TERMS OF REFERENCE
COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BASELINE STUDY
Background:
Different designs for pushcarts, trucks and depots were tested in
[] and [].
The perceptions of the community and the refuse
collection workers were obtained through surveys and community
meetings, and total owning, operating, and maintenance costs of
each pilot system were compared. The systems were designed to be
internally self-sustaining; the local community leader was given
responsibility to secure community cooperation, collect user
charges from residents, hire and pay the push cart workers, and
replace push cart equipment.
In parallel, these Bank projects
also provided financing for special refuse collection trucks for
the city to use to provide reliable collection of refuse from the
depots. Furthermore, these Bank projects involved long term lease
arrangements with residents of the same neighborhoods so that they
would feel they had security and a stake in the upgrading of the
area, while at the same time walkways and drains were improved and
low-cost communal sanitation and water facilities were provided.
Thereafter,
the
recommended
replicable
model
system
was
implemented in other neighborhoods in [] and [].
As the system proved to be successful in [] and [], it was
incorporated in other World Bank assisted urban projects in other
cities.
Also, it was incorporated in [] Improvement Projects
financed by the Government of [] in dozens of cities. The most
difficult part of the implementation has been, and remains to be,
land acquisition for the mini-transfer depot. [] are traditional
neighborhoods
which
are
densely
developed
and
populated.
Obtaining a depot site on the perimeter and near a main access
road has been the main deterrent to full-scale implementation.
Nevertheless, the effort to extend this highly successful system
continues.
In some cities, the community-based solid waste system has laid a
foundation for the city cleansing agencies to make other
improvements.
For example, in [] the public solid waste
enterprise has implemented source segregation and recycling
programs in some neighborhoods, using the mini-transfer depot as a
collection point for recyclables and creating cottage industries
which converts recyclables into new products.
Specifically, in
one neighborhood of [], used cans are collected, cleaned,
flattened and then shaped into bottle caps.
Several cities have also used the community-based solid waste
system as a foundation for implementing cost recovery for the
city's public cleansing activities.
For example, in [] the
1
community leaders are requested to collect user fees which not
only cover their costs for push cart collection but also
contribute to the cost of city transport and disposal of refuse.
There are indications that the amount being collected by the
community leaders is substantial.
Nevertheless, the amount of
revenue passed into the city's revenue funds is very little (about
5% of recurrent costs). In 1990/91, cost recovery in [] climbed
to 18% due to city efforts to collect fees from commercial
establishments (3). Despite the reportedly large sums collected
by the community leaders and small sums reaching the city's
revenue funds, the process of cost recovery is a step in the right
direction by making the public aware of the concept of payment for
city services.
Objectives of the Study:
The objectives of this study are as follows:

To examine the evolution and document the status
community-based solid waste collection systems in [];

To determine whether there are successful aspects of these
community-based systems which would be replicable in other
developing countries;

To determine whether there are unique baseline conditions in
[] which could constrain the potential for replication in other
developing countries; and

To develop a framework of "success criteria" for efforts to
replicate the [] model elsewhere in order to enable achieving
the same level of success.
of
Scope of Work:
Task 1 -- Review Available Background Information.
Review the
references noted at the end of this terms of reference to become
familiar with community based systems in [].
Interview key
players which have on-going activities in implementing communitybased systems including representatives of the [] Improvement
Program Office, [] Subdirectorate of Solid Waste Management under
the Directorate of Environmental Sanitation, and World Bank
Infrastructure Projects (EA3IN).
Discuss with these representatives their activities in communitybased systems, including the history of events which took place to
introduce the systems. Discuss with these representatives their
views of what "success criteria" are essential to a wellfunctioning community-based system. Determine how much time and
effort is required to implement a community-based system within
2
one neighborhood of about 100,000 residents and list the steps
which they have followed. Determine whether they perceive there
are any limitations or constraints in implementing the communitybased system. Ask them to estimate the costs for community-based
systems and how much the community cost recovery system is
contributing toward city-conducted transport and disposal of
refuse. Request their views on whether the community-based system
is replicable throughout []; and, if not, in which regions and due
to what constraints would it not be replicable.
Task 2 -- Meet with City Officials in the Survey Cities.
The
surveys will be conducted in [], [] and [].
[] and [] are
selected because each has received external financial support and
technical assistance to its public cleansing agency through World
Bank financed projects.
Also, [] is selected because it has
contracted for overall cleansing and solid waste transport of some
neighborhoods with private waste service companies; while [] is
selected because it has contracted for solid waste transport from
the mini-transfer depots of some neighborhoods. [] has not had a
tradition of being a very clean city and has only recently won the
national clean city award (called []), while [] has won the []
award on five occasions.
[] does not have any private sector
participation in public cleansing; it is a much smaller and poorer
city than [] and []; and the level of solid waste service is only
about 65% compared to []'s 82% (7).
Meet with existing and past Mayors and City Cleansing Officials to
determine how the community-based systems were developed in their
cities.
Attempt to determine the level of support which was
needed from the City Cleansing, as well as from the Mayor, in
order to realize the implementation of community-based systems.
For questions which need to be asked, see the survey instrument
provided in Annex 1.
Task 3 -- Select Communities for Survey Purposes. The
of communities for survey purposes needs to be very
made.
If sufficiently comparable communities are not
the ability to draw meaningful results from the survey
will be severely compromised.
selection
carefully
selected,
responses
To select the specific neighborhoods for survey purposes, work
closely with the public cleansing agency. In [] and [] select two
neighborhoods within each city for survey purposes. In [] select
one neighborhood for survey purposes. Each of the 5 neighborhoods
selected should have comparable baseline conditions, which are to
include:
1) a mixed income residential population lives in the
neighborhood, but between 75% to 85% are considered to be
within the low-income group;
2) access to the neighborhood is limited so that there is no
service from door-to-door being provided by refuse
3
3)
4)
collection trucks;
all households within the neighborhood receive service by
pushcart or take their waste themselves to a communal
container; and
each of the community-based systems is under RW/RT
management and cost recovery.
In [] and [], one of the selected neighborhoods within each city
should be receiving service by one of the city contractors
considered to be competent and representative in service of the
private sector.
Similarly, in [] and [], the other of the
selected neighborhoods should be receiving service considered to
be typically representative of the public cleansing agency's
service level. The selected neighborhood in [] should likewise be
receiving service which is typically representative of the public
cleansing agency's service level.
Task 4 -- Survey Residents with Community-Based Systems.
Perform a field reconnaissance of each neighborhood to be
surveyed. During the field reconnaissance, select 100 homes to be
contacted and 20 homes for back-up purposes. Of the 100 homes to
be contacted, 70-80 homes should appear to be in the low income
group, 10-20 homes should appear to be in the lower-middle income
group, and 5-10 homes should appear to be in the upper-middle to
high income group.
Judgment about income is to be based on
property size and building construction and size. After the field
reconnaissance, meet with the RW/RT to review the selection of
homes and adjust it, as needed, based on the RW/RT's knowledge of
residents.
Contact each household and attempt to meet with the head of
household or his/her spouse for purposes of asking the survey
questions.
Obtain the information required by the survey
questionnaire, which is provided in Annex 2.
Staffing Requirements:
The study team will be led by a sociologist/anthropologist with at
least 10 years of work experience in community relationships and
participation in community infrastructure services.
The study
team will include junior professional staff who are fluent in []
and understand local [] socio-cultural practices.
The junior
professional staff will assist in the data collection efforts
after training and direction by the team leader.
Deliverables:
Within 120 days of the signed agreement, provide a draft final
report presenting findings, conclusions, and recommendations based
on the conduct of the study tasks. Within an annex to the draft
4
final report, compile the precise results for each question in the
survey.
For one example of how to compile such survey results,
see the community-based household survey which was conducted for
[] (See Reference 6).
Within 30 days of receiving written comments from the RWSG-EAP
office, provide a final report which addresses all comments. The
RWSG-EAP office shall take no more than 45 days to review and
comment upon the draft final report.
Optional Second Phase:
Pending the availability of funds and the RWSG-EAP review of
progress during conduct of the above scope of work, the study team
may be granted a contract extension to contact the scope of work
in two cities of [], where the RW/RT system is not prevalent. The
purpose of repeating the scope of work for two cities of [] is to
determine whether there are important regional variances which
might affect the formulation of recommendations and policy
guidance. If the contract is extended to this end, the contractor
shall provide the same team leader and key study team members for
the additional work.
References:
1.
Flintoff, Frank.
World Bank Consultant.
Indonesia
Preappraisal Mission - Surabaya. March 1978. and Indonesia
Preappraisal Mission - Jakarta. March 1978.
2. Condon, Francis. Jakarta Urban Project Advisor on Solid Waste.
Monthly Progress Reports. 1980-81.
3.
Johnson, Juliet E.
Solid Waste Management Strategies in
Indonesia:
Contracting,
Community
Participation,
and
Commercialization.
Masters Thesis to the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. May 1992.
4. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
The Study on
the Solid Waste Management Improvement for Surabaya City in
the Republic of Indonesia. February 1993.
5. Whitehead, S., et. al.
Third Jabotabek Urban Development
Project, Republic of Indonesia. Staff Appraisal Report. The
World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. June 1990.
6. Semarang Solid Waste Management Plan. Prepared for the city of
Semarang by local consultants. 1991.
7.
P.T. Hasfarm Dian Konsultan and Camp Dresser McKee and
Associates. Survey of Private Sector Participation in
Selected Cities in Indonesia.
U.S. AID funded WASH Field
5
Report No. 387.
January 1993.
6
Annex 1
Interviews with City Officials
I.When was the first community-based system within your city
implemented? Which community was the first to implement this
system?
II.Please describe the size and composition of the city planning
and implementation team worked on the effort?
III.What kind of external assistance did the city team receive
from the [], [], or other organizations?
IV.How many months did it take to implement the system initially
for one of the first communities, and how many person-months
did the city need to complete the implementation in one of
the first communities?
V.Does the implementation process
effort? If so, how much?
now
involve
less
time
and
VI.Did the city provide any start-up pushcart equipment during
implementation within the initial communities? If so, does
the city still provide start-up equipment to a community?
VII.Did the city make special provisions to provide new or special
equipment for the transport operations within the initial
communities?
If so, does the city still make special
equipment arrangements for each community newly added to the
community-based system?
VIII.Did the city participate in land acquisition for the minitransfer depots required of the community-based system?
IX.Has land acquisition been the primary obstacle or delay factor
in implementation of the community-based system?
If not,
what were the primary obstacles or delay factors?
X.Please describe the community education, general public
education, and public participation workshops which were
initially required to implement the community-based system?
XI.Please describe those community education, general public
education, and public participation workshops which are still
required for each new community added to the community-based
system?
XII.In communities which are served by private contractors, does
the type and level of service vary at all from city service?
If so, please explain.
7
XIII.Within your city, what is the tariff structure which you use
for user fees from residents?
XIV.Do you have a different system for collecting user fees from
residents of community-based systems?
XV.What percentage of city recurrent costs to provide waste
transport and disposal for refuse from community-based
systems are derived from the RW/RT cost recovery system?
XVI.How does this compare with the level of cost recovery from
neighborhoods served by door-to-door collection by city
refuse
collection
vehicle?
And
with
commercial
establishments?
8
Annex 2
Survey Instrument for Residents having
Community-Based Systems of Refuse Collection
1. What is you
household?
name
and
what
is
your
position
within
this
2. How many people live in this household and what are their
relationships to you as family, extended family, friends or
boarders?
3. How long have you lived here?
4. Did other members of your family live in this house before
your did?
5. Do you rent this house, lease it on a long-term basis, or own
it?
6. Do you know what your household income is?
your household income?
If so, what is
7. Out of your household income, would you please estimate what
percentage is spent on food and cigarettes?
8. Out of your household income, would you please estimate what
percentage is spent on household expenses such as utilities,
maintenance, rent?
9. Out of your household income, would you please estimate what
percentage is spent on community-based services such as water,
sanitation, and refuse collection?
10. How much do you pay each month for refuse collection, and to
whom do you pay it?
11. Was there
community?
a
KIP
or
urban
improvement
project
in
this
12. If so, in what way did it alter your activities, costs,
feeling of security, and interest in investment in your home?
13. Please describe your activities to participate in the
community-based refuse collection system (i.e., what storage
in the household do you provide, when do you put your waste
outside for collection, do you have to walk any distance to a
communal collection point)?
9
14. How often do you receive refuse collection in a typical week?
15. Are you happy with the refuse collection service which you
receive?
16. If not, what is unsatisfactory about it (i.e., frequency, care
of the refuse dustbin, clean-up of dropped refuse from the
dustbin, location of collection point, attitude and behavior
of the refuse collection worker)?
17. Are you happy with the cost of the refuse collection service?
18. If not, please explain?
19. Are you happy with the cost recovery system and the behavior
of the person collecting the fees?
20. If not, please explain?
21. In addition to the fees collected for refuse collection, do
you also give tips to the refuse collection workers? If so,
how much and how often?
22. If service and cost recovery activities were completely
satisfactory, what do you think would be a reasonable charge
for the service?
23. Are you satisfied with the location, appearance, cleanliness,
and odor of the mini-transfer depot? If not, please explain.
24. Do you think that refuse collection
health of residents in this community?
is
important
for the
25. Do you recover any materials for recycling?
26. Please describe which materials you recover for recycling
(i.e., paper, cardboard, durable plastics, thin plastic bags,
ferrous metals, copper, aluminum, bottles, broken glass,
bones, textiles, rubber, leather, food wastes, wood)?
27. For each of these, describe whether you use the recyclable
material in your own home, give it to someone in the
community, sell it to someone in the community, or take it to
a redemption center to sell?
28. Do you think recycling is important for the environment of the
city?
10
COSTING FOR COMMUNITY SURVEY STUDY
The following efforts are costed with the following assumptions:
[]
[]
[]
LC
LT
LPD
-Local consultants @ 120 $US/work day
-Local travel @ 150 $/round trip
-Local perdiem @ 100 $/day in City outside []
Task 1 -- Review Available Background Information.
LC @ 120
LT @ 150
LPD @ 100
x 30 = 3,600
x 0 = 0
x 0 = 0
Subtotal
3,600
Task 2 -- Meet with City Officials in Survey Cities.
LC @ 120
LT @ 150
LPD @ 100
x 20 = 2,400
x 4 = 600
x 12 = 1,200
Subtotal
4,200
Task 3 -- Select Communities for Survey Purposes.
LC @ 120
LT @ 150
LPD @ 100
x 15 = 1,800
x 2 = 300
x 6 = 600
Subtotal
2,700
x 10 = 1,200
x 0 = 0
x 0 = 0
Subtotal
1,200
Interim Report.
LC @ 120
LT @ 150
LPD @ 100
11
Task 4 -- Survey Residents with Community-Based Systems.
LC @ 120
LT @ 150
LPD @ 100
x 125 = 15,000
x 6
= 900
x 100 = 10,000
Subtotal 25,900
Compile and Analyze the Information Developed.
LC @ 120
LT @ 150
LPD @ 100
x 20 = 2,400
x 0 = 0
x 0 = 0
Subtotal
2,400
Draft Final Report.
LC @ 120
LT @ 150
LPD @ 100
x 20 = 2,400
x 0 = 0
x 0 = 0
Subtotal
2,400
x 5 = 600
x 0 = 0
x 0 = 0
Subtotal
600
Final Report.
LC @ 120
LT @ 150
LPD @ 100
Miscellaneous Expenses.
Fax
Copies
Telephone
Taxis/Car
300
400
500
1000
Subtotal
2,200
TOTAL = 45,200 $US
12