DATE: August 24, 1999

TO: Carl Bartone, Principal Environmental Engineer, TWURD

FROM: Allan Rotman, Environmental Specialist, MNSRE


SUBJECT: Back-to-Office Report

Waste Management Study Tour in Scandinavia - June 7-11, 1999

Objectives and Background

1. The objectives of this study tour were to give an overview of the basic technical economic, and institutional components of a modern integrated waste management system. The targeted audience was a mixed group from client countries and from the Bank composed of technical specialists, project and program leaders for environmental and urban public sector agencies, and advisors to financial agencies at the sub-national and national levels.

2. World Bank experience over the past decade shows that efficient solid waste management is a constant struggle for local authorities, and few municipalities are successful. Despite a relatively active Bank portfolio of US$1 billion in solid waste investments over the past decade, the development impact of this work is not transforming local authorities to achieve better collection service coverage and to achieve environmentally safe disposal. Local authorities are also not operating more efficiently to lower the costs of daily services, nor are they bringing sufficient human and financial resources to the sector. The basic sector objectives are described as:

3. Scandinavia has been very successful in meeting these objectives, and the goals of the study tour were to learn how each of the countries, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway developed their approaches over the past 20-30 years, and to learn about some differences between the approaches in each country.

Brief Description of the Study Tour (see detailed description in Annex 1)

4. The study tour combined international and Scandinavian experience in waste management through a mix of classroom speakers and guided tours of operating waste, facilities in Denmark and Sweden. Three basic themes were emphasized:

(a) management of municipal (household) wastes;

(b) management of hazardous wastes; and

(c) positive experiences transferable to developing countries.

5. Most of the classroom and field sessions were led by active professionals with operational and pragmatic "hands on" experience on the historical development of practices in the waste management industry.

6. Municipal (Household) Waste Management. The links between legal framework, enforcement and investment are very strong in Scandinavia for the management of household wastes. Firstly the municipalities are responsible for enforcement and providing services for all types of wastes. Secondly, the municipalities are fiscally self sufficient, being empowered with the traditional strong property tax system and with the non-traditional sharing in the income tax system. The lectures and tours showed that individual municipalities in Denmark and Sweden were well organized in the 1950’s for collection, and that grouping of municipalities began in the 1970’s to organize for better disposal management, with the chosen solution being central mass burn incinerators. These massive investments spurred municipalities to join together to become equity partners in new regional waste management companies (usually 5-15 municipalities in partnership). Energy recovery for municipally owned district heating plants is the main technical and economic driving force that supported the original feasibility. Now in the 1990’s, these large regional waste companies are the principle implementing agency for the municipalities to respond to ever increasing regulatory demands for higher environmental protection standards. The higher levels of disposal services now provided include ‘leak proofed’ impermeable lined landfills, upgrading of air emission treatment at municipal waste incinerators, ‘green compost’ plants, recycling of construction wastes and other inert materials, community ‘walk-in’ and ‘drive-in’ recycling centers, and mandatory household hazardous waste collection services. Finally Scandinavia is already preparing for the next generation of European Union(EU) disposal regulations that include reduced use of landfills and stricter emission regulations. A tax on ‘untreated’ waste in the range of US$50 is applicable in Denmark and Sweden, and in Sweden the new technology of ‘landfill energy cells’ is being adopted to treat organic wastes.

7. Hazardous Waste Management. Scandinavia has put into action in a very short time a fully integrated hazardous waste management system. The study tour showed that a new strong legal framework provided the initial impetus in the early 1970’s for enforcement and technical feasibility planning. In Finland and Denmark, the transition to investment and operating a single national integrated hazardous waste management facilities took place quickly thereafter in the late 1970’s, supported by strong equity investment from the public sector. However, Norway is taking longer, to implement a comprehensive investment program. With highly dispersed population and industrial locations, Norway has chosen private sector investment in environmentally licensed facilities. Despite this different investment trend, Norway has not lagged behind in enforcement vigilance.

8. Experiences to Transfer to Developing Countries. The tours and presentations identified several experiences that could be implemented in developing countries. Firstly, the Bazel Convention on International Transport of Hazardous Wastes is supporting training and capacity building in technical and enforcment issues related to hazardous wastes. The fundamental abilities to recognize waste types, and conform to complex regulations is a common first step for both developing countries and Scandinavia. Another example is the pre-requisite of enforcement of environmental regulations related to landfills for municipal wastes, before there is improvement in the sector. The Marius Pederson Company stressed that new investments in landfills are only financially attractive for the private sector when there are strong actions by Government to close older polluting dumps. To limit risk, Pederson limits its exchange exposure by borrowing from local banks. For example Pederson was able to borrow in Czech currency from a branch of a Danish owned bank, at terms similar to those available in the EU. Another relevant experience is the integrated approach to waste management as demonstrated in Scandinavia, in which improvements to handling of all wastes are carried out simultaneously. This involves coordinated pre-investment planning efforts, to assure that there are viable technical solutions for each waste type, so that unacceptable wastes do not ‘slip through the cracks’. Finally, waste management requires a regional approach to assure economies of scale for efficient disposal investments. The Scandinavian experience shows that inter-jurisdiction and inter-municipal cooperation can work, but that the legal and economic particularities have to adopted to each situation. The common factor underlying the cooperation is clear political will.

Overview of Institutional Structure of the Waste Sector in Scandinavia

9. The study tour demonstrated well the many technical features and the variety of facilities required in an efficient waste management system. Many personal anecdotes and opinions on the institutional and legal framework underpinning the situation were explained, but it is hard to grasp the overall structure and objectives that were set into motion 20-30 years ago. It is obvious that a strong integrated waste management system is operating, and that this is a new and thriving sector in the Scandinavian economy. There are many business opportunities for the private sector, and for the public sector, which is a strong equity partner in most investments. It is clear that the equity role of local public companies is not unique to the waste sector, and that the public owned companies are active in electricity, gas heating, water, public transport, leisure services, computers and housing. For example, local authorities spending represents a significant proportion of GDP in Denmark, Sweden and Finland (33-23%), while in most other EU countries, local spending is around 10% of GDP. Most of the revenues are raised by local authorities in Denmark, Finland and Sweden from a local share of income taxes (45-60% of revenue) while intergovernmental transfers (grants) provided from a share of corporate taxes represent the other significant source of local revenues (16-23%). Property taxes provide only 3-5% of local revenues. The following points characterize the waste sector in Scandinavia:

Step 1: Reduce reliance an landfills for organic wastes, by using incineration, and by using green-waste composting;

Step 2: Use cleaner technology approach, as in replacing fossil fuels with waste derived energy for heating and then for electricity production;

Step 3: Increase recycling and upgrade pollution control standards, as with improved air emission control systems in incinerators, and with large modern landfills with full leachate management, and drastic reduction of organic wastes going to landfills; and

Step 4: Reduce volumes of wastes by changing habits of producers and consumers;

10. Positive (+) and Negative(-) Features of the Scandinavian Waste Industry

(a) Hazardous Waste Management

+ fantastic enforcement and implementation

+ government takes lead in investment to kick start the hazardous waste treatment industry

+ prices appear competitive

- private industrial sector moves slowly to invest in treatment facilities;

+ private sector has no excuse not to use and not pay for sending hazardous waste to publicly financed facilities.

- not sure why the Government stepped in so fast with equity investments; -- was hazardous waste a large national threat and to potable groundwater and a priority threat to public health in the early 1970s in Scandinavia ?

(b) Municipal Waste Incineration

+ large municipal owned companies have provided reliable and cost efficient waste disposal since the early 1970s, mainly with large mass burn incinerators

- not sure why the Government made a policy move away from landfills in the early 1970’s; was the cost of new land sites so high or difficult?

+ incinerator costs are very inexpensive at US$40 per ton, almost 50% less than neighbouring Germany and Switzerland – appears to be a very efficient design for energy use through co-generation – or may be efficient maintenance and management

+ inter-jurisdictional conflict is almost non-existent

+ strategic integrated waste management planning at regional and national level works extremely well

(c) Landfills

- the landfill gate tax of US$50 per ton for untreated and organic waste is kept as general revenue by the Government, and not used as incentive for alternative treatment

- landfills in Scandinavia are secure and technically sound with many design safeguards to prevent groundwater contamination; leachate treatment is usually integrated with municipal wastewater treatment plants; it is not clear that the long term costs justify the phase out of landfills.

- in Denmark, the siting of new landfills is highly restricted, with environment regulations stipulating locations on the sea coast.

- conflicting data on the long term costs and long term fate of leachate production from landfills and there is no clear data that leachate is an unmanageable risk to groundwater for 30 years after landfill closure. It is a political decision to adopt a public policy stance of not passing pollution risks onto the next generation ; -- but is the real risk exaggerated and only an irrational fear?

+ this form of environmental risk management is superior to a system of litigation based on after-the-fact disasters

+ landfill regulations are suited to the EU and Scandinavian political and environmental situation

(d) Recycling

- surprise to the outside world ! -- Scandinavia is losing money on recycling activities, and the land fill tax is not being recycled back to the municipalities to offset costs; if Scandinavia loses money so will the rest of the countries in the world; recycling does not even seem to have a great public awareness effect as the amount of waste generated per person is not greatly affected

- the radical change in behavior to generate less waste (both consumers and manufacturers) has not yet even started in Scandinavia; obviously a whole new ‘paradigm’ will be required to get further progress in waste reduction --- from the study tour there is not even a hint as to what that will or should be

- recycling is an expensive public awareness activity, and developing countries should be very careful about any large scale operations; anything beyond micro-enterprises and the ‘informal’ sector is very adventurous; only consider this if you have a reliable system of special user fees

+ incentive for recycling is that there is zero environmental tax applicable (example: tax rate for waste delivered to recycling 0$/ton; delivered to co-generation facilities 31$/ton; delivered to district heating plants 39$/ton; delivered to landfill 50$/ton).

Lessons for Developing Countries from Scandinavia

11. Scandinavia has moved through a historical, and steadily evolving waste management system from waste collection with landfills as a basic system, to an enhanced system of collection with incineration, and a strong institutional framework. The third step is hazardous waste management and improved environmental protection for disposal of municipal wastes, and the fourth step of reduction of waste volumes at source is only on the verge of beginning.

12. The lessons for developing countries include:




Annex 1: Detailed Description of the Study Tour

Annex 2: Agenda for Study Tour

Annex 3: List of Participants

Annex 1

Detailed Description of the Study Tour

Day 1: Classroom Style Presentations and Discussions

Landfills in Developing Countries: A slide show of ‘on the ground’ practices of building modern landfills in developing countries, and technical issues of design, operations and costs was presented by Lars Mikkel Johannessen- Danida. The World Bank Technical Guide to Solid Waste Landfills in Middle- and Lower- Income Countries was presented by Phillip Rushbrook of WHO. It is a work in progress and advocates a gradual improvement in landfill operations. Publications are available that fully describe each topic. (i) Johannseen, Lars Mikkel with Boyer, Gabriella, June 1999, Observations of Solid Waste Landfills in Developing Countries: Africa, Asia and Native America, Urban Development Division, Waste Management Anchor Team, The World Bank (ii) Rushbrook, Phillip and Pugh, Michael, February 1999, Solid Waste Landfills in Middle and Lower Income Countries, A Technical Guide to Planning, Design and Operation, World Bank Technical Paper No. 426

International Transport of Hazardous Waste: The Basel Convention has a two pronged approach to controlling the international transport of hazardous wastes: i) national legislation and enforcement ii) technical assistance. Currently the Secretariat Office is coordinating regional training centers in ECA, Africa, LAC and Asia/Pacific, and donor financing is already committed for several training centers in each region. The target training group is mainly staff from governments.

Hazardous Waste Treatment In Scandinavia: Hazardous waste treatment is carried out in large central facilities in Finland and Denmark, while a more decentralized approach is in operation in Norway. Strong government legal framework, enforcement and financial investment/participation in the initial treatment facilities ‘kick-started’ the system in the 1970s (25 years ago). Now the private sector is becoming a more active investor.

Day 2: Field Visits

Kommunekemi, The Danish Solution to Hazardous Waste Treatment. This is an integrated inorganic and organic hazardous waste facility, started in 1971 with waste oils only. The plant is fuel self-sufficient and sells 70% of the excess energy for municipal heating, 10 % to the electrical grid and uses the remainder internally. The facility receives 80-90,000 tonnes per year of hazardous waste, 40-50,000 tones of contaminated soil, and generates 30-35,000 of residual products which are sent to Kommunekemi’s own disposal site. The company is owned 82% by the National Association of Local Authorities, and no longer has a monopoly position to treat hazardous wastes. The investment cost is approximately US$200 million, and the minimum economic throughput required is 80,000 tonnes per year.

Odense, Denmark-Landfill Site. This new site of 110 ha, required 12 years from site selection to final permitting of the site, in 1992. It is the largest site in Denmark. The site has very favorable hydrogeological characteristics, where the aquifer exerts positive upward pressure to the bottom of the landfill, which almost eliminates any risk of downward migration of leachate from the landfill to contaminate underlying aquifers having potable water quality. Furthermore because of the seaside location of the site, any escaping leachate would be hydraulically ‘pushed’ into the sea. Nevertheless the environmental permit still requires an impermeable liner and control of the upward pressure on the liner, and full pre-treatment of the collected leachate. There is continuous monitoring on the pre-treated leachate before it is sent to the municipal wastewater treatment plant. There is also a new ‘green garden waste’ forced air windrow composting plant in operation, even though the expected market value of the finished compost will be close to zero. One contributing factor to the compost plant feasibility is the ‘avoided’ landfill tax of US$50 per tonne, which provides an incentive to treat ‘green’ wastes. Still there is virtually no market for the purchase of finished compost.

New EU Directive on Municipal Waste Treatment: The new EU Council Directive on the Landfilling of Waste was passed in April 1999. Its overall objective is to avoid the impacts generated by landfills, in particular leachate generation. One goal is to reduce within 5 years the biodegradable municipal waste to 75% of the 1995 levels, and within 8 years to 50% of the 1995 levels, and within 15 years to 35% of the 1995 levels. Only waste that has been subject to beneficial treatment will be allowed to be landfilled. The costs for landfilling must be based on the full costs of construction and operations, including the estimated costs of closure and aftercare for a period of at least 30 years. Existing landfills must present plans for upgrading within 1 year, and there is a transitional period for compliance for up to 8 years maximum. The new Directive firmly confirms the EU hierarchy for waste treatment

1. Minimize, use clean technology, and avoid generating waste

2.Recycle and reuse

3. Incinerate


From now on landfills are only a last alternative in the EU, and not an acceptable first choice, as is the case in most developing countries.

Day 3: Field Visits

Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management in Copenhagen: The basic solid waste management system (SWM) was structured 25 years ago (early 1970s) when two large municipal solid waste incinerators were established in the Copenhagen area. At that time, the decision to build incinerators was a cost effective alternative to landfills, and 14 municipalities joined together a new company (Vestforbraeding) to own and operate one of the new incinerator plants. However, the expensive and advanced air purification required under today’s standards, were not even yet invented or required in the 1970’s. The second incinerator plant in Copenhagen has a similar ownership structure, as do most of the solid waste incinerators in Denmark and Sweden. The Vestforbraeding plant was originally built to burn 50 tonnes per hour (t/h), and now is being expanded to handle 76 t/h to serve approximately 675,000 people. The new incineration unit includes a new air treatment unit designed to meet Danish and EU air emission standards, and the other older incineration units are also being upgraded in 1999 to meet new stricter EU air emission standards. The new unit will be self-financing and will not involve increasing fees to consumers.

The average waste fee is 129 US$ per household per year, with approximately 53% for collection, and 47% for recycling and treatment. The fee is collected indirectly by the municipalities. It is interesting to highlight that the incinerator company Vestforbraeding operates a large number of recycling operations, that are constantly having at least 10% annual increases in volumes. These operations include free recycling centers where groups of communal bins are located to receive plastics, paper, glass, green garden waste, household hazardous waste and all other recyclables, which are usually delivered by automobile. In addition a collection service for recycling of paper and bottles is operated. The paper and bottle service has become such a financial burden that a new user fee was introduced in 1997 of about US$12 per capita per year. The newest and fastest growing part of the waste stream is construction materials received at recycling centers. Overall the recycling activities are also growing in volumes received and still operating at a loss (e.g. US$7 million in 1998). This money losing trend is expected to continue, but the landfill tax collected by the central Government from those who do not recycle, is not being used to help pay for recycling operations.

Vestoforbraeding also operates a 40 ha integrated landfill site that has many cells, accepting several categories of wastes not suitable for recycling or incineration. These are residual products from flue gas purification, street sweepings, sludge ash, asbestos-containing materials, shredded car scrap, PVC containing waste, impregnated wood, etc. Each type of waste uses a separate cell. The site is located next to the sea on reclaimed land and is hydrogeologically isolated from the mainland. Any runoff or leachate from the inert materials is collected in an extensive underground drainage system for disposal via a sea outfall belonging to the adjacent municipal wastewater plant These landfill operations made an operating profit of US$3 million in 1998.

The Danish feel they are in a unique position to meet the 1991 EU Directive to plan for integrated waste management, whose objective is to reduce waste generation by controlling market forces. In Denmark, it is the municipality that is fully responsible for planning and implementing the control of all forms of waste (i.e. household, garden waste, construction waste, hospital waste, hazardous waste, etc.). The steps towards meeting modern waste management goals in Denmark are:

Step 1: Reduce reliance an landfills, by using incineration

Step 2: Use cleaner technology approach, as in replacing fossil fuels with waste derived energy for heating and then for electricity production

Step 3: Increase recycling and upgrade pollution control standards, as with improved air emission control systems in incinerators, and with large modern landfills with full leachate management

Step 4: Reduce volumes of wastes by changing habits of producers and consumers. Nevertheless, it is only now in 1999 that Denmark is beginning to develop concrete actions to meet this last step for modern waste management.

RGS 90, Copenhagen Recycling Center for Construction and Demolition Waste: The Copenhagen Recycling Center set up in 1990 is also located on reclaimed land behind dykes at the edge of the sea, and is underlain by an extensive drainage system that continuously pumps positive upward flowing groundwater into the sea. The environmental permit is for recycling of mainly inert materials, and consequently the Center is not considered a treatment, nor a long-term storage facility nor a disposal facility. It does not have an impermeable liner system, and is not subject to strict pre-treatment standards for runoff waters. A natural protected area of 90 ha is adjacent and contiguous along the seashore, and for this reason obtaining the environmental permit for the Center was long and difficult. The Recycling Center occupies a site of 20 ha with four main recycling operations i) construction and demolition materials recycling ii) recycling of contaminated soils iii) recycling of green garden waste by composting iv) characterization and temporary storage of contaminated soils. The Center receives about half of the construction wastes from the Copenhagen area, which is about 800 trucks a day, from which 90-95% of the materials are recycled. The remaining residues are landfilled or incinerated. The incentive to use the site is to avoid the 50 US$/tonne tax for landfilling recyclable materials, and to sell the recycled materials at 10 US$/tonne including delivery. The current construction materials markets in Denmark use 25% recycled materials and 75% raw materials. The three best selling products are crushed concrete, crushed asphalt/concrete, and crushed concrete/tiles that are used for building roads, car parks and urban public areas. The privately owned RGS90 shares ownership of the Center with the City of Copenhagen, and RGS90 also owns by itself several other raw materials construction materials businesses, including a sea bottom dredging operation to produce sand for construction.

Day 4: Classroom Style Presentations and Discussions

Landfills: Siting and Operations in Eastern Europe: The Marius Pederson Company has developed a very successful international waste management operation that emphasizes a decentralized management structure and full local participation for all inputs – local public sector partners, local capital financing, local goods, local labour and local management for operations. Even capital is borrowed from local banks, but at European interest rates with other similar Western European terms. The first project undertaken by Marius Pederson was built to EU standards and put into operation in 1992. It is located 100 km east of Prague, Czech Republic and has a tipping fee of 20US$/ton. A essential pre-condition to market success is strong compliance and environmental enforcement, as is the case in Czech Republic, as well as enforcing closure of old dumps to ensure need for new capacity at new landfills. Marius Pederson feels the Slovak Republic is too risky for private sector investment because there is no enforcement to close down old dumps. The ‘magic’ Marius Pederson brings to their operations is minimum of 51% control of any venture, including public-private partnerships with municipalities, pulling management concepts together and keeping the bottom line secure by ensuring quick decision making

Landfills: – Landfill Gas Management: Recovery of energy using landfill gas is a well proven technology. There are 640 landfill gas plants operating worldwide, with the majority in the following countries: USA 175, Germany 95, England 100, Sweden 65, Holland 60, Poland 6. The average investment costs are 1550-2250 US$/kW with the following breakdown: collection system 200-400US$/kw, pumping/suction 200-300US$/kw, energy utilization 850-1200US$/kw, planning and design 250-350US$/kw. It takes a minimum of one million tons of waste in place to consider a feasible project. Some common feasibility and design questions to investigate before investment decisions are: test pumping of methane gas to calculate porosity and compaction of the waste matrix; test injection of helium to predict pumping radius of wells that can be calculated at 25 m radius, and in the field turn out to be 100 m radius; pulling in perched and trapped water in the waste matrix; contaminated or corrosive landfill gas (e.g. vinyl chloride, benzene, chloroform, halogens).

Landfills: – Leachate Degradation on Groundwater: Research into the natural migration of leachate from landfills has been ongoing for 17 years at the Technical University of Denmark. The most recent research on an old closed dump is at Skellingsted, a site of 10 ha. It contains chemical wastes, but there is substantial chemical attenuation of ground-water contamination within 100-300 m of the dump. This approximates less than one year’s migration of the contaminant front, as the general speed of ground water flow is 100-300 metres per year. A impermeable clay layer underlies the dump site. Most contaminants dissipate within one km, and only chlorides have the longest downgradient plume of 1-2 km. The implication for closure plans of old dumps and for new landfill designs in developing countries is significant. The research suggests that under conditions with slow to moderate groundwater flow speeds, and with surficial impermeable deposits, that leachate never impacts farther than 1 km from a site. Consequently artificial leachate containment systems may not be necessary at sites with these natural conditions.

Developing Countries Guide to Incineration: This Guide will be published in the near future by the World Bank. The Guide provides a simple technical approach to identify the main factors required to justify a detailed feasibility analysis for an incineration plant.

Developing Countries: – Willingness to Pay Surveys: These types of economic contingent valuation surveys are becoming standard tools for economists and social scientists as part of the preparatory/feasibility package of studies required prior to new investments in solid waste management. The surveys are useful to estimate quantitatively the private benefits of a project, the potential for cost recovery, and the unbundling of the technical design elements of the project. A proper survey design should include focus groups and pilot questionnaires, realistic proposals to collect cost recovery fees, detailed description of the good (i.e. level of service) proposed, and verified translation of the questionnaire. Unfortunately experience with solid waste disposal and wastewater treatment surveys is showing there is not strong willingness to pay for extra for extra these type of treatment services. However there is willingness to pay for waste collection services and potable water supply. Perhaps it is too much to expect a willing general public to pay for public health benefits that only impact part of a service area. Can public awareness be expected to overcome such unwillingness ?

Developing Countries: World Bank Experience: Recent Bank experience is showing: i) a shift to financing projects dedicated fully to solid waste, ii) using GEF grants for incremental costs to reduce greenhouse gases, and iii) to developing strategic local and national solid waste planning. This format is tending to show that solid waste management is a separate sector that requires the full focus of national and municipal officials for success. It is no longer a side-line business, but rather a priority item in the daily operations of cities and regions. This is reinforced by the high level of operating costs involved to maintain disposal investments, and maintain collection services. Strong political will combined with affordable self financing (i.e. cost recovery) are required for sustainable waste management systems in developing countries.

      1. Day 5: Field Visits

Sweden: The Bioreactor Landfill Technology: Even for Sweden this is a new technology, as 10 years ago only a dozen people were working on this technology, and now there are over 100 practitioners and researchers active in Sweden. There are some 30 bioreactor landfills out of 280 landfills in operation in Sweden (about 10% of the total). The bioreactor concept is an anaerobic process that produces methane gas, and usually involves the recirculation of leachate. The process can ‘fix’ metals and leachate can be used for irrigation. The technology tries to control the quality of incoming organic wastes and a variety of other techniques to produce a stable, more homogeneous and efficient biodegradation process in landfill cells, so that the modern landfill becomes a treatment cell. The treatment results in a separation of nutrients from heavy metals, since the nutrients form easily soluble salts that remain with the leachate, while the stable anaerobic conditions lead to an immobilization of heavy metals through formation of insoluble metal sulfides that remain in the biocell. After treatment of 3-5 years, the cell can be opened for landfill mining, and then reuse of the cell.

Sweden: Site Visit of Northwest Scanian Recycling (NSR) Company’s Bioreactor Landfill: The NSR bioreactor landfill produces 60,700 MWh for co-generation of electricity and district heating plant (80%) and for heating for three greenhouses (20%), from 12 million m3 of landfill gas. There is minimal leachate circulation as the organic fill material is sprayed with water before layering in the cell. The cell receives no daily cover that could create perched water tables and barriers to migration of landfill gas. The top of the cell has no impermeable cap, and so remains open to all rainfall In 1998 the biocell received 100,000 tonnes of waste. However the complete site received 370,00 tonnes from a service area population of 217,000 inhabitants. As is common in Scandinavia, this regional waste management company also runs composting, recycling, hazardous waste and waste food bioreactor at the same site.

Sweden: SYSAV – Southwest Scania Waste Company – Incinerator, Recycling Center,, and Landfill. This regional waste management company is of a similar size, and has similar facilities consisting of landfill, composting plant, recycling centers to the Vestforbearding Company in Copenhagen. However, the Southwest Scania Company has an exceptional number of visitors a year – 500,000 visitors. This is an indicator of strong public awareness of solid waste management objectives, and of public support for the company.

Annex 2

Danida/World Bank Study Tour on

'Waste Management in Scandinavia

Exploring ideas for potential use in developingountries'

7-11 June, 1999

Monday 7 June, 1999

Bus from hotel Cab Inn at 09.00. Bus from hotel Absalon at 09. 10 to Eigtved's Pakhus, Asiatisk Plads (close to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

Technical sessions

09.30-09.45 Welcome

by Anders Seerup Rasmussen, Danida

09.45-10.30 Landfilling of Waste in Developing Countries

by Lars Mikkel Johannessen, Danida

10.30-11.30 Landfill Guide for Developing Countries

by Philip Rushbrook, WHO Rome

11.30-11.45 Coffee Break

11.45-12.30 Discussion

moderator Carl Bartone, the World Bank

12.30-14.00 Lunch at Eigtved's Pakhus

13.30-14. 00 Danced participants only; preliminary reimbursement of travel allowance

14.00-15.00 The Basle Convention - Secretariat's role in developing Regional Training Centres

by Asa Granados, the Secretariat of the Basle Convention, UNEP, Geneva

15.00-15.45 Hazardous Waste Treatment - the Norwegian Approach

by Eirik Wormstrand, NORSAS, Norway

15.45-16.00 Coffee Break

16.00-16.45 Hazardous Waste Treatment - the Finnish Approach

by Aarno Kavonius, Ecokem OY, Finland

16.45-18.00 Discussions

moderator Lars Mikkel Johannessen, Danida

18.30-20.30 Dinner at Eigtved's Pakhus with guest speaker Ole Hjelmar, Institute of Water Quality, Denmark: The Danish View on EU's Approach to Waste Management - the Directive on landfilling of waste

20.30 Bus to hotels

Tuesday 8 June, 1999

Site Visits

Refreshments will be available in the coach

8.15 Departure from hotel Cab Inn

8.25 Departure from hotel Absalon

8.30-10.00 Transport to Nyborg, Fuen

Presentation of the video 'The Danish Solution'

10.00-12.00 Visit at Kommunekemi, Hazardous Waste Treatment Plant

12.00-13.00 Transportation to Odense

13.00-13.30 Lunch in Odense with presentation of the Odense, landfill project

by Jan Thrane, Ramboll

Lunch is sponsored by Ramboll

13.30-14.00 Transport to Odense Landfill

14.00-15.30 Guided visit at Odense Landfill

by Jan Thrane, Rainboll

15.30-17.30 Transport to the hotels

The evening is to the delegates free disposal.

Wednesday 9 June, 1999

Site Visits

8.30 Departure from hotel Cab Inn

8.40 Departure from hotel Absalon

8.40-9.30 Transport to I/S Vestforbraending, Ballerup

9.30-10.30 Structure, finance and management of waste in Copenhagen

by Jens Purup, City of Copenhagen

10.30-11.00 Presentation of I/S Vestforbraending, MSW Incineration Plant

by Gunnar Kjoer, I/S Vestforbraending

11.00-12.00 Guided inspection of I/S Vestforbroending

by Gunnar Kjoer, I/S Vestforbraending

12.00-13.30 Lunch sponsored by Vestforbraending,

13.30-14.00 Transport to Avedore

14.00-14.30 Guided inspection of AV-Miljo, Landfill serving the Copenhagen Area

by Steen Bille, AV-Miljo

14.30-15.00 Transport to Amager

15.00-15.30 Presentation of RGS90, Recycling Centre for Construction and Demolition Waste

by Bernt TH Hansen, RGS 90

15.30-16.30 Guided inspection of RGS 90

16.30-17.00 Transport to hotels

18.45 Bus from hotel Cab Inn to Tivoli

18.55 Bus from Absalon to Tivoli

19.30-21.30 Dinner in Tivoli

Sponsored by Ramboll and RGS 90. Vestforbraending

21.30-00.30 Free to enjoy Tivoli at 23.45 a fireworks will take place

00.15 Bus from Tivoli (Wax Museum) to hotels



Thursday 10 June, 1999

Technical Sessions at Eigtved's Pakhus

8.45 Bus from hotel Cab Inn

8.55 Bus from hotel Absalon

10.00-10.30 Siting and operation of landfills in Central Europe

by Claus Nyrop-Larsen, Marius Pedersen A/S

10.30-11.15 Landfill Gas Management - the practical approach

by H. C. Willumsen, LFG Consult ApS Coffee Break

11.30-12.15 Consequences of Leachate in Groundwater - latest research in Denmark

by Peter Kjeldsen, the Technical University of Denmark

12.15-13.00 Discussion

Moderator Carl Bartone, the World Batik

13.00-14.30 Lunch at Eigtved's Pakhus

14.30—15.30 Decision Makers Guide for Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste

by Thomas Rand, Ramboll, Copenhagen

15.30-16.00 Economy in Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries

by Carl Bartone, World Bank

16.00-16.30 Willingness to pay surveys: Experiences from the Philippines

by Nathalie Simon, USEPA

16.30-16.45 Coffee Break

16.45-18.00 Discussion

Moderator Lars Mikkel Johannessen, Danida

18.30-20.30 Dinner at Eigtved' Pakhus

20.30 Bus to hotels


Friday 11 June, 1999

Site visit

8.15 Departure from hotel Cab Inn

8.25 Departure from hotel Absalon

8.30-10.30 Transport to Helsingborg, Sweden

10.30-11.15 Presentation of the Swedish Approach to landfilling of waste - The Bioreactor Landfill

by Anders Lagerkvist, Lulea University, Sweden

11.15-12.15 Guided inspection of NSR's Bioreactor landfill

by Asa Bengtsson and Dag Lewis-Jonsson, NSR

12.15-13.30 Transport to Mahn6

13.30-14.30 Lunch

14.30-15.00 Presentation of SYSAV, South West Scania Waste Company

by Hakan Rylander, Managing Director of SYSAV

15.00-15.30 Transport to SYSAV's landfill in Malm6

15.30-16.30 Guided inspection of SYSAV's landfill 'Spellepeng'

16.30-18.00 Transport to hotels and end of the tour


Annex 3

List of participant of the Study Tour

'Waste Management in Scandinavia'

7-11 June, 1999





Bartone, Carl

World Bank



Gautier, Maryse

World Bank



Halldin, Anders

World Bank



Hife, Rebecca

World Bank



Livcans, Maris

World Bank



Onursal, Bekir

World Bank



Rotman, Allan

World Bank



Simon, Nathalie

World Bank



Soares, Luiz Carlos R.

World Bank



Truksnis, Gatis

World Bank



Andersen, Margrethe Holm



9-11 June

Carpeto, Vitorino José








Cossa, Zacarias




Dlamini, Mr.




Fernando, Filicio




We-ufich, Rudolf



8-11 June

Johannessen, Lars Mikkel




Moi, Patricia Chia Yoon




Morgado, Jorge




Mukarakati, Daisy




Ndlovo, Ike (Mr.)


South Africa


Noorliza, Awang Alip (Mrs)




Paisan, Padungsisikul (Mr)




Puling, Ms.




Suaykakaow, Woranuch (Ms)




Thangtongtawi, Samarn (Mr)




Wilson, Baya Dandot, Mr




Lauridsen, Poul S.