ankind has long possessed

the notion of rarity, and reco-

gnised the limited nature of
its resources compared with the extent
of its needs. Everything available had to
be used and nothing or practically
nothing was ever discarded. However,
the Industrial Revolution obliged mankind
to adopt a new rationale, that of exploita-
tion, predatory behaviour and the
consumption of resources, whether sus-
tainable or not, with no apparent limits.
Gradually waste became regarded as
pollution and had to be collected, hidden
or buried, with minimum impact on the
environment.
However, at the beginning of the
21st century, the world experienced a
series of shocks affecting as much the
natural resources markets as the clima-
tic and environmental equilibrium of our
planet. The explosion of prices in world
markets in 2008 impacted economies
reaching their limits as much in demo-
graphic as physical and biological terms.
Rarity had suddenly returned to centre
stage of our concerns.
Mankind had now collect, sort, recover
and recycle, and in a word, get back to the
ancient ideal of closing the material cycle
loop by transforming waste into material
resources. Waste management had been
a matter of proximity for a long time, and
tended to be perceived in a caricatural
manner in its environmental pollution
reduction task. Today it is becoming the
increasingly world-wide problem of ma-
naging resource supplies exploited for
the energy and materials they provide.
The increase in world flows of scrap and
recovered cellulose fibres and plastics
has turned the developed countries of
the northern hemisphere into a source
of supply, one which those in southern
hemisphere are now beginning to exploit.
This is inducing new problems of inter-
dependence between north and south.
The 2009 World Waste Panorama study
is the result of collaboration between
Veolia Environmental Services, world
No. 1 in the waste management, recovery
and recycling domain, and CyclOpe, the
leading European research institute in the
area of raw material and commodity
markets. The study has been produced
by Catherine Gaillochet, a legal expert
specialising in environmental law, under
the direction of Philippe Chalmin, Pro-
fessor with the Paris-Dauphine Univer-
sity and Chairman of CyclOpe.

G
r
a
p
h
ic
d
e
s
ig
n
c
o
v
e
r
: C
l
a
ir
e
M
a
b
il
l
e
-
w
w
w
.c
l
a
ir
m
a
b
.c
o
m
, p
h
o
t
o
s
: P
h
il
ip
p
e
D
u
r
e
u
il
-
w
w
w
.d
u
r
e
u
il
p
h
o
t
o
.c
o
m

I
m
p
. S
t
ip
a
-
9
3
M
o
n
t
r
e
u
il
-
F
r
a
n
c
e

1
1
/
0
9
#hili##e chali!
ca&he$i!e gaill"che&
m
From waste to resource:
an abstract oF
world waste survey 2009
Integral text:
Du rare linfini.
Panorama mondial des dchets 2009
Edition Economica
49, rue Hericart, 75015 Paris - FRANCE
From waste
to resource
a! ab%&$ac& "f )"$ld )a%&e %'$(e*
2009
Ab*+)ac+_C(,-_GB:CHALMIN_4910_C(,- 13/11/09 12:00 Pa"1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD 3
INTRODUCTION 5
SYNTHESIS: FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE 6
What is waste? 8
Where is the waste? 9
Assessment of world production 11
Highly diverse waste philosophies 17
The developing countries 20
Industrial waste difcult to assess 23
Special case of hazardous waste 25
A world market worth 300 billion euros 26
From waste to resource 27
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 2 13/11/09 12:05:26
FOREWORD
The last few years have been particularly turbulent for the major natural resource markets.
Between the end of the 20th century and the early summer of 2008, world prices were multiplied
by a factor of seven in current value. In spring 2008, market tensions were such that the vulnerability
of our planet in terms of natural resource availability came to the frontline. With climate change and
global warming accelerating, time appeared to be running out before the end of fossil fuel energy, the
rarefaction of numerous mineral substances and a penury even of agricultural and forestry goods.
The nancial and then economic crises that hit the world in 2008 have led, in the last few months,
to brutal readjustment of the raw materials markets. On a case by case basis, these have lost between
half and two-thirds of the peak values recorded in the spring of 2008. But abruptly the fears of
shortage and exhausted resources became less acute. The economic recession made us forget the
potential consequences of strong growth at the beginning of the 21st century. However, the problems
have not gone away, and mankind would be radically wrong to forget the message of 2008. Soon
in the space of the next two generations the Earth will be saturated by its human population.
Our grandchildren will then number ten billion, living for the vast majority in huge megapolises,
the measure of which we are only just beginning to perceive. They will have to feed themselves,
travel and keep warm, and consume resources which will be rarer and more difcult to extract and
produce. But, being richer, and more developed, they will also produce more waste, perhaps twice
as much as we can measure at the present time.
Waste management is one of the major issues of urban engineering for the decades to come.
However, it is not just a question of managing waste ows and disposing of unwanted products. We
must realise that part of our future depends on this waste: four billion tonnes are produced each year
of which scarcely one-quarter is recovered or recycled at the present time: energy, compost, scrap,
cellulose bres, as many secondary materials which can substitute for the raw materials of which
we are likely to run short before the end of this century. There is an echo here of the ancient dream of
the medieval alchemists, who sought to transform lowly lead into precious gold, and who also sought
to give some meaning to the philosophers stone.
The transmutation of waste in the 21st century is another form of the philosophers stone
Veolia Environmental Services is now a major player, one of the few to hold a real world position, at
a time when the waste economy is well on the way to globalisation via the secondary raw materials
markets.
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 3 13/11/09 12:05:27
Despite the efforts of international organisations, we still have little knowledge of the fundamentals
of waste economy. This is why in 2006 Veolia retained CyclOpe, the leading European research
institute on commodity markets, to prepare an initial exploratory study of the waste context in our
world. Despite its many omissions, this study rapidly became a reference and received noteworthy
acclaim, reected in distinction on the part of ISWA (International Solid Waste Association), the
major international waste sector organisation. However, Veolia Environmental Services believed in
the essential need to deepen this approach, and a new partnership was set up with CyclOpe. The
aim was to undertake a new study in greater depth, taking account of the emerging countries in
particular. It is this work which we now are pleased to present you.
The title, From waste to resource has been kept, so well does it sum up our ambition. Our
objective is to reconcile the scarcity of our natural resources with the almost innite quantities of
waste produced by our towns, cities and industries, waste which we must unfailingly and assiduously
recover.
Denis Gasquet
CEO of Veolia Environmental Services
Executive Vice President of Veolia Environnement
4 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 4 13/11/09 12:05:27
INTRODUCTION
The world natural resource markets indeed blew hot and cold in 2008 and 2009. Hot when fears
of penury again made the headlines in the midst of the sharpest price rises the world had known since
the 1970s, and cold when, a few months later, world recession induced a collapse of prices so severe
that the majority of production tools were seriously disrupted. In both cases, repercussions for the
secondary material markets and, in more general terms for the waste economy as a whole, have been
extensive.
Ignored or left on the shelf for many years, the waste economy is now called on to play a
fundamental role in the resources rationale of our planet in the 21st century. But we must face the
fact that we have very little data and equally limited analysis concerning one of the most difcult
sectors to apprehend. This is because of the extent to which the formal and informal sectors are
intermingled. In partnership with Veolia Environmental Services, the leading world operator in this
eld, CyclOpe published an initial study which, despite its omissions, lled an unquestionable gap in
our economic knowledge. This document, now updated, amplied and enriched constitutes a second
study published in the Autumn of 2009.
The mainspring of the new study has been Catherine Gaillochet, whom we must thank for
having successfully produced a work that has acquired tentacular proportions and at the same time
progressively quickened our curiosity. Possessing a legal background, Catherine has integrated
the legal dimension of the transition from waste to resource fully and with particular skill. It is
to Catherine that the greater part of the core quality of this work is due, any weaknesses being
attributable to the author of these few lines who wishes to take this opportunity to thank Veolia
Environmental Services for the exemplary nature of this partnership between a spirit of enterprise
and academic research.
Philippe Chalmin
Professor at Paris-Dauphine University
Chairman of CyclOpe
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 5 13/11/09 12:05:27
SYNTHESIS:
FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 6 13/11/09 12:05:27
SYNTHESIS:
FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE
SYNTHESIS FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 7
Mankind long possessed the sense of scarcity, and recognised the limited nature of its resources compared with the
extent of its needs. Everything available had to be used and nothing or practically nothing was ever discarded. Due
to limited techniques, natural resources remained little exploited and all types of waste had to be recycled. This was the
situation of traditional societies in the past, and the traveller of today encounters a barely changed attitude in the most
remote villages of the developing countries. Everything has a value, a use and man still controls the cycle of materials.
The industrial revolution that started at the end of the 18th century obliged mankind to adopt a new rationale that
of exploitation, predatory behaviour and consumption of resources, whether sustainable or not, with no apparent limits.
Technical progress enabled to go further, quicker and deeper, adopting a philosophy of discover and exploit. Little by
little, resources to be recovered and waste (increasing at a rate equal to that of urbanisation) were seen as pollutants that
had to be collected discretely (with the rst appearance of the dustbin in Paris in 1884, taking its French name Poubelle
from its inventor Prfet Poubelle), hidden or buried and, and above all, destroyed. The minor recycling trades (the rag-
and-bone men and their like, raked and sifted refuse in the dustbin, drawn by Daumier and celebrated in verse by Baude-
laire, much in the same way as their contemporary counterparts who process the wildcat landll sites of the third world
countries) went out of business in most industrialised countries during the second half of the 20th century.
But, at the same time, the world grew aware of its limits, as evidenced by the celebrated Limits to Growth report
published by the Club of Rome in 1971. This coincided with the rst oil crisis, and the major crisis of 1974 impacting the
raw materials markets. The main areas of concern at the time were pollution and the availability of natural resources. The
Club of Rome did its best to underscore the need to process and recycle waste, but its warnings were quickly forgotten,
overshadowed by the collapse of world prices marking the end of the 20th century.
The recycling of waste or the manufacture of durable products are, for the most part, regarded as unpro-
table (page 183).
Some notable examples of discoveries of a practical nature which would favour the emergence of a world
in a state of balance:
new methods of waste collection designed to reduce pollution and encourage recycling of re-usable sc rap,
more efcient recycling techniques aimed at reducing consumption of basic raw materials (page 281).
Club of Rome Limits to Growth 1972 report for the French version.
A new crisis brought us back to reality at the dawn of the 21st century. From 2002/2003 onwards, the majority of
raw materials markets were faced with decits, shortages and rocketing prices, these reaching levels by July 2008 which,
calculated on a constant value basis (taking ination into account), exceeded those of the early 1970s. World economic
growth and the impressive lift-off of the Chinese economy have been at the root of this major crisis following two decades
marked by the illusion of abundance.
Once again, the scarcity of resources became a subject of concern, together with the exhaustion of supplies in a new
context, that of climate change and global warming. The world suddenly became aware of its economic fragility from a
number of reports and lms such as those of Nicholas Stern and Al Gore. Not only were resources becoming rarer and
consequently more costly, but their largely uncontrolled exploitation was causing practically irreversible situations of im-
balance. The sombre conclusions of Limits to Growth were nally appearing to ring true, and looking even blacker as the
new apostles of negative growth missed no opportunity in emphasising. Without going this far, the issue of sustainable
development has now reached centre stage in the majority of major public policies, from the Grenelle Environmental
Forum
1
of 2007 in France, to the Barack Obama recovery plan in the USA in 2009.
The brutal drop in prices in the raw materials (and secondary) markets during the second half of 2008, with oil and
metal prices divided by three, should not modify the fundamental factors in an analysis of rarity, in particular when this is
applied to the prospect of a world population of 10 billion in the space of the next two generations.
For a few months during 2007 and 2008, secondary materials obtained from the recovery and recycling of waste
saw their prices multiplied by a factor of ve or six under the impact of the insatiable appetite of China. At the same
1. Frances Environment Round Table
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 7 13/11/09 12:05:27
time, the very sharp rise in energy prices made the most ambitious waste energy recovery projects possible. Despite
their excesses and the apparently irrational nature of this speculative bubble, the message from the markets remains
fundamentally valid.
The 21st century has begun with on a number of unbalanced situations: those of the mouths to feed, starving po-
pulations which will need every acre of available land, fossil and mining resources on the road to extinction, or at least
ever more costly to extract, a world at the mercy of increasing urban development and confronted with cities ever more
complex to manage. These examples of imbalance represent as many challenges but with one dimension common to all
of them, regarded too often as a problem and still far too infrequently as a solution, namely waste, a source of production
practically without limits, of which mankind, more than ever before, must learn to identify the value in order get back to
the ancient ideal of the alchemists of completing the material cycle, transmuting waste into a resource, and reducing all
forms of predatory consumption to the greatest possible degree.
Waste management was long a question of proximity, and the very location of certain landll sites led to petty quar-
rels between neighbouring municipal authorities. The implementation of national policies is a more recent phenomenon,
where each country has applied its own particular style of inventiveness to its own complexities, such as again demonstra-
ted by the revision of the European waste framework directive at the end of 2008. More recently still, it has become clear
that the problem is situated at world level. Apart from that aspect of the problem, best known in media coverage terms,
concerning the transport of hazardous waste and the pollution risks involved in the movement of undesirable elements
such as the Clmenceau and other France type vessels, there are a steadily increasing ows of scrap, recovered bres and
plastics, for which the mines are the long established industrialised countries now exporting to the emerging countries.
In many cases, the proportion of secondary raw materials obtained through recycling already exceeds the share of pri-
mary materials such as for paper and some non-ferrous metals. The production of energy is also far from being anecdotal,
in common with the contribution of waste treatment to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol.
It is consequently more than ever essential to seek a world vision of waste economics, from the initial discarding of
waste to its ultimate use. The task here is particularly difcult as the denitions involved are so variable, the statistics so
incomplete and international vision practically non-existent.
WHAT IS WASTE?
This question lies in the background to all national and international regulations governing the waste markets (proces-
sing methods, industrial structures and trading dynamics). This question could summarise, in its own right, all discussions
on the subject of waste, arguments between countries, manufacturers, legal experts, economists, environmentalists and
politicians, statistical problems encountered and the difculties of achieving a comparative analysis of national markets.
Dening waste is not a simple matter. How can we establish the link between an individual or a school, the activity of
which is simply living, and an industry manufacturing some products it desires and others it does not?
Faced with this complexity, lawmakers have generally replied in equally complex terms, combining an objective phy-
sical denition (a list of dened substances) with a subjective legal denition (any substance or object which the holder
discards, or intends or is required to discard 2). Most national legal denitions consequently associate both these physical
and legal aspects. There is no international denitive list of items which are waste and items which are not. It is frequently
left to jurisprudence to rule on qualication as waste. The notion of abandonment can raise problems according to the
substances or materials considered, in particular in the case of materials reintroduced in industrial cycles such as metal,
paper or plastic bottles. If in some industrialized countries, particularly in Europe, plastic bottles still do not have a clear
status, developing countries clearly view these materials as resources.
From the point of view of economic theory, waste is a negative externality: both consumption and manufacturing
activities generate waste with a negative impact on the wellbeing of populations (environmental pollution) outside any
market context. Regulatory bodies tend to correct this externality by internalising post-consumption cost. Measurement
of this environmental pollution is generally the result of a political decision, one which sets the level of externality adjust-
ment based on remediation costs. Through the introduction of taxes (impact on prices) or emission standards (impact on
quantities), waste is attributed a value and externality a price.
2.Article 3.1, Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 2008 on waste
8 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 8 13/11/09 12:05:27
The value of waste is also the cost incurred for the environment and its protection. However, distinction is made between
two types of waste, according to the two economic circuits which they follow to correct their negative impact. Initially, all was-
te has a cost (collection cost), but subsequently distinction is made between waste having a negative or positive exchange value,
according to whether the value of the products (energy or materials) resulting from their recovery covers associated depollution
and disposal costs or not, after adding in any eventual environmental taxes and/ or deducting eventual nancial assistance.
This distinction is dynamic. Market developments trends show waste as having an increasing positive exchange value and
becoming a resource and a secondary material. A growing number of rst type wastes are moving to the second type (toward
energy recovery, selective collection rationale or even future recovery of stored waste currently not recovered).
The ability of waste to be re-used, to be introduced in a recovery process (where the waste acquires increasing value),
and the risks which it represents for the health and the environment thus appear as qualication criteria for the loss of
waste status.
It is essentially the clear denition of the borderline between waste and non-waste which appear decisive for the
economic players in the waste market. It is in terms of materials which can be recovered, recycled or re-used, and thus
denition of the terms recovery, re-use and recycling that the borderline beyond which waste ceases to be waste is
situated. The whole problem is to reach a clear and precise consensus of opinion on these denitions, and this debate has
not yet been settled. Clear loss of waste status is however crucial, and the issues involved are important from an econo-
mic viewpoint, as loss of waste status conditions recovery procedures, markets, trading (circulation and traceability) and
return on invested capital.
It is clearly the transition from waste status to resource status which constitutes the core element of the complex,
waste cycle world and our analysis.
WHERE IS THE WASTE?
The production of waste is perhaps the most natural act of life and of mankind in a society whether rural or urban.
The more developed and therefore the wealthier an economy, the greater the quantity of waste it produces despite
the fact that this correlation is not always followed, as we shall see.
There are many sources of waste. A distinction is currently made (and increasingly uniformly according to the coun-
tries concerned) between:
Waste produced by households, frequently linked to consumption, and collected essentially under the responsibility
of the municipalities. This waste includes, without always being able to identify them, other urban wastes originating
from economic activities (shops, restaurants, etc.) or more or less public establishments (schools, etc.), hence the
term municipal waste;
Waste generated by industrial activities, frequently linked directly to production (and, in some cases, reintroduced
directly into the production process) or occurring at the end of life of certain products;
Two somewhat special categories, namely waste emanating from the construction and demolition sector as also
mining activities and waste generated by agricultural activities and;
Finally, on a transverse basis with regard to all categories of waste, those regarded as hazardous by the national or
international authorities.
Various attempts, coherent to a greater or lesser degree, have been and continue to be made at international level, to
classify and categorise waste (European Waste Catalogue, OECD lists, Basel Convention). Confronted with this hetero-
geneous situation, the shortage of statistical data and the complexity of the sector, any assessment at world level inevitably
includes a degree of imprecision.
The very notion of the waste production is ambiguous and, in any case, more or less uncontrollable. Preference
is therefore frequently given to the collection stage, namely the moment when the waste enters the economic circuit.
However, if it is just as possible to make relatively reliable municipal waste volume calculations, limited nevertheless to
urban populations in the case of emerging and developing countries, estimates of industrial waste (non-hazardous and ha-
zardous) are often unreliable, even in developed countries. Finally, in view of the heavyweight characteristics of construc-
tion, demolition, mining and agricultural waste, combined with relatively high internal re-use levels tending to restrict
trading, it is even harder to consider these waste categories and include them in an analysis of an international character.
SYNTHESIS FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 9
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 9 13/11/09 12:05:27
10 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
C
h
i
n
a

(
u
r
b
.

+

r
u
r
.
)

2
0
0
5
E
U

1
5

+

N
o
r
.

+

S
w
i
t
z
.

+

I
c
e
l
a
n
d

2
0
0
6
U
S
A

2
0
0
6
B
r
a
z
i
l

2
0
0
6
I
n
d
i
a

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
4
I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a

2
0
0
3
J
a
p
a
n

2
0
0
5
T
u
r
k
e
y

2
0
0
6
M
e
x
i
c
o

2
0
0
6
E
U

N
M
S

2
0
0
6
B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h

2
0
0
4
T
h
a
i
l
a
n
d

(
u
r
b
.
)

2
0
0
3
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a

2
0
0
5
P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n

2
0
0
4
P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s

(
u
r
b
.
)

2
0
0
4
E
g
y
p
t

2
0
0
1
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

2
0
0
3
V
i
e
t
n
a
m

(
u
r
b
.
)

2
0
0
4
C
a
n
a
d
a

2
0
0
6
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
e

2
0
0
6
M
o
r
o
c
c
o

(
e
s
t
.
)
T
a
i
w
a
n

2
0
0
6
S
o
u
t
h
A
f
r
i
c
a

2
0
0
6
C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a

2
0
0
1
H
o
n
g

K
o
n
g

2
0
0
6
V
e
n
e
z
u
e
l
a

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
3
C
h
i
l
e

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
6
N
e
w

Z
e
a
l
a
n
d

2
0
0
5
S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

2
0
0
6
T
u
n
i
s
i
a

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
6
300
238
228.48
83
67.5
59.1
55.6
35.9 38 34.72
24
20 18.7
15.1 14.514.4
14 13 12.8
10 7.5
8
7.7 7
5.2 1.54
6.2
1.4
6 6
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, UN statistics, CyclOpe, UNESCAP and World Bank.
Note: Russian and Ukrainian gures were omitted from this table (not sufciently reliable).
Source: CyclOpe.
Note:The quantities of non-hazardous and hazardous construction and demolition waste produced in a selection of countries amounts to 1 billion tonnes.The quantities of waste produced
by the mining, electricity and water industry (non-hazardous) in a selection of countries amount to 6.4 billion tonnes.

Tonnes
Quantities Quantities
produced (tonnes) collected (tonnes)
World total municipal waste 1.7 to 1.9 billion 1.24 billion
Manufacturing industry non-hazardous waste 1.2 to 1.67 billion 1.2 billion
Manufacturing industry hazardous waste for a selection of
countries
490 million 300 million
Total 3.4 to 4 billion 2.74 billion
Estimated world waste production and collection for 2006
Municipal waste production in selected countries
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 10 13/11/09 12:05:28
SYNTHESIS FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 11
Source: CyclOpe.
Note: EU 15: collected statistics.
EU NMS (New Member States): collected statistics.
Other OECD: collected statistics.
CIS: extrapolation from data for Russia, Ukraine,Azerbaijan, Byelorussia, Georgia,
Kirghizstan and Moldavia for population and production per inhabitant.
Southeast Asia: extrapolation from data for Bangladesh, urban India, Pakistan
and Sri Lanka for population and production per inhabitant.
Asia Pacic: extrapolation from data for China,Indonesia,Philippines,Singapore,
Taiwan,Thailand,Vietnam, Japan and South Korea for population and production
per inhabitant.
North Africa: extrapolation from data for Algeria, Morocco,Tunisia and Egypt
for population and production per inhabitant.
Middle East and Arabian Peninsular: extrapolation from data for Israel,
Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Yemen for
population and production per inhabitant.
Sub-Saharan Africa: extrapolation from data for South Africa, Benin,
Madagascar and Zambia for population and production per inhabitant.
Central America and the Caribbean: extrapolation from data for Guatemala,
Costa Rica, Panama, Dominican Republic and Cuba for population and production
per inhabitant.
South America: extrapolation from data for Venezuela, urban Colombia, Peru,
Brazil, Argentine, Bolivia, Uruguay and Chile for population and production per
inhabitant.
ASSESSMENT OF WORLD PRODUCTION
Simple assessment of world waste supply nevertheless represents an exercise of considerable complexity. Denitions
are barely harmonised from one country to the next, in particular in regard to the most loosely dened categories, namely
those including waste from the construction and demolition, mining, agricultural and forestry sectors.
If we take only those categories best documented at world level municipal waste and industrial waste we obtain
an estimate of global annual waste supply amounting to between 3.4 and 4 billion tonnes. The image of a world produ-
cing 10 million tonnes of waste per day is probably accurate. However, it should be pointed out that this gure contains
many approximations insofar as industrial waste is concerned, for which the estimates made in many emerging countries
appear somewhat unreal, even where the data is obtained from recognised national institutions or authorities. The prin-
cipal inaccuracy in the case of industrial waste (non-hazardous and hazardous) is due to the waste treated internally by
the manufacturers themselves. This waste is not included in collected waste statistics, and consequently does not enter
the waste management economic circuit directly, but rather the economic circuit for the industrial sectors concerned
(e.g.: steel industry, etc.). Furthermore, industrial waste data could only be collected for a number of countries, and it
is not possible to extrapolate for this category of waste (in contrast to municipal waste), due to the extent to which the
data depend on the industrial structure particular to each country. An estimate of non-hazardous and hazardous industrial
waste quantities is consequently only partial due to its geographical representation, and imprecise due to the relative
unreliability of the data.
Once again, our estimates for municipal waste appear the most reliable, in particular at the waste collection stage.
World production would appear to be of the order of 1.7 billion tonnes, of which 1.24 billion tonnes are apparently
actually collected, collection accounting for practically all production in the developed countries, and declining in the
developing countries according to their GDP and level of urban development. This being so, the absence of organised
collection does not mean that the existing supply is not exploited on an informal basis. Paradoxically, recycling levels
should it be possible to calculate these would probably be surprising.
The gure of 1.24 billion tonnes is itself an estimate. Figures are reliable for OECD countries. However, for the
emerging and developing countries, data were extrapolated for a number of representative countries, taking due account
of GDP levels, degrees of urban development and population gures. At all events, this data is probably underestimated
in regard to the real situation, but does include what we can qualify as merchant waste, namely waste which will enter
the economic circuits in one way or another. It should also be pointed out that international comparisons can be distor-
ted by the fact that some countries include commercial waste and even some urban industrial waste, while others limit
themselves with domestic waste alone.
EU NMS
(26 Mt)
South-East
Asia (53 Mt)
Asia Pacific
(236 Mt)
Other OECD
(388 Mt)
Other CIS
(83 Mt)
EU 15
(225 Mt)
North Africa
(32 Mt)
Middle East
& Arabian Peninsula
(31 Mt)
Sub-Saharan Africa
(64 Mt)
South America
(89 Mt)
Central America
& Caribbean (13 Mt)
Estimate of the world municipal waste
collection Total: 1.24 billion tons
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 11 13/11/09 12:05:28
For purposes of comparison, we can take a look at gures for municipal waste production in urban areas estimated
by the World Bank. At nearly 1.9 billion tonnes, the World Bank estimate is situated in the upper segment of our bracket,
the major difference relating to the estimate for emerging and developing countries.
However, it is in these very countries that the rates of conventional collection, namely collected waste entering a
controlled circuit, are the lowest: 60% in average revenue countries and 40% in the poorest countries
3
.
The richer a country, the more waste it produces! This afrmation almost checks out completely. High revenue
countries produce 500 kg and more municipal waste per inhabitant per year. As is to be expected, the highest gure
(730 kg) is for the USA, at least if we ignore the gures put out by the city States such as Singapore and Hong Kong, which
include certain types of industrial waste in their data. In general, the most advanced emerging countries are situated at
between 300 and 400 kg per inhabitant. Other emerging countries such as China are at between 200 and 300 kg. As for
the developing countries where data are available, and in particular for the urban areas, the gure is around 150 kg.
12 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
250
200
150
100
50
0
V
e
n
e
z
u
e
l
a

2
0
0
3
T
u
n
i
s
i
a

2
0
0
6
N
e
w

Z
e
a
l
a
n
d

2
0
0
5
B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h

2
0
0
4
T
a
i
w
a
n

2
0
0
6
S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

2
0
0
6
C
h
i
l
e

2
0
0
6
M
o
r
o
c
c
o

2
0
0
4
V
i
e
t
n
a
m

(
u
r
b
.
)

2
0
0
4
H
o
n
g

K
o
n
g

2
0
0
6
S
o
u
t
h

A
f
r
i
c
a

2
0
0
6
C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a

2
0
0
1
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a

2
0
0
6
P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s

(
u
r
b
.
)

2
0
0
4
U
k
r
a
i
n
e

2
0
0
6
P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n

2
0
0
4
C
a
n
a
d
a

2
0
0
6
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

2
0
0
2
T
h
a
i
l
a
n
d

(
u
r
b
.
)

2
0
0
3
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a

2
0
0
5
E
U

N
M
S

2
0
0
5
I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a

2
0
0
3
T
u
r
k
e
y

2
0
0
6
I
n
d
i
a

(
u
r
b
.
)

2
0
0
4
M
e
x
i
c
o

2
0
0
6
R
u
s
s
i
a

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
6
B
r
a
z
i
l

2
0
0
6
J
a
p
a
n

2
0
0
6
C
h
i
n
a

2
0
0
5
E
U

1
5

+

N
o
r
.

+

I
c
e
.

2
0
0
5
U
S
A

2
0
0
6
226 225.8
55.4
148
51.4
48.6
36
34.5
29.7
29
18.3 18.2
14.4
13.2 13
11
10 10
8.3 7 6.7 6.2 5.4 5.3 5.2
5 4.8
5.7
1.5 1.3 0.8
Collected municipal waste in selected countries
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe, UN statistics, UNESCAP and World Bank.
3.Waste collection systems in developing countries, Sandra Cointreau,World Bank, 2005.
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 12 13/11/09 12:05:28
Nevertheless, the very nature of the waste differs substantially according to the degree of development of the countries
concerned. The waste of the rich is not the waste of the poor!
The richer a country, the more its waste contains packaging materials and sophisticated products, and less food waste
and consequently less organic and fermentable waste. In poor countries, this waste represents between 50 and 80% of
the total. Furthermore, insofar as a large part of this waste is raked and picked, quasi-systematically by the informal
sector, active in almost all wildcat landlls in major developing countries cities, what is left would basically sufciently
homogeneous for energy or biological recovery. The paper and cardboard content of municipal waste in rich countries
can be as high as 50% of the total, with a substantial proportion of plastics, metals and glass also. Selective sorting and
recycling are entirely logical in this context.
As many countries and as many cultures, as many sources of waste supply and as many collection models, and more
and more waste recovery.
SYNTHESIS FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 13
Source: The growing complexities and challenges of solid waste management in developing countries, Sandra Cointreau estimates, World Bank, 2007.
Municipal waste in kg/inhabitant/year
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe, UN statistics, UNESCAP and the World Bank.
Note: Ofcial municipal waste data for Singapore and Hong Kong call for comment as the gures are very high at 1,176 kg and 854 kg respectively.These are not included in the above graph,
as they correspond to ows including a substantial proportion of industrial waste, not normally accounted for under the denition of municipal waste generally accepted. It was consequently
preferred to give gures for domestic waste only.
k
g
/
i
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
n
t
/
y
e
a
r
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
U
S
A
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
E
U

1
5
T
u
r
k
e
y
H
o
n
g

K
o
n
g
J
a
p
a
n
N
e
w

Z
e
a
l
a
n
d
C
a
n
a
d
a

(
d
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
)
S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e
E
U

N
M
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a
R
u
s
s
i
a
T
a
i
w
a
n
B
r
a
z
i
l
M
e
x
i
c
o
M
o
r
o
c
c
o
I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
T
h
a

l
a
n
d
U
k
r
a
i
n
e
C
h
i
n
a
V
e
n
e
z
u
e
l
a
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a
C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a
B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h
P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s

(
u
r
b
.
)
I
n
d
i
a

(
u
r
b
.
)
V
i
e
t
n
a
m

(
u
r
b
.
)
S
o
u
t
h
A
f
r
i
c
a
P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
I
n
d
i
a

(
r
u
r
.
)
82
127
144 146
164 164
180
199
209
220 230
235 237
255
250
332 337
339
346
361
375 380
382
400
434
461
480
577
680
760

Population
Municipal waste quantities
in urban areas
High revenue developed
1 billion
Approx. 1.4 million tonnes per day
countries (1.4 kg/capita/day)
Average revenue developing 3 billion (approx. 30% of the urban Approx. 2.4 million tonnes per day
countries population live in shantytowns) (0.8 kg/capita/day)
Low revenue developing 2.4 billion (approx. 65% of the urban Approx. 1.4 million tonnes/day
countries population live in shantytowns) (0.6 kg/capita/day)
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 13 13/11/09 12:05:29
14 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009
Waste and GDP: what correlation?
Municipal waste and GDP per capita
0
1
0
,
0
0
0
5
,
0
0
0
1
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
5
,
0
0
0
3
0
,
0
0
0
3
5
,
0
0
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
4
5
,
0
0
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
800
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
k
g
/
i
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
n
t
/
y
e
a
r
GNP/inhabitant for 2007 ($)
USA
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
Singapore
EU 15
EU NEM
South Korea
Taiwan
Russia
Turkey
Brazil
Chile
Mexico
Argentina
Venezuela
China
India South Africa
Japan
2006 and 2007 statistics illustrate the intuition according to which the quantity of waste produced per
capita depends on the standard of living measured in terms of GDP per capita. The correlation between
the two variables is 0.56, which could lead to the likelihood of a causal link between the GDP level per
inhabitant and the quantity of municipal waste per capita.
After calculating the waste regression line by GDP, we observe that the points are relatively distant
from the line. The causality link between GDP and waste quantities is consequently, at the very least,
questionable.
In truth, the two variables are linked. This is because waste production statistics are based on waste
collection, and collection is as comprehensive as the GDP is high.
In other words, the market in volume follows changes in the GDP. Changes in household consumption are
also a decisive factor. The production of municipal waste is indeed linked to the GDP per inhabitant in two ways:
rstly by living standard and, secondly by waste collection efciency, itself dependent on the GDP.
In real terms, international comparisons are signicant if between groups of countries having similar
GDP/ inhabitant gures, naturally provided that the available statistics relate to the same waste categories.
Domestic waste collected and GDP
Although Australia, Canada and the USA have comparable GDP/inhabitant gures, comparison
is impossible as Canadian statistics relate to domestic waste, while those for the other two countries to
municipal waste.
On the other hand, comparisons between EU 15 and Japan, as also between South Korea and the new
Member States (NMS) of the European Union, are meaningful.
The same remarks apply to emerging and developing countries.
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe and UN statistics.
Notes: Municipal waste except Canada and Morocco (domestic waste).
2007 data except China (2006), South Korea (2005) and urban India (2004).
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 14 13/11/09 12:05:29
SYNTHESIS FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 15
Domestic waste collected and GDP
Municipal waste and GDP per capita for emerging and developing countries
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe and UN statistics.
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe and UN statistics, World Bank.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
k
g
/
i
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
n
t
/
y
e
a
r
GNP/inhabitant for 2007 ($)
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
6
,
0
0
0
8
,
0
0
0
1
0
,
0
0
0
1
2
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
5
,
0
0
0
7
,
0
0
0
9
,
0
0
0
1
1
,
0
0
0
Chile
Russia
Turkey
Brazil
Mexico
Argentina
Venezuela
China
Pakistan
India urb.
Indonesia
Morocco
Ukraine
Thaland
Colombia
Vietnam urb.
South Africa
Country kg/inhabitant
GNP/inhabitant for 2007
($)
USA 730 45,593
Australia 680 42,552
UE 15 577 28,100
Turkey 480 6,547
Japan 434 34,022
New Zealand 400 29,697
Canada (domestic) 382 42,738
UE NEM 375 20,153
South Korea 361 19,624
Russia 346 8,611
Taiwan 339 16,274
Brazil 337 6,841
Mexico 332 8,426
Singapore (domestic) 325 34,152
Chile 318 9,697
Indonesia 255 1,824
Morocco (domestic) 250 2,367
Thailand 237 3,399
Ukraine 235 2,829
China 230 2,459
Venezuela 220 8,251
Argentine 209 6,309
Colombia 199 3,614
India (urban) 164 964
Vietnam (urban) 146 808
South Africa 144 5,723
Pakistan 127 908
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 15 13/11/09 12:05:29
16 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009
Typology of municipal waste collection by country revenue
Source: CyclOpe.
Low revenue Average revenue High revenue
countries countries countries
(India, Africa) (Argentina, EU NMS) (USA, EU 15)
GDP in $/capita/year < $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 > $20,000
Average consumption of paper
and cardboard by kg/capita/
year
20 20 70 130 300
Municipal waste by kg/capita/
year
150 250 250 550 350 750
Formal collection rate < 70% 70% 95% > 95%
Statutory waste management
framework
No national
environmental strategy,
little application of the
statutory framework,
absence of statistics
National environmental
strategy, Ministry of the
Environment, statutory
framework but insufcient
application, little statistics
National
environmental
strategy, Ministry of
the Environment,
statutory framework
set up and applied,
statistics
Informal collection
Highly developed,
substantial volume
capture, tendency to
organise in cooperatives
or associations
Developed and in process
of institutionalisation
Quasi non-existent
Municipal waste composition (%)
Organic/fermentable 50 80 20 65 20 40
Paper and cardboard 4 15 15 40 15 50
Plastics 5 12 7 15 10 15
Metals 1 5 1 5 5 8
Glass 1 5 1 5 5 8
Humidity 50% 80% 40% 60% 20% 30%
Caloric power in kcal/kg 800 1,100 1,100 1,300 1,500 2,700
Waste treatment
Wildcat landlls > 50%
Informal recycling 15%
Landll sites > 90%, start
of selective collection,
organised recycling 5%,
coexistent informal
recycling
Selective collection,
incineration,
recycling > 20%
Informal recycling
Highly developed,
substantial volume
capture, tendency to
organise in cooperatives
or associations
Developed and in process
of institutionalisation
Quasi non-existent
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 16 13/11/09 12:05:30
SYNTHESIS FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 17
Source: OECD Environmental Data, Compendium 2006/2007.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
5
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s

-

2
0
0
4
J
a
p
a
n

-

2
0
0
3
S
w
e
d
e
n

-

2
0
0
5
D
e
n
m
a
r
k

-

2
0
0
3
A
u
s
t
r
i
a

-

2
0
0
4
B
e
l
g
i
u
m

-

2
0
0
3
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

-

2
0
0
4
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g

-

2
0
0
3
N
o
r
w
a
y

-

2
0
0
4
F
r
a
n
c
e

-

2
0
0
5
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a

-

2
0
0
4
S
p
a
i
n

-

2
0
0
4
U
S
A

-

2
0
0
5
I
t
a
l
y

-

2
0
0
5
F
i
n
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
4
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l

-

2
0
0
5
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m

-

2
0
0
5
I
r
e
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
5
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

-

2
0
0
3
I
c
e
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
4
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a

-

2
0
0
5
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.

2
0
0
4
N
e
w

Z
e
a
l
a
n
d

-

1
9
9
9
H
u
n
g
a
r
y

-

2
0
0
3
M
e
x
i
c
o

-

2
0
0
6
G
r
e
e
c
e

-

2
0
0
3
P
o
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
5
T
u
r
k
e
y

-

2
0
0
4
9
7
.
8
%
9
6
.
7
%
9
2
.
2
%
9
1
.
9
%
9
0
.
4
%
8
4
.
7
%
7
9
.
8
%
7
7
.
9
%
7
2
.
1
%
6
9
.
7
%
6
6
.
1
%
6
4
.
3
%
6
4
.
1
%
5
9
.
9
%
5
4
.
4
%
5
4
.
3
%
5
1
.
7
%
3
6
.
4
%
3
6
%
2
5
.
9
%
1
9
%
1
7
.
7
%
1
1
.
6
%
6
.
8
%
5
.
1
%
4
.
8
%
3
.
4
%
1
.
7
%
0
.
5
%
Municipal waste: landlling rate in OECD countries
HIGHLY DIVERSE WASTE PHILOSOPHIES
The relationship between the different societies with their waste is highly complex, to analyse both in terms of time
and space. This is illustrated by the way in which waste is treated at the production and collection stages, collection being
increasingly organised on a collective basis. There are four types of waste treatment methods:
uncontrolled wildcat landll sites,
disposal into controlled landlls, ranging from simple uncovered landlls to ecological landlls using cutting-edge
techniques to recover biogas and convert waste to energy,
incineration with or without energy recovery,
material recovery ranging from composting to recycling.
Several factors have an impact on the waste markets and inuence their development in terms of structure and
dynamics. These are:
degree of wealth and economic development,
availability of land,
nature of soils more or less suitable for burial,
legal constraints,
more subjective factors such as civic behaviour or collective awareness,
climatic factors.
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 17 13/11/09 12:05:30
18 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
I
n
c
i
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

a
s

%

o
f

t
o
t
a
l
P
o
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
5
H
u
n
g
a
r
y

-

2
0
0
3
S
p
a
i
n

-

2
0
0
4
A
u
s
t
r
i
a

-

2
0
0
4
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m

-

2
0
0
5
I
c
e
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
4
F
i
n
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
4
I
t
a
l
y

-

2
0
0
5
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a

-

2
0
0
5
U
S
A

-

2
0
0
5
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.

-

2
0
0
4
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a

-

2
0
0
4
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l

-

2
0
0
5
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

-

2
0
0
4
N
o
r
w
a
y

-

2
0
0
4
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s

-

2
0
0
4
F
r
a
n
c
e

-

2
0
0
5
B
e
l
g
i
u
m

-

2
0
0
3
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g

-

2
0
0
3
D
e
n
m
a
r
k

-

2
0
0
3
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
5
S
w
e
d
e
n

-

2
0
0
5
J
a
p
a
n

-

2
0
0
3
7
4
%
5
4
%
5
0
.
2
%
4
9
.
8
%
3
8
.
9
%
3
4
.
3
%
3
3
.
8
%
3
2
.
3
%
2
4
.
7
%
2
4
.
6
%
2
1
.
1
%
1
4
.
4
%
1
4
%
1
3
.
6
%
1
2
.
5
%
1
2
.
1
%
9
.
9
%
8
.
8
%
8
.
4
%
6
.
8
%
6
.
7
%
5
.
6
%
0
.
5
%
All or practically all countries reect a particular situation, although a number of major rules exist which check
out in most cases:
The poorer a country, the less it possess genuine waste policies, and the higher the proportion of waste landlled
with a very high percentage placed in wildcat landll sites. This is the case in the majority of developing countries,
but also a number of emerging countries such as Turkey and Mexico, the majority countries with formally centrally
planned economies (USSR and Eastern Europe), where ecological awareness is at least recent, and even in Europe in
a country such as Greece or, in a different context, Southern Italy, the most agrant example of a developed country
incapable of controlling its wildcat landll sites.
The greater the size of a country, the greater the attraction of using space for controlled landll sites and application
of burial rationales. This is the case with Australia and, to a lesser extent, the USA and, paradoxically, Hong Kong.
The greater the environmental awareness, the more marked the recovery and recycling policies applied. This is the
case in most Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and Germany.
Generally, the choice of incineration corresponds to high urban population densities and a relative shortage of space,
such as for Japan, Taiwan or Northern Europe.
Countries which have accorded priority to the recycling of industrial waste ahead of municipal waste, such as Japan.
Countries which have placed the emphasis on recycling and composting of organic matter extracted from municipal
waste, such as South Korea.
However, other factors can be mentioned, such as the nature of clay soils in the United Kingdom, explaining the
choice of landlling as the main method of waste treatment.
Source: OECD Environmental Data, Compendium 2006/2007.
Municipal waste: incineration rate in OECD countries
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 18 13/11/09 12:05:30
SYNTHESIS FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 19
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
%
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a

-

2
0
0
4
S
w
e
d
e
n

-

2
0
0
5
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
5
I
r
e
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
5
N
o
r
w
a
y

-

2
0
0
4
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

-

2
0
0
4
B
e
l
g
i
u
m

-

2
0
0
3
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

-

2
0
0
3
F
i
n
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
4
C
a
n
a
d
a

-

2
0
0
4
A
u
s
t
r
i
a

-

2
0
0
4
D
e
n
m
a
r
k

-

2
0
0
3
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s

-

2
0
0
4
U
S
A

-

2
0
0
5
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g

-

2
0
0
3
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m

-

2
0
0
5
J
a
p
a
n

-

2
0
0
3
F
r
a
n
c
e

-

2
0
0
5
I
c
e
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
4
N
e
w

Z
e
a
l
a
n
d

-

1
9
9
9
S
p
a
i
n

-

2
0
0
4
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l

-

2
0
0
5
G
r
e
e
c
e

-

2
0
0
3
P
o
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
5
M
e
x
i
c
o

-

2
0
0
6
H
u
n
g
a
r
y

-

2
0
0
3
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.

-

2
0
0
4
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a

-

2
0
0
5
1
.
2
%
1
.
3
%
2
.
7
%
3
.
3
%
3
.
9
%
8
.
1
%
8
.
6
%
9
%
1
5
.
3
%
1
5
.
6
%
1
5
.
8
%
1
6
.
8
%
1
7
.
4
% 2
3
.
2
%
2
3
.
8
% 2
5
.
4
%
2
5
.
6
%
2
6
.
5
%
2
6
.
8
%
3
0
.
1
%
3
0
.
3
%
3
1
.
1
%
3
3
.
1
%
3
3
.
7
%
3
3
.
9
%
3
3
.
9
%
3
3
.
9
%
4
9
.
2
%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
%
A
u
s
t
r
i
a

-

2
0
0
4
I
t
a
l
y

-

2
0
0
5
S
p
a
i
n

-

2
0
0
4
B
e
l
g
i
u
m

-

2
0
0
3
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g

-

2
0
0
3
G
e
r
m
a
n
y

-

2
0
0
4
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
5
N
o
r
w
a
y

-

2
0
0
4
D
e
n
m
a
r
k

-

2
0
0
3
F
r
a
n
c
e

-

2
0
0
5
C
a
n
a
d
a

-

2
0
0
4
S
w
e
d
e
n

-

2
0
0
5
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m

-

2
0
0
5
I
c
e
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
4
U
S
A

-

2
0
0
5
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l

-

2
0
0
5
P
o
l
a
n
d

-

2
0
0
5
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
.

-

2
0
0
4
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s

-

2
0
0
4
T
u
r
k
e
y

-

2
0
0
4
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a

-

2
0
0
5
H
u
n
g
a
r
y

-

2
0
0
3
1
.
1
%
1
.
4
%
1
.
4
%
2
.
3
%
3
.
2
%
3
.
4
%
6
.
3
%
8
.
4
%
8
.
8
%
9
.
3
%
1
0
.
4
%
1
2
.
5
%
1
4
.
3
%
1
5
.
3
%
1
5
.
3
%
1
5
.
9
%
1
7
.
1
%
1
9
.
3
%
2
2
.
8
%
3
2
.
7
%
3
3
.
3
%
4
4
.
7
%
Source: OECD Environmental Data, Compendium 2006/2007.
Source: OECD Environmental Data, Compendium 2006/2007.
Municipal waste: composting rate in OECD countries
Municipal waste: recycling rate by OECD country
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 19 13/11/09 12:05:31
In total, we observe a number of waste treatment schools of thought, apart from differing levels of economic
development, and taking the industrialised countries only:
Countries still marked by landlling and underground disposal (over 50% of total waste): Oceania, United Kingdom,
Ireland and the USA on the one hand, and Greece, Spain and Italy on the other. On the one side, the Anglo- Saxon
countries, and on the other the Mediterranean countries, which we could perhaps not have imagined adopting the
same practices in regard to waste.
Incineration culture generally less marked, but which we nd in Northern Europe, Switzerland and, in particular,
in Japan, where it represents three-quarters of all waste treatment.
Growth in material recovery (composting and recycling), very strong (over 50%) in Northern Europe, but also in
South Korea and Singapore.
Finally, a few countries such as France, with more or less balanced proles. The case of France is relatively unique
with an almost even balance between landlling (36%), incineration (34%) and recovery (30%).
THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Waste management in developing countries is closely linked to the need for an approach adapted to a socio-economic
context which differs from that of industrialised countries. This approach is now accepted by the various players in the
waste management domain, as being the only approach that can ensure the success of waste management projects in the
countries of the southern hemisphere. Yet this awareness is not fully substantiated. The Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) to be achieved by 2015, do not include waste-related problems explicitly.
Waste management in developing countries is still most frequently the responsibility of the municipalities. Neverthe-
less, we observe that public budgets are being trimmed, waste management costs are on the increase, and municipalities
in these countries are confronted with growing problems of corruption. The private sector is increasingly called on to
handle this management task. Now added to conventional waste management is management by the informal sector,
comprising a poor population engaged in collection and recycling of materials extracted from waste, for resale and in
order to guarantee its revenues, which also manages that part of waste not handled by the municipalities.
In many towns and cities, waste is largely absorbed by the activities of the informal sector, traditionally regarding
waste as a resource. However, these activities are conducted under conditions injurious to the health of the workers and
the environment. Solutions have been found in some countries for the purpose of recognising the value of the informal
sector activity, and to reconcile this activity with modern management methods. This trend stems from progressive
international recognition of recycling as the primary waste treatment method. It should also be noted that the informal
sector is becoming increasingly organised, beneting from its social and environmental usefulness and professionalism,
although its procedures have not yet been perfected. Thus, the trend is towards coexistence, on the one hand of manage-
ment methods of a high technological level, adapted for certain towns and cities where the composition of the waste is
tending to resemble that of the industrialised countries and, consequently, become more complex, and on the other of
the extremely exible and suitably adapted management methods practiced by the informal sector.
Collection in the developing countries is the responsibility of the municipalities, but is still far from efcient for a
number of reasons. Management and supervision of staff are weak, waste transport vehicles are inadequate, collection
routes are not rational and highly diversied, travel times are not adjusted and the capacity of most transfer centres is
insufcient. The private sector, together with NGOs and the informal sector, could contribute in better adapted, more
efcient and less costly solutions.
Landlling is the preponderant waste treatment method in the developing countries. Waste transport distances are
tending to push up collection costs, and waste disposal costs in emerging and developing are increasing by as much.
Consequently, the number of wildcat disposal sites is on the increase. This partially explains the growing attraction of
recycling for the purpose of reducing waste disposal costs. Waste is still sorted for recycling by the informal sector on
the landll sites themselves. However, there is no assessment of the quantities sorted in this way. The waste management
modernisation wave requires closure of wildcat sites, and the construction of landlls meeting sanitary and environmental
standards.
20 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 20 13/11/09 12:05:31
SYNTHESIS FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 21
Recycling in developing countries
Average revenue developing countries
Low revenue developing countries
Recycling in some developing countries cities
Recycling has a natural usefulness in developing countries, insofar as the economy of these countries is
one of penury. Recycling is totally conducted by and depends on the informal sector. There is consequently
no assessment of the volumes involved, such assessment being difcult as the waste ows do not enter the
conventional circuit.
According to some experts, between 1 and 2% of the urban population in developing countries is
involved in urban material recycling or over 15 million persons worldwide, with an economic impact of
several hundred million dollars
a
.
The municipal waste produced in developing countries and, in particular, Asian towns and cities,
is generally largely absorbed by re-use and informal recycling (75-95%
b
). This means that only a small
proportion of municipal waste is actually landlled.
Recovery and recycling factors depend on the scarcity of materials, the level and lifestyle of the
inhabitants, the existence or not of a social group linked to waste management, the number of rural
migrants, the number of homeless, the industrial diversity, the level of trading in recycled raw materials,
agricultural activities in peri-urban areas, available technology, the efciency of collection and ofcial
treatment methods, and the policy adopted by municipalities in regard to homeless people.
Waste content in developing countries is also a key factor in regard to recovery and recycling. Content
varies according to the revenue level of the countries
c
:
Recovery and recycling methods in developing countries range from barter trade between the
households, charity donations and sorting of waste in the landll sites themselves, at transfer centres and
waste hoppers and in the street. They also include the sale of materials by households or small stores,
institutions to itinerant merchants, small traders or farmers, and the sale of materials between structured
dealers and recycling operators. Higher up the scale we nd trading in materials between industries, trading
and auctioning of scrap for industrial applications, exporting of surplus materials for recycling elsewhere,
material imports, small-scale composting and the sale of organic waste.
Quantities
Number of persons involved
City recycled by year
(tonnes)
in the informal sector
Cairo, Egypt 2,162,500 40,000
Cluj, Romania 14,700 3,200
Lima, Peru 529,400 11,200
Lusaka, Zambia 5,400 390
Poona, India 117,900 9,500
Quezon City, Philippines 141,800 10,100
Recyclable materials 25%
Compostable organic matters 50%
Humidity content 50%
Recyclable materials 15%
Compostable organic matters 60%
Humidity content 60%
Source: WASTE, Anne Scheinberg, GTZ/CWG Case studies, 2008
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 21 13/11/09 12:05:31
22 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009
Informal sector characteristics are generally as follows:
most vulnerable segment of the population: recent migrants, unemployed, widows, handicapped persons,
the elderly and children;
the names given to the persons concerned vary from country to country and are frequently linked to the
materials recovered or recycled (paper, cardboard or metal) or the methods of recovery employed (tricycles,
carts, sacks): cartoneros, catadores, pepenadores, buscabotes, traperos, chatarreros, mikhali, etc.;
the recycling activity dates back a very long way;
the sector is increasingly organised, and possesses a level of know-how not to be found in the public sector;
the informal sector is highly sensitive to factors modifying economic growth, demand and raw material
procurement.
The advantages of integrating the informal sector in waste management by municipalities or private enter-
prises are numerous:
the informal sector operates at the waste colle ction and sorting stages;
landlling is the preponderant conventional treatment method. Intervention by the informal sector makes
it possible to reduce volumes landlled by recycling raw materials collected and sorted upstream, in
particular in urban areas;
it ensures all recycling of recyclable materials, and constitutes a major supplier to the industries, reducing
the dependence of these countries on raw material imports
d
;
selective sorting of organic materials extracted from the municipal waste ows makes it possible to
produce quality compost for the farming industries
e
. Small-scale or decentralised composting is particularly
appropriate as it reduces transport and landlling costs;
intervention by the informal sector makes it possible to reduce waste management costs in the towns and
cities, and extend the lifetime of the landll sites. Procurement of recycled materials enable the industries
to maintain their competitiveness;
The organised informal sector is a potential private sector, providing for the creation of micro-businesses
and cooperatives.
Nevertheless, a number of factors restrict their activity. Urban zoning, land values, control of tricycle and cart
transport added to ow controls impede the activity of itinerant merchants and small traders. Enterprises and
farms moving round the periphery of towns and cities leads to higher transport costs for these small operators,
making the recovery of low value materials unprotable. Mechanised collection is making access to recyclable
materials more difcult for informal sector workers, thus encouraging them to sort these materials on the
landll sites. However, it is more dangerous for them to work on the sites than in the road. In many cases,
privatisation of waste collection which integrates informal sector workers prevents the latter from continuing
their recyclable material recovery activities as staff is forbidden to sell recyclable materials. Furthermore,
municipal authorities frequently control informal waste collection by introducing a worker registration system.
Repressive policies in regard to the informal sector can also exist, leading to further deterioration of their
living conditions. Nevertheless, examples of cooperation between municipalities, NGOs, informal worker
associations or cooperatives, as also private enterprises are making it possible to nd waste management
solutions which are both suitable and balanced, and can serve as models for integration.
Imports of recovered raw materials can also have a decelerating impact on local development of recovery
and recycling activities. Negotiations on the liberalisation of environmental services and goods under the
auspices of the WTO, and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) are also decisive insofar as
the measures for controlling imports of waste for recycling are liable to be regarded as contravening the
conditions for free trade.
a. Christine Furedy ibid; Martin Medina,The worlds scavengers, salvaging for sustainable consumption and production, 2007.
b. Christine Furedy,Solid waste in the waste economy: socio-cultural aspects, Urban studies program,York University, North York, Ontario, Canada, 1994.
c.The growing complexities and challenges of solid waste management in developing countries, Sandra Cointreau (Sandra Cointreau estimates),World Bank, 2007.
d. In Brazil, 90% of materials recycled by industry are recovered by the Catadores, at a rate of 30 000 tonnes per day. Martin Medina,Waste pickers in developing
countries: challenges and opportunities 2007.
e. Non-contamination of organic waste by hazardous substances, or materials such as glass or metal is nevertheless essential for the durability of the activity.
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 22 13/11/09 12:05:31
SYNTHESIS FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 23
Incineration is a waste treatment method largely unsuitable for the towns and cities in the developing countries, as
all the conditions for efcient operation of a site are rarely met. The waste has low caloric power, humidity content is
high and the supply of large quantities of waste is not ensured. Furthermore, the level of investment required can only
be achieved in rare cases.
INDUSTRIAL WASTE DIFFICULT TO ASSESS
Measurement of industrial waste production has been found to be even more difcult because of incomplete,
heterogeneous and uncertain available data. Our estimates, corresponding to a waste collection gure of 1.2 billion
tonnes, should be regarded at best as an order of magnitude. In many countries, industrial waste includes waste generated
by the production of energy, and even mining waste. At the two extremes, neither Russian nor US gures can be taken at
face value. In Russia and also Ukraine, data are manifestly overestimated and take account, at least partly, of mining waste.
Conversely, in the USA, there is no precise measurement of industrial waste, apart from a number of specic categories
(plastics, tyres, etc.), and the gures available seem equally underestimated. Finally, as far as China is concerned, the most
total degree of imprecision rules the roost, with estimates ranging from 135 million tonnes to one billion tonnes, a gure
quoted by some professionals.
Logically, at least for recent waste, industrial waste geography concords with industrial geography itself. In the
case of historical waste, we follow substantially more a process of deindustrialisation logic. The existence of dedicated
markets, such as the naval demolition market, should be noted.
Manufacturing industry non-hazardous waste production in a selection of countries
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services estimates, CyclOpe and UN Statistics.
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
N
e
w

Z
e
a
l
a
n
d

1
9
9
9
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a

2
0
0
6
C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a

2
0
0
1
T
u
n
i
s
i
a

2
0
0
6
V
i
e
t
n
a
m

2
0
0
4
U
S
A

2
0
0
1
E
U

1
5

+

N
o
r
.

+

S
w
i
t
z
.

+

I
c
e
l
a
n
d

2
0
0
6
I
n
d
i
a

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
0
C
h
i
n
a

2
0
0
5
J
a
p
a
n

2
0
0
5
E
U

N
M
S

2
0
0
6
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a

2
0
0
5
S
o
u
t
h
A
f
r
i
c
a

2
0
0
6
C
a
n
a
d
a

2
0
0
6
B
r
a
z
i
l

2
0
0
6
T
u
r
k
e
y

2
0
0
4
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

2
0
0
3
M
e
x
i
c
o

2
0
0
6
M
o
r
o
c
c
o

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
4
T
h
a

l
a
n
d

2
0
0
3
C
h
i
l
e

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
6
275
305
229
125
214
135
122.9
96
38.3
36
22
20 17.5
11.8
9.2
8
5.9
2.6 2.5 2.2
2
1.2
1
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 23 13/11/09 12:05:32
24 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services, CyclOpe and UN Statistics.
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental
Services, CyclOpe and UN Statistics.
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental
Services, CyclOpe and UN Statistics.
Note: Japan and Ukraine: forestry, agriculture and services included.
Manufacturing industry non-hazardous waste collected in a selection of countries
Construction and demolition waste
production in a selection of countries
Mining industry and electricity
production waste quantities
in a selection of countries
250
200
150
100
50
0
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
E
U

1
5

+

N
o
r
.

+

I
c
e
l
a
n
d

2
0
0
6
N
e
w

Z
e
a
l
a
n
d

1
9
9
9
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
e

2
0
0
6
M
o
r
o
c
c
o

2
0
0
4
T
u
n
i
s
i
a

2
0
0
6
C
h
i
l
e

2
0
0
6
H
o
n
g

K
o
n
g

2
0
0
6
M
e
x
i
c
o

2
0
0
6
T
u
r
k
e
y

2
0
0
4
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

2
0
0
5
B
r
a
z
i
l

2
0
0
6
C
a
n
a
d
a

2
0
0
6
S
o
u
t
h
A
f
r
i
c
a

2
0
0
6
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a

2
0
0
5
E
U

N
M
S

2
0
0
6
I
n
d
i
a

(
e
s
t
.
)

1
9
9
9
C
h
i
n
a

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
5
J
a
p
a
n

2
0
0
6
228.87
122.9
108 100
96.01
38.2
26.4
22
18
9.47 7 4.9 2.6 2.3 1.9 1 0.96 0.8
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
N
e
w

Z
e
a
l
a
n
d

1
9
9
9
C
h
i
l
e

2
0
0
6
M
e
x
i
c
o

2
0
0
6
H
o
n
g

K
o
n
g

2
0
0
6
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

2
0
0
5
C
a
n
a
d
a

2
0
0
6
R
u
s
s
i
a

2
0
0
6
E
U

N
M
S

2
0
0
6
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a

2
0
0
5
J
a
p
a
n

2
0
0
5
U
S
A

2
0
0
6
E
U

1
5

+

N
o
r
.

+

I
c
e
l
a
n
d

2
0
0
6
575.4
260
54.2
32
24.3
16.7
13.7 6.5 4.9
3.5 0.8
76.2
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
T
u
n
i
s
i
a

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
6
T
u
r
k
e
y

2
0
0
4
I
n
d
i
a

(
u
r
b
.
)

1
9
9
9
C
a
n
a
d
a

2
0
0
5
M
o
r
o
c
c
o

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
6
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a

2
0
0
5
B
r
a
z
i
l

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
6
U
S
A

2
0
0
6
J
a
p
a
n

2
0
0
5
U
k
r
a
i
n
e

2
0
0
4
S
o
u
t
h
A
f
r
i
c
a

2
0
0
6
C
h
i
n
a

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
6
E
U

2
7

2
0
0
6
R
u
s
s
i
a

(
e
s
t
.
)

2
0
0
6
2,500
926
680
464
422
290
66
54.3
50 47
10.5
5 5
900
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 24 13/11/09 12:05:33
SYNTHESIS FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 25
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services, CyclOpe and UN Statistics.
Manufacturing industry hazardous waste collectes in a selection of countries
We should also mention construction and demolition waste on the one hand, mining and electricity production waste
on the other. Data in these cases is far too incomplete and heterogeneous for aggregation to have any form of relevance.
One may simply note that these waste categories represent considerable volumes and tonnages, and are of very low value.
Production of non-hazardous industrial waste is difcult to assess in developing countries, despite existing manage-
ment conducted in most cases by the manufacturers themselves, recycling operators or the informal sector. One may
hope that the implementation of concepts such as cleaner production will in the future help in assessing waste quantities
and in elaborating statistics.
SPECIAL CASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
The question of hazardous waste is one of the most sensitive in regards to public opinion, regularly alerted by scan-
dals and affairs such as the Probo Koala affair involving a tanker which dumped toxic waste in Abidjan, or the more
tragicomically tribulations of the France and Clmenceau. At international level, the Basel Convention of March 1989
sets up an international control system for hazardous waste ows. However, there is still no real standardization in the
denitions of hazardous waste and in its quantication. Increasingly strict application of the precautionary principle on
the one hand, and the complexity of waste produced from increasingly sophisticated consumer goods on the other, have
induced real awareness of the importance of hazardous waste management in some countries, whereas neighbouring
countries were still continuing to underestimate the phenomenon. On the basis of the non-exhaustive statistics available,
it can be estimated that worldwide collection of hazardous waste, as dened in the Basel Convention, accounts for some
300 million tonnes. However, to highlight the fragility of this gure, it should be emphasised that Russia alone is declaring
hazardous waste production at a gure of 150 million tonnes (basically plausible when we think of the total absence of
environmental consideration presiding over Soviet industrial development, and that this gure includes hazardous waste
stored and awaiting treatment).
50
40
30
20
10
0
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
e

2
0
0
6
S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

2
0
0
6
M
o
r
o
c
c
o

2
0
0
4
T
u
n
i
s
i
a

2
0
0
6
C
h
i
l
e

2
0
0
6
V
i
e
t
n
a
m

2
0
0
4
C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a

2
0
0
1
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

2
0
0
3
C
a
n
a
d
a

2
0
0
6
T
h
a

l
a
n
d

2
0
0
3
I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a

2
0
0
0
T
u
r
k
e
y

2
0
0
6
P
h
i
l
i
p
i
n
e
s

2
0
0
1
B
r
a
z
i
l

2
0
0
6
J
a
p
a
n

1
9
9
9
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a

2
0
0
5
E
U

N
M
S

2
0
0
6
M
e
x
i
c
o

2
0
0
6
I
n
d
i
a

(
u
r
b
.
)

2
0
0
6
S
o
u
t
h
A
f
r
i
c
a

2
0
0
6
C
h
i
n
a

2
0
0
5
E
U

1
5

+

N
o
r
.

+

I
c
e
.

2
0
0
6
U
S
A

2
0
0
5
(
e
s
t
.

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
44
30
20.5
12.6
8
5.7
5.5
3.5
3.3
3
2.4
1.5 1
0.96
0.8 0.7 0.2 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.07
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 25 13/11/09 12:05:33
The production of hazardous waste in developing countries is lower than in developed countries, but represents
serious problems. Management of this waste is practically non-existent apart from medical waste, consequently creating
severe cases of environmental and public health damages. Assessing the production of this waste is difcult despite the
existence of dedicated regulations. Figures for hazardous waste collection are substantially lower than corresponding
production, and vary according to the revenue levels of developing countries.
A WORLD MARKET WORTH 300 BILLION EUROS
All economic activities associated with waste, from collection to recycling, would appear to represent a world mar-
ket of some 300 billion euros, shared about evenly between municipal waste and industrial waste. This gure essentially
covers OECD countries and a number of large emerging countries such as China and Brazil. The true gure is thus pro-
bably substantially greater, insofar as mere assessment of the informal sector, present in most emerging and developing
countries, is impossible.
The four major municipal waste markets are the USA, Europe, Japan and China, together accounting for a turnover worth
more than 130 billion euros. The leading industrial waste market would appear to be Japan, ahead of Europe and the USA.
These gures are representative of the modern waste economy sector, illustrating above all the extraordinary he-
terogeneity of this activity at world level. On the one side, in many countries, the informal economy deals with waste
collection with, in parallel, more or less effective participation by the municipalities, resulting in massive landll sites
picked and operated by the descendants of the erstwhile rag-pickers. In contrast, in developed countries and in towns
and cities of emerging countries, waste management has become an integral part of urban engineering. Alongside the
municipal services, we nd small and large enterprises in increasing numbers, the large enterprises having an internatio-
nal dimension in the same way as the principal players Veolia Environmental Services and Suez Environnement or, in the
American market only, Waste Management.
It is true that part of the downstream waste market has acquired worldwide proportions.
26 / FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE WORLD WASTE SURVEY 2009
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services, design and engineering entities and CyclOpe.
Note: Attempts have been made to estimate the value of the recycling market in the low revenue Asian countries. In Thailand, for example, given the composition of the municipal waste, it
has been estimated that 42% of this waste is potentially recyclable.Thus, the market for recyclable materials obtained from municipal waste in this country has been estimated at 16 billion
THB per year (or 402 million euros) for 2003. In Vietnam, it has been estimated that the informal sector recycles 22% of municipal waste produced.The recycling market in this country
consequently has considerable potential for expansion. It has been estimated that the informal recycling sector captures VND 135 billion per year (or 5.7 million euros for 2004)
a
.
a. Environment Monitor,World Bank.
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

e
u
r
o
s
0
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
E
U

1
5

+

N
o
r
.
U
S
A
J
a
p
a
n
S
o
u
t
h

K
o
r
e
a
C
h
i
n
a
C
a
n
a
d
a
B
r
a
z
i
l
R
u
s
s
i
a
T
u
r
k
e
y
M
e
x
i
c
o
N
e
w

Z
e
a
l
a
n
d
U
k
r
a
i
n
e
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

I
n
d
i
a

(
u
r
b
.
)
42,900
36,000
30,000
25,600
3,000
2,500 2,400
1,300 1,269
987 831 688 634 570
Estimate municipal waste market in OECD countries and a number
of emerging countries (total: 150.6 billion euros)
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 26 13/11/09 12:05:34
FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE
Waste recovery combines both local and global approaches. Local when landll biogas is recovered into electricity or
when compost is produced. The local approach also includes incineration with energy recovery or production of biofuels
from used oils or solvents. The global approach corresponds to markets now operating on a worldwide basis for a number
of substantial secondary materials, at the forefront of which we nd ferrous or non-ferrous scrap and recovered cellulose
bres (RCF).
In total, all these forms of waste recovery represent volumes of the order of one billion tonnes, or slightly over one-
quarter of world production or a third of the volume collected. Recycling appears to represent 700 million tonnes, with
precise estimates for scrap (400 million tonnes) and RCF (250 million tonnes), and substantially less accurate gures for
plastics. Reliable gures exist for plastic recycling in Europe, with of 12.3 million tonnes recovered of which 5 million
tonnes recycled. About 200 million tonnes would be treated through energy recovery incineration, while biological ap-
plications such as composting accounts for another 100 million tonnes.
The potential for developing waste recovery and recycling is consequently substantial, all the more so as accelerated
urban development worldwide will oblige an increasing number of populations to integrate modern management of
their waste, while the increasing pressure of environmental constraints and awareness of the reduced availability of natural
resources will oblige politicians to develop genuine recovery strategies for their waste.
A new phenomenon has appeared over the last few years: the emergence of genuinely worldwide markets for a
number of secondary materials (scrap and paper) for which 2007 and 2008 performances copied and then anticipated
those for raw materials (steel and paper pulp). From a marginal situation, world secondary material ows have become
essential, to the point of becoming a veritable indicator for part of the world waste economy, and also industry in general.
It is now wealthy countries, consumers and consequently producers of waste, which export, no longer waste products
they wish to get rid of, but secondary materials destined for emerging countries, China and Turkey, where supplies are
insufcient. Long criticised as a form of neo-colonial exploitation (dumping the waste of the rich in the gardens of the
poor), this trade is, on the contrary, a sign of a new balance of power in favour of the large emerging countries.
Of all the large commodity markets of the 21st century, the market for secondary raw materials obtained from waste
is the one the evolution of which will be the most fascinating to monitor, in anticipation of this challenge which mankind-
will have to meet, that of rediscovering the meaning of scarcity.
SYNTHESIS FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE / 27
Estimate non-hazardous industrial waste market in a selection of OECD
countries (total: 147 billion euros)
0
Japan EU 15 + Nor. USA South Korea Australia Mexico Brazil
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

e
u
r
o
s
250
507
1,140
3,200
31,279
43,282
43,282
67,000
Source: Ministries of the Environment, OECD, Eurostat, Veolia Environmental Services, design and engineering entities and CyclOpe.
Abstract_2009_GB.indd 27 13/11/09 12:05:34