, and it initiates its trip to the MBT/disposal site.

Table 7‐7: Distances within the logistic setup of Option 1 District Route Distance (km) Abou Tesht Abou Tesht – Farshout Landfill 28 Farshout Farshout – Farshout Landfill 22.6 Dishna Dishna – Dishna Landfill 17.35 Qena Awlad Amr – Dishna Landfill 24.05 Al Waqf Al Waqf – Naga Hammadi Landfill 25.6 Naga Hammadi Naga Hammadi – Naga Hammadi Landfill 16.4 Naqada – Qena west Landfill 32.62 Qena – Qena west Landfill 11.45 Qeft Qeft ‐ As Salihiyyah Landfill 20.5 Qous Qous ‐ As Salihiyyah Landfill 36.3

There will be no Transfer Stations in Option 1, thus the collected waste is transported directly to the corresponding MBT and/or landfill. The capacities at every ISWM stage of the system to be implemented under Option 1 can be shown in the following table.

Table 7‐8: Amounts of waste in Option‐1, 2017‐2038

Direct MBTs Secondary Transfer Landfills Year Primary Collection Transport (with RDF Collection Stations (cummulative) of Waste production) Door‐to‐door Collection Points (tons) (Tipping trucks) (Containers) 2017 33.901 0 123.272 123.272 0 50.000 105.981 2018 34.647 34.647 160.634 160.634 0 50.000 217.399 2019 44.263 44.263 189.656 189.656 0 50.000 352.472 2020 54.285 54.285 219.878 219.878 0 50.000 512.179 2025 100.885 100.885 343.616 343.616 0 50.000 1.606.267 2030 134.992 134.992 438.035 438.035 0 50.000 3.136.288 2035 175.613 175.613 549.638 549.638 0 50.000 5.098.864 2036 179.479 179.479 561.738 561.738 0 50.000 5.540.905 2037 183.432 183.432 574.109 574.109 0 50.000 5.993.505 2038 187.471 187.471 586.750 586.750 0 50.000 6.456.898

7.4.3 WASTE FLOW ANALYSIS The performance of the ISWM system that implements Option 1 is depicted in the following table and in Annex 13.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 70

Table 7‐9: Waste flow for Option‐1, 2017‐2038

Recyclables Biodegradabl Waste Recyclables RDF Waste Waste Uncollected Final Disposal Recovered at e Treated in Recovered in Produced Year Generated Collected Waste in Landfills Primary Treated in MBTs MBTs at MBTs (t) (t) (t) (t) Collection MBTs (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) 2017 487.959 123.272 364.687 105.981 95 ‐ 8.756 6.257 11.254 2018 498.706 160.634 338.072 111.417 97 26.267 8.756 6.257 11.254 2019 509.688 189.656 320.032 135.074 124 27.374 9.125 6.718 11.531 2020 520.911 219.878 301.033 159.707 152 28.528 9.509 7.199 11.820 2025 580.848 343.616 237.232 260.798 282 32.834 10.945 8.993 12.896 2030 647.680 438.035 209.646 337.876 378 36.227 12.076 10.407 13.744 2035 722.209 549.638 172.571 431.711 492 37.500 12.500 10.938 14.063 2036 738.108 561.738 176.370 442.041 503 37.500 12.500 10.938 14.063 2037 754.363 574.109 180.255 452.601 514 37.500 12.500 10.938 14.063 2038 770.974 586.750 184.224 463.393 525 37.500 12.500 10.938 14.063

According to the above table, the coverage of waste collection services will increase in the project period, thus the amount of uncollected waste will decrease.

Figure 7‐2: Progressive increase of waste collection coverage in the Governorate (Option‐1)

With reference to the performance of the ISWM system proposed by Option 1, the following figure depicts the amount of each waste stream being recovered by the MBT system, as part of the future ISWM system in the Governorate.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 71

Figure 7‐3: Waste recovery and treated by Option‐1, 2017‐2038

7.4.4 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF OPTION 1 The following table and graphs represent the investment and O&M costs of Option 1. (Figures are given in Euro and Egyptian Pound) 3. Also see Annex 15 for further details.

3 1 Euro = 20.98 EGP (30th of September 2017) ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 72

Table 7‐10: Investments and O&M Costs of Option‐1, 2018‐2038 (Euro)

Average Population served 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2038 Population served, 618.318 631.298 644.556 658.092 700.732 777.464 862.601 937.104 Urban Population served, 2.510.244 2.562.954 2.616.777 2.671.729 2.844.838 3.156.358 3.501.991 3.804.461 Rural Total 3.128.562 3.194.252 3.261.333 3.329.821 3.545.570 3.933.822 4.364.592 4.741.565 Average Investments, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Tricycles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 5,500,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 1,380,000 760,000 1,960,000 866,667 Rural Area Tractor & Trailer 3,666,000 1,181,000 1,249,000 827,000 1,925,000 2,283,800 3,137,600 3,119,667 Collection Points (Big Containers) 2,077,880 491,520 1,156,440 381,520 1,115,424 1,137,392 1,750,816 1,333,347 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 4,571,165 0 0 0 0 685,675 0 1,142,791 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 6,570,878 6,570,878 0 337,190 337,190 337,190 561,983 Average Total Investments - including reinvestments 15,815,045 8,843,398 9,476,318 1,608,520 4,757,614 5,204,057 7,185,606 7,024,454 Average O&M costs, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area 781,007 795,164 882,683 956,235 1,104,664 1,324,947 1,557,766 1,722,557 Rural Area 454,190 691,015 886,678 1,093,905 1,558,874 2,287,603 2,985,956 3,403,846 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 0 850,963 1,006,155 1,378,550 1,927,827 2,472,845 2,851,871 Average Total O&M Costs 2,039,285 2,290,268 3,424,413 3,860,383 4,846,177 6,344,465 7,820,657 8,782,363 Sum of Investments and O&M costs (Average) 17,854,330 11,133,666 12,900,732 5,468,903 9,603,791 11,548,522 15,006,263 15,806,817 Table 7‐11: Investments and O&M Costs of Option‐1, 2018‐2038 (Egyptian Pound)

Average Population served 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2038 Population served, 618.318 631.298 644.556 658.092 700.732 777.464 862.601 937.104 Urban Population served, 2.510.244 2.562.954 2.616.777 2.671.729 2.844.838 3.156.358 3.501.991 3.804.461 Rural Total 3.128.562 3.194.252 3.261.333 3.329.821 3.545.570 3.933.822 4.364.592 4.741.565 Average Investments, EGP/year Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Tricycles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 115,390,000 12,588,000 10,490,000 8,392,000 28,952,400 15,944,800 41,120,800 18,182,667 Rural Area Tractor & Trailer 76,912,680 24,777,380 26,204,020 17,350,460 40,386,500 47,914,124 65,826,848 65,450,607 Collection Points (Big Containers) 43,593,922 10,312,090 24,262,111 8,004,290 23,401,596 23,862,484 36,732,120 27,973,613 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 00000000 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 95,903,035 0 0 0 0 14,385,455 0 23,975,759 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 00000000 Landfills 0 137,857,030 137,857,030 0 7,074,242 7,074,242 7,074,242 11,790,404 Average Total Investments - including reinvestments 331,799,637 185,534,499 198,813,161 33,746,750 99,814,738 109,181,106 150,754,010 147,373,049 Average O&M costs, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area 16,385,516 16,682,542 18,518,699 20,061,802 23,175,840 27,797,379 32,681,940 36,139,241 Rural Area 9,528,898 14,497,488 18,602,502 22,950,122 32,705,186 47,993,903 62,645,360 71,412,688 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 00000000 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 16,869,784 16,869,784 16,869,784 16,869,784 16,869,784 16,869,784 16,869,784 16,869,784 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 00000000 Landfills 0 0 17,853,205 21,109,137 28,921,988 40,445,811 51,880,297 59,832,263 Average Total O&M Costs 42,784,198 48,049,813 71,844,190 80,990,844 101,672,798 133,106,877 164,077,381 184,253,977 Sum of Investments and O&M costs (Average) 374,583,836 233,584,313 270,657,351 114,737,594 201,487,536 242,287,982 314,831,391 331,627,026

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 73

Figure 7‐4: Investment Costs for Option‐1, 2017‐2038

Figure 7‐5: O&M Costs for Option‐1, 2017‐2038

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 74

OPTION 2: RESULT OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY 2007 (REDUCED DISPOSAL)

7.5.1 DESCRIPTION The design principles of Option 1 are based on the result analysis out of the Feasibility Study of an Integrated Solid Waste Management Project in the Qena Governorate (the Consortium IGIP ‐ IU ‐ RODECO – ALDAR), and financed by KfW. The logistical configuration of Option 2 is the same as Option 1, however it includes an increase in the recovery and recycling capacity of the Governorate through the implementation of new MBTs.

Figure 7‐6: Configuration of option 2

This option includes the following main technical features:

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 75

Table 7‐12: Overview of Option‐2 Feature Option‐2 Logistics Clusters - No Clusters - 9 ISWM systems Waste segregation Waste source - No segregation at source segregation - No segregation at collection Primary Collection Urban Areas - Progressive extension of door‐to‐door collection services with tipping trucks in densely populated areas - Implementation of collection points (Big Containers & Trucks) in new collection areas and urban low‐income areas Rural Areas - Progressive extension of door‐to‐door collection services with tractor‐trailers - Collection points in new collection areas Secondary Collection Urban Areas - Improvement of collection services with compactors/open‐truck collectors Rural Areas - Collection services with open‐truck collectors, if required Waste Transfer Transfer Stations - No TSs Waste Treatment MBT with RDF - 6 new MBTs Production - 2 MBT upgrades (Naga Hamadi & Qena Salhyia MBT) with improved capacity Final Disposal Landfill - 7 new facilities

7.5.2 LOGISTICAL SET‐UP OF OPTION 2 The configuration of the ISWM system for Option‐2, as shown in the Figure above, at every SWM stage is depicted in the following table.

Table 7‐13: Logistic setup of Option 2

District MBTs Disposal Abo Tesht → - New MBT Abo Tesht - New Landfill Abo Tesht Farshot → - New MBT Farshot - New Landfill Farshot Naga Hammadi → - Upgraded Naga Hammadi - Naga Hammadi west Deschna → - New MBT Deshna - New Landfill Deshna ElWaqf → - Upgraded Naga Hammadi - Naga Hammadi west Qena East → - Upgraded MBT Qena Salhyia - New Landfill Qena East Qena West → - New MBT Qena West - New Landfill Qena West Qeft → - New MBT Quos - New Landfill Quos Nakada → - New MBT Nakada - New Landfill Nakada Quos → - New MBT Quos - New Landfill Quos → : Direcon of waste streams

The configuration depicted above takes into account the following traveled distances, from the point where the capacity of the collection vehicle (primary/secondary) is exhausted, and it initiates its trip to the MBT/disposal site.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 76

Table 7‐14: Distances within the logistic setup of Option 2

District Route Distance (km) Abou Tesht Abou Tesht – Farshout Landfill 28 Farshout Farshout – Farshout Landfill 22.6 Dishna Dishna – Dishna Landfill 17.35 Qena Awlad Amr – Dishna Landfill 24.05 Al Waqf Al Waqf – Naga Hammadi Landfill 25.6 Naga Hammadi Naga Hammadi – Naga Hammadi Landfill 16.4 Naqada Naqada – Qena west Landfill 32.62 Qena Dendera – Qena west Landfill 11.45 Qeft Qeft ‐ As Salihiyyah Landfill 20.5 Qus ‐ As Salihiyyah Landfill 36.3

There will be no Transfer Stations in Option 2, thus the collected waste is transported directly to the corresponding MBT and/or landfill. The capacities at every ISWM stage of the system to be implemented under Option 2 can be shown in the following table.

Table 7‐15: Amounts of waste in Option‐2, 2017‐2038

Direct MBTs Secondary Transfer Landfills Year Primary Collection Transport (with RDF Collection Stations (cummulative) of waste production) Door‐to‐door Collection Points (tons) (Tipping trucks) (Containers) 2017 33.901 0 123.272 123.272 0 50.000 113.407 2018 34.647 34.647 160.634 160.634 0 110.000 179.977 2019 44.263 44.263 189.656 189.656 0 110.000 269.847 2020 54.285 54.285 219.878 219.878 0 165.000 343.565 2025 100.885 100.885 343.616 343.616 0 280.000 880.010 2030 134.992 134.992 438.035 438.035 0 315.000 1.519.610 2035 175.613 175.613 549.638 549.638 0 315.000 2.543.641 2036 179.479 179.479 561.738 561.738 0 315.000 2.797.392 2037 183.432 183.432 574.109 574.109 0 315.000 3.061.935 2038 187.471 187.471 586.750 586.750 0 315.000 3.337.504

7.5.3 WASTE FLOW ANALYSIS The performance of the ISWM system that implements Option 2 is depicted in the following table and in Annex 13.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 77

Table 7‐16: Waste flow for Option‐2, 2017‐2038

Recyclables Biodegrada Waste Recyclables RDF Waste Waste Uncollected Final Disposal Recovered at ble Treated in Recovered Produced Year Generated Collected Waste in Landfills Primary Treated in MBTs in MBTs at MBTs (t) (t) (t) (t) Collection MBTs (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) 2017 487.959 123.272 364.687 113.407 95 ‐ 12.500 10.938 14.063 2018 498.706 160.634 338.072 66.570 97 77.919 16.542 23.063 38.314 2019 509.688 189.656 320.032 89.870 124 79.845 16.734 23.641 39.469 2020 520.911 219.878 301.033 73.719 152 122.262 25.351 38.554 58.357 2025 580.848 343.616 237.232 95.004 282 207.062 42.581 63.681 100.800 2030 647.680 438.035 209.646 150.196 378 233.200 49.570 69.023 114.608 2035 722.209 549.638 172.571 243.256 492 236.190 49.869 69.920 116.402 2036 738.108 561.738 176.370 253.751 503 236.250 49.875 69.938 116.438 2037 754.363 574.109 180.255 264.543 514 236.250 49.875 69.938 116.438 2038 770.974 586.750 184.224 275.569 525 236.250 49.875 69.938 116.438

According to the above table, the coverage of waste collection services will increase in the project period, thus the amount of uncollected waste will decrease.

Figure 7‐7: Progressive increase of waste collection coverage in the Governorate (Option‐2)

With reference to the performance of the ISWM system proposed by Option 1, the following figure depicts the amount of each waste stream being recovered by the MBT system, as part of the future ISWM system in the Governorate.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 78

Figure 7‐8: Waste recovery and treated by Option‐2, 2017‐2038

7.5.4 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF OPTION 2 The following table and graphs represent the investment and O&M costs of the Option 2. (Figures are given in Euro and Egyptian Pound) 4. Also see Annex 15 for further details.

4 1 Euro = 20.98 EGP (30th of September 2017) ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 79

Table 7‐17: Investments and O&M Costs of Option‐2, 2018‐2038 (Euro)

Average Population served 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2038 Population served, Urban 618.318 631.298 644.556 658.092 700.732 777.464 862.601 937.104 Population served, Rural 2.510.244 2.562.954 2.616.777 2.671.729 2.844.838 3.156.358 3.501.991 3.804.461 Total 3.128.562 3.194.252 3.261.333 3.329.821 3.545.570 3.933.822 4.364.592 4.741.565 Average Investments, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Tricycles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 5,500,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 1,380,000 760,000 1,960,000 866,667 Rural Area Tractor & Trailer 3,666,000 1,181,000 1,249,000 827,000 1,925,000 2,283,800 3,137,600 3,119,667 Collection Points (Big Containers) 2,077,880 491,520 1,156,440 381,520 1,115,424 1,137,392 1,750,816 1,333,347 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 000 0 0 0 0 0 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 11,187,064 0 5359134.2 0 2,194,383 3,181,847 1,645,787 3,368,162 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 000 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 5,886,211 5,886,211 0 302,056 302,056 302,056 503,426 Average Total Investments - including reinvestments 22,430,944 8,158,731 14,150,785 1,608,520 6,916,862 7,665,094 8,796,259 9,191,268 Average O&M costs, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area 781,007 795,164 882,683 956,235 1,104,664 1,324,947 1,557,766 1,722,557 Rural Area 454,190 691,015 886,678 1,093,905 1,558,874 2,287,603 2,985,956 3,403,846 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 000 0 0 0 0 0 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 804,089 2,286,503 2,286,503 3,334,936 4,033,463 5,763,095 6,146,853 6,146,853 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 000 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 0 687,097 527,207 802,806 964,747 1,574,093 2,034,967 Average Total O&M Costs 2,039,285 3,772,682 4,742,962 5,912,282 7,499,807 10,340,392 12,264,669 13,308,222 Sum of Investments and O&M costs (Average) 24,470,229 11,931,413 18,893,747 7,520,802 14,416,669 18,005,486 21,060,927 22,499,490 Table 7‐18: Investments and O&M Costs of Option‐2, 2018‐2038 (Egyptian Pound)

Average Population served 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2038 Population served, Urban 618.318 631.298 644.556 658.092 700.732 777.464 862.601 937.104 Population served, Rural 2.510.244 2.562.954 2.616.777 2.671.729 2.844.838 3.156.358 3.501.991 3.804.461 Total 3.128.562 3.194.252 3.261.333 3.329.821 3.545.570 3.933.822 4.364.592 4.741.565 Average Investments, EGP/year Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Tricycles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 115,390,000 12,588,000 10,490,000 8,392,000 28,952,400 15,944,800 41,120,800 18,182,667 Rural Area Tractor & Trailer 76,912,680 24,777,380 26,204,020 17,350,460 40,386,500 47,914,124 65,826,848 65,450,607 Collection Points (Big Containers) 43,593,922 10,312,090 24,262,111 8,004,290 23,401,596 23,862,484 36,732,120 27,973,613 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 00000000 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 234,704,602 0 112,434,636 0 46,038,148 66,755,140 34,528,611 70,664,030 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 00000000 Landfills 0 123,492,707 123,492,707 0 6,337,126 6,337,126 6,337,126 10,561,876 Average Total Investments - including reinvestments 470,601,205 171,170,176 296,883,474 33,746,750 145,115,769 160,813,674 184,545,504 192,832,793 Average O&M costs, EGP/year Collection System Urban Area 16,385,516 16,682,542 18,518,699 20,061,802 23,175,840 27,797,379 32,681,940 36,139,241 Rural Area 9,528,898 14,497,488 18,602,502 22,950,122 32,705,186 47,993,903 62,645,360 71,412,688 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 00000000 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 16,869,784 47,970,829 47,970,829 69,966,961 84,622,062 120,909,733 128,960,972 128,960,972 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 00000000 Landfills 0 0 1,372,946 1,774,954 2,631,089 3,460,671 4,753,240 5,119,227 Average Total O&M Costs 42,784,198 79,150,859 99,507,333 124,039,682 157,345,951 216,941,417 257,312,752 279,206,502 Sum of Investments and O&M costs (Average) 513,385,403 250,321,035 396,390,806 157,786,431 302,461,721 377,755,091 441,858,256 472,039,295

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 80

Figure 7‐9: Investment Costs for Option‐2, 2017‐2038

Figure 7‐10: O&M Costs for Option‐2, 2017‐2038

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 81

OPTION 3 (TRANSFER STATIONS ‐ DISPOSAL)

7.6.1 DESCRIPTION The design principles are to establish a safe, efficient, environmentally friendly and sustainable (cost covering) waste management system, with suitable models for primary waste collection; upgrade recycling plants to reach 25% recycling of total waste generation; dispose of the waste at jointly used sanitary landfills in the desert; and to involve private sector activities and create employment.

Figure 7‐11: Configuration of Option‐3

This option includes the following main technical features:

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 82

Table 7‐19: Overview of Option‐3 Feature Option‐3 Logistics Clusters - 5 Clusters - 5 ISWM systems Waste segregation Waste source - No segregation at source segregation - No segregation at collection Primary Collection Urban Areas - Progressive extension of door‐to‐door collection services with tipping trucks in densely populated areas - Implementation of collection points (big containers & trucks) in new collection areas and urban low‐income areas Rural Areas - Progressive extension of door‐to‐door collection services with tractor‐trailers - Collection points in new collection areas Secondary Collection Urban Areas - Improvement of collection services with compactors/open‐truck collectors Rural Areas - Collection services with open‐truck collectors, if required Waste Transfer Transfer Stations - 5 TSs in Abo Tesht, Farshot, Naga Hammadi West, Qena East & Quos Waste Treatment MBT with RDF - 1 new MBTs in Qena West Production - 2 MBT upgrades (Naga Hamadi & Qena Salhyia MBT) with improved capacity Final Disposal Landfill - 5 new facilities in Farshot, Naga Hammadi West, Deshna, Qena west & Quos

7.6.2 LOGISTICAL SET‐UP OF OPTION 3 The configuration of the ISWM system for Option 3, as shown in the Figure above, at every SWM stage is depicted in the following table.

Table 7‐20: Logistic setup of Option 3 District Transfer Station MBTs Disposal /Direct Abo Tesht → - TS Abo Tesht → - New Landfill Farshot Farshot → - TS Farshot → - New Landfill Farshot Naga Hammadi → → → - New Landfill Deshna East Naga Hammadi → - TS Naga Hammadi - Upgraded Naga Hammadi - Landfill Naga Hammadi west West West → - → → - New Landfill Deshna Deschna - TS Qena East → - New Landfill Deshna ElWaqf → - → - Upgraded Naga Hammadi - Landfill Naga Hammadi west → - → - Upgraded MBT Qena - New Landfill Quos Qena East - TS Qena East Salhyia - New Landfill Deshna Qena West → → - → - New Landfill Qena West → → - Upgraded MBT Qena - New Landfill Quos Qeft Salhyia - New Landfill Quos Nakada → → → - New Landfill Quos Quos → - TS Quos → - New Landfill Quos → : Direcon of waste streams

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 83

The configuration depicted above takes into account the following travelled distances, from the point where the capacity of the collection vehicle (primary/secondary) is exhausted, and it initiates its trip to the MBT/disposal site.

Table 7‐21: Distances within the logistic setup of Option 3 District Route Distance (km) Qena/Quos As Salihihyyah MBT ‐ Qus Landfill 36.9 Qeft Qeft ‐ Quos Landfill 14.79 Qena West Dendera ‐ Qena west Landfill 11.45 Naqada Naqada ‐ Qena west Landfill 31.62 Qena/Dishna Qenaouiya TS ‐ Dishna Landfill 23.6 Qena East Awlad Amr ‐ Qenaouiya TS 11.7 Dishna Dishna ‐ Dishna MBT 17.35 Abou Tesht Abou Tesht TS ‐ Farshout Landfill 18.3 Farshout Farshout TS ‐ Farshout Landfill 11.8 Farshout Farshout ‐ Farshout TS 10.7 Abou Tesht About Tesht ‐ Abou Tesht TS 9.54 Naga Hammadi Naga Hammadi – Naga Hammadi TS 3.86 Naga Hammadi East Naga Hammadi East– Deshna MBT 37.4 Naga Hammadi Naga Hammadi TS – Naga Hammadi 16.3 MBT/Landfill Al‐Waqf Al‐Waqf ‐ Naga Hamadi MBT 25,6 Quos Quos TS – Quos Landfill 8.77 Quos Quos – Quos TS 10

There will be no Transfer Stations in Option 3, thus the collected waste is transported directly to the corresponding MBT and/or landfill. The capacities at every ISWM stage of the system to be implemented under Option 3 can be shown in the following table.

Table 7‐22: Amounts of waste in Option‐3, 2017‐2038

Direct MBTs Secondary Transfer Landfills Year Primary Collection Transport (with RDF Collection Stations (cummulative) of waste production) Door‐to‐door Collection Points (tons) (Tipping trucks) (Containers) 2017 33.901 0 123.272 71.745 51.527 50.000 105.981 2018 34.647 34.647 160.634 82.435 78.199 50.000 211.813 2019 44.263 44.263 189.656 94.374 95.281 50.000 339.933 2020 54.285 54.285 219.878 106.800 113.078 50.000 491.263 2025 100.885 100.885 343.616 152.774 190.842 75.000 1.496.838 2030 134.992 134.992 438.035 189.133 248.901 100.000 2.901.448 2035 175.613 175.613 549.638 231.839 317.799 125.000 4.657.249 2036 179.479 179.479 561.738 236.943 324.795 125.000 5.043.040 2037 183.432 183.432 574.109 242.161 331.947 125.000 5.439.390 2038 187.471 187.471 586.750 247.493 339.258 125.000 5.846.533

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 84

7.6.3 WASTE FLOW ANALYSIS The performance of the ISWM system that implements Option 3 is depicted in the following table and in Annex 13.

Table 7‐23: Waste flow for Option‐3, 2017‐2038

Recyclables Biodegrada Waste Recyclables RDF Waste Waste Uncollected Final Disposal Recovered at ble Treated in Recovered Produced Year Generated Collected Waste in Landfills Primary Treated in MBTs in MBTs at MBTs (t) (t) (t) (t) Collection MBTs (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) 2017 487.959 123.272 364.687 105.981 95 ‐ 10.617 9.996 11.239 2018 498.706 160.634 338.072 105.832 97 31.852 10.617 9.996 11.239 2019 509.688 189.656 320.032 128.120 124 34.328 11.443 10.409 12.476 2020 520.911 219.878 301.033 151.329 152 36.906 12.302 10.838 13.765 2025 580.848 343.616 237.232 237.382 282 56.250 18.750 18.750 18.750 2030 647.680 438.035 209.646 299.566 378 74.538 24.846 21.798 27.894 2035 722.209 549.638 172.571 375.461 492 93.750 31.250 29.688 32.813 2036 738.108 561.738 176.370 385.791 503 93.750 31.250 29.688 32.813 2037 754.363 574.109 180.255 396.351 514 93.750 31.250 29.688 32.813 2038 770.974 586.750 184.224 407.143 525 93.750 31.250 29.688 32.813

According to the above table, the coverage of waste collection services will increase in the project period, thus the amount of uncollected waste will decrease.

Figure 7‐12: Progressive increase of waste collection coverage in the Governorate (Option 3)

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 85

With reference to the performance of the ISWM system proposed by Option 3, the following figure depicts the amount of each waste stream being recovered by the MBT system, as part of the future ISWM system in the Governorate.

Figure 7‐13: Waste recovery and treated by Option 3, 2017‐2038

7.6.4 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF OPTION 3 The following table and graphs represent the investments and O&M costs of the Option‐3. (Figures are given in Euro and Egyptian Pound) 5. Also see Annex 15 for further details.

5 1 Euro = 20.98 EGP (30th of September 2017) ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 86

Table 7‐24: Investments and O&M Costs of Option‐3, 2018‐2038 (Euro)

Average Population served 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2038 Population served, Urban 618.318 631.298 644.556 658.092 700.732 777.464 862.601 937.104 Population served, Rural 2.510.244 2.562.954 2.616.777 2.671.729 2.844.838 3.156.358 3.501.991 3.804.461 Total 3.128.562 3.194.252 3.261.333 3.329.821 3.545.570 3.933.822 4.364.592 4.741.565 Average Investments, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Tricycles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 4,400,000 400,000 500,000 200,000 1,140,000 600,000 1,500,000 733,333 Rural Area Tractor & Trailer 3,366,000 1,081,000 849,000 1,027,000 1,725,000 2,043,800 2,897,600 2,819,667 Collection Points (Big Containers) 1,877,880 591,520 1,056,440 281,520 1,055,424 1,077,392 1,650,816 1,233,347 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 2,897,368 0 259,574 0 386,496 129,787 490,326 129,787 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 4,571,165 0 0 0 457,116 1,142,791 799,954 1,142,791 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 6,370,703 6,370,703 0 326,918 326,918 326,918 544,863 Average Total Investments - including reinvestments 17,112,413 8,443,223 9,035,718 1,508,520 5,090,954 5,320,688 7,665,613 6,603,788 Average O&M costs, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area 597,336 625,417 682,211 752,458 861,283 1,027,065 1,206,323 1,332,516 Rural Area 388,592 592,752 779,523 910,728 1,324,614 1,936,826 2,530,877 2,881,557 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 119,663 124,260 127,203 159,795 179,437 238,110 284,644 300,858 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 1,045,316 1,286,542 1,688,587 2,010,222 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 0 807,157 953,375 1,267,024 1,769,810 2,212,309 2,497,496 Average Total O&M Costs 1,909,680 2,146,517 3,200,183 3,580,445 4,677,674 6,258,353 7,922,739 9,022,650 Sum of Investments and O&M costs (Average) 19,022,092 10,589,741 12,235,901 5,088,965 9,768,628 11,579,041 15,588,352 15,626,438 Table 7‐25: Investments and O&M Costs of Option‐3, 2018‐2038 (Egyptian Pound)

Average Population served 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2038 Population served, Urban 618.318 631.298 644.556 658.092 700.732 777.464 862.601 937.104 Population served, Rural 2.510.244 2.562.954 2.616.777 2.671.729 2.844.838 3.156.358 3.501.991 3.804.461 Total 3.128.562 3.194.252 3.261.333 3.329.821 3.545.570 3.933.822 4.364.592 4.741.565 Average Investments, EGP/year Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Tricycles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 92,312,000 8,392,000 10,490,000 4,196,000 23,917,200 12,588,000 31,470,000 15,385,333 Rural Area Tractor & Trailer 70,618,680 22,679,380 17,812,020 21,546,460 36,190,500 42,878,924 60,791,648 59,156,607 Collection Points (Big Containers) 39,397,922 12,410,090 22,164,111 5,906,290 22,142,796 22,603,684 34,634,120 25,875,613 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 60,786,779 0 5,445,872 0 8,108,683 2,722,936 10,287,032 2,722,936 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 95,903,035 0 0 0 9,590,303 23,975,759 16,783,031 23,975,759 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 133,657,357 133,657,357 0 6,858,733 6,858,733 6,858,733 11,431,221 Average Total Investments - including reinvestments 359,018,416 177,138,827 189,569,361 31,648,750 106,808,215 111,628,036 160,824,564 138,547,469 Average O&M costs, EGP/year Collection System Urban Area 12,532,101 13,121,256 14,312,783 15,786,566 18,069,728 21,547,833 25,308,656 27,956,195 Rural Area 8,152,662 12,435,928 16,354,401 19,107,069 27,790,394 40,634,605 53,097,807 60,455,066 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 2,510,535 2,606,965 2,668,723 3,352,499 3,764,580 4,995,555 5,971,827 6,312,006 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 16,869,784 16,869,784 16,869,784 16,869,784 21,930,719 26,991,654 35,426,546 42,174,460 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 0 1,255,166 1,491,423 2,125,832 3,057,725 3,964,823 4,405,698 Average Total O&M Costs 40,065,083 45,033,933 67,139,849 75,117,732 98,137,590 131,300,251 166,219,071 189,295,203 Sum of Investments and O&M costs (Average) 399,083,499 222,172,760 256,709,209 106,766,482 204,945,805 242,928,287 327,043,634 327,842,672

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 87

Figure 7‐14: Investment Costs for Option‐3, 2017‐2038

Figure 7‐15: O&M Costs for Option‐3, 2017‐2038

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 88

OPTION 4 (TRANSFER STATIONS ‐ TREATMENT – DISPOSAL)

7.7.1 DESCRIPTION The design principles of the Option‐4 are to establish a safe, efficient, environmentally friendly and sustainable (cost covering) waste management system with suitable models for primary waste collection; central transfer stations to be jointly used by neighboring cities, upgrade existing recycling plants, and establish two new recycling plants to be jointly used by neighboring cities to reach 36% recycling of total waste generation; dispose of the waste at jointly used sanitary landfills in the desert; and to involve private sector activities and create employment.

Figure 7‐16: Configuration of Option ‐4

This option includes the following main technical features: Table 7‐26: Overview of Option‐4 Feature Option‐4 Logistics Clusters - 5 Clusters - 5 ISWM systems Waste segregation Waste source - No segregation at source segregation - No segregation at collection Primary Collection Urban Areas - Progressive extension of door‐to‐door collection services with tipping trucks in densely populated areas - Implementation of collection points (big containers & trucks) in new collection areas and urban low‐income areas Rural Areas - Progressive extension of door‐to‐door collection services with tractors‐ trailers - Collection points in new collection areas Secondary Collection Urban Areas - Improvement of collection services with compactors/open‐truck collectors

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 89

Feature Option‐4 Rural Areas - Collection services with open‐truck collectors, if required Waste Transfer Transfer Stations - 4 TSs in Abo Tesht, Naga Hammadi West, Qena East & Quos Waste Treatment MBT with RDF - 2 new MBTs in Deshna & Quos Production - 2 MBT upgrades (Naga Hamadi & Qena Salhyia MBT) with improved capacity Final Disposal Landfill - 5 new facilities in Farshot, Naga Hammadi West, Deshna, Qena west & Quos

7.7.2 LOGISTICAL SET‐UP OF OPTION 4 The configuration of the ISWM system for Option 4, as shown in the Figure above, at every SWM stage is depicted in the following table.

Table 7‐27: Logisticsl setup of Option 4 District Transfer Station MBTs Disposal /Direct Abo Tesht → - TS Abo Tesht → - New Landfill Farshot Farshot → - TS Abo Tesht → - New Landfill Farshot Naga Hammadi East → → → - New Landfill Deshna Naga Hammadi - TS Naga Hammadi - Landfill Naga Hammadi → - Upgraded Naga Hammadi West West west - → - MBT Deshna - New Landfill Deshna Deschna → - TS Qena East - MBT Deshna - New Landfill Deshna - Landfill Naga Hammadi ElWaqf → - → - Upgraded Naga Hammadi west - → - Upgraded MBT Qena Salhyia - New Landfill Quos Qena East → - TS Qena East - → - New Landfill Deshna Qena West → → - → - New Landfill Qena West → - Upgraded MBT Qena Salhyia - New Landfill Quos Qeft → → - MBT Quos - New Landfill Quos Nakada → → → - New Landfill Qena West Quos → - TS Quos - MBT Quos - New Landfill Quos → : Direcon of waste streams

The configuration depicted above takes into account the following travelled distances, from the point where the capacity of the collection vehicle (primary/secondary) is exhausted, and it initiates its travel to the MBT/disposal site.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 90

Table 7‐28: Distances within the logistic setup of Option 4

District Route Distance (km) Qena East Awlad Amr ‐ Qenaouiya TS 11.7 Qena/Dishna Qenaouiya TS ‐ Dishna Landfill 23.6 Abou Tesht Abou Tesht – Farshout TS 20.3 Farshout Farshout ‐ Farshout TS 10.7 Farshout Farshout TS ‐ Farshout Landfill 11.8 Qena/Qus As Salihihyyah MBT ‐ Qus Landfill 36.9 Qeft Qeft ‐ Qus Landfill 14.79 Qena Dendera – Qena west Landfill 11.45 Naqada Naqada ‐ Qena west Landfill 31.62 Qena Awlad Amr – Deshna Landfill 24.05 Al Waqf Al Waqf – Naga Hammadi Landfill 25.6 Naga Hammadi East Naga Hammadi East – MBT Deshna 37,4 Naga Hammadi West Naga Hammadi – Naga Hammadi TS 3.86 Naga Hammadi Naga Hammadi TS – Naga Hammadi MBT/Landfill 16.3 Dishna Dishna ‐ Dishna MBT 17.35 Qus Qus TS – Qus Landfill 8.77 Qus Qus – Qus TS 10

There will be no Transfer Stations in Option 4, thus the collected waste will be transported directly to the corresponding MBT and/or landfill. The capacities at every ISWM stage of the system to be implemented under Option 4 can be shown in the following table.

Table 7‐29: Amount of waste in Option 4, 2017‐2038

Direct MBTs Secondary Transfer Landfills Year Primary Collection Transport (with RDF Collection Stations (cummulative) of waste production) Door‐to‐door Collection Points (tons) (Tipping trucks) (Containers) 2017 33.901 0 123.272 71.745 51.527 50.000 121.568 2018 34.647 34.647 160.634 82.435 78.199 100.000 216.133 2019 44.263 44.263 189.656 94.374 95.281 100.000 334.208 2020 54.285 54.285 219.878 106.800 113.078 100.000 477.372 2025 100.885 100.885 343.616 152.774 190.842 150.000 1.512.116 2030 134.992 134.992 438.035 189.133 248.901 225.000 2.872.004 2035 175.613 175.613 549.638 231.839 317.799 250.000 4.505.924 2036 179.479 179.479 561.738 236.943 324.795 250.000 4.875.507 2037 183.432 183.432 574.109 242.161 331.947 250.000 5.257.358 2038 187.471 187.471 586.750 247.493 339.258 250.000 5.651.746

7.7.3 WASTE FLOW ANALYSIS The performance of the ISWM system that implements Option 4 is depicted in the following table and in Annex 13.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 91

Table 7‐30: Waste flow for Option‐4, 2017‐2038

Recyclables Biodegrada Waste Recyclables RDF Waste Waste Uncollected Final Disposal Recovered at ble Treated in Recovered Produced Year Generated Collected Waste in Landfills Primary Treated in MBTs in MBTs at MBTs (t) (t) (t) (t) Collection MBTs (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) 2017 487.959 123.272 364.687 121.568 95 ‐ 10.617 9.996 11.239 2018 498.706 160.634 338.072 94.565 97 64.232 13.855 19.710 30.666 2019 509.688 189.656 320.032 118.075 124 69.512 14.961 20.964 33.587 2020 520.911 219.878 301.033 143.164 152 74.406 16.052 22.088 36.265 2025 580.848 343.616 237.232 227.998 282 112.500 24.375 35.625 52.500 2030 647.680 438.035 209.646 266.715 378 167.538 34.146 49.698 83.694 2035 722.209 549.638 172.571 357.583 492 187.500 40.625 57.813 89.063 2036 738.108 561.738 176.370 369.583 503 187.500 40.625 57.813 89.063 2037 754.363 574.109 180.255 381.851 514 187.500 40.625 57.813 89.063 2038 770.974 586.750 184.224 394.388 525 187.500 40.625 57.813 89.063

According to the above table, the coverage of waste collection services will increase in the project period, thus the amount of uncollected waste will decrease.

Figure 7‐17: Progressive increase of waste collection coverage in the Governorate (Option‐4)

With reference to the performance of the ISWM system, proposed by Option 4, the following figure depicts the amount of each waste stream being recovered by the MBT system, as part of the future ISWM system in the Governorate.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 92

Figure 7‐18: Waste recovery and treated by Option‐4, 2017‐2038

7.7.4 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF OPTION 4 The following table and graphs represent the investment and O&M costs of the Option 4. (Figures are given in Euro and Egyptian Pound) 6. Also see Annex 15 for further details.

6 1 Euro = 20.98 EGP (30th of September 2017) ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 93

Table 7‐31: Investments and O&M Costs of Option‐4, 2018‐2038 (Euro) Average Population served 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2038 Population served, Urban 618.318 631.298 644.556 658.092 700.732 777.464 862.601 937.104 Population served, Rural 2.510.244 2.562.954 2.616.777 2.671.729 2.844.838 3.156.358 3.501.991 3.804.461 Total 3.128.562 3.194.252 3.261.333 3.329.821 3.545.570 3.933.822 4.364.592 4.741.565 Average Investments, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Tricycles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 4,500,000 300,000 500,000 200,000 1,180,000 580,000 1,520,000 733,333 Rural Area Tractor & Trailer 3,466,000 1,081,000 949,000 1,027,000 1,765,000 2,103,800 2,977,600 2,886,333 Collection Points (Big Containers) 1,977,880 491,520 1,056,440 381,520 1,075,424 1,097,392 1,670,816 1,266,680 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 2,317,894 129,787 259,574 0 324,771 129,787 454,558 129,787 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 9,142,329 0 0 0 914,233 2,742,699 1,142,791 2,285,582 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 0000 0000 Landfills 0 6,386,816 6,386,816 0 327,744 327,744 327,744 546,241 Average Total Investments - including reinvestments 21,404,104 8,389,123 9,151,830 1,608,520 5,587,173 6,981,423 8,093,510 7,847,957 Average O&M costs, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area 610,902 638,983 682,220 752,467 866,718 1,040,637 1,219,762 1,345,416 Rural Area 406,481 623,524 799,378 945,222 1,385,369 2,018,726 2,638,493 3,006,716 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 98,477 103,576 121,603 154,530 169,123 229,046 270,888 284,954 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 804,089 1,608,178 1,608,178 1,608,178 1,768,995 2,653,493 3,698,809 4,020,444 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 0000 0000 Landfills 0 0 743,873 901,935 1,303,776 1,713,460 2,058,739 2,406,225 Average Total O&M Costs 1,919,948 2,974,261 3,955,253 4,362,333 5,493,982 7,655,362 9,886,690 11,063,755 Sum of Investments and O&M costs (Average) 23,324,052 11,363,384 13,107,083 5,970,853 11,081,154 14,636,785 17,980,200 18,911,712 Table 7‐32: Investments and O&M Costs of Option‐4, 2018‐2038 (Egyptian Pound)

Average Population served 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2038 Population served, Urban 618.318 631.298 644.556 658.092 700.732 777.464 862.601 937.104 Population served, Rural 2.510.244 2.562.954 2.616.777 2.671.729 2.844.838 3.156.358 3.501.991 3.804.461 Total 3.128.562 3.194.252 3.261.333 3.329.821 3.545.570 3.933.822 4.364.592 4.741.565 Average Investments, EGP/year Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Tricycles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 94,410,000 6,294,000 10,490,000 4,196,000 24,756,400 12,168,400 31,889,600 15,385,333 Rural Area Tractor & Trailer 72,716,680 22,679,380 19,910,020 21,546,460 37,029,700 44,137,724 62,470,048 60,555,273 Collection Points (Big Containers) 41,495,922 10,312,090 22,164,111 8,004,290 22,562,396 23,023,284 35,053,720 26,574,946 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 48,629,423 2,722,936 5,445,872 0 6,813,699 2,722,936 9,536,635 2,722,936 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 191,806,070 0 0 0 19,180,607 57,541,821 23,975,759 47,951,517 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 0000 0000 Landfills 0 133,995,390 133,995,390 0 6,876,079 6,876,079 6,876,079 11,460,132 Average Total Investments - including reinvestments 449,058,095 176,003,796 192,005,394 33,746,750 117,218,880 146,470,244 169,801,841 164,650,139 Average O&M costs, EGP/year Collection System Urban Area 12,816,716 13,405,871 14,312,985 15,786,767 18,183,742 21,832,573 25,590,603 28,226,822 Rural Area 8,527,969 13,081,542 16,770,959 19,830,764 29,065,038 42,352,869 55,355,573 63,080,893 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 2,066,046 2,173,014 2,551,239 3,242,047 3,548,198 4,805,389 5,683,233 5,978,338 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 16,869,784 33,739,568 33,739,568 33,739,568 37,113,525 55,670,287 77,601,007 84,348,920 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 0000 0000 Landfills 0 0 1,376,670 1,661,210 2,258,286 2,579,345 3,313,503 3,846,035 Average Total O&M Costs 40,280,515 62,399,995 82,981,213 91,521,737 115,263,732 160,609,505 207,422,756 232,117,579 Sum of Investments and O&M costs (Average) 489,338,610 238,403,791 274,986,606 125,268,487 232,482,612 307,079,749 377,224,596 396,767,718

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 94

Figure 7‐19: Investment Costs for Option‐4, 2017‐2038

Figure 7‐20: O&M Costs for Option‐4, 2017‐2038

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate page 95

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS This section compares the presented options in terms of technical performance (amount of waste landfilled, recovery and treatment of waste streams) and in terms of investment and costs.

7.8.1 WASTE COLLECTION The following figure presents the waste collected under each of the options. In this case, the coverage rates of waste collection were kept the same for all options, thus the amount of collected waste is the same for all options.

Figure 7‐21: Waste Collected for analyzed Options, 2017‐2038

7.8.2 INSTALLED TREATMENT CAPACITY The installed capacity of MBTs in each of the options, subject to analysis, were different. The required capacity is based on the amount of waste being collected under each of the logistical configurations, i.e. stand‐alone systems or clusters.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena page 96

Figure 7‐22: MBT installed capacity comparison, 2017‐2038

As it is depicted, Option 4 has the biggest installed capacity of MBT through the Governorate, and the Option 3 the smallest installed capacity.

One of the most important targets of the ISWM system of the Governorate has been RDF production. Based on the capacity of recovery and treatment, a comparison between the analysed options is presented in the following figure.

Figure 7‐23: Comparison of RDF production by different options, 2017‐2038

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena page 97

The production of RDF depends highly on the following: - Installed capacity for treatment - Amount of input waste - Sound operation of facilities

The above figure shows that the best RDF production takes place under Options 2 & 4. They also show that the best RDF performance is delivered by Options 2 & 4. The high installed capacity for treatment/recycling presents also the following main advantages: a) Jobs creation: As all options share similar improvement in waste collection, the creation of employment opportunities is the same for all SWM stages; However, for the options with higher MBT capacities, employment opportunities are higher due to the extended manual sorting. Thus, the higher the MBT capacity, the more jobs are created. b) Reduction of GHG emissions: The higher the recovery/treatment capacity, the less GHG is emitted

7.8.3 TOTAL RECOVERY & RECYCLED WASTE The technical performance of every option can also be shown in terms of the amount of waste being recovered and introduced into the treatment process for recycling. The following figure shows the percentage of total waste recovered & recycled by each option.

Figure 7‐24: Waste recovered & recycled for different Options, 2017‐2038

All of the options consider the same amount of collected waste, thus the same amount of waste enters the system. However, the amount of recovered and recycled waste differs, depending on the installed capacity at every option. In the above figure, the best performance is for Options 2 & 4, and the worst performance is for the Option 1.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena page 98

7.8.4 WASTE DISPOSAL The waste disposed in landfills is one of the most important parameters in any ISWM system, as this shows the efficiency of the implemented system. However, this also depends on the coverage of the collection services; as uncollected waste does not enter into the system, and thus cannot be properly disposed of.

The following figure shows the different amounts of waste disposed of in landfills by the Governorate, considering the same level of collection coverage and different logistical configurations.

Figure 7‐25: Waste landfill amounts for different Options, 2017‐2038

According to the above figure, considering the same amount of collected waste for all options, the configurations with less waste being disposed of are Options 2 & 4. This corresponds to the results of the previous section, which shows the performance of every option in terms of total waste recovered & recycled.

7.8.5 ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL COMPARISON OF OPTIONS The following figure presents the sum of investments and O&M costs for every option.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena page 99

Figure 7‐26: Investments and O&M Costs – four Options, 2017‐2038

Total investment and O&M costs are expressed in the net present value (NPV) that compares future investments and costs. The following table clearly shows the difference in the NPVs and hence in dynamic generation costs expressed in EURO per capita per year. The difference ranges from EUR 14 to 20 per capita and year, which is equivalent to approximate 300 to 430 EGP.

Table 7‐33: Comparison of NPV of the proposed Options (2017‐2038) in €

Item Option‐1 Option‐2 Option‐3 Option‐4

NPV ‐ Investments and O&M Costs (Th EUR) 113,272 € 161,339 € 114,130 € 133,131 € Dynamic generation costs (EUR/cap*year) 1.39 € 1.98 € 1.40 € 1.63 € Levelized cost per ton collected (EUR/ton) 14.52 € 20.68 € 14.63 € 17.06 €

Table 7‐34: Comparison of NPV of the proposed Options (2017‐2038) in Egyptian Pound

Item Option-1 Option-2 Option-3 Option-4

NPV - Investments and 2,376,438 EGP 3,384,886 EGP 2,394,447 EGP 2,793,086 EGP O&M Costs (Th EGP) Dynamic generation costs 29 EGP 42 EGP 29 EGP 34 EGP (EGP/cap*year)

Levelized cost per ton 305 EGP 434 EGP 307 EGP 358 EGP collected (EGP/ton)

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena page 100

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The following table provides a short summary of the different ISWM options presented above: Table 7‐35: Technical Summary of Options for Qena Governorate Keeping the existing situation as it has been recommended in the Feasibility Study in 2007, has not improved the SWM situation in Qena despite the fact that new Option 1 controlled dump sites have been constructed and existing recycling centers enhanced. Therefore, this option is technically not recommended. Keep the existing situation as it has been recommended in the Feasibility Study in 2007. However, the capacity of waste recovering & recycling is clearly improved. Option 2 The existing MBTs are upgraded and new facilities are built. The technical and environmental performance is according to the targets of the ISWM concept. Will help to enhance and improve the transportation system for SWM in the Governorate and prevent the creation of random dump sites. For this option it is necessary to foresee more infrastructure (5 transfer stations) and more technical Option 3 staff for the operation. It is also necessary to ensure that all waste received is removed regularly to treatment facilities, to avoid any accumulation of the waste at transfer stations. Therefore, this option can be technically recommended under certain prerequisites.

Will enhance and improve the transportation system and will reduce the number of Option 4 infrastructure and the number of required technical staff. The technical and environmental performance is according to the targets of the ISWM concept.

With reference to the financial and economic assessment performed for the proposed options (see NPVs comparison), Options 3 & 4 are those with relatively low costs and comply with the set targets for an ISWM system in the Governorate, i.e.: - Provides compliance with Governorate targets - Provides good diversion of waste streams from final disposal - Provides treatment of biodegradable waste fractions - Produces a substantial amount of RDF; marketing can support the sustainability of the system - Provides an affordable and economically sustainable solution.

These two options shall be studied in more detailed as part of the Master Plan and provided with more accurate information regarding investment and O&M costs. This will help make a final decision for implementation.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena page 101

ANNEXES

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena ANNEXES ‐ page 102

Annex 1: Population and population forecast

Expected Population Growth For the next 20 Years PGR (2.1%) City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Naga 565516 627442 667807 696149 740934 772380 822069 856958 Hammadi Qena 681333 755941 804573 838720 892676 930563 990428 1032462 Abo Tesht 449823 499080 531187 553731 589354 614367 653890 681642 Farshot 182118 202061 215060 224187 238609 248736 264738 275974 Deshna 388581 431132 458868 478343 509115 530723 564865 588839 El‐Waqf 84470 93720 99749 103982 110672 115369 122791 128002 Qeft 153026 169783 180705 188375 200493 209002 222448 231889 Qous 452666 502235 534544 557231 593079 618250 658023 685950 Nakada 171033 189762 201970 210541 224086 233596 248624 259176 Total 3128566 3471155 3694462 3851259 4099019 4272986 4547877 4740893

Expected Population Growth For the next 20 Years PGR (2.1%) City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Urban 618320 686028 730162 761151 810117 844500 898828 936975 Rural 2510246 2785127 2964300 3090108 3288902 3428486 3649049 3803918 Total 3128566 3471155 3694462 3851259 4099019 4272986 4547877 4740893

Qena District

City Main Village 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Capital city 251779 279350 297321 309939 329879 343879 366001 381535 Al‐Qenawia 33851 37558 39974 41671 44351 46234 49208 51296 Awlad Amr 80404 89209 94948 98977 105345 109816 116880 121841 Dandra 90153 100025 106460 110978 118118 123131 131052 136614 Qena Abanoud 63198 70118 74629 77797 82801 86316 91869 95768 Al‐Mahrosa 85386 94736 100831 105110 111872 116620 124122 129390 Al‐Gabalo 36487 40482 43087 44915 47805 49834 53040 55291 Al‐Shraf Al‐Gharbia 40075 44463 47324 49332 52506 54734 58255 60728 Total population 681333 755941 804573 838720 892676 930563 990428 1032462

City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Urban 251779 279350 297321 309939 329879 343879 366001 381535 Qena Rural 429554 476592 507252 528780 562798 586684 624426 650927 Total population 681333 755941 804573 838720 892676 930563 990428 1032462

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 1 ‐ page 1

Naga Hammadi District

City Main Village 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Capital city 56362 62534 66557 69382 73845 76979 81931 85409 El‐Rahmania Qebly 70291 77988 83005 86528 92095 96003 102179 106516 Awlad Negm El‐ Qeblia 37309 41394 44057 45927 48882 50957 54235 56536 How 91230 101220 107732 112304 119529 124602 132618 138246 Naga Bahgora 41493 46037 48998 51078 54364 56671 60317 62877 Hammadi El‐Halfia Bahry 80463 89274 95017 99050 105422 109896 116966 121930 Al‐Garby Bahgora 63986 70993 75560 78767 83834 87392 93014 96962 Awlad Negm Bahgora 25989 28835 30690 31992 34051 35496 37779 39383 El‐Salamia 68415 75907 80790 84219 89637 93441 99452 103673 El‐Shalania 29978 33261 35400 36903 39277 40944 43578 45427 Total Population 565516 627442 667807 696149 740934 772380 822069 856958

City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Naga Hammadi Urban 56363 62535 66558 69383 73846 76980 81933 85410 Rural 509153 564907 601249 626766 667088 695400 740136 771548 Total Population 565516 627442 667807 696149 740934 772380 822069 856958

Qous District

City Main Village 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Capital city 75172 83404 88769 92537 98490 102670 109275 113912 Al‐Haragia 61127 67821 72184 75247 80088 83487 88858 92629 Hegaz Qebly 106565 118234 125841 131181 139621 145546 154909 161484 Qous Khozam 60418 67034 71346 74374 79159 82519 87827 91555 Gragos 97285 107938 114882 119758 127462 132872 141419 147421 El‐Kalasa 52099 57804 61523 64134 68260 71157 75734 78949 Total population 452666 502235 534544 557231 593079 618250 658023 685950

City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Urban 75172 83404 88769 92537 98490 102670 109275 113912 Qous Rural 377494 418831 445775 464694 494589 515580 548749 572038 Total population 452666 502235 534544 557231 593079 618250 658023 685950

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 1 ‐ page 2

Deshna District

City Main Village 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Capital city 65743 72942 77635 80930 86136 89792 95568 99624 Abo Manaa 83169 92276 98213 102381 108967 113592 120900 126031 Bahry Abo Manaa 58673 65098 69286 72226 76873 80135 85291 88911 Gharb Deshna El‐Samta 61677 68431 72833 75924 80809 84238 89657 93463 Bahry Fao Qebly 72099 79994 85140 88754 94463 98473 104808 109256 Abo Diab 47220 52391 55761 58128 61867 64493 68642 71555 Gharb Total Population 388581 431132 458868 478343 509115 530723 564865 588839

City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Urban 65743 72942 77635 80930 86136 89792 95568 99624 Deshna Rural 322838 358190 381233 397413 422979 440931 469297 489215 Total Population 388581 431132 458868 478343 509115 530723 564865 588839

Abo Tesht District

City Main Village 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Capital city 16373 18166 19335 20155 21452 22362 23801 24811 Abo Shosha 110842 122980 130891 136446 145224 151388 161127 167965 Abo Bakhans 72559 80504 85684 89320 95066 99101 105476 109953 Tesht Samhod 62052 68847 73276 76386 81300 84750 90203 94031 El‐Qara 117611 130490 138885 144779 154093 160633 170967 178223 Quser Bakhanas 70386 78094 83117 86645 92219 96133 102317 106660 Total Population 449823 499080 531187 553731 589354 614367 653890 681642

City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Urban 16373 18166 19335 20155 21452 22362 23801 24811 Abo Tesht Rural 433450 480914 511853 533576 567902 592005 630090 656831 Total Population 449823 499080 531187 553731 589354 614367 653890 681642

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 1 ‐ page 3

Farshot District

City Main Village 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Capital city 63888 70884 75444 78646 83705 87258 92872 96813 El‐Kom El‐ Farshot Ahmer 35662 39567 42113 43900 46724 48707 51840 54041 El‐Ossirat 30977 34369 36580 38133 40586 42308 45030 46941 El‐Araky 51591 57240 60923 63508 67594 70463 74996 78179 Total Population 182118 202061 215060 224187 238609 248736 264738 275974

City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Urban 63889 70885 75445 78647 83707 87259 92873 96815 Farshot Rural 118229 131175 139614 145540 154903 161477 171865 179159 Total Population 182118 202061 215060 224187 238609 248736 264738 275974

Nakada District

City Main Village 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Capital city 26944 29894 31818 33168 35302 36800 39167 40830 Naqada El‐Bahry Qamola 67369 74746 79555 82931 88266 92012 97932 102088 Tokh 76720 85121 90597 94442 100518 104784 111525 116258 Total population 171033 189762 201970 210541 224086 233596 248624 259176

City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Urban 26944 29894 31818 33168 35302 36800 39167 40830 Naqada Rural 144089 159867 170152 177373 188784 196796 209457 218346 Total population 171033 189762 201970 210541 224086 233596 248624 259176

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 1 ‐ page 4

Qeft District

City Main Village 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Capital city 27611 30635 32605 33989 36176 37711 40137 41841 Al‐Barhma 39150 43437 46231 48194 51294 53471 56911 59326 Qeft Al‐Shikia 20735 23006 24486 25525 27167 28320 30142 31421 Al‐Qalaa 36109 40063 42640 44450 47310 49318 52490 54718 Al‐Kalahin 29421 32643 34743 36217 38547 40183 42768 44583 Total population 153026 169783 180705 188375 200493 209002 222448 231889

City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Urban 27611 30635 32605 33989 36176 37711 40137 41841 Qeft Rural 125415 139148 148100 154386 164318 171291 182311 190048 Total population 153026 169783 180705 188375 200493 209002 222448 231889

Al‐Waqf District

Main Expecting population growth for next 20Years City Sub Village 2017 Village 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Al‐Waqf Capital city 34446 38218 40677 42403 45131 47046 50073 52198 El‐ Marashda 29874 33145 35278 36775 39141 40802 43427 45270 Al‐ El‐ El‐Qalmina 11526 12788 13611 14188 15101 15742 16755 17466 Waqf Marashda Gazert Al‐ Hamody 8624 9568 10184 10616 11299 11779 12536 13068 Total 50024 55502 59072 61579 65541 68323 72718 75804

City 2017 2022 2025 2027 2030 2032 2035 2037 Urban 34446 38218 40677 42403 45131 47046 50073 52198 Al‐Waqf Rural 50024 55502 59072 61579 65541 68323 72718 75804 Total population 84470 93720 99749 103982 110672 115369 122791 128002

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 1 ‐ page 5

Annex 2: Estimated Waste Generation (2017) Qena

Municipal Generated City Village Waste t/d Qena city 150 El‐Qenawia 13 Awlad Amr 38 El‐Gablaw 20

Qena El‐Mahrosa 28 El‐Ashraf Qebly 15 Abanod 23 Dandara 32 Total 319

Conclusion:  28 % of total MSW is generated in Qena city, due to several reasons (Capital city, urbanization, efficiency of collection and sweeping).

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 2 ‐ page 1

Naga Hammadi

Municipal Generated City Village Waste t/d Naga Hammadi city 60 Hoo 31

El‐Shaaneia 10 El‐Salamia 23 Awlad Negm Bahgora 9 Hammadi Bahgora 14 Bahgora Gharb 22 Naga El‐Halafia 28 El‐Rahmaina 24 Awlad Negm Qebly 13 Total 234

Conclusion:  21 % of total MSW is generated in Naga Hamady.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 2 ‐ page 2

Quos Municipal Generated City Village Waste t/d Qous city 45 Hegaza Qebly 15

El‐Harageia 10

Qous Garagous 10 Khzam 22 El‐Kalasa 20 Total 122

Conclusion:  11% of total MSW is generated in Qous.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 2 ‐ page 3

Deshna

Municipal Generated City Village Waste t/d Deshna city 35 Abou Manaa El‐Bahary 35

Abou Manaa Gharb 23 Faw Qebly 28 Deshna El‐Samta Bahry 25 Abou Diab Gharb 18 Total 164

Conclusion:  14% of total MSW is generated in Deshna.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 2 ‐ page 4

Abo Tesht

City Village Municipal generated t/d Abo Tesht city 12

Abo Shosha 10 Samhoud 6 Tesht Bakhanas 5

Abo El‐Kara 14 Kasir Bakhanas 8 Total 55

Conclusion:  12% of total MSW is generated in Abo Tesht, while the highest percent of MSW generated comes from El‐Kara, which represents 14%.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 2 ‐ page 5

Qeft

City Village Municipal generated t/d Qeft city 16

El‐Barahma 14 E‐Kalaa 13 Qeft El‐Shikha 8 El‐kalahen 11 Total 62

Conclusion:  26% of total MSW is generated in Qeft.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 2 ‐ page 6

Farshot

City Village Municipal generated t/d Farshot city 46

El‐Arky 27 El‐Asirat 15 Farshot El‐kom El‐ahmar 16 Total 104

Conclusion:  44% of total MSW is generated in Farshot.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 2 ‐ page 7

Nakada

City Village Municipal generated t/d

Nakada city 14 Tookh 29

Nakada El‐Bahary Kamola 24 Total 67

Conclusion:  21% of total MSW is generated in Nakada capital city, while Tookh and Kamola generate 79% of the total waste (43% and 36% respectively).

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 2 ‐ page 8

El Waqf

City Village Municipal generated t/d

‐ El‐Waqf city 4 El

Waqf El‐Marashda 3 Total 7

Conclusion:  57% of total MSW is generated in El‐Waqf capital city.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 2 ‐ page 9

Annex 3: List of Workers and Drivers Qena

Total Average Efficiency City Village Workers Drivers Total Work hours Equipment of Collection (%) Qena city 375 39 414 57 24 85 El‐Qenawia 13 4 17 3 8 30 Awlad Amr 20 2 22 7 8 30 El‐Gablaw 15 2 17 3 8 30

Qena El‐Mahrosa 1 1 2 3 8 30 El‐Ashraf Qebly 1 1 2 3 8 30 Abanod 10 5 15 3 8 30 Dandara 15 5 20 6 8 30 Total 450 59 509 85

Conclusion:  81% of all workers work in the capital city (Qena), while 19% of all worker provide services to the rest of the cities and villages.  The number of drivers is less than the number of equipment in (El‐Gablaw, El‐Mahrosa, and El‐ Ashraf Qebly).  Efficiency is fairly consistent across all cities except Qena (average 30%).  A shift consists of 8 hours across all cities, except the capital city (Qena), where it is 24 hours. This reflects the high level of cleanliness in Qena, and the low level of service in other villages.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 3 ‐ page 1

Naga Hammadi

Average Work Total City Village Workers Drivers Total Efficiency of hours Equipment Collection (%) Naga Hamady city 217 59 276 16 31 70 Haw 8 0 8 8 1 30 El‐Shaaneia 3 1 4 8 2 30

El‐Salamia 6 2 8 8 3 30 Awlad Negm Bahgora 7 2 9 8 1 30 Hamady Bahgora 10 4 14 8 7 30

Naga Bahgora Gharb 10 1 11 8 2 30 El‐Halafia 8 4 12 8 2 30 El‐Rahmaina 3 2 5 8 3 30 Awlad Negm Qebly 8 3 11 8 2 30 Total 280 78 358 54 34

Conclusion:  77% of all workers working the capital city (Naga Hamady), while 23% of the worker provide services to the rest of the cities and villages.  Efficiency is fairly consistent across all cities except Naga Hammadi (average 30%).  Efficiency of collection and cleansing is very high in the capital city when compared with the rest of the cities and villages.  A shift consists of 8 hours across all cities, except the capital city (Naga Hammadi), where it is 16 hours. This reflects the high level of cleanliness in the capital city, and the low level of service in the villages.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 3 ‐ page 2

Qous

Work Total Average Efficiency of City Village Workers Drivers Total hours equipment Collection (%) Qous city 44 28 72 16 32 60 Hegaza Qebly 9 5 14 8 3 30 El‐Harageia 15 5 20 8 2 30

Qous Garagous 17 1 18 8 2 30 Khzam 16 3 19 8 1 30 El‐Kalasa 13 1 14 8 4 30 Total 114 43 157 44

Conclusion:  46% of all workers work in the capital city (Qous).  28 drivers for 32 pieces of equipment in Qous city.  Efficiency is fairly consistent across all cities except Qous (average 30%.)  Efficiency of collection and cleansing is very high in the capital city when compared with the rest of the cities and villages.  A shift consists of 8 hours across all cities, except the capital city (Qeft), where it is 16 hours. This reflects the high level of cleanliness in the capital city, and the low level of service in the villages.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 3 ‐ page 3

Deshna

Work Total Average Efficiency City Village Workers Drivers Total hours equipment of Collection (%) Deshna city 100 16 116 16 18 55 Abou Manaa El‐Bahary 16 3 19 8 8 30

Abou Manaa Gharb 8 3 11 8 7 30 Faw Qebly 14 5 19 8 10 30 Deshna El‐Samta Bahry 8 4 12 8 11 30 Abou Diab Gharb 12 4 16 8 14 30 Total 158 35 193 68

Conclusion:  60% of all workers work in the capital city (Deshna)  The number of drivers is less than the number of equipment in all cities except Abou Diab Gharb, this reflects the lack of equipment.  Efficiency is fairly consistent across all cities except Deshna (average 30%).  A shift consists of 8 hours across all cities, except the capital city (Deshna), where it is 16 hours. This reflects the high level of cleanliness in the capital city, and the low level of service in the villages.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 3 ‐ page 4

Abo Tesht

Work Total Average Efficiency City Village Workers Drivers Total hours equipment of Collection (%) Abo Tesht city 19 4 23 16 20 70

Abo Shosha 4 1 5 8 5 30 Samhoud 7 0 7 8 4 30 Tesht Bakhanas 5 2 7 8 4 30

Abo El‐Kara 4 3 7 8 4 30 Kasir Bakhanas 4 2 6 8 10 30 Total 43 12 55 47

Conclusion:  42% of all workers work in the capital city (Abo Tesht)  Efficiency is fairly consistent across all cities except Abo Tesht (average 30%).  A shift consists of 8 hours across all cities, except the capital city (Abou Tesht), where it is 16 hours. This reflects the high level of cleanliness in the capital city, and the low level of service in the villages.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 3 ‐ page 5

Qeft

Work Total Average Efficiency of City Village Workers Drivers Total hours equipment Collection (%) Qeft city 48 9 57 16 9 65

El‐Barahma 3 1 4 8 2 30 E‐Kalaa 2 1 3 8 4 30 Qeft El‐Shikha 2 1 3 8 1 30 El‐kalahen 2 2 4 8 2 30 Total 57 14 71 18

Conclusion:  80% of all workers work in the capital city (Qeft)  Efficiency is consistent across all cities except Qeft (average 30%).  The work hours is (8 hours) in all cities, except the capital city (Qeft) is 16 hours, and this reflect the high level of cleanliness in capital city, and the level of service in other villages is low.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 3 ‐ page 6

Farshot

Work Total Average Efficiency City Village Workers Drivers Total hours equipment of Collection (%) Farshot city 54 10 64 16 6 60

El‐Arky 2 0 2 8 2 30 El‐Asirat 2 0 2 8 2 30 Farshot El‐kom El‐ahmar 3 1 4 8 2 30 Total 61 11 72 12

Conclusion:  89% of all workers work in the capital city (Farshot)  Efficiency is fairly consistent in all cities except Farshot (average 30%).  A shift consists of 8 hours across all cities, except the capital city (Farshot), where it is 16 hours. This reflects the high level of cleanliness in the capital city, and the low level of service in the villages.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 3 ‐ page 7

Nakada

Work Total Average Efficiency City Village Workers Drivers Total hours equipment of Collection (%)

Nakada city 53 16 69 16 12 60 Tookh 4 1 5 8 2 30

Nakada El‐Bahary Kamola 7 1 8 8 3 30 Total 64 18 82 17

Conclusion:  84% of all workers work in the capital city (Nakada)  Efficiency is fairly consistent across all cities except Nakada (average 30%).  A shift consists of 8 hours across all cities, except the capital city (Nakada), where it is 16 hours. This reflects the high level of cleanliness in the capital city, and the low level of service in the villages.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 3 ‐ page 8

El‐Waqf

Work Total Average Efficiency City Village Workers Drivers Total hours equipment of Collection (%)

El‐Waqf city 32 4 36 16 11 70 Waqf ‐ El‐Marashda 8 4 12 8 5 40 El Total 40 8 48 16

Conclusion:  75% of all workers work in the capital city (El‐Waqf)  The number of drivers is less than the number of equipment in El‐Waqf city, this reflects the lack of equipment.  A shift consists of 8 hours across all cities, except the capital city (El‐Waqf), where it is 16 hours. This reflects the high level of cleanliness in the capital city, and the low level of service in the villages.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 3 ‐ page 9

Annex 4: Existing Waste Management Equipment Qena

Equipment Average City Village Total Efficiency Tipper car Tipper car Tipper car Tractor Tractor Sweeper Loader (4m3) (12m3) (18m3) with loader (%) Qena city 34 5 4 0 4 10 57 65 El‐Qenawia 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 65 Awlad Amr 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 7 70

El‐Gablaw 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 70 El‐Mahrosa 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 70 Qena El‐Ashraf 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 70 Qebly Abanod 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 75 Dandara 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 6 70 Total 47 5 4 8 1 4 16 85 69

Conclusion:  67% of all equipment is being used in the capital city (Qena)  Tipper cars (4m3) represent 55 % of the total equipment in Qena, 72% out of these are allocated to the capital city.  Loader represent 19% of the total equipment in Qena, 62% out of these are allocated to the capital city.  Note the variety of equipment used for collection and transport.  A high level of cleanliness can be observed in Qena.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 4 ‐ page 1

Naga Hammadi

Equipment Average City Village Total Tipper car (4m3) Tipper car (12m3) Tractor Loader Efficiency (%)

Naga Hamady city 19 4 4 4 31 65 Haw 1 0 0 0 1 70 El‐Shaaneia 2 0 0 0 2 65

El‐Salamia 2 0 1 0 3 60 Awlad Negm Bahgora 1 0 0 0 1 65 Hammadi Bahgora 2 0 5 0 7 65 Bahgora Gharb 1 0 1 0 2 65 Naga El‐Halafia 1 0 1 0 2 65 El‐Rahmaina 2 0 1 0 3 65 Awlad Negm Qebly 1 0 1 0 2 65 Total 32 4 14 4 54 65

Conclusion:

 57% of all equipment is being used in the capital city (Naga Hamady)  Tipper cars (4m3) represent 59 % of the total equipment in Naga Hammadi, 60% out of these are allocated to the capital city.  Tractors represent 26% of the total equipment in Naga Hammadi, 64% out of these are allocated to two cities (Naga Hamady city and Bahgora village).  This is the reason why the level of service in other villages is low.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 4 ‐ page 2

Qous

Equipment Average Efficiency City Village Tipper car Tipper car Tipper car Tipper car Total Loader (%) (4m3) (6m3) (12m3) (18m3) Qous city 21 6 2 1 2 32 75 Hegaza Qebly 3 0 0 0 0 3 65

El‐Harageia 2 0 0 0 0 2 75

Qous Garagous 2 0 0 0 0 2 80 Khzam 1 0 0 0 0 1 65 El‐Kalasa 4 0 0 0 0 4 70 Total 33 6 2 1 2 44 72

Conclusion:

 72% of all equipment is being used in the capital city (Qous)  Tipper cars (4m3) represent 75% of total equipment in Qous, 64% out of this is allocated in capital city.  Tipper car (6m3) represent 14% of the total equipment in Qous, 100% is allocated into the capital city (Qous).  Note the variety of equipment used for collection and transport.  This is the reason why the level of service in other villages is low.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 4 ‐ page 3

Deshna

Equipment Average City Village Tipper car Tipper car Total Tractor Loader Efficiency (%) (4m3) (12m3) Deshna city 11 3 3 1 18 90 Abou Manaa El‐Bahary 2 0 5 1 8 80

Abou Manaa Gharb 1 0 5 1 7 80 Faw Qebly 6 0 3 1 10 80 Deshna El‐Samta Bahary 4 0 6 1 11 80 Abou Diab Gharb 5 0 8 1 14 80 Total 29 3 30 6 68 82

Conclusion:

 26% of all equipment is being used in the capital city (Deshna).  Tipper cars (4m3) represent 87% of total equipment in Deshna.  Note the equitable distribution of equipment in the villages of the District.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 4 ‐ page 4

Abo Tesht

Equipment Average City Village Tipper car Tipper car Tipper car Tipper car Tractor with Total Efficiency Tractor Loader (1m3) (4m3) (6m3) (12m3) loader (%) Abo Tesht 0 15 0 1 0 1 3 70 city 20

Abo Shosha 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 65 Samhoud 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 4 60 Tesht

Bakhanas 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 65 Abo El‐Kara 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 65 Kasir 1 7 0 0 2 0 0 65 Bakhanas 10 Total 3 29 2 1 7 1 4 47 65

Conclusion:

 43% of all equipment is being used in the capital city (Abo Tesht)  Tipper cars (4m3) is represent 62% of total equipment in Abo Tesht.  Note the variety of equipment used for collection and transport.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 4 ‐ page 5

Qeft

Equipment City Village Total Average Efficiency (%) Tipper car (4m3) Tipper car (12m3) Loader

Qeft city 6 1 2 9 70 El‐Barahma 2 0 0 2 80

E‐Kalaa 4 0 0 4 75 Qeft El‐Shikha 1 0 0 1 75 El‐kalahen 2 0 0 2 80 Total 15 1 2 18 76

Conclusion:

 50% of all equipment is being used in the capital city (Qeft)  Tipper cars (4m3) represent 83% of total equipment in Qeft.  Tipper cars (12m3) and loaders are allocated only to the capital city Qeft.  This is the reason why the level of service in other villages is low.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 4 ‐ page 6

Farshot

Equipment Average Efficiency City Village Tipper car Tipper car Total Loader (%) (4m3) (12m3) Farshot city 2 2 2 6 65

El‐Arky 2 0 0 2 50 El‐Asirat 2 0 0 2 60 Farshot El‐kom El‐Ahmar 2 0 0 2 60 Total 8 2 2 12 60

Conclusion:

 50% of all equipment is being used in the capital city (Farshot)  Tipper cars (4m3) represent 67% of total equipment in Farshot.  Tipper cars (12m3) and loaders are allocated only to the capital city Farshot.  This is why the level of service in other villages is low.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 4 ‐ page 7

Nakada

Equipment Average Efficiency City Village Total Tipper car (4m3) Loader (%)

Nakada city 10 2 12 65 Tookh 2 0 2 80

Nakada El‐Bahary Kamola 3 0 3 85 Total 15 2 17 75

Conclusion:

 71% of total equipment are working in the capital city (Nakada)  There are only two types of equipment serve the Districts  Tipper car (4m3) is represent 88% of total equipment in Nakada.  This is the reason why the level of service in other villages is low.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 4 ‐ page 8

El‐Waqf

Equipment Average City Village Tipper car Tipper car Tractor with Total Efficiency Loader (4m3) (6m3) loader (%) El‐Waqf city 8 1 0 2 11 65 Waqf ‐ El‐Marashda 2 0 3 0 5 65 El Total 10 1 3 2 16 65

Conclusion:

 69% of total equipment are working in the capital city (El‐Waqf)  Tipper cars (4m3) represent 63% of total equipment in El‐Waqf.  This is the reason why the level of service in other villages is low.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 4 ‐ page 9

Annex 5: Waste Treatment Facilities Mechanical Biological treatment plants (MBT) 1. El‐ Salhyia plant ‐ Qena district The plant was established by 999 Military Factory within the framework of the 3rd phase of cooperation protocol between the Ministry of Military Production and the Municipal Administration, and put into operation on November 24th, 2004. The total cost was 3.6 million Egyptian pound (EGP) and it was put into operation on March 26th, 2003. 1. The plant was designed for a capacity of 10 ton/h 2. The municipality is responsible for its operation. 3. Overall maintenance for the plant was planned by the Ministry of Local Development with total budget 832,000 EGP. Following the trend of providing alternative energy sources for energy‐intensive factories such as cement factories, it was proposed to make use of reject materials from the Qena MBT to produce RDF. Qena Governorate had signed an agreement with Assiut cement factory (CEMEX) to invest in establishing an RDF line where the ton of RDF was sold at 50 LE. Positive results of this investment: 1. Revenue from the sale of rejects which have thus been diverted from disposal. 2. An increase of recyclable segregations "hard board, plastics, cans, metal, etc. Challenges: 1. Shortage in employees needed for operation. 2. Shortage in handling equipment and reject transportation.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 5 ‐ page 1

2. Haw plant ‐ Naga Hammadi district: The plant was established in October 2005 through the Ministry of Military Production and put into operation in June 2006 at cost of 8 million LE. 1. The designed capacity of the plant is 10 tons/hour. 2. The plant is being operated by a municipal unit of Naga Hammadi. 3. The plant receives waste from Naga‐ Hammadi city and the Aluminum Company. 4. Much needed maintenance was done at a cost of 364,000 LE

Challenges encountered: 1. Shortage in employees needed for operation. 2. The plant is operated in a single shift with a sorting capacity of 8‐9 tons/day. 3. Shortage in resources.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 5 ‐ page 2

Annex 6: Disposal Sites Open dumpsite Uncontrolled dump sites are used for the disposal of solid waste. There are 11 uncontrolled dump sites distributed throughout all districts as shown in the table below:

Coordinates Area City Location Y X (Fadden) D M S D M S

Abo Tesht 5 Al-Qara Village 26 4 31.23 32 01 57.3

Farshot 5 Al-Hag Saalm Village 26 0 37.64 32 5 53.09

Nag Hammadi 80 Haw Village 25 57 26.00 32 17 46.69

Al-Waqf 10 Al-Waqf Al-Gadida Village 26 2 59.51 32 26 22.49

Deshna 25 Abou Mana Village 26 12 08.36 32 26 54.30

Qena 70 Al-Taramsa Village 26 6 52.88 32 42 09.87

Qena 20 Al-Salhyia Village 26 9 45.73 32 46 47.29

Qeft 20 Al-Kalahin Village 25 58 20.12 32 53 55.51

Qous 10 Al-Olikat Village 25 56 00.08 32 53 29.96

Nakada 3 Nakada Al-Gadida Village 25 54 18.13 32 42 04.10

The main features of these uncontrolled dump sites are:  Insufficient equipment and low efficiency  Lack of skilled workers and technicians  Lack of infrastructure (electricity, water, administrative buildings, roads etc.)  Site is not divided up into cells  Lack of a clear plan for management and operation  No weighbridge  Self‐ignition of waste  Lack of specific funds for operation and maintenance  Lack of access to the private sector to exploit these sites  Absence of a leachate collection system  Absence of a gas collection system  Waste is not covered  Site is not fenced in  High impact on environment and hygiene due to the burning of waste  The dumpsites receive all types of waste including medical waste

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 6 ‐ page 1

Abu Tesht Deshna

Naga Hammadi

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 6 ‐ page 2

Qous Qeft

Control dumpsite West of the Nile a new CDS has been constructed with funding from the Ministry of Environment. It is however currently not used. It has a permit for up to five years.

El‐Taramsa

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 6 ‐ page 3

Annex 7: Documentation letters

Copy of official letter from Agriculture Directorate in Qena on agricultural waste generated in each district.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A ‐ Qena Annex 7 ‐ page 1

Annex‐8: Waste Generation Rates

Annual increase in unit generation rates MSW Annual Growth Increment/year (%) 2005-15 2016-20 2021-25 2026-30 2031-35 2036-40 2041-45 2046-50 Urban Area 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.0% 0.0% Rural population 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.0% 0.10%

Waste generation rate (kg/inh‐day)

Districts \ Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 1 Abo Tesht Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 2 Farshot Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 3 Naga Hammadi East Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 4 Naga Hammadi West Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 5 Deschna Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 6 ElWaqf Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 7 Qena East Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 8 Qena West Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 9 Qeft Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 10 Nakada Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 11 Quos Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 Urban 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 Governorate Rural 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 8 – Page 1

Annex‐9: Waste Generation (2017‐2038)

Generated Waste Forecast in Qena Governorate MSW Total 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Sum (ton) 487,959 498,706 509,688 520,911 532,381 544,106 556,088 568,334 580,848 593,640 606,712 620,074 633,727 647,680 661,944 676,523 691,419 706,647 722,209 738,108 754,363 770,974 Urban ton 148,952 152,233 155,584 159,011 162,512 166,092 169,749 173,488 177,307 181,211 185,201 189,281 193,448 197,706 202,062 206,512 211,058 215,707 220,458 225,311 230,272 235,343 Rural ton 339,007 346,473 354,104 361,900 369,869 378,014 386,339 394,846 403,541 412,429 421,511 430,793 440,279 449,974 459,882 470,011 480,361 490,940 501,751 512,797 524,091 535,631

Generated Waste Forecast in Districts No. District 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

1 Abo Tesht 62,481 63,857 65,264 66,701 68,169 69,671 71,205 72,773 74,376 76,013 77,687 79,398 81,146 82,933 84,760 86,626 88,534 90,483 92,476 94,512 96,593 98,721 Urban area ton 3,944 4,031 4,120 4,211 4,303 4,398 4,495 4,594 4,695 4,798 4,904 5,012 5,122 5,235 5,351 5,468 5,589 5,712 5,838 5,966 6,097 6,232 Rural area ton 58,537 59,826 61,144 62,490 63,866 65,273 66,710 68,179 69,681 71,215 72,783 74,386 76,024 77,698 79,409 81,158 82,945 84,771 86,638 88,546 90,496 92,489

2 Farshot 31,358 32,048 32,754 33,475 34,212 34,966 35,736 36,523 37,327 38,149 38,988 39,848 40,724 41,621 42,538 43,475 44,432 45,411 46,411 47,433 48,477 49,544 Urban area ton 15,391 15,730 16,076 16,430 16,792 17,162 17,540 17,926 18,321 18,724 19,136 19,558 19,988 20,428 20,878 21,338 21,808 22,288 22,779 23,281 23,793 24,317 Rural area ton 15,967 16,318 16,678 17,045 17,420 17,804 18,196 18,597 19,006 19,425 19,852 20,290 20,736 21,193 21,660 22,137 22,624 23,123 23,632 24,152 24,684 25,227

Naga Ham- 3 madi East 41,169 42,076 43,002 43,949 44,917 45,906 46,918 47,950 49,006 50,085 51,189 52,316 53,468 54,645 55,848 57,078 58,335 59,620 60,933 62,274 63,646 65,047 Urban area ton 6,789 6,938 7,091 7,247 7,407 7,570 7,737 7,907 8,081 8,259 8,441 8,627 8,817 9,011 9,209 9,412 9,619 9,831 10,048 10,269 10,495 10,726 Rural area ton 34,380 35,138 35,911 36,702 37,510 38,336 39,181 40,043 40,925 41,826 42,748 43,689 44,651 45,634 46,639 47,666 48,716 49,789 50,885 52,005 53,151 54,321

Naga Ham- 4 madi West 41,169 42,076 43,002 43,949 44,917 45,906 46,918 47,950 49,006 50,085 51,189 52,316 53,468 54,645 55,848 57,078 58,335 59,620 60,933 62,274 63,646 65,047 Urban area ton 6,789 6,938 7,091 7,247 7,407 7,570 7,737 7,907 8,081 8,259 8,441 8,627 8,817 9,011 9,209 9,412 9,619 9,831 10,048 10,269 10,495 10,726 Rural area ton 34,380 35,138 35,911 36,702 37,510 38,336 39,181 40,043 40,925 41,826 42,748 43,689 44,651 45,634 46,639 47,666 48,716 49,789 50,885 52,005 53,151 54,321

5 Deschna 59,436 60,745 62,084 63,450 64,847 66,276 67,734 69,227 70,751 72,309 73,902 75,528 77,192 78,891 80,629 82,404 84,219 86,074 87,969 89,906 91,886 93,910 Urban area ton 15,837 16,186 16,543 16,907 17,279 17,660 18,048 18,446 18,852 19,267 19,692 20,125 20,569 21,021 21,484 21,957 22,441 22,935 23,440 23,956 24,484 25,023 Rural area ton 43,599 44,559 45,541 46,543 47,568 48,616 49,686 50,781 51,899 53,042 54,210 55,403 56,623 57,870 59,145 60,447 61,778 63,139 64,529 65,950 67,402 68,887

6 ElWaqf 15,054 15,385 15,724 16,070 16,424 16,786 17,155 17,533 17,920 18,314 18,717 19,130 19,551 19,981 20,421 20,871 21,331 21,800 22,280 22,771 23,272 23,785 Urban area ton 8,298 8,481 8,667 8,858 9,053 9,253 9,456 9,665 9,878 10,095 10,317 10,545 10,777 11,014 11,257 11,505 11,758 12,017 12,281 12,552 12,828 13,111 Rural area ton 6,756 6,904 7,057 7,212 7,371 7,533 7,699 7,868 8,042 8,219 8,400 8,585 8,774 8,967 9,164 9,366 9,573 9,783 9,999 10,219 10,444 10,674

7 Qena East 100,997 103,221 105,494 107,817 110,192 112,618 115,098 117,633 120,222 122,871 125,576 128,342 131,168 134,056 137,008 140,026 143,109 146,260 149,481 152,772 156,137 159,575 Urban area ton 54,588 55,790 57,019 58,274 59,558 60,869 62,210 63,580 64,979 66,411 67,873 69,368 70,895 72,456 74,052 75,683 77,349 79,052 80,793 82,572 84,391 86,249

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 9 – Page 1

Rural area ton 46,409 47,431 48,475 49,543 50,634 51,749 52,888 54,053 55,243 56,460 57,703 58,974 60,273 61,600 62,956 64,343 65,760 67,208 68,688 70,200 71,746 73,326

8 Qena West 17,667 18,057 18,454 18,861 19,275 19,700 20,134 20,577 21,031 21,494 21,967 22,450 22,945 23,450 23,967 24,495 25,034 25,586 26,149 26,725 27,313 27,914 Urban area ton 6,065 6,199 6,335 6,475 6,617 6,763 6,912 7,064 7,220 7,379 7,541 7,707 7,877 8,050 8,228 8,409 8,594 8,784 8,977 9,175 9,377 9,583 Rural area ton 11,602 11,858 12,119 12,386 12,658 12,937 13,222 13,513 13,811 14,115 14,426 14,743 15,068 15,400 15,739 16,086 16,440 16,802 17,172 17,550 17,936 18,331

9 Qeft 23,588 24,108 24,638 25,182 25,736 26,303 26,882 27,474 28,079 28,697 29,329 29,975 30,635 31,310 31,999 32,704 33,424 34,160 34,913 35,681 36,467 37,270 Urban area ton 6,651 6,798 6,947 7,101 7,257 7,417 7,580 7,747 7,918 8,092 8,270 8,452 8,638 8,829 9,023 9,222 9,425 9,632 9,845 10,061 10,283 10,509 Rural area ton 16,937 17,310 17,691 18,081 18,479 18,886 19,302 19,727 20,161 20,605 21,059 21,523 21,997 22,481 22,976 23,482 23,999 24,528 25,068 25,620 26,184 26,761

10 Nakada 25,950 26,522 27,106 27,702 28,313 28,936 29,573 30,224 30,889 31,570 32,265 32,976 33,702 34,444 35,202 35,978 36,770 37,580 38,408 39,253 40,117 41,000 Urban area ton 6,491 6,634 6,780 6,929 7,082 7,238 7,397 7,560 7,726 7,896 8,070 8,248 8,430 8,615 8,805 8,999 9,197 9,400 9,607 9,818 10,034 10,255 Rural area ton 19,459 19,888 20,326 20,773 21,231 21,698 22,176 22,664 23,163 23,674 24,195 24,728 25,272 25,829 26,397 26,979 27,573 28,180 28,801 29,435 30,083 30,745

11 Quos 69,090 70,611 72,166 73,755 75,379 77,038 78,735 80,470 82,241 84,053 85,903 87,795 89,728 91,704 93,724 95,788 97,896 100,053 102,256 104,507 106,809 109,161 Urban area ton 18,109 18,508 18,915 19,332 19,757 20,192 20,637 21,092 21,556 22,031 22,516 23,012 23,518 24,036 24,566 25,107 25,659 26,225 26,802 27,392 27,995 28,612 Rural area ton 50,981 52,103 53,251 54,423 55,622 56,846 58,098 59,378 60,685 62,022 63,387 64,783 66,210 67,668 69,158 70,681 72,237 73,828 75,454 77,115 78,814 80,549

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 9 – Page 2

Annex‐10: Waste Collection Rates (2017‐2038)

Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Urban Abo Tesht 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Farshot 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Naga Hammadi East 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Naga Hammadi West 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Deschna 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% ElWaqf 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Qena East 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Qena West 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Qeft 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Nakada 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Quos 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Rural Abo Tesht 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Farshot 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Naga Hammadi East 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Naga Hammadi West 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Deschna 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% ElWaqf 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Qena East 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Qena West 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Qeft 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Nakada 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Quos 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70%

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 10 – Page 1

Annex‐11: Waste Collected (2017‐2038)

Collected Waste Forecast in Qena Governorate MSW Total 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Sum (ton) 123,272 160,634 189,656 219,878 242,764 266,553 291,272 316,950 343,616 361,244 379,481 398,347 417,858 438,035 458,900 480,472 502,769 525,818 549,638 561,738 574,109 586,750 Urban ton 89,371 91,340 101,130 111,308 117,009 122,908 129,009 135,321 141,846 146,781 151,865 157,103 162,496 168,050 173,773 179,665 185,731 191,979 198,412 202,780 207,245 211,809 Rural ton 33,901 69,295 88,526 108,570 125,755 143,645 162,262 181,629 201,771 214,463 227,616 241,244 255,362 269,984 285,127 300,807 317,038 333,839 351,226 358,958 366,864 374,942

Collected Waste Forecast in Dis- tricts No. District 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 1 Abo Tesht 8,220 14,384 17,964 21,695 24,813 28,058 31,434 34,946 38,597 40,918 43,324 45,816 48,396 51,069 53,835 56,698 59,662 62,728 65,901 67,352 68,835 70,351 Urban area ton 2,366 2,419 2,678 2,948 3,098 3,255 3,416 3,583 3,756 3,886 4,021 4,160 4,302 4,450 4,602 4,757 4,918 5,084 5,254 5,369 5,487 5,609 Mixed Waste 2,324 2,375 2,630 2,895 3,042 3,196 3,355 3,519 3,688 3,816 3,949 4,085 4,225 4,370 4,519 4,672 4,830 4,992 5,160 5,273 5,389 5,508 Recyclables 33 34 37 41 43 46 48 50 53 54 56 58 60 62 64 67 69 71 74 75 77 79 Biodegradable 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 Rural area ton 5,854 11,965 15,286 18,747 21,714 24,804 28,018 31,362 34,841 37,032 39,303 41,656 44,094 46,619 49,234 51,941 54,744 57,644 60,647 61,982 63,347 64,742 Mixed Waste 5,837 11,932 15,243 18,695 21,654 24,734 27,940 31,275 34,743 36,928 39,193 41,540 43,970 46,488 49,096 51,796 54,590 57,483 60,477 61,809 63,170 64,561 Recyclables 16 34 43 52 61 69 78 88 98 104 110 117 123 131 138 145 153 161 170 174 177 181 Biodegradable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Farshot 10,831 12,702 14,619 16,615 18,013 19,465 20,973 22,537 24,160 25,267 26,412 27,596 28,817 30,080 31,384 32,732 34,123 35,560 37,044 37,859 38,693 39,544 Urban area ton 9,235 9,438 10,449 11,501 12,090 12,700 13,330 13,982 14,657 15,166 15,692 16,233 16,790 17,364 17,955 18,564 19,191 19,836 20,501 20,953 21,414 21,885 Mixed Waste 9,068 9,268 10,261 11,294 11,873 12,471 13,090 13,731 14,393 14,893 15,409 15,941 16,488 17,051 17,632 18,230 18,846 19,479 20,132 20,576 21,028 21,491 Recyclables 129 132 146 161 169 178 187 196 205 212 220 227 235 243 251 260 269 278 287 293 300 306 Biodegradable 37 38 42 46 48 51 53 56 59 61 63 65 67 69 72 74 77 79 82 84 86 88 Rural area ton 1,597 3,264 4,170 5,114 5,923 6,766 7,642 8,555 9,503 10,101 10,720 11,362 12,027 12,716 13,429 14,168 14,932 15,724 16,542 16,906 17,279 17,659 Mixed Waste 1,592 3,254 4,158 5,099 5,906 6,747 7,621 8,531 9,476 10,073 10,690 11,331 11,993 12,680 13,392 14,128 14,890 15,680 16,496 16,859 17,230 17,609 Recyclables 4 9 12 14 17 19 21 24 27 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 47 48 49 Biodegradable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Naga Hammadi 3 East 7,511 11,190 13,587 16,084 18,086 20,169 22,336 24,587 26,927 28,439 30,006 31,626 33,304 35,040 36,836 38,695 40,617 42,606 44,663 45,646 46,651 47,678 Urban area ton 4,073 4,163 4,609 5,073 5,333 5,602 5,880 6,167 6,465 6,690 6,922 7,160 7,406 7,659 7,920 8,188 8,465 8,750 9,043 9,242 9,446 9,653 Mixed Waste 4,000 4,088 4,526 4,982 5,237 5,501 5,774 6,056 6,348 6,569 6,797 7,032 7,273 7,521 7,777 8,041 8,312 8,592 8,880 9,076 9,275 9,480 Recyclables 57 58 65 71 75 78 82 86 91 94 97 100 104 107 111 115 119 122 127 129 132 135 Biodegradable 16 17 18 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Rural area ton 3,438 7,028 8,978 11,011 12,753 14,568 16,456 18,420 20,463 21,750 23,084 24,466 25,898 27,380 28,916 30,506 32,153 33,857 35,620 36,404 37,206 38,025 Mixed Waste 3,428 7,008 8,953 10,980 12,718 14,527 16,410 18,368 20,405 21,689 23,019 24,397 25,825 27,304 28,835 30,421 32,063 33,762 35,520 36,302 37,102 37,918 Recyclables 10 20 25 31 36 41 46 52 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 90 95 100 102 104 106 Biodegradable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Naga Hammadi 4 West

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 11 – Page 1

Urban area ton 4,073 4,163 4,609 5,073 5,333 5,602 5,880 6,167 6,465 6,690 6,922 7,160 7,406 7,659 7,920 8,188 8,465 8,750 9,043 9,242 9,446 9,653 Mixed Waste 4,000 4,088 4,526 4,982 5,237 5,501 5,774 6,056 6,348 6,569 6,797 7,032 7,273 7,521 7,777 8,041 8,312 8,592 8,880 9,076 9,275 9,480 Recyclables 57 58 65 71 75 78 82 86 91 94 97 100 104 107 111 115 119 122 127 129 132 135 Biodegradable 16 17 18 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Rural area ton 3,438 7,028 8,978 11,011 12,753 14,568 16,456 18,420 20,463 21,750 23,084 24,466 25,898 27,380 28,916 30,506 32,153 33,857 35,620 36,404 37,206 38,025 Mixed Waste 3,428 7,008 8,953 10,980 12,718 14,527 16,410 18,368 20,405 21,689 23,019 24,397 25,825 27,304 28,835 30,421 32,063 33,762 35,520 36,302 37,102 37,918 Recyclables 10 20 25 31 36 41 46 52 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 90 95 100 102 104 106 Biodegradable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Deschna 13,862 18,623 22,138 25,798 28,614 31,542 34,585 37,747 41,031 43,188 45,421 47,729 50,119 52,590 55,146 57,789 60,522 63,347 66,266 67,725 69,217 70,742 Urban area ton 9,502 9,712 10,753 11,835 12,441 13,068 13,716 14,388 15,082 15,606 16,147 16,704 17,278 17,868 18,476 19,103 19,748 20,412 21,096 21,560 22,036 22,521 Mixed Waste 9,331 9,537 10,559 11,622 12,217 12,833 13,470 14,129 14,810 15,325 15,857 16,403 16,967 17,546 18,144 18,759 19,393 20,045 20,716 21,172 21,639 22,115 Recyclables 133 136 151 166 174 183 192 201 211 218 226 234 242 250 259 267 276 286 295 302 308 315 Biodegradable 38 39 43 47 50 52 55 58 60 62 65 67 69 71 74 76 79 82 84 86 88 90 Rural area ton 4,360 8,912 11,385 13,963 16,173 18,474 20,868 23,359 25,950 27,582 29,273 31,026 32,841 34,722 36,670 38,686 40,773 42,935 45,170 46,165 47,181 48,221 Mixed Waste 4,348 8,887 11,353 13,924 16,128 18,422 20,810 23,294 25,877 27,505 29,191 30,939 32,749 34,625 36,567 38,578 40,659 42,814 45,044 46,036 47,049 48,086 Recyclables 12 25 32 39 45 52 58 65 73 77 82 87 92 97 103 108 114 120 126 129 132 135 Biodegradable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 ElWaqf 5,654 6,469 7,398 8,364 9,024 9,710 10,420 11,158 11,923 12,451 12,996 13,560 14,142 14,742 15,363 16,004 16,665 17,348 18,052 18,450 18,856 19,272 Urban area ton 4,979 5,089 5,634 6,201 6,518 6,847 7,187 7,539 7,902 8,177 8,460 8,752 9,053 9,362 9,681 10,009 10,347 10,695 11,053 11,297 11,545 11,800 Mixed Waste 4,889 4,997 5,532 6,089 6,401 6,724 7,057 7,403 7,760 8,030 8,308 8,595 8,890 9,193 9,507 9,829 10,161 10,503 10,854 11,093 11,337 11,588 Recyclables 70 71 79 87 91 96 101 106 111 114 118 123 127 131 136 140 145 150 155 158 162 165 Biodegradable 20 20 23 25 26 27 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 Rural area ton 676 1,381 1,764 2,164 2,506 2,863 3,234 3,619 4,021 4,274 4,536 4,808 5,089 5,380 5,682 5,994 6,318 6,652 6,999 7,153 7,311 7,472 Mixed Waste 674 1,377 1,759 2,158 2,499 2,855 3,225 3,609 4,010 4,262 4,523 4,794 5,075 5,365 5,666 5,977 6,300 6,634 6,980 7,133 7,290 7,451 Recyclables 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 20 21 Biodegradable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Qena East 37,394 42,960 49,181 55,655 60,097 64,708 69,493 74,457 79,605 83,152 86,815 90,601 94,510 98,548 102,717 107,024 111,469 116,058 120,795 123,455 126,174 128,952 Urban area ton 32,753 33,474 37,062 40,792 42,882 45,043 47,280 49,592 51,983 53,793 55,656 57,575 59,552 61,588 63,685 65,844 68,067 70,356 72,714 74,315 75,952 77,624 Mixed Waste 32,163 32,871 36,395 40,058 42,110 44,232 46,429 48,700 51,048 52,825 54,654 56,539 58,480 60,479 62,538 64,659 66,842 69,090 71,405 72,977 74,585 76,227 Recyclables 459 469 519 571 600 631 662 694 728 753 779 806 834 862 892 922 953 985 1,018 1,040 1,063 1,087 Biodegradable 131 134 148 163 172 180 189 198 208 215 223 230 238 246 255 263 272 281 291 297 304 310 Rural area ton 4,641 9,486 12,119 14,863 17,216 19,665 22,213 24,864 27,622 29,359 31,160 33,025 34,958 36,960 39,033 41,180 43,402 45,701 48,082 49,140 50,222 51,328 Mixed Waste 4,628 9,460 12,085 14,821 17,167 19,610 22,151 24,795 27,544 29,277 31,072 32,933 34,860 36,857 38,923 41,064 43,280 45,573 47,947 49,002 50,082 51,184 Recyclables 13 27 34 42 48 55 62 70 77 82 87 92 98 103 109 115 122 128 135 138 141 144 Biodegradable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Qena West 4,799 6,091 7,148 8,248 9,068 9,921 10,806 11,726 12,682 13,317 13,974 14,653 15,356 16,083 16,834 17,611 18,413 19,243 20,100 20,543 20,995 21,456 Urban area ton 3,639 3,719 4,118 4,533 4,764 5,005 5,253 5,510 5,776 5,977 6,184 6,397 6,617 6,843 7,076 7,316 7,563 7,818 8,079 8,258 8,439 8,625 Mixed Waste 3,573 3,652 4,044 4,451 4,678 4,915 5,159 5,411 5,672 5,869 6,072 6,282 6,498 6,719 6,949 7,184 7,427 7,677 7,934 8,109 8,287 8,469 Recyclables 51 52 58 63 67 70 74 77 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 102 106 109 113 116 118 121 Biodegradable 15 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 34 Rural area ton 1,160 2,372 3,030 3,716 4,304 4,916 5,553 6,216 6,906 7,340 7,790 8,256 8,739 9,240 9,758 10,295 10,850 11,425 12,020 12,285 12,555 12,832 Mixed Waste 1,157 2,365 3,021 3,705 4,292 4,902 5,538 6,199 6,886 7,319 7,768 8,233 8,715 9,214 9,731 10,266 10,820 11,393 11,987 12,251 12,520 12,796

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 11 – Page 2

Recyclables 3 7 8 10 12 14 16 17 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 29 30 32 34 34 35 36 Biodegradable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Qeft 5,684 7,541 8,938 10,395 11,508 12,665 13,868 15,117 16,415 17,269 18,153 19,068 20,014 20,993 22,005 23,052 24,133 25,252 26,408 26,989 27,584 28,191 Urban area ton 3,991 4,079 4,516 4,971 5,225 5,489 5,761 6,043 6,334 6,555 6,781 7,015 7,256 7,505 7,760 8,023 8,294 8,572 8,861 9,055 9,255 9,458 Mixed Waste 3,919 4,005 4,434 4,881 5,131 5,390 5,657 5,934 6,220 6,437 6,659 6,889 7,125 7,370 7,620 7,879 8,145 8,418 8,701 8,892 9,088 9,288 Recyclables 56 57 63 70 73 77 81 85 89 92 95 98 102 105 109 112 116 120 124 127 130 132 Biodegradable 16 16 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Rural area ton 1,694 3,462 4,423 5,424 6,283 7,177 8,107 9,074 10,081 10,715 11,372 12,053 12,758 13,489 14,245 15,028 15,839 16,679 17,548 17,934 18,329 18,733 Mixed Waste 1,689 3,452 4,410 5,409 6,265 7,157 8,084 9,049 10,052 10,685 11,340 12,019 12,723 13,451 14,205 14,986 15,795 16,632 17,498 17,884 18,277 18,680 Recyclables 5 10 12 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 47 49 50 51 52 Biodegradable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Nakada 5,841 7,958 9,489 11,082 12,318 13,601 14,936 16,322 17,762 18,706 19,683 20,694 21,739 22,820 23,938 25,096 26,292 27,528 28,807 29,441 30,089 30,751 Urban area ton 3,895 3,980 4,407 4,850 5,099 5,356 5,622 5,897 6,181 6,396 6,617 6,846 7,081 7,323 7,572 7,829 8,093 8,366 8,646 8,836 9,031 9,230 Mixed Waste 3,824 3,909 4,328 4,763 5,007 5,260 5,521 5,791 6,070 6,281 6,498 6,723 6,954 7,191 7,436 7,688 7,948 8,215 8,491 8,677 8,868 9,063 Recyclables 55 56 62 68 71 75 79 83 87 90 93 96 99 103 106 110 113 117 121 124 126 129 Biodegradable 16 16 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 35 36 37 Rural area ton 1,946 3,978 5,082 6,232 7,219 8,245 9,314 10,425 11,582 12,310 13,065 13,848 14,658 15,497 16,366 17,267 18,198 19,162 20,161 20,605 21,058 21,522 Mixed Waste 1,940 3,966 5,067 6,214 7,198 8,222 9,288 10,396 11,549 12,276 13,029 13,809 14,617 15,454 16,320 17,218 18,147 19,109 20,104 20,547 20,999 21,461 Recyclables 5 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 34 37 39 41 43 46 48 51 54 56 58 59 60 Biodegradable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Quos 15,964 21,525 25,608 29,859 33,137 36,544 40,085 43,766 47,587 50,097 52,692 55,378 58,157 61,031 64,005 67,079 70,256 73,543 76,940 78,633 80,365 82,135 Urban area ton 10,865 11,105 12,295 13,532 14,225 14,942 15,684 16,452 17,245 17,845 18,463 19,100 19,755 20,431 21,127 21,843 22,580 23,340 24,122 24,653 25,196 25,751 Mixed Waste 10,670 10,905 12,073 13,289 13,969 14,673 15,402 16,156 16,934 17,524 18,131 18,756 19,400 20,063 20,746 21,450 22,173 22,920 23,688 24,209 24,742 25,287 Recyclables 152 155 172 189 199 209 220 230 241 250 258 267 277 286 296 306 316 327 338 345 353 361 Biodegradable 43 44 49 54 57 60 63 66 69 71 74 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 96 99 101 103 Rural area ton 5,098 10,421 13,313 16,327 18,911 21,601 24,401 27,314 30,343 32,251 34,229 36,278 38,402 40,601 42,878 45,236 47,676 50,203 52,818 53,981 55,170 56,384 Mixed Waste 5,084 10,391 13,275 16,281 18,859 21,541 24,333 27,237 30,258 32,161 34,133 36,177 38,294 40,487 42,758 45,109 47,543 50,062 52,670 53,829 55,015 56,226 Recyclables 14 29 37 46 53 60 68 76 85 90 96 102 108 114 120 127 133 141 148 151 154 158 Biodegradable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 11 – Page 3

Annex‐12: Service Coverage Rates for Calculations

Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Urban Abo Tesht 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Farshot 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Naga Hammadi East 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Naga Hammadi West 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Deschna 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% ElWaqf 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Qena East 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Qena West 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Qeft 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Nakada 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Quos 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% District 12 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% District 13 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% District 14 60% 60% 65% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% Waste Streams Collection in System 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mixed Waste 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Recyclables 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Biodegradable 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Primary Collection (% of cov- ered area) Motor Trycicles 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Collection Points 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Door-to-Door (tipping trucks) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Waste Parameters Acumulation per waste stream (days) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 12 – Page 1

Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Rural Abo Tesht 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Farshot 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Naga Hammadi East 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Naga Hammadi West 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Deschna 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% ElWaqf 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Qena East 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Qena West 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Qeft 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Nakada 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Quos 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% District 12 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% District 13 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% District 14 10% 20% 25% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 70% Waste Streams Collection in System 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mixed Waste 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Recyclables 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Biodegradable 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Primary Collection (% of cov- ered area) Trailer/Tractor 100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Collection Points 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Door-to-Door (tipping trucks) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Efficiencies of collection ser- vices Urban Mixed Waste 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Recyclables 10% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Biodegradable 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Rural Mixed Waste 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Recyclables 10% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Biodegradable 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Waste Parameters Acumulation per waste stream (days) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 12 – Page 2

Annex‐13: ISWM Performances for Options 1 to 4

PERFORMANCE OF THE SYSTEM OPTION-1 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Installed MBT Capacity (OPTION-1) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Net Input MBTs 0 26,267 27,374 28,528 29,326 30,155 31,015 31,907 32,834 33,469 34,125 34,803 35,503 36,227 36,975 37,500 37,500 37,500 37,500 37,500 37,500 37,500 Recyclables output 8,756 8,756 9,125 9,509 9,775 10,052 10,338 10,636 10,945 11,156 11,375 11,601 11,834 12,076 12,325 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 Biodegradable Treated 6,257 6,257 6,718 7,199 7,532 7,877 8,235 8,607 8,993 9,258 9,531 9,814 10,106 10,407 10,719 10,938 10,938 10,938 10,938 10,938 10,938 10,938 RDF Production 11,254 11,254 11,531 11,820 12,019 12,226 12,441 12,664 12,896 13,055 13,219 13,388 13,563 13,744 13,931 14,063 14,063 14,063 14,063 14,063 14,063 14,063 Rejects to landfill 29,069 12,321 18,374 24,679 29,585 34,686 39,989 45,497 51,222 54,964 58,839 62,848 66,995 71,285 75,722 80,559 86,102 91,833 97,756 100,733 103,777 106,887

Recyclables at primary col- lection 95 97 124 152 176 201 227 254 282 300 319 338 358 378 399 421 444 467 492 503 514 525

Total Recovered & Trated 26,362 26,364 27,498 28,680 29,502 30,356 31,242 32,162 33,116 33,769 34,444 35,140 35,861 36,605 37,374 37,921 37,944 37,967 37,992 38,003 38,014 38,025 Percentage of all waste gen- erated 5.4% 5.3% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.1% 5.0% 4.9%

PERFORMANCE OF THE SYSTEM OPTION-2 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Installed MBT Capacity (OPTION-1) 50,000 110,000 110,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 200,000 200,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 305,000 305,000 315,000 315,000 315,000 315,000 315,000 315,000 315,000 315,000 315,000 Net Input MBTs 0 77,919 79,845 122,262 122,978 123,613 150,000 150,000 207,062 208,917 209,645 228,750 228,750 233,200 233,760 234,338 234,935 235,553 236,190 236,250 236,250 236,250 Recyclables output 12,500 16,542 16,734 25,351 25,423 25,486 32,500 32,500 42,581 42,767 42,840 49,125 49,125 49,570 49,626 49,684 49,743 49,805 49,869 49,875 49,875 49,875 Biodegradable Treated 10,938 23,063 23,641 38,554 38,768 38,959 44,375 44,375 63,681 64,238 64,456 67,688 67,688 69,023 69,190 69,364 69,543 69,728 69,920 69,938 69,938 69,938 RDF Production 14,063 38,314 39,469 58,357 58,787 59,168 73,125 73,125 100,800 101,913 102,350 111,938 111,938 114,608 114,943 115,290 115,648 116,019 116,402 116,438 116,438 116,438 Rejects to landfill 113,407 66,570 89,870 73,719 92,632 112,396 107,201 129,212 95,004 108,339 123,323 120,469 137,273 150,196 167,599 185,591 204,183 223,400 243,256 253,751 264,543 275,569

Recyclables at primary col- lection 95 97 124 152 176 201 227 254 282 300 319 338 358 378 399 421 444 467 492 503 514 525

Total Recovered & Trated 37,595 78,016 79,969 122,414 123,154 123,814 150,227 150,254 207,345 209,218 209,964 229,088 229,108 233,578 234,159 234,759 235,379 236,020 236,682 236,753 236,764 236,775 Percentage of all waste gen- erated 7.7% 15.6% 15.7% 23.5% 23.1% 22.8% 27.0% 26.4% 35.7% 35.2% 34.6% 36.9% 36.2% 36.1% 35.4% 34.7% 34.0% 33.4% 32.8% 32.1% 31.4% 30.7%

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 13 – Page 1

PERFORMANCE OF THE SYSTEM OPTION-3 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Installed MBT Capacity (OPTION-1) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 Net Input MBTs 0 31,852 34,328 36,906 37,500 37,500 56,250 56,250 56,250 56,250 56,250 56,250 56,250 74,538 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 93,750 93,750 93,750 93,750 Recyclables output 10,617 10,617 11,443 12,302 12,500 12,500 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 24,846 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 31,250 31,250 31,250 31,250 Biodegradable Treated 9,996 9,996 10,409 10,838 10,938 10,938 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 21,798 21,875 21,875 21,875 21,875 29,688 29,688 29,688 29,688 RDF Production 11,239 11,239 12,476 13,765 14,063 14,063 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750 27,894 28,125 28,125 28,125 28,125 32,813 32,813 32,813 32,813 Rejects to landfill 49,073 22,494 27,272 32,241 36,596 41,728 28,302 33,820 39,541 43,561 47,711 51,996 56,418 42,695 46,943 51,806 56,823 61,998 48,590 51,723 54,928 58,201

Recyclables at primary col- lection 95 97 124 152 176 201 227 254 282 300 319 338 358 378 399 421 444 467 492 503 514 525

Total Recovered & Trated 31,947 31,949 34,452 37,058 37,676 37,701 56,477 56,504 56,532 56,550 56,569 56,588 56,608 74,916 75,399 75,421 75,444 75,467 94,242 94,253 94,264 94,275 Percentage of all waste gen- 6.5% 6.4% 6.8% 7.1% 7.1% 6.9% 10.2% 9.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.3% 9.1% 8.9% 11.6% 11.4% 11.1% 10.9% 10.7% 13.0% 12.8% 12.5% 12.2% erated

PERFORMANCE OF THE SYSTEM OPTION-4 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Installed MBT Capacity (OPTION-1) 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Net Input MBTs 0 64,232 69,512 74,406 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 167,538 168,750 168,750 168,750 168,750 187,500 187,500 187,500 187,500 Recyclables output 10,617 13,855 14,961 16,052 16,250 16,250 16,250 16,250 24,375 24,375 24,375 24,375 24,375 34,146 34,375 34,375 34,375 34,375 40,625 40,625 40,625 40,625 Biodegradable Treated 9,996 19,710 20,964 22,088 22,188 22,188 22,188 22,188 35,625 35,625 35,625 35,625 35,625 49,698 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 57,813 57,813 57,813 57,813 RDF Production 11,239 30,666 33,587 36,265 36,563 36,563 36,563 36,563 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 52,500 83,694 84,375 84,375 84,375 84,375 89,063 89,063 89,063 89,063 Rejects to landfill 80,195 33,287 43,760 55,266 66,533 78,855 91,650 104,935 81,223 90,510 100,113 110,040 120,300 75,866 85,614 96,938 108,636 120,722 114,456 121,103 127,901 134,846

Recyclables at primary col- lection 95 97 124 152 176 201 227 254 282 300 319 338 358 378 399 421 444 467 492 503 514 525

Total Recovered & Trated 31,947 64,329 69,636 74,558 75,176 75,201 75,227 75,254 112,782 112,800 112,819 112,838 112,858 167,916 169,149 169,171 169,194 169,217 187,992 188,003 188,014 188,025 Percentage of all waste gen- 6.5% 12.9% 13.7% 14.3% 14.1% 13.8% 13.5% 13.2% 19.4% 19.0% 18.6% 18.2% 17.8% 25.9% 25.6% 25.0% 24.5% 23.9% 26.0% 25.5% 24.9% 24.4% erated

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 13 – Page 2

Annex‐14: Assumptions for SWM Calculations

14.1 Primary waste collection through Utility Tricycles (Urban areas) & Tractor/Trailers (rural areas)

Urban Rural (Tractors) Investment Tricycle / tractor-trailer (EUR) 2,000 25,000 Container 1- Recyclables (m3) 0.5 2 Container-2 - Biodegradable (m3) 0.5 1 Container-3 - Mixed waste (m3) 0.5 1 Container-4 - Mixed waste (m3) 0 0 Container-5 - HHW (m3) 0 0 Filling ratio of containers 1 1 Density of wastes in container (ton/m3) 0.35 0.35 Collection frequency (times/week) 6 2 Number of HH Served per "Stop" 2 2 Average container unloading time (minute) 0.1 0.1 Average cleaning time (minute) 0.1 0.1 Ave. dist. between HH (km) 0.02 0.05 Velocity btw. the container locations (km/hour) 5 5 Capacity for the cart fleet (m3/cart) 1.5 4 The filling grade of carts 80% 80% Distance to the place of unloading point (km) 2.5 2.5 Cart velocity to the unloading after full charge (km/hour) 5 10 Unloading time in the point (hour) 1 1 Repair and maintenance time (hour per day) 1 1 Staff per cart 2 2 Daily working hours 8 8 Number of shifts 1 1 Working hours per week 48 56 Working weeks per year per staff 52 52 Working days per year per truck 345 345 Spare cart, # 10% 10%

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 14 – Page 1

14.2 Compactor Truck for primary/secondary waste collection

Urban Rural Price Compactor Truck (EUR) 100,000 100,000

Container capacity (m3) 0.05 0.05 Filling ratio of containers 0.9 0.9 Density of wastes in container (ton/m3) 0.35 0.35 Collection frequency (times/week) 5 5 Number of containers for each "Stop" 6 6 Average container unloading time (minute) 0.1 0.1 Average cleaning time (minute) 0.1 0.1 Ave. dist. between container locations (km) 0.25 0.25 Truck velocity btw. the container locations (km/hour) 7 7 Capacity for the truck fleet (m3/truck) 8 8 The density of wastes compressed in the trucks (ton/m3) 0.35 0.35

The filling grade of trucks 100% 100% Distance to the place of unloading/landfill/TS (km) 20 20 Truck velocity to the landfill after loading (km/hour) 50 50

Unloading time in the landfill (hour) 0.5 0.5 Repair and maintenance time (hour per day) 0.5 0.5 Staff per truck 4 4 Daily working hours 8 8 Working hours per week 40 40 Working weeks per year per staff 50 50 Working days per year per truck 300 300

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 14 – Page 2

14.3 Collection points (Hook‐lift system)

Hook-lift System Urban Rural

Cost of a truck (EUR) 100,000 Cost of a container (EUR) 15,000 3 Containers capacity (m ) 5 5 Filling ratio of containers 0.8 0.8 3 Density of wastes in container (ton/m ) 0.4 0.4 Collection frequency (times/week) 5 5 Number of containers per travel 1 1 Average container loading time (minute) 10 10 Average unloading time (minute) 20 20 Truck velocity btw. the container locations (km/hour) 40 40 3 Capacity for the truck fleet (m /truck) 16 16 3 The density of wastes compressed in the trucks (ton/m ) 0.5 0.5 The filling grade of trucks 1 1 Distance to the place of unloading/landfill/TS (km) 20 20

Truck velocity to the landfill after loading (km/hour) 40 40 Unloading time (hour) 0.5 0.5 Repair and maintenance time (hour per day) 1 1 Staff per truck 2 2 Daily working hours 8 8 Number of shifts 1 1 Working hours per week 40 40 Working weeks per year per staff 52 52 Working days per year per truck 300 300

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 14 – Page 3

14.4 Transfer stations

Transfer Station Data EUR Press Container unit 40,000 Truck for 30 m3 containers unit 129,787 Front end loader unit 50,000 Capacity per truck tons 20

Container capacity tons 20 Density in containers tons/m3 0.65 Container filling ratio 1 Time to load container hours 0.2 Time entry landfill and unload hours 0.5

Ave. driving speed km/hour 40 Working days per truck days/year 345 Staff number per site persons 4

Staff number per truck persons 1 Number of shifts per day Unit 1 Needed number of containers per truck 2 Balling machine Euro 100,000 Balling machine pro TS Unit 2

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 14 – Page 4

14.5 O&M Costs assumptions

Wages and other labour costs Driver Monthly salary (Driver) EUR 130 Social costs, percentage of salary % 33% Income tax, percentage of salary % 0%

Labour costs, annually per labour EUR/yr 2,075

Monthly salary (Assistant) 75

Social costs, percentage of salary 33%

Income tax, percentage of salary 0%

Labour costs, annually per labour 1,197

Insurance, per crew EUR/yr 500

Fuel and Oil Fuel km/litre 3 Oil and lube % of diesel 0% Diesel price EUR/l 0.25 Maintenance Maintenance vehicle, percent of investment 5%

Maintenance equipment, percent of investment 5% Collection Bags Bags for Blue Bag System per 1000 Administrative costs and profit Administration costs, percentage of total costs 5% Other/miscellaneous, percentage of total cots 0.030 Profit, percentage of total costs 0.050

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 14 – Page 5

Annex‐15: Recycling and Treatment System for Options 1 to 4 15.1 Option‐1

Facility 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Upgrade MBT Naga Hammadi 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Upgrade MBT Qena(El Salhyia) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 MBT Qena(El Tarmsah) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrade MBT Naga Hammadi 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 Reinv. Upgrade % tons/year Year Imp. Inv. (EUR) % First stage= 25,000 2018 2,285,582 100% 75% 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 0 2019 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reinvestments 10 years First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 Total Investments= 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 25,000 2018 16 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Second Stage= 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total OPEX= 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044

Upgrade MBT Qena(El Salhyia) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 Reinv. Upgrade % tons/year Year Imp. Inv. (EUR) % First stage= 25,000 2018 2,285,582 100% 75% 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 0 2025 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reinvestments 10 years First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 Total Investments= 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 25,000 2018 16 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Second Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total OPEX= 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 15 – Page 1

15.2 Option‐2

Facility 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Upgrade MBT Naga Ham- madi 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Upgrade MBT Qena(El Salhyia) 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 MBT Qena(El Tarmsah) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New MBT Farshot 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 New MBT Naga Hammadi East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New MBT Deschna 0 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 New MBT Qena West 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 New MBT Nakada 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 New MBT Quos 0 20,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrade MBT Naga Ham- madi 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 Upgrade Reinv. % tons/yearY ear ImpInv. (EUR) % First stage= 25,000 2018 2,285,582 100% 75% 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 25,000 2023 2,285,582 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 25,000 2028 2,285,582 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinvestments

First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0

Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0

Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 Total In- vest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 3,999,769 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 3,428,374 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 25,000 2018 16 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Second Stage= 25,000 2023 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Third Stage= 25,000 2028 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Total OPEX= 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133

Upgrade MBT Qena(El Salhyia) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 Upgrade Reinv. % tons/yearY ear ImpInv. (EUR) % First stage= 25,000 2018 2,285,582 100% 75% 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 25,000 2020 2,285,582 100% 75% 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 25,000 2025 2,285,582 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinvestments

First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0

Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 15 – Page 2

Total In- vest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 2,285,582 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 1,714,187 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 1,714,187 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 25,000 2018 16 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Second Stage= 25,000 2020 16 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Third Stage= 25,000 2025 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Total OPEX= 402,044 402,044 402,044 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133

MBT Qena(El Tarmsah) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.7 Upgrade Reinv. % tons/yearY ear ImpInv. (EUR) % First stage= 0 2018 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 0 2025 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinvestments

First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total In- vest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 0 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total OPEX= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

New MBT Farshot 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6812 Upgrade Reinv. % tons/yearY ear ImpInv. (EUR) % First stage= 10,000 2018 1,114,344 100% 75% 1,114,344 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 10,000 2023 1,114,344 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 1,114,344 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinvestments

First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 835,758 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 835,758 0

Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 835,758 0 0 0 0 0 0

Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total In- vest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 1,114,344 0 0 0 0 1,114,344 0 0 0 0 835,758 0 0 0 0 835,758 0 0 0 0 835,758 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 10,000 2018 28 0 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 Second Stage= 10,000 2023 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total OPEX= 0 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350

New MBT Naga Hammadi East 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 15 – Page 3

Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.7 Upgrade Reinv. % tons/yearY ear ImpInv. (EUR) % First stage= 0 2018 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 0 2025 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinvestments

First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total In- vest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 0 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total OPEX= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

New MBT Deschna 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6812 Upgrade Reinv. % tons/yearY ear ImpInv. (EUR) % First stage= 10,000 2,018 1,114,344 100% 75% 1,114,344 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 10,000 2,020 1,114,344 100% 75% 0 0 1,114,344 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 20,000 2,025 1,786,821 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,786,821 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinvestments

First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 835,758 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 835,758 0

Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 835,758 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,340,115 0 0 0 0 Total In- vest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 1,114,344 0 1,114,344 0 0 0 0 1,786,821 0 0 835,758 0 835,758 0 0 0 0 1,340,115 0 0 835,758 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 10,000 2018 28 0 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 Second Stage= 10,000 2020 28 0 0 0 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 Third Stage= 20,000 2025 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 Total OPEX= 0 278,675 278,675 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 925,064 925,064 925,064 925,064 925,064 925,064 925,064 925,064 925,064 925,064 925,064 925,064 925,064 925,064

New MBT Qena West 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 Upgrade Reinv. % tons/yearY ear ImpInv. (EUR) % First stage= 10,000 2018 1,214,002 100% 75% 1,214,002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 10,000 2030 1,214,002 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,214,002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2035 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinvestments

First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 910,501 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 910,501 0

Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total In- vest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 1,214,002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 910,501 0 1,214,002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 910,501 0

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 15 – Page 4

OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 10,000 2018 28 0 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 Second Stage= 10,000 2030 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 Third Stage= 0 2035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total OPEX= 0 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350

New MBT Nakada 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 Upgrade Reinv. % tons/yearY ear ImpInv. (EUR) % First stage= 10,000 2018 1,214,002 100% 75% 1,214,002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 10,000 2025 1,214,002 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,214,002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2035 0 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinvestments

First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 910,501 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 910,501 0

Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 910,501 0 0 0 0

Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total In- vest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 1,214,002 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,214,002 0 0 910,501 0 0 0 0 0 0 910,501 0 0 910,501 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 10,000 2018 28 0 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 Second Stage= 10,000 2025 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 Third Stage= 0 2035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total OPEX= 0 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 278,675 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350 557,350

New MBT Quos 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 Upgrade Reinv. % tons/yearY ear ImpInv. (EUR) % First stage= 20,000 2,018 1,959,208 100% 75% 1,959,208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 20,000 2,020 1,959,208 100% 75% 0 0 1,959,208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 25,000 2,025 2,285,582 100% 75% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinvestments

First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,469,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,469,406 0

Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,469,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 Total Invest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 1,959,208 0 1,959,208 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 1,469,406 0 1,469,406 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 1,469,406 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 20,000 2018 18 0 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 Second Stage= 20,000 2020 18 0 0 0 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 367,714 Third Stage= 25,000 2025 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Total OPEX= 0 367,714 367,714 735,428 735,428 735,428 735,428 735,428 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 1,137,472 15.3 Option‐3

Facility 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Upgrade MBT Naga Hammadi 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Upgrade MBT Qena(El Salhyia) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 15 – Page 5

MBT Qena(El Tarmsah) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrade MBT Naga Hammadi 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 tons/year Year Imp. Inv. (EUR) First stage= 25,000 2018 2,285,582 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 25,000 2030 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinvestments

First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0

Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Invest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 25,000 2018 16 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Second Stage= 25,000 2030 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Third Stage= 0 2035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total OPEX= 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089

Upgrade MBT Qena(El Salhyia) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 tons/year Year Imp. Inv. (EUR) First stage= 25,000 2018 2,285,582 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 25,000 2023 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 25,000 2035 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0

Reinvestments

First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0

Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0

Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Invest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 2,285,582 0 0 1,714,187 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 25,000 2018 16 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Second Stage= 25,000 2023 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Third Stage= 25,000 2035 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Total OPEX= 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 15 – Page 6

15.4 Option‐4

Facility 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Upgrade MBT Naga Hammadi 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Upgrade MBT Qena(El Salhyia) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 New MBT Deschna 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 New MBT Quos 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000

Upgrade MBT Naga Hammadi 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 tons/year Year Imp. Inv. (EUR) First stage= 25,000 2018 2,285,582 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 25,000 2030 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reinvestments 10 years First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Invest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 25,000 2018 16 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Second Stage= 25,000 2030 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total OPEX= 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089

Upgrade MBT Qena(El Salhyia) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 tons/year Year Imp. Inv. (EUR) First stage= 25,000 2018 2,285,582 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 25,000 2025 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 25,000 2035 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 Reinvestments 10 years First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Invest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,999,769 0 0 1,714,187 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 25,000 2018 16 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Second Stage= 25,000 2025 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Third Stage= 25,000 2035 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Total OPEX= 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 15 – Page 7

New MBT Deschna 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 tons/year Year Imp. Inv. (EUR) First stage= 25,000 2018 2,285,582 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 25,000 2030 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reinvestments 10 years First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Invest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 25,000 2018 16 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Second Stage= 25,000 2030 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Third Stage= 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total OPEX= 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089

New MBT Quos 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function (Investments) 2100 0.6905 tons/year Year Imp. Inv. (EUR) First stage= 25,000 2018 2,285,582 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Second Stage= 25,000 2025 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 25,000 2030 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reinvestments 10 years First stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 Second Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 0 0 Third Stage= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Invest- Cost function (Investments) 7000 -0.6 ments= 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 1,714,187 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 1,714,187 0 0 1,714,187 0 OPEX. (EUR/t) First stage= 25,000 2018 16 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Second Stage= 25,000 2025 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Third Stage= 25,000 2030 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 Total OPEX= 0 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 402,044 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 15 – Page 8

Annex‐16: Final Disposal for Options 1 to 4

16.1 Option‐1

Facility 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 New Landfill Farshot 18,822 45,651 77,943 115,926 158,400 205,548 257,554 314,609 376,910 442,620 511,861 584,757 661,434 742,023 826,661 915,486 1,008,642 1,106,276 1,208,541 1,313,057 1,419,874 1,529,044 New Landfill Naga Ham- madi West 20,420 30,235 45,734 67,154 93,213 124,097 159,997 201,109 247,636 297,694 351,407 408,904 470,314 535,773 605,421 679,401 757,862 840,956 928,840 1,019,072 1,111,703 1,206,787 New Landfill Deschna 50,470 111,225 181,618 262,042 349,664 444,761 547,620 658,537 777,816 902,748 1,033,522 1,170,336 1,313,393 1,462,899 1,619,072 1,782,132 1,952,306 2,129,828 2,314,940 2,504,128 2,697,482 2,895,095 New Landfill Qena West 14,414 24,795 37,065 51,302 67,033 84,316 103,213 123,785 146,099 169,562 194,214 220,096 247,251 275,722 305,553 337,038 370,775 406,837 445,304 485,029 526,042 568,370 New Landfill Quos 1,855 5,492 10,112 15,756 22,274 29,700 38,072 47,428 57,806 68,831 80,526 92,914 106,020 119,871 134,492 149,911 166,155 183,255 201,239 219,619 238,404 257,603 Pop. Covered Name (%) Waste (tons) New Landfill Farshot 24% 2,625,966 New Landfill Naga Ham- madi West 20% 2,181,826 New Landfill Deschna 44% 4,880,668 New Landfill Qena West 9% 1,013,331 New Landfill Quos 4% 450,506 100% 11,152,298

New Landfill Farshot Assumptions Total amount deposited tons 2,625,966 Volume m3 2,625,966 Average tons/year tons 21 Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0 Landfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

Investments Cost function 2600 0.5 EUR 5,023,512

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equipment 45% 2,260,580 1,130,290 1,130,290 First cell 16% 793,715 396,857 396,857 Second cell 16% 783,668 391,834 391,834 Third cell 16% 783,668 0 391,834 391,834 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 401,881 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 5,023,512 0 1,527,148 1,527,148 0 0 0 0 0 391,834 391,834 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 391,834 391,834 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 New Landfill EUR/Tons 6.3 Farshot 203,440 239,289 267,592 297,033 327,637 359,444 392,494 413,977 436,217 459,246 483,061 507,713 533,221 559,598 586,882 615,094 644,267 658,452 672,947 687,769

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 1

203,440 239,289 267,592 297,033 327,637 359,444 392,494 413,977 436,217 459,246 483,061 507,713 533,221 559,598 586,882 615,094 644,267 658,452 672,947 687,769

New Landfill Naga Hammadi West Assumptions Total amount deposited tons 2,181,826 Volume m3 2,181,826 Average tons/year tons 18 Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0 Landfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

Investments Cost function 2600 0.5 EUR 4,568,939

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equip- ment 45% 2,056,023 1,028,011 1,028,011 First cell 16% 721,892 360,946 360,946 Second cell 16% 712,755 356,377 356,377 Third cell 16% 712,755 0 356,377 356,377 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 365,515 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 4,568,939 0 1,388,958 1,388,958 0 0 0 0 0 356,377 356,377 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 356,377 356,377 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 New Landfill Naga Hammadi 599,0 EUR/Tons 6.3 West 97,644 134,941 164,174 194,571 226,171 259,002 293,121 315,363 338,396 362,229 386,886 412,391 438,778 466,076 494,305 523,493 553,669 568,458 583,580 30

97,644 134,941 164,174 194,571 226,171 259,002 293,121 315,363 338,396 362,229 386,886 412,391 438,778 466,076 494,305 523,493 553,669 568,458 583,580 599,030

New Landfill Deschna

Assumptions

Total amount deposited tons 4,880,668

Volume m3 4,880,668

Average tons/year tons 40

Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0

Landfill area ha 5.0

Filling height m -

Investments

Cost function 2600 0.5

EUR 6,899,314

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 2

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equip- ment 45% 3,104,691 1,552,346 1,552,346

First cell 16% 1,090,092 545,046 545,046

Second cell 16% 1,076,293 538,146 538,146

Third cell 16% 1,076,293 0 538,146 538,146 0

0 0

Closure and restoration 8% 551,945

Aftercare cost 30 years 5%

Total Investments 6,899,314 0 2,097,391 2,097,391 0 0 0 0 0 538,146 538,146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 538,146 538,146 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

Cost function -0.4 New Landfill EUR/Tons 6.3 Deschna 443,475 506,674 552,019 599,113 648,009 698,779 751,455 787,069 823,880 861,928 901,257 941,891 983,888 1,027,276 1,072,096 1,118,391 1,166,205 1,191,882 1,218,134 1,244,959

443,475 506,674 552,019 599,113 648,009 698,779 751,455 787,069 823,880 861,928 901,257 941,891 983,888 1,027,276 1,072,096 1,118,391 1,166,205 1,191,882 1,218,134 1,244,959

New Landfill Qena West

Assumptions

Total amount deposited tons 1,013,331

Volume m3 1,013,331

Average tons/year tons 8

Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0

Landfill area ha 5.0

Filling height m -

Investments

Cost function 2600 0.5

EUR 3,085,443

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equip- ment 45% 1,388,449 694,225 694,225

First cell 16% 487,500 243,750 243,750

Second cell 16% 481,329 240,665 240,665

Third cell 16% 481,329 0 240,665 240,665 0

0 0

Closure and restoration 8% 246,835

Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 3,085,443 0 937,975 937,975 0 0 0 0 0 240,665 240,665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240,665 240,665 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

Cost function -0.4 266,6 EUR/Tons 6.3 New Landfill Qena West 77,299 89,692 99,104 108,886 119,049 129,608 140,574 147,817 155,307 163,059 171,076 179,365 187,937 198,359 212,538 227,195 242,339 250,270 258,380 64

77,299 89,692 99,104 108,886 119,049 129,608 140,574 147,817 155,307 163,059 171,076 179,365 187,937 198,359 212,538 227,195 242,339 250,270 258,380 266,664

New Landfill Quos

Assumptions

Total amount deposited tons 450,506

Volume m3 450,506

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 3

Average tons/year tons 4

Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0

Landfill area ha 5.0

Filling height m -

Investments

Cost function 2600 0.5

EUR 2,037,523

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equip- ment 45% 916,885 458,443 458,443

First cell 16% 321,929 160,964 160,964

Second cell 16% 317,854 158,927 158,927

Third cell 16% 317,854 0 158,927 158,927 0

0 0

Closure and restoration 8% 163,002

Aftercare cost 30 years 5%

Total Investments 2,037,523 0 619,407 619,407 0 0 0 0 0 158,927 158,927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158,927 158,927 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

Cost function -0.4 New Landfill EUR/Tons 6.3 Quos 29,105 35,559 41,059 46,785 52,744 58,942 65,386 69,456 73,674 78,045 82,572 87,258 92,113 97,139 102,341 107,728 113,300 115,794 118,344 120,951

29,105 35,559 41,059 46,785 52,744 58,942 65,386 69,456 73,674 78,045 82,572 87,258 92,113 97,139 102,341 107,728 113,300 115,794 118,344 120,951

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 4

16.2 Option‐2

Facility 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 andfill Abo Tesht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 andfill Farshot 10,661 15,683 22,602 31,495 41,774 53,492 59,204 66,465 75,334 85,300 96,399 108,671 122,152 136,883 152,907 170,265 189,000 209,159 230,787 253,222 276,481 300,582 andfill Naga Hammadi East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 andfill Naga Hammadi West 20,420 30,235 45,734 67,154 93,213 124,097 141,247 163,609 191,386 222,694 257,657 277,654 301,564 329,523 361,671 398,151 439,112 484,706 535,090 587,822 642,953 700,537 andfill Deschna 13,679 24,602 39,015 49,561 62,906 79,161 98,441 120,863 131,550 144,380 159,428 176,770 196,487 218,658 243,369 270,705 300,757 333,616 369,376 406,584 445,272 485,474 andfill ElWaqf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 andfill Qena East 36,791 60,372 90,102 107,481 129,258 155,600 186,680 222,674 245,016 270,867 300,344 333,566 370,656 411,742 456,954 506,427 560,299 618,712 681,814 747,543 815,960 887,121 New Landfill Qena West 4,730 6,235 8,001 10,040 12,283 14,737 17,933 22,042 27,101 32,789 39,130 46,144 53,857 57,840 62,010 66,373 70,934 75,702 80,682 86,042 91,849 98,114 andfill Qeft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 andfill Nakada 5,765 7,734 10,082 13,560 18,266 24,247 31,556 40,243 44,647 49,286 54,168 59,700 66,270 73,915 82,671 92,578 103,673 115,997 129,592 143,816 158,683 174,208 andfill Quos 21,361 35,115 54,309 64,274 78,498 97,258 120,734 149,110 164,976 183,032 204,546 229,637 258,428 291,049 327,629 368,303 413,209 462,492 516,299 572,363 630,736 691,468 Dump. District 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Name Pop. Covered (%) Waste (tons) Landfill Abo Tesht 0% - Landfill Farshot 9% 558,467 Landfill Naga Hammadi East 0% - Landfill Naga Hammadi West 21% 1,338,076 Landfill Deschna 14% 920,841 Landfill ElWaqf 0% - Landfill Qena East 26% 1,661,077 New Landfill Qena West 3% 176,788 Landfill Qeft 0% - Landfill Nakada 5% 345,920 Landfill Quos 21% 1,352,774 Dump. District 12 0% - 100% 6,353,944

Landfill Abo Tesht Assumptions Total amount deposited ons Volume m3 Average tons/year ons #DIV/0! Waste density (ton/m3) 1. 0 andfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m - nvestments Cost function 2600 0. EUR 0

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 nitial invest. & equipment 45% - 0 0 First cell 16% - 0 0 Second cell 16% - 0 0 Third cell 16% - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% - Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 5

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 L andfill Abo Tesht 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Landfill Farshot Assumptions Total amount deposited ons 558,46 Volume m3 558,46 Average tons/year ons #DIV/0! Waste density (ton/m3) 1. 0 andfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

nvestments Cost function 2600 0. EUR 2,274,372

Landfill investments, distri- EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 bution nitial invest. & equipment 45% 1,023,467 511,734 511,734 First cell 16% 359,351 179,675 179,675 Second cell 16% 354,802 177,401 177,401 Third cell 16% 354,802 0 177,401 177,401 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 181,950 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 2,274,372 0 691,409 691,409 0 0 0 0 0 177,401 177,401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177,401 177,401 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 L andfill Farshot 43,591 56,027 64,757 73,823 35,982 45,746 55,877 62,787 69,925 77,311 84,930 92,808 100,948 109,355 118,034 127,001 136,257 141,339 146,530 151,835

43,591 56,027 64,757 73,823 35,982 45,746 55,877 62,787 69,925 77,311 84,930 92,808 100,948 109,355 118,034 127,001 136,257 141,339 146,530 151,835

Landfill Naga Hammadi East Assumptions Total amount deposited ons Volume m3 Average tons/year ons #DIV/0! Waste density (ton/m3) 1. 0 andfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

nvestments Cost function 2600 0. EUR 0

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 6

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 nitial invest. & equipment 45% - 0 0 First cell 16% - 0 0 Second cell 16% - 0 0 Third cell 16% - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% - Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Landfill Naga Hammadi West Assumptions Total amount deposited ons 1,338,07 Volume m3 1,338,07 Average tons/year ons #DIV/0! Waste density (ton/m3) 1. 0 andfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

nvestments Cost function 2600 0. EUR 3,557,287

Landfill investments, distri- EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 bution nitial invest. & equipment 45% 1,600,779 800,390 800,390 First cell 16% 562,051 281,026 281,026 Second cell 16% 554,937 277,468 277,468 Third cell 16% 554,937 0 277,468 277,468 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 284,583 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 3,557,287 0 1,081,415 1,081,415 0 0 0 0 0 277,468 277,468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277,468 277,468 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 Landfill Naga Hammadi West 97,644 134,941 164,174 194,571 108,046 140,877 174,996 197,238 220,271 125,979 150,636 176,141 202,528 229,826 258,055 287,243 317,419 332,208 347,330

97,644 134,941 164,174 194,571 108,046 140,877 174,996 197,238 220,271 125,979 150,636 176,141 202,528 229,826 258,055 287,243 317,419 332,208 347,330 362,780

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 7

Landfill Deschna Assumptions Total amount deposited ons 920,84 Volume m3 920,84 Average tons/year ons #DIV/0! Waste density (ton/m3) 1. 0 andfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

nvestments Cost function 2600 0. EUR 2,937,917

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 nitial invest. & equipment 45% 1,322,063 661,031 661,031 First cell 16% 464,191 232,095 232,095 Second cell 16% 458,315 229,158 229,158 Third cell 16% 458,315 0 229,158 229,158 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 235,033 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 2,937,917 0 893,127 893,127 0 0 0 0 0 229,158 229,158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 229,158 229,158 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 L andfill Deschna 90,800 66,438 84,072 102,410 121,459 141,263 67,328 80,829 94,804 109,254 124,213 139,677 155,679 172,220 189,327 207,012 225,289 234,411 243,736 253,268

90,800 66,438 84,072 102,410 121,459 141,263 67,328 80,829 94,804 109,254 124,213 139,677 155,679 172,220 189,327 207,012 225,289 234,411 243,736 253,268

Landfill ElWaqf Assumptions Total amount deposited ons Volume m3 Average tons/year ons #DIV/0! Waste density (ton/m3) 1. 0 andfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

nvestments Cost function 2600 0. EUR 0

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 nitial invest. & equipment 45% - 0 0 First cell 16% - 0 0 Second cell 16% - 0 0 Third cell 16% - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% - Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 8

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 L andfill ElWaqf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Landfill Qena East Assumptions Total amount deposited ons 1,661,07 Volume m3 1,661,07 Average tons/year ons #DIV/0! Waste density (ton/m3) 1. 0 andfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

nvestments Cost function 2600 0. EUR 3,973,662

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 nitial invest. & equipment 45% 1,788,148 894,074 894,074 First cell 16% 627,839 313,919 313,919 Second cell 16% 619,891 309,946 309,946 Third cell 16% 619,891 0 309,946 309,946 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 317,893 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 3,973,662 0 1,207,993 1,207,993 0 0 0 0 0 309,946 309,946 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 309,946 309,946 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 L andfill Qena East 187,299 109,487 137,197 165,954 195,800 226,765 140,752 162,865 185,701 209,299 233,669 258,839 284,834 311,681 339,394 368,004 397,541 414,096 431,023 448,316

187,299 109,487 137,197 165,954 195,800 226,765 140,752 162,865 185,701 209,299 233,669 258,839 284,834 311,681 339,394 368,004 397,541 414,096 431,023 448,316

New Landfill Qena West Assumptions Total amount deposited ons 176,78 Volume m3 176,78 Average tons/year ons #DIV/0! Waste density (ton/m3) 1. 0 andfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

nvestments Cost function 2600 0. EUR 1,262,248

Landfill investments, distri- EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 bution nitial invest. & equipment 45% 568,012 284,006 284,006 First cell 16% 199,435 99,718 99,718

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 9

Second cell 16% 196,911 98,455 98,455 Third cell 16% 196,911 0 98,455 98,455 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 100,980 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 1,262,248 0 383,723 383,723 0 0 0 0 0 98,455 98,455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98,455 98,455 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 New Landfill Qena West 11,127 12,846 14,128 15,462 20,136 25,889 31,867 35,839 39,945 44,192 48,589 25,095 26,270 27,484 28,738 30,036 31,375 33,765 36,587

11,127 12,846 14,128 15,462 20,136 25,889 31,867 35,839 39,945 44,192 48,589 25,095 26,270 27,484 28,738 30,036 31,375 33,765 36,587 39,471

Landfill Qeft Assumptions Total amount deposited ons Volume m3 Average tons/year ons #DIV/0! Waste density (ton/m3) 1. 0 andfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

nvestments Cost function 2600 0. EUR 0

Landfill investments, distri- EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 bution nitial invest. & equipment 45% - 0 0 First cell 16% - 0 0 Second cell 16% - 0 0 Third cell 16% - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% - Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 L andfill Qeft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Landfill Nakada Assumptions Total amount deposited ons 345,92 Volume m3 345,92 Average tons/year ons #DIV/0! Waste density (ton/m3) 1. 0 andfill area ha 5.0

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 10

Filling height m -

nvestments Cost function 2600 0. EUR 1,779,815

Landfill investments, distri- EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 bution nitial invest. & equipment 45% 800,917 400,458 400,458 First cell 16% 281,211 140,605 140,605 Second cell 16% 277,651 138,826 138,826 Third cell 16% 277,651 0 138,826 138,826 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 142,385 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 1,779,815 0 541,064 541,064 0 0 0 0 0 138,826 138,826 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138,826 138,826 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 L andfill Nakada 14,797 21,908 29,645 37,686 46,043 54,728 27,749 29,227 30,755 34,849 41,394 48,163 55,165 62,410 69,898 77,642 85,648 89,611 93,663 97,805

14,797 21,908 29,645 37,686 46,043 54,728 27,749 29,227 30,755 34,849 41,394 48,163 55,165 62,410 69,898 77,642 85,648 89,611 93,663 97,805

Landfill Quos Assumptions Total amount deposited ons 1,352,774 Volume m3 1,352,774 Average tons/year ons #DIV/0! Waste density (ton/m3) 1. 0 andfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

nvestments Cost function 2600 0. EUR 3,577,235

Landfill investments, distri- EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 bution nitial invest. & equipment 45% 1,609,756 804,878 804,878 First cell 16% 565,203 282,602 282,602 Second cell 16% 558,049 279,024 279,024 Third cell 16% 558,049 0 279,024 279,024 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 286,179 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 3,577,235 0 1,087,480 1,087,480 0 0 0 0 0 279,024 279,024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 279,024 279,024 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 L andfill Quos 120,919 62,780 89,610 118,191 147,898 178,768 99,957 113,754 135,534 158,074 181,387 205,508 230,452 256,248 282,908 310,484 338,984 353,204 367,749 382,610

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 11

120,919 62,780 89,610 118,191 147,898 178,768 99,957 113,754 135,534 158,074 181,387 205,508 230,452 256,248 282,908 310,484 338,984 353,204 367,749 382,610

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 12

16.3 Option‐3

Facility 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 New Landfill Farshot 18,822 45,651 77,943 115,926 158,400 205,548 257,554 314,609 376,910 442,620 511,861 584,757 661,434 742,023 826,661 915,486 1,008,642 1,106,276 1,208,541 1,313,057 1,419,874 1,529,044 New Landfill Naga Hammadi West 12,991 17,359 22,551 28,603 36,708 47,564 61,280 77,967 97,741 119,540 143,438 169,505 197,818 210,164 224,449 241,217 260,553 282,544 307,277 333,382 360,886 389,822 New Landfill Deschna 25,735 64,714 112,191 168,519 231,986 302,879 381,493 468,135 563,120 663,485 769,422 881,126 998,800 1,122,653 1,252,900 1,389,762 1,533,469 1,684,256 1,842,363 2,003,951 2,169,098 2,337,881 New Landfill Qena West 10,495 24,388 40,848 59,982 81,157 104,456 129,961 157,757 187,934 219,679 253,047 288,093 324,876 363,454 403,890 446,247 490,588 536,983 585,498 635,082 685,756 737,546 New Landfill Quos 37,937 59,701 86,400 118,233 153,242 191,540 214,498 240,987 271,134 303,920 339,427 377,743 418,955 463,154 510,434 560,891 614,622 671,730 713,569 757,569 803,776 852,240

Name Pop. Covered (%) Waste (tons) New Landfill Farshot 26% 2,625,966 New Landfill Naga Hammadi West 7% 719,862 New Landfill Deschna 40% 4,033,790 New Landfill Qena West 13% 1,257,932 New Landfill Quos 14% 1,398,132 100% 10,035,683

New Landfill Farshot Assumptions Total amount deposited tons 2,625,966 Volume m3 2,625,966 Average tons/year tons 21 Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0 Landfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

Investments Cost function 2600 0.5 EUR 5,023,512

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equipment 45% 2,260,580 1,130,290 1,130,290 First cell 16% 793,715 396,857 396,857 Second cell 16% 783,668 391,834 391,834 Third cell 16% 783,668 0 391,834 391,834 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 401,881 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 5,023,512 0 1,527,148 1,527,148 0 0 0 0 0 391,834 391,834 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 391,834 391,834 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 New Landfill Far- EUR/Tons 6.3 shot 203,440 239,289 267,592 297,033 327,637 359,444 392,494 413,977 436,217 459,246 483,061 507,713 533,221 559,598 586,882 615,094 644,267 658,452 672,947 687,769

203,440 239,289 267,592 297,033 327,637 359,444 392,494 413,977 436,217 459,246 483,061 507,713 533,221 559,598 586,882 615,094 644,267 658,452 672,947 687,769

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 13

New Landfill Naga Hammadi West Assumptions Total amount deposited tons 719,862 Volume m3 719,862 Average tons/year tons 6 Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0 Landfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

Investments Cost function 2600 0.5 EUR 2,589,997

Landfill investments, distri- bution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equipment 45% 1,165,499 582,749 582,749 First cell 16% 409,220 204,610 204,610 Second cell 16% 404,040 202,020 202,020 Third cell 16% 404,040 0 202,020 202,020 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 207,200 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 2,589,997 0 787,359 787,359 0 0 0 0 0 202,020 202,020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202,020 202,020 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 New Landfill Naga Hammadi EUR/Tons 6.3 West 32,713 38,127 51,060 68,395 86,410 105,127 124,573 137,338 150,553 164,227 178,368 77,779 89,995 105,642 121,818 138,539 155,823 164,455 173,280 182,298

32,713 38,127 51,060 68,395 86,410 105,127 124,573 137,338 150,553 164,227 178,368 77,779 89,995 105,642 121,818 138,539 155,823 164,455 173,280 182,298

New Landfill Deschna Assumptions Total amount deposited tons 4,033,790 Volume m3 4,033,790 Average tons/year tons 33 Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0 Landfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

Investments Cost function 2600 0.5 EUR 6,258,035

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equipment 45% 2,816,116 1,408,058 1,408,058 First cell 16% 988,770 494,385 494,385 Second cell 16% 976,253 488,127 488,127 Third cell 16% 976,253 0 488,127 488,127 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 500,643 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 6,258,035 0 1,902,443 1,902,443 0 0 0 0 0 488,127 488,127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 488,127 488,127 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 14

New Landfill EUR/Tons 6.3 Deschna 299,101 354,868 399,841 446,626 495,270 545,846 598,404 632,299 667,403 703,733 741,351 780,272 820,554 862,234 905,353 949,954 996,076 1,018,003 1,040,425 1,063,336

299,101 354,868 399,841 446,626 495,270 545,846 598,404 632,299 667,403 703,733 741,351 780,272 820,554 862,234 905,353 949,954 996,076 1,018,003 1,040,425 1,063,336

New Landfill Qena West Assumptions Total amount deposited tons 1,257,932 Volume m3 1,257,932 Average tons/year tons 10 Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0 Landfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

Investments Cost function 2600 0.5 EUR 3,446,576

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equipment 45% 1,550,959 775,480 775,480 First cell 16% 544,559 272,280 272,280 Second cell 16% 537,666 268,833 268,833 Third cell 16% 537,666 0 268,833 268,833 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 275,726 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 3,446,576 0 1,047,759 1,047,759 0 0 0 0 0 268,833 268,833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268,833 268,833 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 New Landfill Qena West 103,697 120,543 133,407 146,782 160,679 175,116 190,114 199,995 210,216 220,791 231,733 243,044 254,746 266,848 279,352 292,286 305,648 312,376 319,250 326,276

103,697 120,543 133,407 146,782 160,679 175,116 190,114 199,995 210,216 220,791 231,733 243,044 254,746 266,848 279,352 292,286 305,648 312,376 319,250 326,276

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 15

New Landfill Quos Assumptions Total amount deposited tons 1,398,132 Volume m3 1,398,132 Average tons/year tons 11 Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0 Landfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

Investments Cost function 2600 0.5 EUR 3,638,140

Landfill investments, distri- bution EUR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equipment 45% 1,637,163 818,582 818,582 First cell 16% 574,826 287,413 287,413 Second cell 16% 567,550 283,775 283,775 Third cell 16% 567,550 0 283,775 283,775 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 291,051 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 3,638,140 0 1,105,995 1,105,995 0 0 0 0 0 283,775 283,775 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 283,775 283,775 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 New Landfill Quos 168,205 200,548 220,552 241,279 144,634 166,883 189,923 206,551 223,699 241,391 259,634 278,455 297,861 317,877 338,507 359,779 263,592 277,194 291,108 305,319

168,205 200,548 220,552 241,279 144,634 166,883 189,923 206,551 223,699 241,391 259,634 278,455 297,861 317,877 338,507 359,779 263,592 277,194 291,108 305,319

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 16

16.4 Option‐4

Facility 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 New Landfill Farshot 45,651 77,943 115,926 158,400 205,548 257,554 314,609 376,910 442,620 511,861 584,757 661,434 742,023 826,661 915,486 1,008,642 1,106,276 1,208,541 1,313,057 1,419,874 1,529,044 New Landfill Naga Hammadi West 17,359 22,551 28,603 36,708 47,564 61,280 77,967 97,741 119,540 143,438 169,505 197,818 210,164 224,449 241,217 260,553 282,544 307,277 333,382 360,886 389,822 New Landfill Deschna 50,897 81,938 119,517 164,234 216,376 276,241 344,133 420,368 501,983 589,170 682,123 781,048 867,401 960,148 1,059,510 1,165,717 1,279,003 1,399,611 1,523,698 1,651,345 1,782,629 New Landfill Qena West 24,388 40,848 59,982 81,157 104,456 129,961 157,757 187,934 219,679 253,047 288,093 324,876 363,454 403,890 446,247 490,588 536,983 585,498 635,082 685,756 737,546 New Landfill Quos 77,839 110,927 153,345 202,179 257,672 320,076 389,652 429,164 473,795 523,712 579,092 640,114 688,963 743,081 803,414 870,162 943,535 1,004,997 1,070,288 1,139,496 1,212,704

Name Pop. Covered (%) Waste (tons) New Landfill Farshot 27% 2,625,966 New Landfill Naga Hammadi West 7% 719,862 New Landfill Deschna 32% 3,141,038 New Landfill Qena West 13% 1,257,932 New Landfill Quos 21% 2,066,174 100% 9,810,973

New Landfill Farshot Assumptions Total amount deposited tons 2,625,966 Volume m3 2,625,966 Average tons/year tons 21 Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0 Landfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

Investments Cost function 2600 0.5 EUR 5,023,512

Landfill investments, distribution EUR 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equipment 45% 2,260,580 1,130,290 1,130,290 First cell 16% 793,715 396,857 396,857 Second cell 16% 783,668 391,834 391,834 Third cell 16% 783,668 0 391,834 391,834 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 401,881 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 5,023,512 1,527,148 1,527,148 0 0 0 0 0 391,834 391,834 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 391,834 391,834 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 EUR/Tons 6.3 New Landfill Farsho 203,440 239,289 267,592 297,033 327,637 359,444 392,494 413,977 436,217 459,246 483,061 507,713 533,221 559,598 586,882 615,094 644,267 658,452 672,947 687,769

203,440 239,289 267,592 297,033 327,637 359,444 392,494 413,977 436,217 459,246 483,061 507,713 533,221 559,598 586,882 615,094 644,267 658,452 672,947 687,769

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 17

New Landfill Naga Hammadi West Assumptions Total amount deposited tons 719,862 Volume m3 719,862 Average tons/year tons 6 Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0 Landfill area ha 5.0 Filling height m -

Investments Cost function 2600 0.5 EUR 2,589,997

Landfill investments, distribu tion EUR 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Initial invest. & equipment 45% 1,165,499 582,749 582,749 First cell 16% 409,220 204,610 204,610 Second cell 16% 404,040 202,020 202,020 Third cell 16% 404,040 0 202,020 202,020 0 0 0 Closure and restoration 8% 207,200 Aftercare cost 30 years 5% Total Investments 2,589,997 787,359 787,359 0 0 0 0 0 202,020 202,020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202,020 202,020 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Cost function -0.4 New Landfill Naga Hammadi 182, EUR/Tons 6.3 West 32,713 38,127 51,060 68,395 86,410 105,127 124,573 137,338 150,553 164,227 178,368 77,779 89,995 105,642 121,818 138,539 155,823 164,455 173,280 298

32,713 38,127 51,060 68,395 86,410 105,127 124,573 137,338 150,553 164,227 178,368 77,779 89,995 105,642 121,818 138,539 155,823 164,455 173,280 182,298

New Landfill Deschna

Assumptions

Total amount deposited tons 3,141,038

Volume m3 3,141,038

Average tons/year tons 26

Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0

Landfill area ha 5.0

Filling height m -

Investments

Cost function 2600 0.5

EUR 5,505,860

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 18

Landfill investments, distribu tion EUR 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

Initial invest. & equipment 45% 2,477,637 1,238,818 1,238,818

First cell 16% 869,926 434,963 434,963

Second cell 16% 858,914 429,457 429,457

Third cell 16% 858,914 0 429,457 429,457 0

0 0

Closure and restoration 8% 440,469

Aftercare cost 30 years 5%

Total Investments 5,505,860 1,673,781 1,673,781 0 0 0 0 0 429,457 429,457 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 429,457 429,457 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

Cost function -0.4 New Landfill EUR/Tons 6.3 Deschna 195,563 236,743 281,716 328,501 377,145 427,721 480,279 514,174 549,278 585,608 623,226 544,022 584,304 625,984 669,103 713,704 759,826 781,753 804,175 827,086

195,563 236,743 281,716 328,501 377,145 427,721 480,279 514,174 549,278 585,608 623,226 544,022 584,304 625,984 669,103 713,704 759,826 781,753 804,175 827,086

New Landfill Qena West

Assumptions

Total amount deposited tons 1,257,932

Volume m3 1,257,932

Average tons/year tons 10

Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0

Landfill area ha 5.0

Filling height m -

Investments

Cost function 2600 0.5

EUR 3,446,576

Landfill investments, distribu tion EUR 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

Initial invest. & equipment 45% 1,550,959 775,480 775,480

First cell 16% 544,559 272,280 272,280

Second cell 16% 537,666 268,833 268,833

Third cell 16% 537,666 0 268,833 268,833 0

0 0

Closure and restoration 8% 275,726

Aftercare cost 30 years 5%

Total Investments 3,446,576 1,047,759 1,047,759 0 0 0 0 0 268,833 268,833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268,833 268,833 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

Cost function -0.4 326, EUR/Tons 6.3 New Landfill Qena West 103,697 120,543 133,407 146,782 160,679 175,116 190,114 199,995 210,216 220,791 231,733 243,044 254,746 266,848 279,352 292,286 305,648 312,376 319,250 276

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 19

103,697 120,543 133,407 146,782 160,679 175,116 190,114 199,995 210,216 220,791 231,733 243,044 254,746 266,848 279,352 292,286 305,648 312,376 319,250 326,276

New Landfill Quos

Assumptions

Total amount deposited tons 2,066,174

Volume m3 2,066,174

Average tons/year tons 17

Waste density (ton/m3) 1.0

Landfill area ha 5.0

Filling height m -

Investments

Cost function 2600 0.5

EUR 4,443,317

Landfill investments, distribu tion EUR 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

Initial invest. & equipment 45% 1,999,492 999,746 999,746

First cell 16% 702,044 351,022 351,022

Second cell 16% 693,157 346,579 346,579

Third cell 16% 693,157 0 346,579 346,579 0

0 0

Closure and restoration 8% 355,465

Aftercare cost 30 years 5%

Total Investments 4,443,317 1,350,768 1,350,768 0 0 0 0 0 346,579 346,579 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 346,579 346,579 0 0

O&M costs - Landfill 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

Cost function -0.4

EUR/Tons 6.3 New Landfill Quos 208,459 267,233 307,652 349,604 393,148 438,327 248,926 281,174 314,479 348,895 384,436 307,747 340,944 380,099 420,513 462,250 387,210 411,335 436,008 461,215

208,459 267,233 307,652 349,604 393,148 438,327 248,926 281,174 314,479 348,895 384,436 307,747 340,944 380,099 420,513 462,250 387,210 411,335 436,008 461,215

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 16 – Page 20

Annex‐17: Investments and O&M Costs for Options 1 to 4 17.1 Option‐1

Population served 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Population served, Urban 618,318 631,298 644,556 658,092 671,913 686,022 700,430 715,138 730,156 745,489 761,146 777,128 793,449 810,110 827,124 844,496 862,228 880,335 898,823 917,697 936,970 956,646 Population served, Rura 2,510,244 2,562,954 2,616,777 2,671,729 2,727,838 2,785,121 2,843,611 2,903,324 2,964,296 3,026,545 3,090,104 3,154,996 3,221,249 3,288,896 3,357,965 3,428,480 3,500,479 3,573,989 3,649,042 3,725,674 3,803,914 3,883,795 Tota 3,128,562 3,194,252 3,261,333 3,329,821 3,399,751 3,471,143 3,544,041 3,618,462 3,694,452 3,772,034 3,851,250 3,932,124 4,014,698 4,099,006 4,185,089 4,272,976 4,362,707 4,454,324 4,547,865 4,643,371 4,740,884 4,840,441 Investments, EUR/yea Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Trycicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks 5,500,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 400,000 300,000 5,600,000 300,000 1,200,000 700,000 500,000 900,000 500,000 700,000 5,900,000 700,000 1,700,000 800,000 700,000 1,100,000 800,000 Rural Area Tractor&Traile 3,666,000 1,181,000 1,249,000 827,000 2,036,000 1,187,000 1,398,000 3,862,000 1,142,000 3,092,000 1,721,000 2,044,000 2,017,000 2,545,000 3,039,000 4,589,000 2,531,000 3,329,000 2,200,000 3,676,000 2,409,000 3,274,000 Collection Points (Big Containers 2,077,880 491,520 1,156,440 381,520 477,440 637,720 545,520 1,422,760 2,493,680 1,093,360 963,960 757,920 1,545,560 1,326,160 1,046,320 1,212,920 2,921,200 2,417,000 1,156,640 942,720 1,313,400 1,743,920 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF 4,571,165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,428,374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,428,374 0 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 6,570,878 6,570,878 0 0 0 0 0 1,685,949 1,685,949 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,685,949 1,685,949 0 0 Total Investments - including reinvestments15,815,045 8,843,398 9,476,318 1,608,520 2,813,440 2,224,720 2,243,520 10,884,760 5,621,629 7,071,309 6,813,334 3,301,920 4,462,560 4,371,160 4,785,320 11,701,920 6,152,200 7,446,000 5,842,589 7,004,669 8,250,774 5,817,920 O&M costs, EUR/yea Collection System Urban Area 781,007 795,164 882,683 956,235 1,012,618 1,055,691 1,113,006 1,155,963 1,186,039 1,215,630 1,300,621 1,330,281 1,344,315 1,433,885 1,447,919 1,505,847 1,548,596 1,607,395 1,679,076 1,693,109 1,723,185 1,751,376 Rural Area 454,190 691,015 886,678 1,093,905 1,228,811 1,366,709 1,555,630 1,725,529 1,917,694 2,054,892 2,212,497 2,267,960 2,390,992 2,511,672 2,741,881 2,844,881 2,950,290 3,111,075 3,281,652 3,330,379 3,404,595 3,476,564 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 0 850,963 1,006,155 1,123,949 1,246,388 1,373,610 1,505,775 1,643,030 1,733,682 1,827,475 1,924,507 2,024,852 2,128,620 2,235,937 2,348,449 2,468,161 2,591,901 2,719,780 2,784,856 2,851,385 2,919,374 Total O&M Costs2,039,285 2,290,268 3,424,413 3,860,383 4,169,467 4,472,877 4,846,335 5,191,355 5,550,852 5,808,294 6,144,682 6,326,837 6,564,247 6,878,266 7,229,826 7,503,266 7,771,136 8,114,460 8,484,597 8,612,432 8,783,254 8,951,403

Sum of Investments and O&M costs17,854,330 11,133,666 12,900,732 5,468,903 6,982,907 6,697,597 7,089,855 16,076,115 11,172,481 12,879,603 12,958,015 9,628,757 11,026,807 11,249,426 12,015,146 19,205,186 13,923,336 15,560,460 14,327,186 15,617,101 17,034,027 14,769,323

NPV - Investments and O&M Costs 113,271,578 NPV - Population 81,518,145 EUR/per- 1.39 Dynamic generation costs son/year NPV - waste collected 7,803,004 Levelized cost per ton collected 14.52

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 17 – Page 1

17.2 Option‐2

Population served 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Population served, Urban 618,318 631,298 644,556 658,092 671,913 686,022 700,430 715,138 730,156 745,489 761,146 777,128 793,449 810,110 827,124 844,496 862,228 880,335 898,823 917,697 936,970 956,646 Population served, Rural 2,510,244 2,562,954 2,616,777 2,671,729 2,727,838 2,785,121 2,843,611 2,903,324 2,964,296 3,026,545 3,090,104 3,154,996 3,221,249 3,288,896 3,357,965 3,428,480 3,500,479 3,573,989 3,649,042 3,725,674 3,803,914 3,883,795 Total 3,128,562 3,194,252 3,261,333 3,329,821 3,399,751 3,471,143 3,544,041 3,618,462 3,694,452 3,772,034 3,851,250 3,932,124 4,014,698 4,099,006 4,185,089 4,272,976 4,362,707 4,454,324 4,547,865 4,643,371 4,740,884 4,840,441 Investments, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Trycicles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 5,500,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 400,000 300,000 5,600,000 300,000 1,200,000 700,000 500,000 900,000 500,000 700,000 5,900,000 700,000 1,700,000 800,000 700,000 1,100,000 800,000 Rural Area Tractor&Trailer 3,666,000 1,181,000 1,249,000 827,000 2,036,000 1,187,000 1,398,000 3,862,000 1,142,000 3,092,000 1,721,000 2,044,000 2,017,000 2,545,000 3,039,000 4,589,000 2,531,000 3,329,000 2,200,000 3,676,000 2,409,000 3,274,000 Collection Points (Big Containers) 2,077,880 491,520 1,156,440 381,520 477,440 637,720 545,520 1,422,760 2,493,680 1,093,360 963,960 757,920 1,545,560 1,326,160 1,046,320 1,212,920 2,921,200 2,417,000 1,156,640 942,720 1,313,400 1,743,920 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 11,187,064 0 5,359,134 0 0 3,399,926 0 7,571,987 0 0 10,675,880 0 5,233,352 0 0 2,549,945 0 5,678,990 0 0 10,104,485 0 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 5,886,211 5,886,211 0 0 0 0 0 1,510,278 1,510,278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,510,278 1,510,278 0 0 Total Investments - including rein- vestments 22,430,944 8,158,731 14,150,785 1,608,520 2,813,440 5,624,646 2,243,520 18,456,747 5,445,958 6,895,638 14,060,840 3,301,920 9,695,912 4,371,160 4,785,320 14,251,865 6,152,200 13,124,990 5,666,918 6,828,998 14,926,885 5,817,920 O&M costs, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area 781,007 795,164 882,683 956,235 1,012,618 1,055,691 1,113,006 1,155,963 1,186,039 1,215,630 1,300,621 1,330,281 1,344,315 1,433,885 1,447,919 1,505,847 1,548,596 1,607,395 1,679,076 1,693,109 1,723,185 1,751,376 Rural Area 454,190 691,015 886,678 1,093,905 1,228,811 1,366,709 1,555,630 1,725,529 1,917,694 2,054,892 2,212,497 2,267,960 2,390,992 2,511,672 2,741,881 2,844,881 2,950,290 3,111,075 3,281,652 3,330,379 3,404,595 3,476,564 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 804,089 2,286,503 2,286,503 3,334,936 3,334,936 3,334,936 4,015,656 4,015,656 5,466,133 5,466,133 5,466,133 5,868,178 5,868,178 6,146,853 6,146,853 6,146,853 6,146,853 6,146,853 6,146,853 6,146,853 6,146,853 6,146,853 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 0 687,097 527,207 673,193 826,286 823,262 992,805 698,483 796,292 912,468 917,031 1,046,205 1,151,741 1,286,329 1,425,472 1,569,263 1,717,905 1,871,498 1,951,837 2,034,367 2,118,696 Total O&M Costs 2,039,285 3,772,682 4,742,962 5,912,282 6,249,558 6,583,622 7,507,554 7,889,952 9,268,349 9,532,948 9,891,720 10,383,450 10,649,689 11,244,151 11,622,982 11,923,053 12,215,002 12,583,228 12,979,079 13,122,177 13,309,000 13,493,489

Sum of Investments and O&M costs 24,470,229 11,931,413 18,893,747 7,520,802 9,062,998 12,208,268 9,751,074 26,346,699 14,714,307 16,428,586 23,952,560 13,685,370 20,345,602 15,615,311 16,408,302 26,174,918 18,367,202 25,708,219 18,645,997 19,951,175 28,235,885 19,311,409

NPV - Investments and O&M Costs 161,338,704 NPV - Population 81,518,145 EUR/per- 1.98 Dynamic generation costs son/year NPV - waste collected 7,803,004 Levelized cost per ton collected 20.68

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 17 – Page 2

17.3 Option‐3

Population served 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Population served, Urban 618,318 631,298 644,556 658,092 671,913 686,022 700,430 715,138 730,156 745,489 761,146 777,128 793,449 810,110 827,124 844,496 862,228 880,335 898,823 917,697 936,970 956,646 Population served, Rural 2,510,244 2,562,954 2,616,777 2,671,729 2,727,838 2,785,121 2,843,611 2,903,324 2,964,296 3,026,545 3,090,104 3,154,996 3,221,249 3,288,896 3,357,965 3,428,480 3,500,479 3,573,989 3,649,042 3,725,674 3,803,914 3,883,795 Total 3,128,562 3,194,252 3,261,333 3,329,821 3,399,751 3,471,143 3,544,041 3,618,462 3,694,452 3,772,034 3,851,250 3,932,124 4,014,698 4,099,006 4,185,089 4,272,976 4,362,707 4,454,324 4,547,865 4,643,371 4,740,884 4,840,441 Investments, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Trycicles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 4,400,000 400,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 300,000 100,000 4,300,000 600,000 700,000 600,000 300,000 800,000 600,000 200,000 4,600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 700,000 500,000 900,000 800,000 Rural Area Tractor&Trailer 3,366,000 1,081,000 849,000 1,027,000 1,936,000 887,000 1,198,000 3,662,000 942,000 2,892,000 1,521,000 1,844,000 2,117,000 1,845,000 3,039,000 4,189,000 2,231,000 3,129,000 1,900,000 3,276,000 2,709,000 2,474,000 Collection Points (Big Containers) 1,877,880 591,520 1,056,440 281,520 577,440 537,720 545,520 1,322,760 2,293,680 993,360 963,960 757,920 1,545,560 1,126,160 1,046,320 1,112,920 2,721,200 2,317,000 1,056,640 942,720 1,313,400 1,443,920 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 2,897,368 0 259,574 0 129,787 0 0 1,048,936 753,756 0 389,362 129,787 129,787 0 129,787 1,178,723 753,756 0 389,362 129,787 129,787 129,787 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 4,571,165 0 0 0 0 2,285,582 0 0 0 0 3,428,374 0 2,285,582 0 0 1,714,187 0 2,285,582 0 0 3,428,374 0 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 6,370,703 6,370,703 0 0 0 0 0 1,634,588 1,634,588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,634,588 1,634,588 0 0 Total Investments - including rein- vestments 17,112,413 8,443,223 9,035,718 1,508,520 3,043,227 4,010,302 1,843,520 10,333,696 6,224,024 6,219,948 6,902,695 3,031,707 6,877,930 3,571,160 4,415,107 12,794,830 6,705,956 8,731,582 5,680,590 6,483,096 8,480,561 4,847,707 O&M costs, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area 597,336 625,417 682,211 752,458 782,420 839,137 880,579 895,179 909,103 967,711 1,010,224 1,025,062 1,038,986 1,093,345 1,136,148 1,150,749 1,195,632 1,253,586 1,295,500 1,309,424 1,336,984 1,351,142 Rural Area 388,592 592,752 779,523 910,728 1,053,670 1,180,863 1,311,235 1,445,228 1,632,073 1,732,428 1,847,101 1,940,012 2,018,631 2,145,957 2,296,992 2,422,920 2,497,562 2,637,903 2,799,011 2,821,116 2,865,059 2,958,497 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 119,663 124,260 127,203 159,795 162,269 179,606 182,283 185,066 187,958 219,348 221,279 238,040 254,872 257,013 259,230 276,285 293,420 295,873 298,411 299,617 300,849 302,109 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 804,089 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,206,133 1,608,178 1,608,178 1,608,178 1,608,178 1,608,178 2,010,222 2,010,222 2,010,222 2,010,222 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 0 807,157 953,375 1,072,452 1,200,115 1,214,630 1,352,416 1,495,509 1,590,161 1,688,087 1,789,388 1,894,148 1,887,263 1,996,378 2,112,199 2,231,911 2,355,651 2,365,405 2,430,481 2,497,010 2,564,999 Total O&M Costs 1,909,680 2,146,517 3,200,183 3,580,445 3,874,899 4,203,809 4,794,860 5,084,023 5,430,777 5,715,782 5,972,823 6,198,636 6,412,770 6,991,756 7,296,926 7,570,330 7,826,702 8,151,191 8,768,548 8,870,859 9,010,124 9,186,968

Sum of Investments and O&M costs 19,022,092 10,589,741 12,235,901 5,088,965 6,918,127 8,214,112 6,638,380 15,417,719 11,654,801 11,935,730 12,875,518 9,230,343 13,290,699 10,562,916 11,712,033 20,365,160 14,532,658 16,882,773 14,449,139 15,353,954 17,490,685 14,034,675

NPV - Investments and O&M Costs 114,130,000 NPV - Population 81,518,145 EUR/per- 1.40 Dynamic generation costs son/year NPV - waste collected 7,803,004 Levelized cost per ton collected 14.63

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 17 – Page 3

17.4 Option‐4

Population served 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Population served, Urban 631,298 644,556 658,092 671,913 686,022 700,430 715,138 730,156 745,489 761,146 777,128 793,449 810,110 827,124 844,496 862,228 880,335 898,823 917,697 936,970 956,646 Population served, Rural 2,562,954 2,616,777 2,671,729 2,727,838 2,785,121 2,843,611 2,903,324 2,964,296 3,026,545 3,090,104 3,154,996 3,221,249 3,288,896 3,357,965 3,428,480 3,500,479 3,573,989 3,649,042 3,725,674 3,803,914 3,883,795 Total 3,194,252 3,261,333 3,329,821 3,399,751 3,471,143 3,544,041 3,618,462 3,694,452 3,772,034 3,851,250 3,932,124 4,014,698 4,099,006 4,185,089 4,272,976 4,362,707 4,454,324 4,547,865 4,643,371 4,740,884 4,840,441 Investments, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area Door-to-door (Moto-Trycicles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Points (Big Containers) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 300,000 500,000 200,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 4,400,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 300,000 800,000 600,000 300,000 4,700,000 1,000,000 900,000 700,000 500,000 900,000 800,000 Rural Area Tractor&Trailer 1,081,000 949,000 1,027,000 2,036,000 887,000 1,198,000 3,762,000 942,000 2,992,000 1,521,000 1,944,000 2,217,000 1,845,000 3,039,000 4,389,000 2,231,000 3,229,000 2,000,000 3,376,000 2,709,000 2,574,000 Collection Points (Big Containers) 491,520 1,056,440 381,520 577,440 537,720 545,520 1,322,760 2,393,680 993,360 963,960 757,920 1,545,560 1,226,160 1,046,320 1,112,920 2,821,200 2,317,000 1,056,640 942,720 1,313,400 1,543,920 Door-to-door (Tipping Trucks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 129,787 259,574 0 0 0 129,787 839,149 654,920 129,787 389,362 0 0 129,787 129,787 968,936 654,920 129,787 389,362 0 0 389,362 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,571,165 0 0 6,856,747 0 6,856,747 0 0 0 0 5,713,956 0 0 6,856,747 0 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 6,386,816 6,386,816 0 0 0 0 0 1,638,722 1,638,722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,638,722 1,638,722 0 0 Total Investments - including reinvest- ments 8,389,123 9,151,830 1,608,520 3,013,440 1,724,720 2,073,307 14,895,074 6,229,322 6,353,870 10,331,069 3,001,920 11,419,307 3,800,947 4,515,107 11,170,856 6,707,120 12,289,743 5,784,724 6,457,442 11,779,147 5,307,282 O&M costs, EUR/year Collection System Urban Area 638,983 682,220 752,467 782,430 839,148 880,590 908,749 922,673 981,283 1,023,795 1,038,633 1,052,557 1,106,919 1,149,722 1,164,322 1,209,205 1,267,161 1,308,399 1,322,323 1,349,883 1,364,041 Rural Area 623,524 799,378 945,222 1,101,657 1,242,879 1,374,539 1,509,819 1,697,950 1,799,592 1,941,178 2,022,023 2,101,112 2,229,725 2,394,253 2,521,466 2,610,139 2,751,767 2,914,838 2,950,296 2,994,239 3,075,612 Transfer Stations (Mixed Waste) 103,576 121,603 154,530 157,275 160,131 163,100 180,950 184,158 215,752 217,893 234,873 237,169 239,544 256,765 259,309 276,703 279,425 282,239 283,577 284,944 286,342 Treatment Plants (MBTs & RDF) 1,608,178 1,608,178 1,608,178 1,608,178 1,608,178 1,608,178 1,608,178 2,412,267 2,412,267 2,412,267 2,412,267 2,412,267 3,618,400 3,618,400 3,618,400 3,618,400 3,618,400 4,020,444 4,020,444 4,020,444 4,020,444 Sorting Plants (Dry Recyclables) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landfills 0 743,873 901,935 1,041,427 1,190,315 1,345,019 1,505,734 1,436,387 1,546,659 1,660,742 1,778,767 1,900,825 1,680,306 1,803,210 1,938,171 2,077,667 2,221,872 2,252,773 2,328,371 2,405,661 2,484,644 Total O&M Costs 2,974,261 3,955,253 4,362,333 4,690,966 5,040,650 5,371,426 5,713,430 6,653,435 6,955,552 7,255,875 7,486,563 7,703,929 8,874,893 9,222,350 9,501,668 9,792,114 10,138,624 10,778,694 10,905,011 11,055,171 11,231,083

Sum of Investments and O&M costs 11,363,384 13,107,083 5,970,853 7,704,406 6,765,370 7,444,733 20,608,504 12,882,757 13,309,422 17,586,944 10,488,483 19,123,236 12,675,841 13,737,457 20,672,524 16,499,233 22,428,367 16,563,418 17,362,454 22,834,318 16,538,364

NPV - Investments and O&M Costs 133,130,887 NPV - Population 81,518,145 EUR/per- 1.63 Dynamic generation costs son/year NPV - waste collected 7,803,004 Levelized cost per ton collected 17.06

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 17 – Page 4

Annex‐18: Comments and Replies

Table 1 Compatibility with Terms of Reference (ToR) – ISWM Option Analysis / Qena

Key Requirements of the ToR AMC‐Remarks PCI ‐ Replies

No Reply At least three different strategy options First the available options for the main with different intensities of resource components of an ISWM system have been recovery and residual waste treatment assessed. Then four scenarios considering the should be developed: entire ISWM system have been developed and assessed.

A comparison of low/high cost solutions at every SWM stage is given in Sections 6.3‐ 6.9. The total and specific costs of all scenarios are Basic collection and disposal infrastructure Furthermore, considering the SWM situation in the studied region and particularly the in the same range. There is no differentiation – low‐cost solution financial/economic and cost recovery frame for sustainable SWM, high‐end solutions are between low‐cost solution and high‐end not recommendable at this stage. The Consultant prefers to concentrate all efforts on solution. feasible (low‐cost) solutions, rather than analyzing high‐end solution that are, in the long‐ term, not feasible. This has been clearly presented in the revised final version of the options report.

The standards that have been considered for sanitary landfill are engineering landfills Basic collection and disposal infrastructure It is not clear which sanitary landfill class 3 according to EC standards. applying international standards standards have been considered in the Corrections made in Section 6.8 and 6.9 scenarios.

Through the proposed and analyzed options, where priority has been given to resource Advanced SWM giving priority to resource Employment generation and GHG mitigation recovery (manual sorting of recyclables), employment generation is as also considered a recovery, employment generation and have not been dealt with in the report. priority. greenhouse gas mitigation GHG will be reduced accordingly if treatment is increased and the practice of waste burning in open dump sites is eliminated. This has been considered in the final version of the ISWM report.

See the changes made in the Section 6.7, Section 7.3 and Section 7.8.2

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 18 – Page 1

CPI didn’t suggest establishing controlled landfills. CPI will prepare operational and Particular attention shall be given to Controlled landfill standards have been monitoring procedures to control gas emission and leachate for existing controlled landfills different landfill design standards applied excluded after a short statement. as well as sanitary landfills. (e.g. full EC sanitary landfill vs. controlled It is important to address the impact of the remaining waste designated for landfilling. The landfill). following shall be taked into consideration: 1. Waste has been reduced through material recovery 2. Treatment 3. Meteorological conditions in Qena 4. Associated investment and operation costs

The Consultant presented a qualitative comparison between different disposal options (including controlled dumpsite vs. landfill) in Section 6.8

Moreover, design standards for waste disposal are addressed and discussed in the Master Plan.

Institutional criteria: this section is developed in detail within the Master plan. Currently Development of ranking criteria Environmental and institutional criteria the institutional situation has been developed based on the institutional setup approved / benchmarking indicators have not been considered sufficiently. by CAOA. The Consultant did not, on purpose, include the analyzed alternatives, as the approval process is lengthy. The Consultant considered the given situation and proposed improvements within the agreed institutional setup (see chap 5 of the report).

No Reply Economic analysis incl. approx. OK i d ifi This has been developed in the section 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 , 7.7 and 7.8 Qualitatively comparison and discussion of There is no appropriate qualitative comparison advantages and disadvantages of each option and discussion of advantages and disadvantages of each option.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 18 – Page 2

Table 2 Suitability and comprehensibility of the content ‐ Qena

Review Criteria AMC‐Remarks PCI ‐Replies

Clear description of the objectives of OK No Reply the report and its place within the entire project

Clear description and analysis of OK, a summary would be helpful. No Reply the problem/ central issue Assessment of a need for RDF: The results of the assessment are described in Section 3. Clear description and assessment The options are not clearly described and justified. The cement industry is currently implementing co‐incineration in their plants by investing of options available for the For instance, there is no assessment of a need for in equipment and personnel for RDF production. Moreover, the Governorate indicated solution of problems RDF. It is not clear, if the MBT capacities are that this line shall be further operated. This means that there is a potential market for RDF. increased, the produced RDF can be marketed. Up Treatment of biodegradable waste: A general description is given in Section 6.7. General to 70,000 t of biodegradable waste shall be treated purposes of waste sorting & treatment are described therein. at MBT plants annually. However, the purpose or Economic operation: At this stage, an assessment can be done by using indicators of costs envisaged product of this treatment is not (investments & operation). Further financial assessments including tariffs and other described. In Option 2, seven sanitary landfills shall assumptions are performed in the Master Plan. be established from the beginning. However, it is Effect of TS: The effect of Transfer Stations is shown in the economic performance of the not clear if they will have sufficient capacity for an Option, by reducing costs of transportation by small trucks. The effect can only be economical operation (average capacity per landfill appreciated when seen as a whole. 26 t/d in 2018). In Option 3, five transfer stations Location of facilities: As in many other cases, available land for such facilities are very have been considered; however, the effect of these scarce, especially in Egypt; therefore, the locations of many facilities are already set. TS on the waste collection has not been described. Consideration of FS Concept: The Consultant considers many of the measures One of the TS has been planned for a total distance recommended by the FS from 2007; and improves on these as required by current local of 22.5 km without any justification. The proposed authorities and based on needs of the Governorate: concept by the Feasibility Study from 2007 has not ‐ Formation of clusters been considered properly (source separation, ‐ Primary collection models in urban & rural areas formation of clusters, and number of landfills) as ‐ Upgrading existing facilities well as the selection of other options has not been ‐ Recovery and treatment approaches (composting plants) justified. However, as depicted in Section 3, there have been updates in some sectors, such as the operation of controlled dumpsites, MBT facilities and collection approaches. Now, 10 years after the FS has been written, the proposed systems had to be modified to respond to current needs and expectations of IFIs (e.g. standards for landfills, MBT, etc.)

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 18 – Page 3

This has been detailed in the revised final version (see chap 5.5) Description of methodology for The advantages and disadvantages of the options Furthermore, within WP2, the Consultant prepared various separate reports regarding the decision making have not been compared and discussed in detail. institutional setup and the TNA (Training Needs Assessment). Regarding the analyzed There is no assessment of the institutional capacity technical options, all analyzed institutional options can be applied to the 4 analyzed and requirements of each option in this regard. options

After presentation and discussion with the SWMU and the Governorate of Qena, Option 3 Recommendation of best Two solutions are recommended for further has been confirmed and selected for further detailed analysis. The Consultant possible solutions investigations. Also according to ToR, one ISWM recommends analyzing 2 options (Option 3 and Option 4) in detail within the Masterplan. system should be proposed in the report and The final decision can be made during the MP‐Workshop, which is expected to be in detailed in the next phase during the preparation January 2018. of the ISWM master plan.

Explanation of the assumptions for Neither the assumptions nor the required This has been reviewed and updated in the final version of the ISWM Options report. the calculation of required manpower and equipment are given in the report. See Annexes 11, 12 ,13, 14, 15 in updated report manpower, equipment, technical The required capacities are given as a sum of all capacities, etc. specific types of facilities. The capacities of individual facilities are not presented. Thus it is not clear on which base the costs of each scenario have been calculated.

Explanation of the assumptions for Assumptions for costs calculation are not given or See Annexes 11 to 16 in updated report the calculation of costs and explained in the report. Thus it is not clear on which financial assessment base the costs of each scenario have been calculated.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 18 – Page 4

This section has been revised and adjusted accordingly by explaining the assumptions and Transparent cost calculation and Because of missing explanation of unit prices that are the basis for the operation costs. The investment costs are now financial assessment assumptions and unit prices, the provided in more detail, see annex 14, Annex 15 and Annex 16 calculations are incomprehensible.

The investment and operating costs have been Information regarding affordability has not been developed due to missing data. This data presented as total costs per SWM component and has been requested at an early stage, so it can be integrated into this section. It will be year. As the capacities and costs of individual developed in the masterplan report facilities are not known, it is difficult to comprehend and compare the total costs of the options. The potential revenues from the marketing of compost / RDF have not been assessed. It is not clear, if they have been considered in the cost calculation. Considering the implementation of sanitary landfills, the specific costs per ton of waste for the entire ISWM system seem to be very low in all scenarios. Financing and affordability have not been assessed.

ISWM Options’ Report – Lot A – Qena Governorate ANNEX 18 – Page 5