Assessment and Appropriate Design of Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems in Koulikoro, Mali

ASSESSMENT AND APPROPRIATE DESIGN OF INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN KOULIKORO, MALI

By Lindsey M. Brown

A REPORT Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Environmental Engineering

MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2010

This report, “Assessment and Appropriate Design of Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems in Koulikoro, Mali”, is hereby approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Debree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Signatures:

Report Advisor ______Kurtis Paterson

Department Chair ______William Bulleit

Date ______

2 Table of Contents page List of Figures………………………………………………………………………... 4 List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………... 5 Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………. 6 Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………… 7 Chapter 1: Integrated Solid Waste Management and Appropriate Design …………. 8 1.1 Components of an Integrated Solid Waste Management System ……….. 9 1.1.1 Generation …………………………………………………….. 9 1.1.2 Collection and transportation ………………………………….. 9 1.1.3 Processing ……………………………………………………... 11 1.1.4 Disposal ……………………………………………………….. 12 1.2 Progression from Open Dumping to Engineered Landfill ………………. 13 1.3 Appropriate Design Metrics …………………………………………….. 14 1.3.1 Economic viability analysis …………………………………… 16 1.3.2 Social desirability considerations ……………………………... 16 1.3.3 Environmental feasibility assessment …………………………. 17 1.3.4 Evaluating appropriate design metrics ………………………... 18 1.4 Solid Waste Management in Africa ……………………………………... 20 1.5 Project Motivation and Objectives ……………………………………… 21 Chapter 2: Koulikoro region ………………………………………………………… 25 2.1 Topographic, climate, and socio-economic features ……………………. 26 2.2 Current conditions of waste management practices …………………….. 26 2.2.1 Koulikoro governmental structure …………………………….. 28 2.2.2 Koulikoro’s waste collection system ………………………….. 29 2.3 Proposed Solutions ……………………………………………………… 30 2.3.1 Solution 1: Waste transfer …………………………………….. 33 2.3.2 Solution 2: Community involvement …………………………. 33 2.3.3 Solution 3: Waste – to – energy ……………………………….. 36 2.3.4 Design review …………………………………………………. 38 Chapter 3: Data and Discussion ……………………………………………………... 38 3.1 Data Description ………………………………………………………… 41 3.2 Waste collection evaluation ……………………………………………... 41 3.3 Waste transit site evaluation …………………………………………….. 49 3.4 Waste collection and transportation evaluation …………………………. 55 3.3.1 Collection and transportation system using proposed transit dump …………………………………………………………... 57 3.3.2 Collection and transportation system using dumpsters ……….. 58 Chapter 4: Future Work and Major Findings ……………………………………….. 61 4.1 Further research …………………………………………………………. 65 4.2 Further work for Peace Corps Volunteers and development workers …... 65 4.3 Major findings …………………………………………………………... 66 References …………………………………………………………………………. 70 Appendix A: Dump site locations…………………………………………………… 73 Appendix B: Dump site area measurements…………………………………………. 79

3 List of Figures

Figure 1: Relationship between Gross Domestic Product and urban population with Mali highlighted …………………………………………………………... 10 Figure 2: Relationship between Gross Domestic Product and family size with Mali highlighted ………………………………………………………………... 11 Figure 3: Map of Mali, West Africa ………………………………………………… 26 Figure 4: Map of Africa ……………………………………………………………... 26 Figure 5: Satellite image of the city of Koulikoro …………………………………... 27 Figure 6: Example of typical solid waste receptacle ……………………………..…. 30 Figure 7: Example of open dumping in Koulikoro, Mali …………………………… 32 Figure 8: Proposed transit dumpsites for the city of Koulikoro, Mali ………………. 34 Figure 9: Satellite image of Koulikoro and open dumpsites ………………………. 43 Figure 10: Size distribution of open dumps in the city of Koulikoro, Mali Figure 11: Example of unofficial dumpsite in Koulikoro, Mali …………………….. 47 Figure 12: Open dumps located in the district of Koulikoroba ……………………... 51 Figure 13: Open dumps located in the district of Kolebougou ……………………… 53 Figure 14: Open dumps located in the district of Koulikoro Gare ………………….. 54 Figure 15: Proposed transit dump site for Koulikoro Gare ………………………… 56 Figure 16: Example of vehicle routing for the district of Souban, Koulikoro ………. 60 Figure 17: Proposed dumpster and bin placement for alternative collection plan in the district of Souban ……………………………………………………. 63 Figure 18: Open dump sites in the district of Souban….….….….….….….….….… 74 Figure 19: Open dump sites in the district of Koulikoroba….….….….….….….…. 75 Figure 20: Open dump sites in the district of Kolebougou….….….….….….….…. 76 Figure 21: Open dump sites in the southern part of the district of Koulikoro gare…. 77 Figure 22: Open dump sites in the northern part of the district of Koulikogo gare.... 78

4 List of Tables

Table 1: South Africa’s Minimum Requirements landfill classification system ……. 19 Table 2: Waste generation rates in African cities …………………………………… 22 Table 3: Gross National Product and waste management expenditure data ………… 23 Table 4: Waste profile of Koulikoro, Mali ………………………………………….. 28 Table 5: Proposed budget for AAFN (2003) solid waste management project plan ... 37 Table 6: AAFN (2003) proposed funding sources ………………………………….. 37 Table 7: Summary of proposed solutions …………………………………………… 40 Table 8: Population and waste generation data for the city of Koulikoro …………... 41 Table 9: Distribution of open dumpsites in four districts of Koulikoro, Mali ………. 44 Table 10: Daily mass estimations …………………………………………………… 45 Table 11: established values for area, generation rate, density and depth …………... 46 Table 12: Population growth data in Koulikoro, Mali ………………………………. 47 Table 13: Waste generation rates of some Asian Countries, sorted by ascending Gross National Income (GNI) ……………………………………………. 48 Table 14: Waste generation rates and income ………………………………………. 48 Table 15: Estimated volume of daily waste generation data ………………………... 49 Table 16: Waste generation rates as a percentage for select districts of Koulikoro, Mali ……………………………………………………………………….. 50 Table 17: Redistribution of donkey carts in Koulikoro ……………………………... 55 Table 18: Assessment of proposed landfill sites ……………………………………. 57 Table 19: Advantages and disadvantages of dumpsters and landfills ………………. 61 Table 20: Summary of ISWM design features ……………………………………… 64 Table 21: Major findings ……………………………………………………………. 66 Table 22: Area of each unofficial dump sites in Koulikoro, Mali as measured by GPS…………………………………………………………………………. 79

5 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my advisor Kurt Paterson for his flexibility in working with me while I was in Mali. His trip to Mali and the resources he brought with him were much appreciated.

I would like to thank professors Jim Mihelcic and Kathy Halvorsen for serving on my defense committee.

Thank you to the Malians who gave me reason to stay for three years. My counterpart, Gabriel Bengaly, you helped me more than I could ever hope to repay. Thank you to my colleagues with the DRACPN, especially Director Moussa Cissoko and my counterparts Mohamed Ag Aghati and Ousmane Sanogo. I would also like to thank my friends in Mali who, without question, took me into their homes and called me their sister, especially Aissaita Coulibaly, Rokia Coulibaly and Nene Bagayoko.

Many thanks to Peace Corps Mali staff especially Associate Peace Corps Director of Water and Sanitation, Haoua Traore, and Country Director, Mike Simcik as well as Alyssa Karp, Jolie Dennis and Kris Hoffer. You make it look so easy and I could not have done three years without you.

Thank you to my teammates in the Koulikoro region. Amber Gladney and Audrey Respet, you were always so wonderful to have around. Thank you, Brendan Held for talking about research with me and, of course, coining the term “geo-trashing”. Thank you, Natasha Oxenburgh for going on long walks through piles of trash with me. Thank you to all Peace Corps Mali Volunteers for the kind of support you just cannot find anywhere else.

Finally, thank you to my family for always supporting me no matter what.

6 List of Abbreviations

AAFN Association des Amis du Fleuve Niger BOOT Build Own Operate Energy CAP Centre d’Animation Pédagogique DRACPN Direction Regionale d’Assainissement et du Control des Pollutions et des Nuisances EA Environmental Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency GDP Gross Domestic Product GIE Group d’Interet Economique GPS Global Positioning Satellite GTZ Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit HUICOMA Huilerie Cotonnière du Mali ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design NGO Non-Governmental Organization PSA Plan Strategique d’Assainissement SDAU Schéma Directeur d’Aménagement et d’Urbanisme USGBC United States Green Building Council WTE Waste to Energy

7 Abstract

This report begins by establishing the components of an Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) system and how they differ between developing and industrialized countries. Issues pertaining to implementing ISWM systems in developing countries are framed with appropriate design factors of social desirability, economic viability and environmental feasibility. This study focuses on the city of Koulikoro, Mali which has seen two failed system proposals since 2004. Nearby, Bamako, the national capital, is struggling to establish new waste management infrastructures. This study analyzes these three systems within the framework of appropriate design.

The three main objectives of this research report are to examine current solid waste management conditions in Koulikoro, Mali, determine the appropriateness of current and proposed practices, and suggest additional appropriate options. Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) data was collected to identify the location and relative size of 133 dump sites throughout the city. This field data is compared with the data that the city uses to design the proposed ISWM systems. The city’s proposed transit dumpsites are analyzed using GPS data and the regulations stipulated by the city. Finally, two collection and transportation options are presented that compare the use of the proposed transit sites and the use of dumpsters.

Chapter 1: Integrated Solid Waste Management and Appropriate Design

A growing issue in developing countries is the effective design of solid waste management systems; urbanization and increasing populations in cities only exacerbate this problem. Proper solid waste management systems directly impact a community’s quality of life as they can prevent disease and have been shown to improve the general morale of a community (Mihelcic 2009). African countries see some of the worst systems due to inadequate regulations, use of inappropriate guidelines and lack of quality equipment or training. This study focuses on the city of Koulikoro, Mali which has seen two failed system proposals since 2004. Nearby, Bamako, the national capital, is struggling to establish new waste management infrastructures. The specific objective of this work is to develop an appropriate waste collection scheme to allow the city of Koulikoro to effectively progress from open dumping to sanitary landfill. In order to achieve this objective, appropriate design is defined and applied to solid waste management systems. This paper also discusses appropriate alternatives to the current solid waste collection and transportation system in Koulikoro, Mali.

1.1 Components of an Integrated Solid Waste Management System

An Integrated Solid Waste Management system (ISWM) is a series of sub- systems that effectively reduce the risks associated with uncontrolled solid waste. An ISWM connects waste generation to collection and transportation then processing before final disposal (Ministere de l’environnement et de l’assainissement 2006).

1.1.1 Generation The management of solid waste begins by looking at how it is generated. Sources of waste include residential, biomedical, agricultural, commercial and industrial (Ministere de l’environnement et de l’assainissement 2006). In developing countries a large percentage of the waste is organic due to higher proportions of agricultural wastes thereby increasing the density of the waste. The density of waste in developed countries, ranges from 150-200 kg/m3 whereas in developing countries it can be as high as 600 kg/m3 (Mihelcic 2009 and Schertenleib 1992).

The income of a country also affects the rate at which waste is generated. Generally, those with higher incomes will produce more waste and solid waste management is more of an issue in larger cities than in smaller villages (Van Beukering 1999). For high income countries generation rates average 0.6 T/c/yr. For lower and middle-income countries, this rate is halved and ranges from 0.2-0.3 T/c/yr. (Cointreau-Levine 1994). Also contributing to lower generation rates is the number of people in a household. As this number increases the generation rate per person decreases (Mihelcic 2009). Lower generation rates in lower income countries are evidence of this, as there are usually more people in one household in lower income countries. The following two figures put Mali in context with the rest of the world in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in relationship with urban populations and family sizes. Mali has a lower GDP which corresponds with a lower urban population and larger families.

Figure 1: Relationship between GDP and urban population with Mali highlighted (used with permission from Google 2008)

Figure 2: Relationship between GDP and family size with Mali Highlighted (used with permission from Google 2008)

1.1.2 Collection and Transportation The collection, transfer, and transportation phase of ISWM is complex, and there are many conditions specific to developing countries that make it difficult to implement the traditional collection methods used in more developed countries. For example, the increased densities of solid waste in developing countries cannot be loaded into the conventional collection vehicles from industrialized nations (Van Beukering 1999). Sand is another issue; the excess sand in developing countries puts additional wear and tear on the vehicles that they are not built to handle. Traditional solid waste trucks are too big to maneuver through the small, unpaved streets of a developing city. Consequently, transfer and transportation vehicles commonly used in developing countries include donkey and hand carts. These carts are small and can easily maneuver throughout the irregular roads and paths through a developing city. The service provided by donkey and hand carts is considered “primary” collection; it picks up waste from homes and transports it to transit sites. Service between transit sites and final dumps is considered “secondary” collection, and this usually requires foreign vehicles (Bartone 1990). These issues result in low collection rates and poor service. In urban areas, collection services pick up 50-70% of

11 refuse and serve less than half of the population (Schertenleib 1992). While 90% of industrialized nations have waste collection services, in developing countries they are less common, often using Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or community-based organizations for collection and disposal services (Van Beukering 1999).

1.1.3 Processing Processing involves anything that happens to waste from the time it is generated until the time it reaches its final disposal location, including resource recovery and recycling. The potential for resource recovery is affected by the cost of the separated material, its purity, quantity and a location (Zurbrugg 2003). One method of waste recovery is composting; at least fifty percent of waste generated in developing countries is organic and can be recovered for compost (Zurbrugg 2003). One problem with composting is the increased presence of “strange global products” in composting manure, rendering it useless for farmers (Achankeng 2003). In developing countries it is also common to find waste pickers and scavengers that will play a significant role in waste reduction. In some cases, scavengers set up shanty towns on or near the dump site and can recover as much as 15% of total waste generated (Van Beukering 1999). While waste pickers serve to reduce the total amount of solid waste to be treated, they can also disrupt landfill operations such as compaction and cover (Johannessen 1999). Setting up official recycling programs as a means of waste reduction can be difficult in developing countries because government policies and finances act as a barrier (Post 2010). Troschinetz and Mihelcic (2008) identify 12 barriers influencing recycling in developing countries including: government policy, government finances, waste characterization, waste collection and segregation, household education, household economics, MSWM administration, SWM personnel education, MSWM plan, local recycled-material market, technological and human resources, and land availability.

While waste recovery and recycling mainly addresses domestic wastes, hazardous and medical wastes must also be specially processed. This includes the technical equipment and processes that are necessary for at source separation (Schubeler 1996). Providing better methods of storage and training staff to be familiar with the technical equipment

12 are also required. The effectiveness of a hazardous waste disposal system depends on technology, legislation, enforcement and funding (Zurbrugg 2003). An unfortunate result of the lack of stringent regulations on hazardous materials in developing countries is that industrialized countries ship their hazardous materials to dispose of them in developing countries (Zurbrugg 2003).

1.1.4 Disposal Finally, waste arrives at its final disposal site. One of the most important decisions in designing a solid wast management system is the selection of this site. A good site has good drainage, available soil for cover, and access for transportation. It is visually hidden and away from floodplains, fault lines, airports, and wetlands (Mihelcic 2009). It is also important to keep the landfill relatively close to collection points as the farther away it is, the more expensive transportation costs become (Zurbrugg 2003). Disposal options should also include a method for treatment of leachate. Entombment prevents water from reaching waste at all. This reduces the degradability and is not ideal for the long term. Containment methods store and treat leachate before discharging it back into the environment. The landfill is lined with impermeable layers to trap and contain the leachate within the landfill. While this method is convenient, there are several disadvantages to simply containing leachate. Primarily, there is no guarantee on the effectiveness of the liners. Liners may break or leak, allowing toxic leachate to infiltrate the groundwater system. Another problem with the containment theory is that it does not allow for decomposition (Allen 2001). In controlled containment release leachate enters the environment in such a way that it has minimal impact (Johannessen 1999). Natural alternatives to leachate management include “dilute and disperse” and hydraulic traps. To incorporate these techniques a geologic and hydraulic assessment is needed as a geological barrier is necessary for leachate attenuation (Allen 2001). In this method, groundwater is fed into the landfill, diluting the leachate before it leaves (Allen 2001).

Incorporating all of these components into an appropriate disposal system is difficult and often systems in developing countries are inadequate. Many municipal officials are unaware of the need for controlled waste disposal or only have access to guidelines for

13 landfills from industrialized nations that are not appropriate to use in developing countries (Zurbrugg 2003). As a result, in developing countries it is most common to pitch your household wastes onto a neighboring open dump or to burn it openly in a drum. There are several consequences associated with these forms of disposal. Because of the high organic content in waste in developing countries, openly dumping waste will attract a lot of vermin and flies that serve as disease spreading vectors. Further, 10-20% of waste ends up as litter in developing countries that can end up flooding gutters and sewer systems (Mihelcic 2009). While burning solid waste will reduce the incidence of issues such as vermin and flooding associated with open dumping, it increases the risk of exposing residents to harmful air pollutants (Mihelcic 2008).

1.2 Progression from Open Dumping to Engineered Landfill

Landfills in developing countries range from simple to sophisticated, inexpensive to costly, and potentially harmful to benign. The most basic system, and what most developing countries use, is an informal system called “open dumping”. While this is a convenient form of solid waste disposal, there are many sanitary issues associated with it. Because the dumps are not covered or enclosed, the solid waste can be easily spread by the wind or other elements. Disease-spreading vectors like rats and flies are also easily able to infiltrate the dump, and an unpleasant smell often emanates from such sites. For these and other reasons communities would benefit to move from open dumping to an operated, or semi-controlled, dump.

A semi-controlled dump is similar to an open dump in that it is not constructed and does not incorporate environmental protection measures. The difference is that semi- controlled dumps may inspect and record incoming waste for the purpose of properly placing and compacting the waste within the dump (Johannessen 1999). A semi- controlled dump can be upgraded to an engineered landfill.

An engineered landfill involves infrastructure that open dumps and semi-controlled dumps do not. Engineered landfills use liners, contain leachate and incorporate some level of leachate treatment. Gas is managed with passive ventilation or flaring. Similar

14 to semi-controlled dumps, waste is registered, placed and compacted. An engineered landfill also uses a daily soil cover (Johannessen 1999).

Beyond engineered landfills, sanitary landfills are more complex and are used in developed nations to manage solid waste. Sanitary landfills require proper siting and infrastructure (Johannessen 1999). Sanitary landfills can be constructed using different methods. A hillside can be used as a disposal site, or in the depression method an existing canyon or ravine can be filled in. Where groundwater permits, a trench can also be dug and filled in as with the depression method. When the topography does not allow for these methods, the area method can be used in which an engineered “berm” is constructed and refuse is disposed of in layers (Mihelcic 2009). Regardless of sanitary disposal method, a cover layer is necessary to protect the surrounding environment from windblown solid waste and minimize pests. In the end daily cover will amount to at least half of the volume of the landfill (Johannessen 1999). In addition to adding a daily cover layer, sanitary landfills also incorporate a leachate management system such as containment or using a hydraulic trap. Gas is managed with flaring. Similar to engineered landfills, sanitary landfills register waste for the purpose of placement and compaction. In addition to a daily cover, sanitary landfills also require a final top cover upon closure (Johannessen 1999).

1.3 Appropriate Design Metrics

Appropriate design metrics fall into three categories: feasibility, viability, and desirability. Appropriate design, or “human-centered design”, focuses on the individual and when designing an appropriate solid waste management system, failure to consider one of these three components will result in a less effective system. A thorough assessment of a community’s economic and social situation as well as the environmental constraints is necessary for the design of an effective system. The assessment of these three factors in terms of appropriate design is especially important when designing for developing countries. The systems developed in industrialized nations often cannot be directly transferred to developing countries because of differences in these three factors (Van Beukering 1999).

1.3.1 Economic Viability Analysis An economic viability analysis addresses productivity and development, effectiveness, efficiency, and job creation (Schubeler 1996). It generally begins with asking “what are the costs and benefits?” From there more specific questions are asked to ascertain details of the economics of the solid waste management system itself and the effects it has on the community and individuals within the community. Both implementation and operation must be addressed. Can the community afford the implementation of a new system? This includes construction of the entire system as well as any new infrastructure such as temporary service roads or permanent access roads. Further, once the system is in place, can the community afford to operate and maintain the system and how will they plan to sustain it? Can the community afford tipping and collection fees? This is important to consider because some communities see the successful completion of a new landfill, but it quickly deteriorates as they struggle to maintain it. For instance, donated equipment for a landfill in Jakarta, Indonesia could not be used because its operational costs could not be covered by the landfill’s budget (Johannessen 1999). One example of a possible way to mitigate this risk comes from Fiji. Landowners of the Naboro Landfill have shares in the company running the system (Bernstein 2004). Continue an economic viability assessment with questions like, “Aside from construction, material and operation costs, are there other costs to the economic situation of the community?” In many developing countries, the livelihood of a community of scavengers depends on the waste produced in the city. “Will implementing a new waste management system displace any scavenging communities?” Taking this economic issue into consideration, designers of the Marianhill landfill in Durban, South Africa instituted a scavenger registration system. Instead of displacing 100 to 200 people who can earn more than $75/month, the Marianhill landfill allows scavengers during certain hours of the day when they will not interfere with landfill compaction operations (Johannessen 1999). After thoroughly assessing the costs of implementing an ISWM system, the benefits must also be assessed. Generally, “does the design improve, promote or initiate any economic gaining activities?” and “How many jobs does the new system create and what is the skill level required to perform these jobs?”

1.3.2 Social Desirability Considerations Apart from the economic issues related to the implementation and operation of an ISWM project, there are many social issues that should also be considered. Berstein (2004) identifies five “entry points” of social assessment:

(1) social diversity and gender (2) institution, rules, and behavior (3) stakeholders (4) participation (5) social risks

Identifying key social desirability dimensions requires knowing how the community will be affected, both directly and indirectly (Bernstein 2004). One factor pertaining to diversity and gender is that women are the ones dealing with the waste. Keeping them involved in all aspects of planning and implementation creates a more socially desirable system (Schubeler 1999). Furthermore, it is important to consider what the community already does to manage their waste. Straying too far from existing and understood methods can cause problems in the implementation process. Improving existing dump sites is more socially desirable than constructing new sites in a location unfamiliar or far from the community. Further, if extremely poor practices occur at existing landfills, the community may be reluctant to construct new ones because they will fear that the same poor practices will occur at the new site. This was a major deterrent for developing a new landfill in Sulawesi, Indonesia (Bernstein 2004). The willingness of the community must also be considered in the social desirability assessment. One way to enhance willingness is to keep the community involved throughout the entire design, planning, and implementation process. For illiterate communities this may involve more direct contact through public meetings, interviews, and focus groups (Bernstein 2004). In addition to addressing the willingness of the community, public participation can address another important desirability aspect: how well the community understands the purpose and benefits of the new methods. This is important because if the community does not

17 understand the benefits of an improved ISWM, they are likely to disregard it and continue using the dangerous and unhygienic existing systems. This posed a problem in Southeastern Anatolia, Turkey where residents protested the new SWM project because they believed that it would harm their children and animals, contaminate their water source, and generate flies, noise, and dust (Bernstein 2004). Cultural traditions must also be taken into consideration during construction so as not to disturb land inhabited by tribal peoples, cultural heritage sites, archaeological digs, historical settlements or monuments (Bernstein 2004). For example, in Indonesia, there are unique landownership traditions that had to be taken into account when siting the Tana Toraja landfill (Bernstein 2004).

1.3.3 Environmental Feasibility Assessment The last component of appropriate design is environmental feasibility, a complex factor for which different countries have different standards and regulations. The World Bank’s Environmental Assessment (EA) policy classifies projects based on environmental impacts and stipulates guidelines accordingly. Because landfills are likely to have “significant adverse environmental impacts”, the World Bank advises that municipalities involve NGOs and other community groups by providing them with:

• Summary of project objectives, design and impacts • Draft of the environmental assessment’s conclusions • Any other relevant materials (Bernstein 2004).

South Africa’s “Minimum Requirements” pertain to the environmental assessment related to landfill projects; many African countries use this as a model (Johannessen 1999). These Minimum Requirements classify landfills according to waste type, size of waste stream and climatic water balance. Table 1 summarizes the key points of this classification system.

18 Table 1: South Africa's Minimum Requirements landfill classification system (Fourie 2004) Size Type Climatic water balance (Maximum Rate (waste stream) (leachate generation) Deposition tonnes/day) C (Communal MRD < 25) B+ G S (significant leachate (general including MSW) (Small 25500)

For each classification category (type, size and climatic water balance) one of the corresponding letters is selected based on what best describes the landfill. The result is a three-letter designation. For example, a large urban landfill accepting general waste in Johannesburg, a city in the arid part of the country is designated as GLB- (Fourie 2004). Regardless of who is setting the regulatory standards, an environmental feasibility assessment takes into account the impact of a project on the air, water, and land resources. An environmental assessment concerning a landfill project asks “will the project improve or degrade current water conditions?” From here, decisions can be made as far as whether or not to incorporate leachate treatment. Similarly, “does the project impact air conditions” and “does the project improve the current solid waste management conditions?” Climate and hydraulic criteria will stipulate that winds are managed (via berms, vegetative barriers, etc.) such that solid waste is not spread offsite (Ministere de l’environnement et de l’assainissement 2006). Additionally, details are addressed pertaining to whether or not the project will minimize the effect of disease-spreading vectors such as vermin and flies. An effective environmental feasibility assessment is vast and includes field studies, legislative and regulatory considerations, and an analysis of alternatives. In analyzing alternatives it is also key to consider the “no-action alternative” (World Bank). In order for such a vast assessment to be thorough, the public

19 should be involved through meetings, focus groups and interviews (Bernstein 2004). With a solid waste management project in the Eastern Caribbean, the public was able to protect the Grenada Dove, an endangered species that had been overlooked in the environmental assessment (Bernstein 2004).

1.3.4 Evaluating Appropriate Design Metrics In appropriately designing an ISWM system all viability, desirability and feasibility aspects must be considered; however in order to determine the extent to which something is “appropriate”, a rating system must be developed. This can be approached in different ways.

The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) uses Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), a point-based system designed to determine the sustainable merit of building projects. A fairly complex rating system, LEED awards points to projects for incorporating sustainable design features. Foremost, these features are deemed sustainable based on the impact they have on the environment (USGBC 2010). For example, incorporating a green roof on the building warrants a positive “credit” because it re-introduces plants into a site where they had been potentially removed for the purpose of construction, reduces rainwater runoff, provides insulation and combats the effect of urban heat islands. LEED also considers social factors by awarding credits for the addition of design features such as extra bike-racks on the building’s premises. While most LEED credits focus on environmental and social factors, economic factors are considered as a byproduct given that the more energy efficient a building is, the more economically efficient it will be as well. Unfortunately, LEED does not consider many aspects from the user’s or community’s perspectives, nor prescribe a path for their inclusion in the design sequence, hence it is better at influencing sustainable design rather than appropriate design.

While the LEED system is specific to construction projects in the United States, McConville (2006) proposes a rating system more appropriate for international water and sanitation projects. In order to develop a matrix-based rating system, McConville analyzes five sustainability factors by applying life cycle thinking:

20 1) socio-cultural respect 2) community participation 3) political cohesion 4) economic sustainability and 5) environmental sustainability

Each factor is rated based on a series of five specific questions and then scored between one and four (worst to best). Combining the scores for the resulting twenty-five elements yields a total score out of 100, and development projects can be compared based on this scale. McConville’s (2006) system provides a way to compare development projects to each other.

1.4 Solid Waste Management in Africa

As globalization and urbanization increase throughout the world, countries in Africa do not always benefit. In fact, the ISWM systems in these countries suffer more from globalization than they profit (Achangkeng 2003). Urbanization impacts waste generation rates in the cities, and it increases the demand on already fragile systems. As seen in Table 2, waste generation rates in Africa’s larger cities range from 0.3-1.4 kg/capita/day and average 0.78 kg/person/day as compared with 1.22 kg/person/day for developed countries (Achangkeng 2003). Because these values come from Africa’s major cities they may not be representative of the nation as a whole. Including data from more rural African areas may decrease the national average because generation increases with the move from rural to urban (Zurbrugg 2002).

21 Table 2: Waste generation rates in African cities (Achangkeng 2003) Solid Waste Households generated with solid (kg/person- waste Population Country City Name day) collection (%) (millions) Benin Porto Novo 0.5 25 0.6 Burkina Faso Ougadougou 0.7 40 1.6 Burundi Bujumbara 1.4 41 -- Cameroon Douala 0.7 60 1.1 Yaounde 0.8 44 1.0 Congo, DR Kinshasa 1.2 0 6.3 Congo Republic Brazzaville 0.6 72 0.9 Cote d'Ivoire Abidjan 1.0 72 3.4 Egypt Cairo 0.5 65 14.5 Gambia, The Banjul 0.3 35 0.5 Ghana Accra 0.4 60 1.7 Guinea Conakry 0.7 50 1.3 Mauritania Nouakchott 0.9 15 0.6 Morocco Rabat 0.6 90 1.6 Namibia Windhock 0.7 93 -- Niger Niamey 1.0 25 0.5 Nigeria Ibadan 1.1 40 2.0 Lagos 0.3 8 8.0 Senegal Dakar 0.7 36 2.3 Dar es Tanzania Salaam 1.0 25 2.3 Togo Lome 1.9 27 0.8 Tunisia Tunis 0.5 61 1.8 Uganda Kampala 0.6 20 0.8 Zimbabwe Harare 0.7 100 1.5

Another increasingly common waste source adding variety to the waste stream is “E- waste”, or discarded electronics received from industrialized nations. Even with added levels of waste due to urbanization, in some cases as little as 20% of the waste is being collected and properly disposed (Achangkeng 2003). In Ghana, only 11% of residents had home collection services in 1992 and 15% openly dumped on empty land, waterways and gutters (Boadi 2003). Recognizing this issue, 0.17% of the GNP was spent on waste management in 1994 (Boadi 2003). Table 3 presents GNP and waste expenditure data for 14 cities in both industrialized and developing countries. Of these cities, Accra,

22 Ghana has one of the lowest solid waste expenditure rates (Williams 2005). This data, however, does not suggest a strong correlation between GNP and money spent on solid waste management or the efficiency with which the money is being spent.

Table 3: GNP and waste management expenditure data (Williams 2005)

GNP/capita City Year %GNP spent on waste (USD/yr) Hanoi, Vietnam 1994 250 0.80 Dhaka, Tamil Nadu India 1995 270 0.54 Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India 1995 350 0.46 Chennai, Hungary 1995 350 0.51 Mumbai, Maharashtra, India 1995 350 1.12 Accra, Ghana 1994 390 0.17 Bucharest, Romania 1995 1450 0.16 Bogata, Colombia 1994 1620 0.48 Riga, Latvia 1995 2420 0.25 Budapest, Hungary 1995 4130 0.33 Sydney, Australia 1995 18,720 0.20 Toronto, Canada 1994 19,510 0.25 New York, U.S.A. 1992 23,240 0.42 Strasbourg, France 1995 24,990 0.25

This lack of funding from the government, along with globalization pushing cities toward more expensive privatized solid waste management, encourages the use of informal methods of solid waste management (Achangkeng 2003). Women’s groups can be effective at informally managing waste. In Ouagadougou, Burkina Fasso, a women’s association named Wogodogo collected waste to produce compost that was sold to hotels for their gardens (Eaton 2003). In Ghana, migrant women act as waste carriers, collecting household wastes for fees and taking it to waste container sites or unauthorized dumps (Boadi 2003). Another contributor to this informal sector are scavengers that pick through discarded waste to recover valuables that can later be sold for a profit. Still operating as a part of the informal sector, the “Zabbaleen” serve the city of Cairo, Egypt by collecting, hauling, sorting, classifying and reusing 45% of the municipal solid waste generated daily in the city. This group has 12,000 members living in seven communities of Cairo (Schertenleib 1992).

Beyond generation, collection and processing, African countries struggle with implementing appropriate disposal options. Appropriate site selection guidelines are rarely used and few countries incorporate leachate and gas management. South Africa and Egypt have some of the most developed systems in Africa. Landfills in South Africa adhere to guidelines established with the Minimum Requirements and are classified according to waste types, size of waste stream, and climatic water balance. Classifications according to climatic water balance depend on leachate generation; in arid and semi-arid areas, leachate treatment is not required. The Marianhill landfill in Durban, South Africa is an example of an advanced sanitary with a multi-barrier composite liner composed of 500 mm of compacted clay, 2 mm HPDE liner, geofabric, a second layer of compacted clay and a 300 mm layer of coarse gravel and stone drainage that acts as a protection layer. Leachate is collected, biologically treated and released to a sewage treatment facility (Johannessen 1999). Some African countries, like Botswana and Ghana, plan their landfill projects using South Africa’s Minimum Requirements guidelines as a model.

Egypt has a site selection method that uses twelve geographic information layers corresponding to criteria as follows (Karkazi): 1. Primary roads network 2. Secondary roads network 3. Faults 4. Ports and airports 5. Streams 6. Canals 7. Nile River watershed 8. Protected areas 9. Urban areas 10. Agricultural land 11. Stream Valley 12. Geology-Hydrogeology

The selection methods uses a four step process based upon Boolean logic to determine appropriate sites: (1) development of exclusion criteria, (2) delineation of exclusion and inclusion zones, (3) development of inclusion criteria and (4) elaborating on the specific

24 sites that result. One example of a rule used in this process is “if distances from primary road network and secondary road network are long and distances from protected areas and urban areas are long and agricultural land is low, then the suitability is appropriate with 80% certainty.”

1.5 Project Motivation and Objectives

The motivation to study the solid waste management system in the city of Koulikoro, Mali was encouraged by conversations the author had with local authorities working for the DRACPN. Her counterparts recognize that solid waste management is an issue in the city but solving the problem will be a gross financial undertaking. These conversations prompted the author’s curiosity in the ideal situation for the city as well as identifying the steps that can be taken on a smaller scale to improve the city’s current conditions.

The general objectives of this study are to: 1. Examine current solid waste management conditions in Koulikoro, Mali 2. Determine the appropriateness of current and proposed practices 3. Suggest additional appropriate options.

General Objective 1 will be achieved with the following specific objectives: 1.1 To collect data of the relative size and location of unofficial open dump sites using GPS 1.2 To determine relative depth and density of loose waste in the city of Koulikoro, Mali

General Objective 2 will be achieved with the following specific objectives: 2.1 To compare the collected GPS data with existing data from the city in order to determine whether or not the city’s proposal for waste transfer is realistic 2.2 To assess the appropriateness of sites for transit dumps as proposed by the city

Finally, general Objective 3 will be achieved with the following specific objectives

25 3.1 To propose collection vehicle routes using the existing unofficial dumpsites as collection points and maintaining the proposed transit sites and final dump site 3.1 To propose an alternative replacing the transit dumpsites with dumpsters.

26 Chapter 2: Koulikoro region

2.1 Topographic, climate, and socio-economic features

As shown in Figure 3, Mali is in “sub-Saharan” West Africa, and the region of Koulikoro lies in the southern half of the country as illustrated in Figure 4. In the southern regions of Mali, the average temperature is cooler and vegetation is more varied than in the north. In particular, the city of Koulikoro averaged 850-900 mm of rainfall per year between 1993 and 2003, with a high of 1015 mm in 1998 (BETRAP 2004a). In addition to the climate, there are a number of unique topographic features about the city. About a third of the city is built on a rocky terrain, while the entire city suffers from stagnant rain water due to poor drainage infrastructure. Another interesting feature of this city is the river flowing through it. Figure 5 is satellite image of the city that shows Koulikoro sits on the Niger River and this plays an important role in the city’s socio-economic status and available natural resources. Many of the city’s inhabitants are fisherman or work to dredge sand to sell throughout the region.

Figure 3: Map of Africa with Mali Figure 4: Map of Mali with highlighted (used with permission Koulikoro highlighted (used from CIA 2010) with permission CIA 2010)

Figure 5: Satellite view of the city of Koulikoro (used with permission from Google 2010)

Located 60 kilometers north of the capital of Mali, Koulikoro is a growing city. With a population of about 30,000 as recorded in 1998, and a growth rate of 3.44% per year, the city is projected to be the home of almost 50,000 people by 2014 (BETRAP 2004a). Koulikoro hosts two large factories, which have a large impact on the socio-economic status of the city, as the majority (55.5%) of the city’s inhabitants work in industry, transportation, or administration (BETRAP 2004a).

These socioeconomic factors affect the waste profile of the city. With relatively more affluent inhabitants in the urban city, a higher waste production rate is expected, and Koulikoro produces 0.7kg of waste per day per person (BETRAP 2004a). As compared with waste profiles of smaller, less affluent communities, city populations will see more plastics and paper wrappers in their waste stream. While this is true, the bulk of the waste being generated in the city of Koulikoro is sand or organic. Table 4 shows the breakdown of the waste profile in the city of Koulikoro.

Table 4: Waste profile of Koulikoro, Mali (BETRAP 2004a) Mass Composition fraction (%) Sand 60-70 Organics 20-30 Plastic 1-2 Paper 1 Glass 0.5 Metal 1 Batteries 0.5 Other 1-3

This particularly high sand content suggests the community members are not using efficient collection methods. Rather than placing waste directly into receptacles, waste is swept from the ground into receptacles along with a large amount of sand. Sand increases the mass and volume of solid waste that needs to be disposed of, and incorporating more efficient collection methods can potentially decrease the load on open dumps. 2.2 Current conditions of waste management practices While the topographic, climate, and socio-economic features of the city complicate the implementation of an effective solid waste management system, the city is working to improve the existing conditions. The government has a system of controls in place to monitor sanitation practices, implement new systems and inform residents about them.

2.2.1 Koulikoro governmental structure Koulikoro is divided into ten districts: Kayo, Souban, Kolebougou, Koulikoro Gare, Plateau I, Plateau II, Plateau III, Koulikoroba, Katibougou, and Centre. These ten districts are governed by the mayor. In Mali, sanitation services are not privatized, and the mayor controls services such as solid waste management. This includes servicing the open gutters running along the main roads throughout the city (BETRAP 2004a). The municipal roads department employs two laborers and two masons to supervise small masonry work and clean the markets (BETRAP 2004a). Further, there have been laws in place since 2001 at the national level regulating environmental impact studies, pollution control, noise and air pollution management, and means of solid waste management (BETRAP 2004b). While the mayor of Koulikoro is responsible for sanitation services, there are several agencies that work together with the mayor; however, the mayor has yet to institute a coherent system of sanitation management and it becomes a question of management on the level of the communes (BETRAP 2004b).

The Direction Regional de l’Assainissement et du Controle des Pollution et des Nuisances (DRACPN) is the overarching governmental sanitation agency throughout Mali. DRACPN offices exist in each region to monitor the institution of environmental management policies. This agency does not create new infrastructure, however, it works to implement and promote proper sanitation practices. For example, the DRACPN is responsible for fining those that do not comply with sanitation regulations and ensuring that they improve their practices. While the responsibility of the DRACPN is general environmental protection, various “operators” from the private sector exist to work more

30 specifically with solid waste management. For example, Groups d’Interet Economique (GIEs) collaborate with the DRACPN to organize the collection of domestic solid waste. Three GIEs exist in three of the districts of Koulikoro, however, their activity is minimal and the mayor does not have a functional link with them (BETRAP 2004a). In addition to the DRACPN and GIEs, the Hygiene Brigade was created to conduct sensitizations on sanitation topics (BETRAP 2004a). Three sanitation committees also exist within the city, but do not function. Women’s groups play an important role in recycling. While these groups are an important beginning, SWM systems in the city are still rudimentary and insufficient (BETRAP 2004a)

2.2.2 Koulikoro’s collection system The city’s existing collection system is sparse and irregular. Households use non- standardized containers, such as buckets, cartons and ½ barrels ranging in size from 20 to 50 liters and are left uncovered 95% of the time (BETRAP 2004a). Figure 6 shows a typical waste receptacle.

Figure 6: Typical waste receptacle (photo: author 2010)

31 Beyond the home, there are no community-wide collection logistics, plans, or schedules. The “Agent Voyer” can request collection by enterprises and the mayor will assure the payment at a rate of 10,000 CFA (20 USD) for one truck (5-7 m3) of solid waste removed. A more viable option is working through one of three GIEs or local women’s groups. These GIEs only work in three of the ten districts of the city. Homeowners can pay 750 CFA (1.5 USD) each month for the service of solid waste removal, but only about 35% of households take advantage of this service. More often, children are charged with taking solid waste to the depots (BETRAP 2004b). The willingness to pay for waste collection services varies throughout the city but the results of a study show that the people of Koulikoro contribute to the construction of a functional sanitation management system either financially or physically (BETRAP 2004b). When surveyed, an average of 31% of households did not want front door pick up, and a study in Kayo showed that 71% or households take their waste to their fields or prefer to stock it on their property for financial reasons (BETRAP 2004b). Of those in favor of front door collection, 35% are willing to pay 750-1000 CFA (1.50 – 2.00 USD) while 60% want to maintain the 750 (1.50 USD) and only 5% would like to see it lowered to 500 CFA (1.00 USD).

Another issue with waste collection practices in Koulikoro is that the city does not have the equipment to deal with the amount of waste produced. Three tractors with 2.5 m3 trailers and three semis with at least 7 m3 capacity sporadically function as collection vehicles (BETRAP 2004a). Additionally, there are about twenty carts that move less that 30 m3 a day and about fifty general employees who are solicited as needed (BETRAP 2004a).

As a result of this sparse and random collection service, the residents of Koulikoro openly burn their solid waste or dump it in one of over 120 unofficial open dumps located throughout the city. An example of one of these unofficial dumps is represented with the photograph in Figure 7. Based on population estimates and quantities of solid waste produced in a study by the Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) in 2001,

32 the estimated waste generation rate for this city is 0.7 kg/person-day (BETRAP 2004b). Most of this waste is not being collected or disposed of properly.

Figure 7: Example of open dumping in Koulikoro, Mali (photo: author 2010)

Because these piles are unprotected, rainwater leaches waste into the groundwater and runoff carries the solid waste flows directly into the Niger River along with storm water.

33 2.2.3 Hazardous waste management Aside from domestic wastes, large concerns for the city’s waste management system also include industrial and hazardous wastes, mainly produced by the Huilerie Cotonniere du Mali (HUICOMA) oil factory. The waste from the factory is taken to a tank in Diarerebougou a site not far from the city; however, women come to recollect the wastes to make soap, a dangerous venture for their health and the environment. This tank is a hole dating back to the 1970s and is within 30 m of the nearest unimproved well (BETRAP 2004a). The factory also produces a great deal of waste ash that is supposed to be collected and stored in 200 L drums. These drums are stored 200 m from the Niger River. Due to the negligence of the employees, the drums fill up and are not replaced, and the gases and ash are exposed to the environment, poisoning the river with nickel and heavy metals. Fishermen notice the impacts of this waste in the rarity of fish at the base of the river (BETRAP 2004a).

2.3 Proposed Solutions

2.3.1 Solution 1: Waste Transfer There are several plans by different organizations to solve the long-standing problem of solid waste management in the city of Koulikoro. Primarily, DRACPN together with engineers from the Bureau d’Etudes de Batiments et Travaux Publics, (BETRAP) wrote the Plan Strategique d’Assainissement de Koulikoro (PSA) in 2004. This plan outlines the city’s biggest issues with solid waste management and provides concrete suggestions for implementing a functioning solid waste management plan.

DRACPN and BETRAP used the French regulations from the Schéma directeur d'aménagement et d'urbanisme (SDAU) to establish the location of eight transit dumps seen in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Proposed transit dump sites for the city of Koulikoro, Mali (used with permission from Google 2010)

These eight sites are located throughout the city or Koulikoro, and a final dump site is proposed 20 km north of the city on the road to Banamba. The first of the eight sites will service the district of Souban, located southwest of the district. Farther north, a site located on the old dumpsite of the HUICOMA factory will service the districts of Kolebougou and Plateau II. Another site is proposed next to the basketball court on the riverbank, serving Koulikoro Gare and Centre-ville. Serving Plateau I and III is a site in the Centre d’Animation Pedagogique (CAP) zone southwest of the Centre school and another one between the Koulikoroba housing development and the military camp serving Koulikoroba and its extension. An old quarry near the route to Katibougou will be turned into a dumpsite serving the administrative district of Katibougou. Finally, there is a site proposed in the northern most part of the city at Kayo between the train tracks and the hill serving Kayo and any future extensions of the city.

These eight transit dumpsites and the final dump site were located and the mayor allocated the land to the DRACPN in 2004. Since that time, DRACPN did not have the funds to build up the sites and the mayor of Koulikoro has re-allocated the land to citizens. Residential housing has been constructed on five of the eight proposed sites. In addition to the existence of housing on more than half of these sites, there are other problems associated with these proposed sites which present challenges in transforming them into productive sanitary landfills. For example, the site serving Koulikoro Gare and Centre-ville is located very close to the bank of the Niger River, which violates conventional standards as well as the standards proposed by BETRAP in the PSA (2004b).

Regarding means of collection, DRACPN would like to popularize standardized covered solid waste recepticals. These cans would be placed in public areas and each household would be expected to get their own as well (BETRAP 2004b). In higher altitude districts tractors would be used to collect waste; donkey carts would service everywhere else. A large cargo truck is also needed to take the solid waste from the transit dumps to the final dump. These trucks vary in capacity and skill necessary to operate. One option is a single bin truck with a capacity of 7-15 m3 and a mechanized shovel to facilitate loading. Multi-binned trucks are also available with a capacity of 7-8 m3; they are semi- mechanized and require a specialist for maintenance. Lastly, there is a 10-20 m3 truck, a model commonly used in Paris (BETRAP 2004b).

The main obstacles to implementing this plan are material, financial, and organizational. The equipment is poor, the collection fees are insufficient to handle all of the waste, and there is a lack of communication between the government, its ministries, community groups and the public (BETRAP 2004a).

2.3.2 Solution 2: Community Involvement The Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), Association des Amis du Fleuve Niger (AAFN) also wrote a project plan to mitigate the waste management issues of Koulikoro (AAFN 2003). Their project focuses more on community issues and one of its main objectives is to educate and reinforce capacities through trainings and skills transfer. AAFN aims to achieve this objective by informing more than 8,000 community members and holding trainings on proper waste handling for scavengers, GIEs, technical organizations and other NGOs. Through these trainings, AAFN will encourage participants to identify problems. AAFN’s action plan includes working with GTZ and the mayor of Koulikoro to reorganize channels of waste management in the city such that they are oriented around health committees and the GIEs. The GIEs will construct ten transit depots and acquire materials for collection purposes. The goal of this action plan is to collect at least 70% of the city’s waste. Table 5 is the AAFN’s proposed budget to achieve these goals and objectives.

37 Table 5: Proposed budget for AAFN (2003) solid waste management project plan

Expense Cost (CFA) A. Personnel: workers, 1 driver, 3 ONGs 9,617,000 B. Formations – 1 on negative effects of pollution; 1,400,000 C. Equipment and construction of 10 transit dumps (761310 12,415,720 cfa each); carts and donkeys (10), wheelbarrows (10), shovels, picks and rakes (20 each), brooms (200) D. Contracts – conception plan, construction of depots, 1,830,000 location for camions (2x20) E. Maintenance 300,000 F. Evaluations – carburant (4800L) and lubricant (192L) 2,496,000 G. Unforeseen (3%) and admin fees (10%) 488,223 + 1,676323 Total 30,222,646

Between 2003 and 2004 AAFN allows for 9,617,00 CFA (about 20,000 USD) to be spent on personnel. This is economically viable as it creates new jobs. Further economic viability is examined in Table 6 that describes the AAFN proposed funding sources.

Table 6: AAFN proposed solid waste management funding sources

Contribution Percent of Total Funding Source (CFA) Project Cost Community 6,024,000 20% AAFN 5,760,000 19% External funds 18,438,646 61% Total 30,222,646 100%

Most of the community contribution in this case is in kind as labor and collection services. A contribution of 20% is reasonable to expect from a community for a project and city of this size. For example, smaller projects funded through the Peace Corps Partnership Program require a 30% community contribution. This is intended to create a sense of ownership for the community. While this percentage is reasonable to expect the

38 question becomes whether or not the community is able and willing to pay this much money or contribute the in kind services.

The majority of the funds are coming from an undefined “external” source. This is an economic viability concern. Because the AAFN has not clearly defined who will be providing the funds, it is more likely that they will not receive them and the project will be dropped. Furthermore, aside from the community contribution, there is no link with the local government to the funding of this project. This can cause issues with social desirability when the government’s agenda conflicts with the objectives of the project.

2.3.3 Solution 3: Waste-to-Energy Lastly, VICA Technologies LLC of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania signed a contract in 2009 with the Malian government for the construction of a waste-to-energy (WTE) plant. The plant would be located halfway between Bamako and Koulikoro; the city of Koulikoro plans to negotiate with Bamako for delivery of their waste the facility (BETRAP 2004a). VICA plans to use a Build Own Operate Transfer (BOOT) system in constructing the plant. VICA will build the plant and own it for the first fifteen years, operating with trained Malians to whom it will completely be transferred after fifteen years. The plant will process and convert 100% of waste to usable energy, putting 15 MW of power to the grid as well as creating by-product materials to be used in construction panels, compost, and metal works (VICA 2009).

2.3.4 Design Review None of these three plans are adequate. Mainly for financial reasons, none of them have gotten off the ground. As is common in developing countries, the Malian government is not budgeting enough money for solid waste management. The first plan with the city was developed in 2004, but before the government could find the money to implement it, the mayor had reallocated the land that would have been used for landfills to residents. The AAFN project plan required a monetary contribution that the city could not afford either.

39 While financial issues may be the primary reasons these projects did not move beyond concept, there are other social and environmental issues that could render them “inappropriate” as well. For example, some of the sites selected with the DRACPN’s plan are environmentally and socially unsound as they are located either too close to the river or residential areas. Some surveys and studies were conducted in order to formulate this collection plan, but to be more socially appropriate, the DRACPN could have incorporated more information campaigns or focus groups to allow the community to have a part in the development of the plan. Furthermore, the DRACPN’s plan incorporates technology that is used in Paris. The site selection was based on French regulations and some of the equipment they proposed to use is used in France. Because of the differences between developed and developing countries, this is not the most appropriate plan. AAFN’s project plan does incorporate more social initiatives and local resources, but it was still economically inappropriate. The Bamako waste to energy plant is a very large-scale project that will require the full backing of the Malian government, which is which it is currently faltering. Even with the government behind this project it is very difficult to mobilize such a large community with new laws and regulations and much educational awareness would need to be publicized so that the community would make use of the newly implemented services. These and other issues are summarized in Table 7.

40 Table 7: Summary of proposed solutions, their affiliated organizations and key problems

Proposed Solution Affiliation Key problems Waste transfer BETRAP Social desirability– lack of communication between the government, its ministries, community groups and the public Environmental feasibility– sites selected for transit dumps violate regulations Economic viability – the proposed equipment is used in industrialized countries and is not suitable for developing countries Community AAFN Economic viability – community’s Involvement willingness to pay and contribute in kind services Economic viability – unclear external sources for the majority of the funding Waste-to-Energy VICA Social desirability – highly technical processes being introduced to the community for the first time will be difficult to train employees Social desirability – lack of communication with the public about the new site and education on the new regulations Social desirability – conflict with the Malian government Economic viability – proposed site is far from collection points, increasing the cost of transportation

Chapter 3: Data and Discussion

This chapter examines the degree to which the government’s proposed system of ISWM through waste transfer is appropriate. Following this analysis suggestions are made to create a better design. To explore the issues of viability, feasibility and desirability, the Koulikoro government data and field data of the city’s waste generation rates are compared. Based upon these findings, the appropriateness of the proposed transit dumps is reviewed with standards established by the city. Finally, appropriate collection and transfer routing options are offered for Koulikoro.

3.1 Data Description

The following data is taken from Koulikoro’s PSA (BETRAP 2004a), showing the city’s population as projected from known data in 2004 and corresponding waste generation rates estimated assuming 0.7 kg waste produced per capita per day. This government data serves as a baseline for comparison of data collected in the field during this project.

Table 8: Population and waste generation data for the city of Koulikoro (PSA 2004). Solid waste production data before 2004 is calculated assuming a rate of 0.7 kg/person-day. Data for 2004 and beyond are forecasts by the government.

Solid waste Year Population Production (kg/day) 1976 16,134 11,294 1987 20,795 14,557 1998 28,670 20,069 2004 35,120 24,584 2005 36,328 25,430 2006 37,778 26,445 2007 38,870 27,209 2008 40,207 28,145 2009 41,509 29,057 2010 43,021 30,115 2011 44,501 31,151 2012 46,032 32,223 2013 47,615 33,331 2014 49,254 34,478

42 In Spring 2010, all unofficial dumpsites in Koulikoro were identified and volume of each was estimated using a GPS-based strategy.

The GPS-based strategy protocol developed for this work uses a Garmin etrex™ Venture HC GPS unit and includes the following steps:

1) Accompanied by a city resident, traversing the city by foot to identify open dumpsites; dumpsites were identified based on the author’s professional opinion and experience in Mali as well as the knowledge of the accompanying city resident. Open dumpsites are those that appear to be used by at least one family. Widespread litter and solid waste that had been dumped in open gutters were not recorded. 2) Taking three to five points along the perimeter to identify general size and shape of each site; while the depth of the waste was not constant, the perimeter was determined to be the point where the dump transitioned from collected solid waste to open ground. Footpaths distinguished the perimeter and wind strewn solid waste was not included within the perimeter of the open dumpsite. 3) Using Garmin Trip and Waypoint Manager software to calculate approximate area of each site; the software’s measure tool was used to draw a closed circuit using the three to five points recorded along the perimeter and the tool calculated the area of the dumpsite.

Geo-coding of open dumps was completed between the months of April and July, 2010. Using the GPS-based methodology, the total area of unofficial dumps in Koulikoro was found to be nearly 34,000 m2, roughly the size of five international match soccer fields. Figure 9 shows the location and relative size of each recorded open dump site. Figure 10 illustrates the size distribution of these sites. Table 9 summarizes the distribution of dumpsites throughout four districts in the city. A full description of each site, its location and size can be found in Appendix A. Koulikoroba is the northern most district, Gare is the next district south along the river followed by Kolebougou and Souban, the southern most district illustrated here.

Figure 9: Satellite image of the city of Koulikoro, with red markers representing open dump sites and denoting the relative size of each site (Used with permission from Google 2010)

Table 9: Distribution of open dumpsites in four districts of Koulikoro, Mali

District Number of open Total area dumps (m2) Koulikoroba 30 6,632 Gare 59 18,895 Kolebougou 29 3,051 Souban 16 5,210

Figure 10: Size distribution of open dumpsites in the city of Koulikoro, Mali

While the area can readily be measured using GPS, finding the volume of solid waste is a bigger challenge due to the difficulty in estimating solid waste depth. Since comprehensive measurements were beyond the resources of this investigation, depth interpolations were used, and could be performed in two ways: 1) using literature estimates of similar dumps 2) combining government solid waste flow estimates with the area estimates found with GPS-based strategies.

The second method was more likely to yield more accurate results for Koulikoro; in addition little work exists to provide estimates useful to Mali. It is recognized that the area calculated with GPS-based data is not a daily accumulation of waste. Considering waste burning practices and the presence of livestock, assume this area is constant monthly. From the author’s experience in the field, most open dumps were shallow and spread out. The depth of a dump never exceeded the height of the author’s knee and always exceeded the height of the author’s shoes. From this, 7.5 cm – 45 cm is a reasonable range of depths of solid waste seen throughout the city. Using this range of depths, monthly GPS-based data for the total area of dumps, and previously introduced literature-based data densities of loose waste in developing countries (250-600 kg/m3), the average daily waste generation rate in Koulikoro was estimated (see Table 10).

Table 10: Daily waste generation for Koulikoro based on evaluation of all waste dumps. Figures in red indicate the range in which the government’s estimate falls

Assumed Depth (m) 0.075 0.15 0.30 0.45 Waste Density Generation Generation Generation Generation (kg/m3) (kg/day) (kg/day) (kg/day) (kg/day) 250 21,117 42,235 84,470 126,705 400 33,788 67,576 135,152 202,278 425 35,900 71,799 143,599 215,398 450 38,011 76,023 152,046 228,069 500 42,235 84,470 168,940 253,409 600 50,681 101,363 202,728 304,091

This table shows that the government’s estimated generation rate of 30,115 kg/day is reasonable as it falls within the ranges of 7.5 – 15 cm and 250 – 400 kg/m3 (as highlighted in red). Counter to this, looking at the other extreme, a depth of 45 cm and density of 600 kg/m3 is unreasonable to assume as it yields a generation gate of 304,091 kg/day which does not correspond well to the government’s data. Next, further interpolation of these figures, using the government’s generation rate, is calculated in

46 order to determine a more precise range of values for depth and density. This results in the following density-depth pairs: • holding density, interpolating between 7.5 cm and 15 cm o (250 kg/m3, 11 cm) o (400 kg/m3, 6.7 cm) • holding depth, interpolating between 250 kg/m3 and 400 kg/m3 o (357 kg/m3, 7.5 cm) o (178 kg/m3, 15 cm)

The representative photograph in Figure 11 shows that much of the waste in these unofficial dumpsites is either paper or plastic and shallow. From this, it is reasonable to assume a density and depth lower in the established ranges. Based on these interpolations and photographic evidence, the area, generation rate, and density-depth pairings presented in Table 11 are established and used for further analysis of the waste generation data throughout the rest of this report.

Table 11: Established values for area, generation rate, density and depth of waste in all Koulikoro, Mali unofficial dump sites (2010)

Area 33,788 (m2/month) Generation rate 30,115 (kg/day) Density Depth (kg/m3) (m) 178 0.15 250 0.11 357 0.075 400 0.067

Figure 11: Example of unofficial dump site in Koulikoro, Mali

Recent population estimates were based on a census in the late 1980s coupled with growth rate projections between 1987 and 2014. A constant rate of 3.44%/year was used assuming that urbanization would plateau because rural populations would be more integrated in their home villages and rural villages would become more “autonomous” (BETRAP 2004a). Supporting this assumption, Potts (2009) identifies “evidence of counter-urbanization” in Mali during the 1990s.

Table 12: Population growth data in Koulikoro, Mali (BETRAP 2004a)

Constant Population growth rate Year (BETRAP 2004a) (BETRAP 2004a) 1976 16,134 2.33%/yr 1987 20,795 3.44 %/yr 1998 28,670 3.44 %/yr 2014 49,254 (Projected)

48 The literature suggests that waste generation increases with an increase in income. Table 13 (Zurbrugg 2002) shows this trend in some developing countries in Asia.

Table 13: Waste generation rates of some Asian Countries, sorted by ascending Gross National Income (GNI) (Zurbrugg 2002)

GNI per capita Waste generation Country (USD/yr) (kg/capita/day) Nepal 240 0.2-0.5 Cambodia 260 1 Lao PDR 290 0.7 Bangladesh 370 0.5 Vietnam 390 0.55 Pakistan 440 0.6-0.8 India 450 0.3-0.6 Indonesia 570 0.8-1.0 China 840 0.8 Sri Lanka 850 0.2-0.9 Philippines 1,040 0.3-0.7 Thailand 2,000 1.1

While this data reflects that increases in income result in increases in waste generation, Cointreau-Levine (1994) suggests with Table 14 that this trend is strongest when comparing lower-income and high-income countries.

Table 14: Waste generation rates and income (Cointreau-Levine 1994)

Low-income Middle-income Industrialized country country country Solid Waste Quantity 0.2 0.3 0.6 (tonne/capita/yr) Average income (USD/capita/yr in 350 1,950 17,500 1988)

Mali’s economic status has changed little over the past few decades, therefore it is assumed that the established waste generation rate of 0.7 kg/person/day has been constant. With a constant population growth rate and maintaining this waste generation rate yields a projected population of 43,021 in the year 2010 producing 30,115 kg/day as seen previously in Table 8.

49 3.2 Waste Collection Evaluation The government estimated waste generation rate of 30,115 kg/day was used to check the validity of the proposed waste management system for the city of Koulikoro. The range of densities previously introduced were applied to this generation rate to yield the following range of volumes:

Table 15: Estimated volume of daily waste generation data Density Volume (kg/m3) (m3/day) 178 169 250 120 357 84 400 75

The city has proposed eight transit depots each with a daily capacity of 40-50 m3, for a total capacity of 320 to 400 m3 throughout the city (BETRAP 2004b). This is more than sufficient to contain the range of estimated volumes generated on a daily basis throughout the city.

With respect to collection capacity, various sanitation groups and GIEs have a fleet totaling twenty donkey carts. Each cart has a capacity of one cubic meter, and according to the proposed collection plan, can make four tours each day. Using the range 75 m3/day to 169 m3/day and adding five carts as a factor of safety translates to 80 – 174 donkey carts of waste to be collected throughout the city each day. If each cart is able to make four tours in one day, it follows that 20 - 44 donkey carts are needed to manage the daily waste output in the city. Depending on the assumed density of the waste this would require as much as doubling the current fleet. Further adjustment is needed, however, as the current fleet only serves the districts of Plateau I and Plateau II and in the center of town. To reapportion the fleet more accordingly, the data in Table 16 by the Koulikoro Hygiene Brigade in 1996 was considered (BETRAP 2004b).

50 Table 16: Waste generation by district, percent of total generation for Koulikoro, Mali

Waste generation District contribution to total (%) Koulikoro 38.22 centre Plateau I 14.44 Plateau II 14.22 Plateau III 0.64 Kolebougou 1.25 Cite 0.17 Koulikoroba 30.54 Total 100

This data includes the “Cite” as a separate district and does not account for the districts of Gare, Souban, Kayo and Katibougou. Still, it can be used to begin to address the issue of adequately distributing waste collection services throughout the city. Consider the district of Koulikoroba; 30.54% of the 30,115 kg/day total estimated by the government suggests that there is as much as 9,197 kg of waste being disposed each day. Further examination of the actual data shown in Figure 12 and applying the established density-depth pairs, however, shows that there is 15 m3/day - 33 m3/day or 2,636 kg/day – 13,263 kg/day being openly dumped in this part of the city. The government’s estimate of the amount of solid waste in this district is in the upper quadrant of this range. This suggests six possible causes: the waste is more dense and shallow, the 30.54% only accounts for seven of the ten districts, the 30.54% is a high estimate, there is more waste in the district of Koulikoroba than was estimated via GPS-based strategies, the residents are disposing waste in other locations, or conditions have changed since the 1996 data in Table 16. Maintaining that the habitants of this part of the city openly dump 15 m3/day - 33 m3/day, five to ten donkey carts are needed to service this area each making four tours in the day.

Figure 12: Open dumps located in the district of Koulikoroba with the size of the red markers denoting the relative size of the dump and the green marker representing the proposed transit dump site (Used with permission from Google 2010)

A similar examination of the Kolebougou district in Figure 13 reveals that there is 9 m3 – 15 m3 or 1213 kg – 6102 kg of waste openly dumped each day; using the percentages calculated by the Hygiene Brigade in Table 16 would suggest that there is an output of only 376 kg/day or 1 m3/day – 2 m3/day. This is important to note because assuming the 1.25% rate given by the Hygiene Brigade would allow for only one donkey cart to serve the area; however, seeing that there is actually at least 9 m3 – 15 m3 being produced each day, four to five carts need to be distributed to this part of the city, each completing almost four full tours.

Addressing the district of Koulikoro Gare is more difficult because the boundaries are less distinct. Combining the percentages for Koulikoro Centre and Plateaus I, II, and III yields a total of 67.52% that can be applied to the area as a whole, as it is also commonly referred to as Koulikoro Gare even though it is technically its own district. Applying this percentage to the government issued data suggests that there is 20,334 kg of daily waste output. The data depicted in Figure 14 only shows about 42 m3 - 95 m3 or 7514 kg - 37800 kg of daily waste in open dumps in this part of the city, and the majority of the city’s resources should be dedicated to servicing this district. Twelve to twenty-five donkey carts, each making four tours a day will be sufficient to collect the waste openly dumped in this portion of the city.

The Hygiene Brigade did not include the district of Souban in their breakdown of the amount of solid waste in each district, but the number of donkey carts necessary to service the area can be estimated using GPS-based data. The community of Souban openly dumps 12 m3 – 26 m3 of waste daily. This can be serviced with five to eight donkey carts each making four tours in one day.

Figure 13: Open dumps located in the district of Kolebougou with the size of the red markers denoting the relative size of the dump and the green marker representing the proposed transit dump site (Used with permission from Google 2010)

Figure 14: Open dumps located in the district of Koulikoro Gare with the size of the red markers denoting the relative size of the dump and the green marker representing the proposed transit dump site (Used with permission from Google 2010) The following table summarizes the reapportionment of resources throughout the city. Table 17: Distribution of donkey carts needed to serve district solid waste collection needs in Koulikoro, Mali District Number of donkey carts Koulikoro Gare 12 – 25 Kolebougou 4 – 5 Koulikoroba 5 – 10 Souban 5 – 8

3.3 Waste Transit Site Evaluation

Engineers from BETRAP-SARL working for the city of Koulikoro have selected eight sites for transit dumps, shown in Figure 7, based on the following criteria: • Location o 200-300 m from residence o 20-50 m from wooded area o 35-50 m from water o 200-300 m from swimming areas or beaches o [but in Africa because of financial means and engine breakdowns it is recommended to situate dumps outside the city at least 10 km] • Security – not in school zone, earthquake, rock or mud slide zone • Available land – 5 years • Favorable access conditions • Hydrogeologic conditions – natural or artificial protection of earth/groundwater • Geotechnical conditions – protection against erosion • Surface hydrology – natural drainage of rainwater • Integration into the landscape – even after closure landfill must not be disruptive, take measures to re-wood • Form and volume used

Since the time the sites were selected in 2004, some changes have occurred throughout the city that might now cause the proposed sites to be in violation of these regulations. To examine this further a circle with a radius of 300 m is drawn using the proposed Koulikoro Gare site (D) as the center, as shown in Figure 15. This shows that this site violates two Malian regulations: no residence or beaches be within 300 m of the transit dump.

Figure 15: Proposed transit dump site for Koulikoro Gare (Used with permission from Google 2010)

A similar assessment of each proposed location reveals the violations summarized in Table 18. From this basic assessment, Kayo is the only location does not violate design criteria based on proximity to residents, water, beaches, schools, wooded areas, or airports.

Table 18: Assessment of proposed waste transit sites District Violation Kayo none Souban Within 300 m of residence Kolebougou Within 300 m of residence and beach Koulikoro Gare Within 300 m of residence and school CAP Within 300 m of residence Koulikoroba Within 300 m of residence Cite Within 300 m of residence Katibougou Within 300 m of residence

3.4 Waste Collection and Transportation Evaluation

In designing a waste management system for the city, BETRAP (2004b) assumes the following dimensions: • Capacity of 1 cart = 1 m3 • Number of tours per cart = 4 • 1 cart pre-collects 50 concessions per day • Capacity of 1 tractor = 2.5 m3 • Number of rotations per tractor = 7 • 1 tractor pre-collects 300 concessions per day • Capacity of truck = 7 m3 • Number of tours by truck = 6 (final dump is 10 km away)

These assumptions can be applied to a simplified heuristic vehicle routing problem. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines were also considered in designing an effective system. While the EPA lists 12 “rules” of routing problems as follows, the first three are most applicable to the conditions in Koulikoro (Davis 2008): 1. Routes should not be fragmented or overlapped. Each route should be compact, consisting of street segments clustered in the same geographical area. 2. Total collection plus haul times should be reasonably constant for each route in the community (equalized workloads).

58 3. The collection route should be started as close to the garage or motor pool as possible, taking into account heavily traveled and one-way streets. 4. heavily traveled streets should not be collected during rush hours. 5. in the case of one-way streets, it is best to start the route near the upper end of the street, working down it through the looping process. 6. services on dead end streets can be considered as services on the street segment that they intersect, since they can only be collected by passing down that street segment. To keep left turns at a minimum, collect the dead end streets when they are to the right of the truck. They must be collected by walking down backing down or making a u-turn 7. when practical, service stops on steep hills should be collected on both sides of the street while the vehicle is moving downhill for safety, ease, speek of collection, wear on vehicle, and conservation of gas and oil. 8. higher elevations should be at the start of the route 9. for collection from one side of the street at a time, it is generally best to route with many clockwise turns around blocks. 10. for collection from both sides of the street at the same time, it is generally best to route with long, straight paths across the grid before looping clockwise 11. for certain block configurations within the route, specific routing patterns should be applied.

Considering the locations of existing unofficial dump sites and the community’s relative lack of willingness to pay for services, it is more appropriate to use the existing dump sites as collection points rather than designing a system based on front door collection. While seven of the eight proposed sites can be eliminated based on proximity to community resources, the proposed transit site in the district of Souban is presented in the next section as a transit dump site which could be redesigned.

3.3.1 Collection and transportation system using proposed transit dump GPS-based calculations show that the people of the district of Souban openly dump 2,071 kg – 10,420 kg of waste each day. For the purpose of this example, assume that the density is 357 kg/m3 and the depth of the waste is 7.5 cm. Systems can be similarly designed using the other established density pairs. Based on assumptions from BETRAP and as shown in the following schematic, it will require three different donkey carts and one tractor to service this area. The green, blue and red each represent a different donkey cart and its assigned collection route. The carts represented by red and green each have three tours, or trips from the dump site to a collection point and back. Each tour consists of either one, two, or three stops at collection points to collect no more than 1 m3 per

59 tour. The cart represented by blue has four tours, the maximum number of tours assumed by BETRAP (2004b). Each tour for the blue cart only stops once for collection. The black represents a tractor that will be needed to service the larger dumpsite located on the road in the middle of the district. This is the only collection point for the tractor in this district, but it will have to complete at least two tours to completely service the collection point. For all vehicles, collection tours start close to the dump site, which is also assumed to be the “garage”. The first round of tours for all carts is represented with a dotted line. The second round of tours is represented with a dashed line and the third is represented with a solid line. The fourth tour for the cart represented with blue is a dashed-dotted line.

Figure 16: Example of vehicle routing for the district of Souban, Koulikoro (Used with permission from Google 2010)

3.3.2 Collection and transportation system using dumpsters One alternative suggests using 7 m3 dumpsters on the transit sites instead of developing landfills (BETRAP 2004b). BETRAP and DRACPN identify the following advantages and disadvantages of this alternative in Table 19.

Table 19: Advantages and Disadvantages of Dumpsters and Landfills (BETRAP 2004b) Dumps Dumpsters Advantages - Large capacity - Relatively cheap to buy - Not necessary to use a truck - Non-existent maintenance cost every day - Easy to handle - Small-bin truck is sufficient - Capacity adapted to need - Produced locally Disadvantages - High development cost - Need a camion adapted loading - Still have to get truck and unloading the dumpster - Dumpster is more money than a regular bin

This is one way to begin to address the collection and transportation issue in this part of the city. Using dumpsters on unofficial dumpsites is socially desirable because the dumpsters require few habit modifications. It is not feasible, however, because the largest unofficial dumpsite is located at the mouth of a stream that feeds directly to the Niger River; it would be necessary to move the location of this site farther away from the river to preserve the river. Additionally, this option is not economically viable because it uses resources that are not readily available in the city. Dumpsters are not impossible to acquire in Mali; the city of Sikasso, Mali has at least one in its large market area.

Souban is again used as an example, this time considering the alternative of dumpsters. In this case, the proposed transit site is not used; instead, two dumpsters are placed near the site of the largest unofficial dump. Additionally, 0.5 m3 bins are placed at all other unofficial dump sites. These bins are standardized and a similar solution was effective in Asansol, India (Ghose 2006). Figure 17 illustrates proposed locations for these bins and dumpsters. Each yellow circle represents a 0.5 m3 bin placed on the site of existing clandestine dumps. Two 7 m3 dumpsters, represented by red squares are placed near the site of the largest unofficial site, but farther from the stream. The same donkey cart

62 collection system would be used here, with the “garage” located near the dumpsters. A truck would be needed to make two tours to and from the final dump site in Banamba in order to completely service the two dumpsters. While this solution may be more socially and environmentally appropriate, it requires additional equipment, some of which would be specialized to handle the dumpsters. For this reason, this solution may not be viable.

Figure 17: Proposed dumpster (red squares) and bin (yellow circles) placement for alternative collection plan in the district of Souban (Used with permission from Google 2010)

The following table highlights the suggested ISWM designs in comparison with the government’s proposed solution of waste transfer (BETRAP).

Table 20: Summary of ISWM design features

Option 1: Using Option 2: Dumpsters proposed sites Waste transfer (example solution for (example solution (BETRAP) Souban) for Souban)

Place a series of Eight transit sites dumpsters of 7 m3 Eight transit sites Collection and (each 40 m3 - 50 m3 capacity in each (each 40 m3 - 50 m3 transit sites daily volume) district (two in daily volume) Souban) Standardize covered Place .5 m3 bins on solid waste cans both each unofficial dump in public and at each site (20 in Souban) household Donkey carts to Donkey carts to Donkey carts used for service most smaller Service vehicles service bins to districts not in high unofficial dumps (4- dumpsters elevations 8 to serve Souban) Tractors to service Dumpster handling Tractors used for larger unofficial truck to service transit districts in high dumps (1 to serve dumpsters to final altitudes Souban) dump

Single bin truck with Truck to transfer a capacity of 7-15 m3 waste from transit and a mechanized dump to final dump shovel to facilitate loading

Multi-binned trucks are also available

with a capacity of 7-8 m3

10-20 m3 truck

Final dump site Banamba Banamba Banamba

65 Chapter 4: Future Research and Major Findings

4.1 Further research This report only begins to address the issues relating to solid waste management in the city of Koulikoro, Mali, and other developing communities. Critical next steps in this area of research include: • Information: Current data needs to be collected in order to accurately assess the waste profile of the city. Updated population data for each district along with an inventory of the city’s current resources also needs to be collected to effectively distribute collection and transportation services. The city also needs to reassess the sites that have been selected to serve as transit dumps. With updated and more accurate information the city can explore different options for collection, transportation, and disposal. • Assessment: In depth social, environmental, and economic evaluations are needed to fully understand the best options for the most effective waste management system. The public should be involved in the design process for it to be appropriate and sustainable. A social evaluation must address issues such as willingness to pay, collection options, and landfill site placement. Environmental standards specific to the West African region need to be developed. Standards from industrialized countries, like the SDAU from France will not be applicable in developing countries, and should no longer be used. An economic analysis should examine what resources are available locally and avoid plans that rely too heavily on foreign equipment and practice.

4.2 Further work for Peace Corps Volunteers and development workers As the city of Koulikoro is a sizable community, Peace Corps Volunteers and similar development workers should consider projects on a smaller scale to make meaningful contributions, for example: • Improving collection systems by working with the existing GIEs and women’s group, • Promoting clean and healthy environments by working with community leaders and the schools • Developing community education plans on how waste management affects health.

4.3 Major Findings Reflecting on the objectives of this work, the research described herein provides insight on each. In summary: Objective 1. Examine current solid waste management conditions in Koulikoro, Mali 1.1 The size and location of each unofficial dumpsite was recorded and presented on satellite images of the city. 133 open dumps were recorded and the area of waste in these open dumps amounts to 33,788 m2/month. 1.2 Ranges of the depth and density of loose solid waste in open dumps were estimated using geo-coded data and existing data from the Malian government. The density of loose waste ranges from 178 – 400 kg/m3 and the depth ranges from 6.7 – 15 cm. Using these ranges, and the geo-coded area of waste found, it follows that the volume of waste in the open dumps is 2264 – 5068 m3/month.

Objective 2. Determine the appropriateness of current and proposed practices 2.1 The city currently has a vehicle collection fleet of twenty 1 m3 donkey carts that service three districts. In order to completely service the 2264 – 5068 m3/month (80 m3/day - 175 m3/day) 20 – 45 donkey carts are needed and each cart transport no more than four loads per day. The city’s current fleet may need to be as much as doubled to serve the entire community. 2.2 Using regulations established by the French, the engineers working for the city of Koulikoro proposed eight transit sites in 2004. Since 2004 significant changes have occurred causing the sites to be less environmentally feasible. Re-evaluating these sites using the same French regulations, seven sites are found to be within 300 m of either beaches or residential areas and thus not environmentally feasible.

Objective 3. Suggest additional appropriate options 3.1 Using the existing unofficial dumpsites as collection points and maintaining the proposed transit sites and final dump site, vehicle routes were suggested based on EPA guidelines. Developing an example for the district of Souban, three carts and one tractor are needed to service this area.

67 3.2 A more environmentally feasible option considered replacing the transit sites with more centrally located dumpsters. In consideration of social desirability, open dumpsites were used as collection points. This alternative is not economically viable as it requires new resources and equipment that the community might not be able to afford.

Table 21 presents the major findings discovered by this investigation.

Table 21: Major findings from this work

Finding Result Number of unofficial dumpsites 133

Area of waste in open dumps in the city of 33,788 m2/month Koulikoro

Density of loose waste in open dumps 178 – 400 kg/m3

Depth of loose waste in open dumps 6.7 – 15 cm

Volume of loose waste in open dumps 2,264 – 5,068 m3/month

ISWM design recommendations • Incorporate the use of dumpsters and bins to minimize impact of open dumps on the environment • Use donkey carts to service the smaller dumpsites • Use tractors to service larger dumpsites • Use a truck to transfer waste from dumpsters or transit sites to the final dumpsite

Improving Koulikoro’s solid waste management system must be approached with the three factors of appropriate design in mind. Social, environmental, and economic constraints affect systems differently in developing countries than in industrialized countries, and therefore systems used in industrialized countries are not applicable in the

68 developing world. Africa in particular has specialized social, environmental, and economic factors that are not seen anywhere else in the world. In the city of Koulikoro, Mali, the current system is evaluated using these factors and suggestions for improvements to this system are made based on what is most appropriate.

69 References

Achankeng, E. (2003) Globalization, Urbanization and Municipal Solid Waste Management in Africa. African studies association of Australasia and the Pacific 2003 Conference Proceedings. South Australia: Universty of Adelaide.

Allen, A. (2001) Containment landfills: the myth of sustainability. Engineering Geology, 60 (2001): 3-19

Association des Amis du Fleuve Niger (2003) Projet pour l’assainissemente et la gestion des dechets dans la commune urbaine de Koulikoro. Mali.

Bernstein, J. (2004) Social Assessment and Public Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Management. World Bank, Washington, DC.

BETRAP-SARL (2004) Plan Strategique d’Assainissement de Koulikoro, Rapport Finale Bamako, Mali.

BETRAP-SARL (2004) Plan Strategique d’Assainissement de Koulikoro, Analyse Analysis Bamako, Mali.

Boadi, K. O. and M. Kuitunen (2003) Municipal Solid Waste Management in the Accra Metropolitan Area, Ghana. The Environmentalist, 23: 211-218

Central Intelligence Agency (2010) The World Factbook. Accessed October 28, 2010 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Cointreau-Levine, Sandra (1994) Private sector participation municipal solid waste services in developing countries. Volume 1. The formal sector. Sandra Cointreau-Levine. The World Bank, Washington D.C.

Davis, M. L. and D. A. Cornwell (2008) Introduction to Environmental Engineering McGraw Hill, New York, 1008 pp.

Doan, P. L. (1998) Institutionalizing Household Waste Collection: The Urban Environmental Management Project in Cote d’Ivoire. Habitat International, 22 (1): 27-39

Eaton, D. and T. Hilhorst (2003) Opportunities for managing solid waste flows in the peri-urban interface of Bamako and Ouagadougou. Environment and Urbanization, 15 (1): 53-62

Fourie, A. B. and Morris, J. W. F (2004) Measured gas emissions from four landfills in South Africa and some implications for landfill design and methane recovery in semi-arid climates. Waste Management and Research, 22: 440-453

Ghose, M.K., A.K. Dikshit and S.K. Sharma (2006) A GIS based transportation model for solid waste disposal – A case study on Asansol municipality. Waste Management, 26: 1287-1293

Google (2008) Gapminder World. Accessed November 1, 2010 www.gapminder.org

Google (2010) Google Earth. Accessed October 2010 www.earth.google.com

Johannessen, L. and G. Boyer (1999) Observations of Solid Waste Landfills in Developing Countries: Africa, Asia and Latin America. The World Bank: Urban Waste Management Working Paper Series, 3

Karkazi, A., T. Hatzichristos, Mavropoulos, B. Emmanouilidou, and A. Elseoud Landfill Siting Using GIS and Fuzzy Logic

McConville, J. R. and J. R. Mihelcic (2007) Applying Life Cycle Thinking to International Water and Sanitation Development Projects: An assessment tool for project managers in sustainable development work. Environmental Engineering Science, 24(7): 937-948

Mihelcic, J. R. and J. Zimmerman (2010) Environmental Engineering: Fundamentals, Sustainability, Design. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey, 693 pp.

Mihelcic, J. R., L. M. Fry, E. A. Myre, L. D. Phillips, and B. D. Barkdoll (2009) Environmental Engineering for Development Workers, Water, Sanitation and Indoor Air ASCE press, Reston, VA, 550 pp.

Ministere de l’environnement et de l’assainissement, DNACPN et l’OMS (2006) Formation des SACPN en technique de conception des ouvrages d’assainissement Tabakoro

Post, J.L. and Mihelcic, J.R. (2010) Waste reduction strategies for improved management of household solid waste in Jamaica. International Journal Environment and Waste Management, 6 (1/2): 4-24

Potts, D. (2009) The slowing of sub-saharan Africa’s urbanization: evidence for urban livelihoods. Environmental and Urbanization, 21 (1): 253-259

Schertenleib, R. and W. Meyer (1992). Municipal SWM in developing countries: problems and issues; need for future research. IRCWD News, 26: 2-8

71 Schubeler, P. (1996) Conceptual framework for Municipal Solid Waste Management in low-income countries. The World Bank: Urban Management and Infrastructure working paper, 9

Troschinetz, A.M., Mihelcic, J.R. (2008) Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste Management 29 (2): 915-923

United States Green Building Council (2010) Intro – What is LEED. Accessed October 10, 2010 www.usgbc.org

Van Beukering, P. et al (1999) Analyzing Urban Solid Waste in Developing Countries – a Perspective on Bangalore, India. Collaborative Research in the Economics of Environment and Development, Working paper series, 24

VICA Technologies LLC (2009) Bamako Environmental and Energy Complex

World Bank Terms of Reference, Final Design and Environmental Assessment for Sanitary Landfill

Zurbrugg, Chris (2003) Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries EAWAG/SANDEC

Appendix A: Dump site locations

Figure 18: Open dump sites in the district of Souban. Each number represents a site described in Table 22 (Appendix B). (used with permission from Google 2010)

Figure 19: Open dump sites in the district of Koulikoroba. Each number represents a site described in Table 22 (Appendix B). (used with permission from Google 2010)

Figure 20: Open dump sites in the district of Kolebougou. Each number represents a site described in Table 22 (Appendix B). (used with permission from Google 2010)

Figure 21: Open dump sites in the southern part of the district of Koulikoro gare. Each number represents a site described in Table 22 (Appendix B). (used with permission from Google 2010)

Figure 22: Open dump sites in the southern part of the district of Koulikoro gare. Each number represents a site described in Table 22 (Appendix B). (used with permission from Google 2010)

78 Appendix B: Dump site area measurements

Table 22: Area of each unofficial dump sites in Koulikoro, Mali as measured by GPS

Souban Kolebougou Gare Koulikoroba Area Area no. Area (m2) no. Area (m2) no. (m2) no. (m2) no. Area (m2) 1 67.08 17 349.00 76 10.27 106 1.84 35 20.90 2 203.36 18 115.00 77 0.33 107 0.42 36 18.95 3 2,210.81 19 214.00 78 1.09 108 0.04 37 261.99 4 25.83 20 2,795.00 79 0.13 109 0.19 38 114.08 5 95.23 21 166.00 80 0.32 110 0.55 39 434.41 6 61.32 22 442.00 81 0.31 111 1.46 40 97.73 7 326.28 23 381.00 82 1.18 112 1.22 41 187.66 8 205.97 24 320.00 83 0.05 113 0.28 42 81.94 9 343.56 25 422.00 84 0.73 114 0.11 43 909.80 10 283.73 26 339.00 85 0.07 115 0.94 44 1,146.14 11 362.88 27 790.00 86 0.38 116 0.46 45 271.28 12 69.03 28 324.00 87 0.23 117 0.71 46 167.04 13 69.49 29 234.00 88 0.87 118 0.35 47 158.31 14 101.73 30 2,737.00 89 0.22 119 0.33 48 115.66 15 560.95 31 2,093.00 90 0.51 120 0.74 49 308.36 16 222.87 32 1,438.00 91 0.74 121 0.87 50 386.49 33 749.00 92 0.55 122 0.30 51 41.89 34 6,900.00 93 0.99 123 0.55 52 91.43 65 17.93 94 1.06 124 0.68 53 262.26 66 40.04 95 0.20 125 0.29 54 317.97 67 98.48 96 0.58 126 0.14 55 390.14 68 78.22 97 0.72 127 0.48 56 79.28 69 104.05 98 0.44 128 0.14 57 116.11 70 37.07 99 1.49 129 0.89 58 119.97 71 38.09 100 0.13 130 1.83 59 68.93 72 324.05 101 0.13 131 2.40 60 40.10 73 207.17 102 0.09 132 0.34 61 22.54 74 142.42 103 0.44 133 0.17 62 38.48 75 30.19 104 0.98 63 158.97 105 3.43 64 202.71 Total area: 5,210.10 21,925.72 28.67 18.72 6,631.54