An-Najah National University Faculty of Graduate studies Evaluation of Solid Waste Management Practices in Nablus District Abdul Salam F. Abu Zahra Supervised by: Dr. Hafez Shaheen Dr. Isam al Khatib Submitted in Partial Fulfillment with the Requirements of the Degree of Master of Environmental and Water Engineering, Faculty of Graduate Studies, at An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine. iii Dedication This work is cordially dedicated to the souls of my parents who devoted their life to their children. iv Acknowledgement I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to the faculty of graduated studies at An Najah National University. I would like to express my special thanks and appreciation for my advisors Dr. Hafez Shaheen, and Dr. Issam al Khatib for their kind cooperation, and the time they devoted through the period of research. Special thanks should be extended to Nablus Municipality, mainly Dr. Azzam Halaweh and Dr. Nidal Mansour for their cooperation and help. Also thanks are due to all local councils who were highly cooperating in giving data. I will not forget the help of UNRWA staff, especially Mr. Mi’ary. Special thanks to the Environmental Quality Authority for their support and specially to Eng Ahmed Abu Thaher. The thanks is due also to the Ministry of Local Government and its staff for their information and cooperation. Thanks to all who spent some of their time in filling the field questionnaire. I will not forget the great help and support of my wife who suffered with me in order to finish this study. Finally I would like to thank every one who contributed to complete this study and wish them all the best. v Abstract This study is about the current solid waste management system in Nablus district and it covers the issue from three aspects. These are the management system, awareness of citizens, and solid waste composition. Around 97% of the population in Nablus district are located within areas that have a solid waste collection system. There are great variations in the management system between the city and villages, and among different villages. The collection systems in villages vary from one to another by equipment used. 25 localities are using compacting trucks while 22 are using tractor. The service provider is local council in 9 localities, a contractor in 27 localities, and the joint service council in 13 localities. Amount of solid waste fee ranges between 5 NIS to 15 NIS. The fee is collected separately in 11 localities, with electricity bill in 35 localities, with water bill in 3 localities, with both bills in 2 localities Ownership of the dumping sites also changes from locality to locality. Insufficiency of existing labor and equipments, improper disposal of waste in dumping sites, and low fee collection rates, are the main problems in the existing management system. There is no separation of hazardous and medical waste in all localities. These practices increase threat to citizens and the environment. There is a question about the necessity of unifying the solid waste management system in the district and in the Palestinian territories. This unification can be activated by initiative from the Ministry of Local Government, which is responsible for the local councils. There is a need for establishing sanitary disposal landfill. This should be done in parallel vi with closing the illegal dumping sites, and increasing the recycling and composting where it is feasible. The UNRWA has to take its full responsibility in refugee camps by disposing the generated solid waste. Currently, UNRWA is only collecting solid waste from the camps and disposing it in the nearest municipal containers. Different citizens’ attitudes toward solid waste management were revealed. Like, readiness of citizens to pay more for better collection system as their income increases, and the readiness of citizens living in separate houses to walk further to container than citizens living in apartments. There is a good indication about readiness of citizens to separate solid waste into five components for recycling purpose. On the other hand, there is a need to increase citizens awareness and care about solid waste management issues. The weight composition percentage of the solid waste in Nablus district is 63% organic material, 8% plastics, 3% metals, 3% glass, 10% paper and cardboard, 3% textiles 10% others and inert materials. It is clear that the high portion of solid waste is organic material, as expected in developing countries. The variation in the composition between village and city is minor. The organic content is a bit higher in villages while the paper content is higher in the city. vii Contents 1 Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 General ………………………………………………… 2 1.1.1 Solid waste management…………………………………. 3 1.1.2 Classification of solid waste……………………………… 5 1.1.3 Solid waste disposal… ………………………………… 7 1.1.4 Landfill classification……………………………………… 8 1.1.5 Strategic planning issues of SWM………………………… 8 1.2 Solid waste management in Palestine……………………… 11 1.2.1 Palestine…………………………………………………… 11 1.2.2 Joint councils for service, planning and development ……. 13 1.2.3 Solid waste problem identification………………………… 14 1.2.4 Dumping sites in the Palestinian Territories 2001…………. 16 1.2.5 Legal and institutional framework…………………………. 18 1.2.6 Proposed global solutions for solid waste disposal………… 20 1.3 Study area framework and characteristics…………………. 21 1.3.1 Geographical and historical background…………………… 21 1.3.2 Localities and population of Nablus district……………… 21 1.3.3 Metrological data…………………………………………… 22 1.3.4 Joint service councils for Nablus…………………………… 22 1.4 Aim of the study…………………………………………… 23 2 Chapter Two: Study Methodology 2.1 General……………………………………………………… 26 viii 2.2 Household’s questionnaire…………………………. 27 2.3 Stakeholder’s questionnaire……………………...... 31 2.4 Analyzing composition of the solid waste……….. 32 3 Chapter Three: Results 3.1 Existing system for SWM in Nablus district……………… 36 3.1.1 Collection system…………………………………………. 37 3.1.1.1 Equipment and labor……………………………………… 37 3.1.1.2 Service provider…………………………………………… 45 3.1.2 Solid waste fees system…………………………………… 48 3.1.3 Disposal system………………………………………. 55 3.1.4 Solid waste expenses and income…………………….. 60 3.1.5 Role of the private sector in solid waste management……. 63 3.1.6 Solid waste quantities…………………………………… 63 3.2 Interaction of citizens with solid waste issues…………… 65 3.2.1 Multivariate analysis ……………………………………. 76 3.3 Solid waste composition in the study area……………… 78 3.3.1 Sample distribution……………………………………… 79 3.3.2 Sample analysis………………………………………….. 79 3.3.3 Composition of the waste………………………………. 80 3.3.4 Solid waste density……………………………………… 86 4 Chapter Four: Discussion of results 4.1 Current system of solid waste management in the district 90 4.2 Absence of unified solid waste management system… 90 4.3 Dumping sites………………………………………… 92 ix 4.4 Refugee camps………………………………………… 94 4.5 Main problems in the collection system……………… 95 4.6 Expenditure and cost recovery in surrounding villages 97 4.7 Role of the private sector……………………………… 98 4.8 Awareness of citizens………………………………… 100 4.9 Solid waste composition………………………………. 102 4.10 Influence of Intifada on solid waste management ……. 103 5 Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusions……………………………………………. 108 5.2 Recommendations……………………………………... 111 References……………………………………………. 115 Tables………………………………………………… 120 A Appendices A1 Questionnaire 132 x List of Tables No Table name Page 1-1 Overview of existing classification systems for solid waste 6 1-2 Key characteristics of municipal solid waste landfill 9 1-3 Enrolment and area of Palestinian governorates in 1997 12 1- 4 Estimated population natural growth rates in the Palestinian Territory, 1997-2006 12 1- 5 Distribution of joint councils for service, planning and development in districts 13 1- 6 Level of services in rural and urban areas in Palestine 14 1- 7 Change in distribution of dumping sites between 1998 and 2001 17 1- 8 Monthly mean temperature and evaporation quantity for Nablus 22 1- 9 Joint service councils for Nablus district 24 2-1 Distribution of household’s questionnaire according to locality type 30 3- 1 Existing equipments in Nablus municipality for solid waste in year 2006 39 3- 2 Available staff in Nablus municipality for solid waste sector 40 3- 3 Distribution of foremen in Nablus municipality for solid waste 41 3- 4 Distribution of solid waste laborers of Nablus municipality for solid waste sector 42 3- 5 Urgent need for Nablus municipality for solid waste collection section 43 3- 6 Solid Waste labors and carts distribution for Nablus camps 43 3-7 Classification of Nablus district localities according to the equipment used for solid waste collection 44 3-8 Classification of Nablus district localities according to the solid waste service provider 48 3-9 Classification of Nablus district localities according to the solid waste fee amount 51 3-10 Classification of Nablus district localities according to the type of solid waste fee collection system 54 3-11 Classification of dumping sites of Nablus district localities according to ownership type 59 3- 12 Cost of solid waste collection and disposal, for Nablus municipality 60 xi No Table name Page 3- 13 Breakdown cost of solid waste collection and disposal per ton, for Nablus municipality 61 3- 14 Solid waste quantities and their disposal cost for the years 2002- 2005 Nablus municipality 64 3-15 Distribution of questionnaire according to house type 65 3-16 Distribution of households according to number of residents 66 3-17 Distribution of questionnaire according to average monthly i 66 3-18 Locality type versus maximum affordable fee 66 3-19 House type versus maximum affordable fee 67 3-20 Average monthly income versus maximum affordable fee 68 3-21 Locality type versus maximum walking distance to the container 69 3-22 House type versus maximum walking distance to the container 70 3-23 Number of residents versus maximum walking distance to the container 70 3-24 Average monthly income versus maximum walking distance to the container 71 3-25 Locality type versus readiness to participate in awareness campaigns 72 3-26 Average monthly income versus readiness to participate in awareness campaigns 73 3-27 Locality type versus who is in charge of throwing away the solid waste 73 3-28 Distribution of households according to the presence of problems related to solid waste containers 75 3-29 Readiness of citizens to separate solid waste into five components 75 3-30 Answers of citizens about methodology of getting rid of residual food 76 3-31 Results of multivariate analysis 78 3-32 Weight components of the solid waste samples (kg) 81 3-33 Composition of solid waste in the study area (percentages of components by weight) 82 3-34 Composition of solid waste in the study area, (volume of components in m3) 87 3-35 Composition of solid waste in the study area (volume percentages of the components) 88 4-1 Comparison between results of the study and Marinianscky study for the weight components of solid waste in the city 103 xii List of Figures No Table name Page A-1 Enrolment in Nablus district localities for the year 1997 and 2006 121 A-2 The number of samples to be taken from each locality 123 A-3 Nablus district localities that have no solid waste service and its enrolment 125 A-4 Number of participants in solid waste collection system for Nablus district localities 126 A-5 Solid waste fees income and expenses for Nablus district localities 127 A-6 Tariff system for garbage tax in Nablus city 129 A-7 Percentage of solid waste fee collection for some localities 130 Figure Figure Name Page 1-1 Waste classification 7 3-1 Existence of solid waste collection system in Nablus district localities 38 3-2 Equipment used for solid waste collection in Nablus localities 46 3-3 Classification of localities in Nablus district according to type of service provider 49 3-4 Solid Waste Collection Fees in Nablus Localities 53 3-5 Composition of solid waste in the dumping sites 84 xiii Abbreviations DS Dumping Sites EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EQA Environmental Quality Authority Fig Figure GHG Green House Gaz JCSPD Joint Councils for Services, Planning and Development LGU Local Government Unit MLG Ministry of Local Government MSW Municipal Solid Waste NIMBY Not In My Back Yard NIS New Israeli Sheqel PCBS Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics Pop Population SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science UNRWA United Nations for Relief and Work Agency UNEP United Nation Environment Programme WHO World Health Organization 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 2 1.1 General In the early centuries, management of solid waste was easily dealt with at the household level. (Mwanthi, 1997). Increasing population levels, rapid economic growth and rise in community living standard accelerate the generation rate of municipal solid waste (MSW). Improper management of MSW causes hazards to inhabitants (Sharholy, 2006). Municipal solid waste is a heterogeneous mixture of paper, plastic, cloth, metal, glass, organic matter, etc. generated from households, commercial establishments, and markets. The proportion of different constituents of waste varies from season to season and place to place, depending on the lifestyle, food habits, standards of living, the extent of industrial and commercial activities in the area, etc (Katju, 2006). Global MSW production in 1997 was 0.49 billion tons. The production of MSW is growing at 3.2–4.5% each year in developed countries, and at 2– 3% per annum in developing countries. Based on these data, the problem of MSW management has earned increasing attention as a major hindrance to urbanization and economic development all over the world (Tong and Yuping, 2001). The problem of solid waste is increasing with the increased population of the world. According to the US Bureau of the census current population of the world had increased from 2.556 billion at the year 1950 to 6.525 billion in 2006 and expected to reach 8.5 billion by the year 2035. The percentage of 3 urban areas now is 50% and is expected to reach 60% by the year 2035 (United States Census Bureau, 2006). 1.1.1 Solid Waste Management Solid waste is no longer regarded as something “to get rid of”, but has a potential value, both from environmental and economical point of view (Ljunggren, 1998). Unfortunately, poor solid waste management practices are intensifying to crisis conditions in many developing countries. Limited opportunities for development of a sustainable solid waste management system exist because government budgets are limited and proper disposal of solid wastes is frequently perceived as representing only costs (McBean et al., 2005). As a consequence, issues of solid waste management have been considered profoundly different from water supply. For example, because of the desirability of the product (the water supply), a willingness to pay exists on the part of the consumer. With solid wastes, most individuals’ willingness to incur expenditures for management extends only to ensuring that the wastes are out of sight (McBean et al., 2005). Solid waste management is not only a technical problem but it is also strongly influenced by political, legal, socio-cultural, environmental and economic factors, as well as available resources. Moreover, these factors have interrelationships that are usually complex in waste management systems (Kum et al., 2005). Many cities in developing Asian countries face serious problems in managing their solid waste. The annual waste 4 generation increases in proportion to the rise in population and urbanization, and issues related to disposal have become challenging as more land is needed for the ultimate disposal of these solid wastes (Idris et al., 2004). MSW is normally pollution (Kansal et al., 1998). When it comes to municipal solid waste management, the solution to addressing the poor quality of service in developing countries is a complex mixture of lack of resources, lack of expertise, lack of political will and inadequate legislation. There is no simple or single solution to this complex web of interlinked shortcomings. Needless to say, there will always be a service provider on hand to sell a quick solution to these problems, but these supposed solutions are invariably doomed to failure as they can only address one aspect of the problem. This discussion does not propose a solution that will single-handedly address this problem. Rather, it is suggested that an aspect that is often neglected is that of the competencies and abilities of those members of local, state and national government departments that are responsible for implementing and managing environmental legislation in developing countries (Fourie, 2006). It is usually not the environmental legislation itself that is at the heart of the problem. Indeed, some developing countries may well have more refined and visionary legislation than many developed countries. What use is world-class environmental legislation, when it is impossible to enforce of all waste, including medical waste, without first ensuring viable alternatives are in place. The inevitable result is the disastrous situation that now exists in many developing countries. Lack of 5 enforcement of legislation also places unfair responsibility and pressure on municipal officers (Fourie, 2006). 1.1.2 Classification of Solid Waste Solid waste in general consists of the highly heterogeneous mass of discarded materials from the urban community, as well as the more homogeneous accumulation of agricultural, industrial and mining wastes. The principal sources of solid wastes are residences, commercial establishments, institutions, industrial and agricultural activities. Domestic, commercial, and light industrial wastes are considered together as urban wastes. The main constituents of urban solid wastes are similar throughout the world, but the quantity generated, the density and the proportion of constituents vary widely from country to country, and from town to town within a country according to the level of economic development, geographic location, weather and social conditions (Sufian and Bala, 2006). In general, it has been found that as the personal income rises, kitchen wastes decline but the paper, metals and glass wastes increase; the total weight generated increases but the density of the wastes declines (Sufian and Bala, 2006). The solid waste may be characterized by different classification systems. A number of the existing classification systems are simply based on material groups (e.g., paper, plastic, metal, etc., Siegel et al., 1990). Table 1-1 gives an overview of existing classification systems for solid waste: 6 Table 1-1*: Overview of existing classification systems for solid waste Author Basis for differentiation Parameters used for differentiation Turczynski (1988) Waste type Density, shear parameters, liquid/plastic limit, permeability Siegel et al. (1990) Material groups Part of composition Landva and Clark (1990) Organic, inorganic materials Degradability (easily, slowly, non) Shape (hollow, platy, elongated, bulky) Grisolia et al. (1995) Degradable, inert, de- formable material groups Strength, deformability, degradability K ِ◌lsch (1996) Material groups Size, dimension Manassero et al. (1997) Soil-like, other Index properties *Dixon and Langer (2006) Due to the large variety of materials present in waste, a practical approach is to identify major groups of materials. For example, an American waste composition survey done by the Department of Environmental Quality (1998) used the following main groups: organic, paper, wood, polymer/plastics, metal (Fe/non-Fe), soil-like, ceramic, glass, inert and rubber. Waste composition is defined by measuring the mass percentage of each material group present in a sample (Dixon and Langer, 2006). 7 Figure 1-1 shows the details of the Landva and Clark classification. Organic Inorganic Putrescible Non-putrescible Degradable Non-degradable Food waste Paper Metals Glass Garden waste Wood Ceramics Material contaminated by such waste Organic Sludge Concrete Masonry Leather Rubble Plastic, Rubber Tailings Paint, Oil, Grease, Slimes Chemicals Ash Textiles Mineral soil *Dixon and Langer (2006) Fig. 1-1: Waste classification (after Landva and Clark) 1.1.3 Solid Waste Disposal Several disposal methods are being used in various parts of the world and the most prominent of these are: open dumping, sanitary landfilling, incineration and composting. Sanitary landfilling is the main method used in industrialized countries and open dumping is very common in developing countries (Sufian and Bala, 2006). This is because open dumping is cheap and requires no planning. Generally, the low-lying areas and outskirts of the towns and cities are used for MSW dumping (Sufian and Bala, 2006). Special wastes are those that need special handling, treatment, and disposal because of their hazardous potential or large volumes. Ideally, these wastes should not enter the municipal solid waste stream, but quite frequently they do, particularly in developing countries (UNEP, 2006). 8 Special wastes can cause significant health and environmental impacts when managed inadequately. Those who come into direct contact with the wastes, such as waste pickers, are at great health risk. Toxic components of these wastes can enter the environment, poisoning water bodies. Hazardous materials can also degrade MSW equipment (UNEP, 2006). 1.1.4 Landfill classification The landfills according to UNEP (UNEP, 2006) are grouped into three general categories: 1. Open dumps 2. Controlled dumps 3. Sanitary landfills Obviously, these three types of landfills are points on a continuum, with facilities in developing countries most often falling somewhere between open dumps and controlled dumps. Table 1-2 summarizes the main distinguishing characteristics of each of the three types. 1.1.5 Strategic Planning Issues of SWM Planning of Solid Waste Management (SWM) has to address several interdependent issues such as public health, the environment, the economic potential from the solid waste generated, and present and future costs to society. The SWM is a complex, dynamic and multi-faceted system depending not only on available technology but also upon economic and social factors. Experimentation with an actually existing urban solid waste management system containing economic, social, technological, environmental and political elements may be costly and time consuming or totally unrealistic (Sufian and Bala, 2006). Formatted: Space After: 0 pt Formatted: Space After: 0 pt 9 Table 1-2: Key Characteristics of Municipal solid waste landfill Type Characteristics Advantages Disadvantages Open Dump • Poorly Sited • Unknown Capacity • No cell planning • Little or no site reparation • No leachate management • No gas management • Only occasional cover • No compaction of waste • No fence • No record keeping Waste picking and trading • Easy access • Extended lifetime • Low initial cost • Low initial cost • Low initial cost • Low initial cost • Low initial cost • Aerobic decomposition • Access to waste pickers • Low initial cost • Materials recovery, income • Environmental Contamination • Overuse, many noxious sites • Environmental Contamination • Unsightly, needs remediation • GW and SW Contamination • Risk of explosions and GHG • Vectors/ diseases, Unsightly • Shorter lifetime, little • Indiscriminate use, vermin • No record of landfill content • Least efficient for recovery Controlled dump • Sited with respect to hydro- geology • Planned capacity • No cell planning • Grading, drainage in site preparation • Partial leachate management • Partial or no gas management • Regular (not usual daily) cover • Compaction in some cases • Fence • Basic record keeping • Controlled waste picking and trading • Less event of contamination • Permits long term planning • Low initial cost • Easier rainfall, runoff, reduced risk • Moderate cost, reduced risk • Moderate cost, reduced risk • Moderate cost, reduced risk • Extended lifetime • Controlled access and use • Valuable information • Materials recovery, income, low risk to pickers • Perhaps less accessible • None • Environmental Contamination • Cost • Cost • Cost • Cost, slower decomposition • Cost • Cost, maintenance • Cost Harassment, possible displacement of pickers and buyers, loss of recyclable 10 Type Characteristics Advantages Disadvantages Sanitary Landfill • Site based on Environmental risk assessment • Planned capacity • Designed cell development • Extensive site preparation • Full leachate management • Full gas management • Daily and final cover • Compaction • Fence and gate • Record volume, type and source • No waste picking • Minimized Environmental risk • Permits long term-planning • Minimized Environmental risk • Reduced risk at and from site • Reduced risk from leachate • Reduced risk from gas • Vector control, aesthetics • Extended lifetime • Secure access, gate records • Valuable information • Eliminate risk to pickers • Access, longer siting process • None • Cost • Cost, preparation time • Cost • Cost • Cost, slower decomposition • Cost • Cost, maintenance, staff • Cost, equipment • Displacement of pickers and buyers, loss of recyclable resources Adopted from Tchobanglous,G. H Theisin, and R Eliassen. Solid wastes: Engineering principles and management Issues. New York, McGrow- Hill 1977 and Burner, D.R and D.G. Keller. Sanitary Landfill Design and Operations. Washington: US EPA, Publication SW-65ts, 1972. 11 One of the greatest challenges that organizations face today is to figure out how to diversify the treatment options, increase the reliability of infrastructure systems, and leverage the redistribution of waste streams among incineration, composting, recycling, and other facilities to their competitive advantage region wide. Systems analysis plays an important role for regionalization assessment of integrated solid waste management systems. Recent research programs of planning SWM system emphasize the inclusion of both socioeconomic and environmental considerations that have to be evaluated simultaneously to provide decision makers with a set of total solutions regarding waste recycling, facilities siting, and system operation (Chang and Davila, 2006). 1.2 Solid Waste Management in Palestine 1.2.1 Palestine Palestine is located at the south western part of Asia, between 34 o 15 “ and 35 o 40 “ East altitude lines, and latitude lines 29 o 30 “ and 33 o 15 “ North. Historical Palestine is bordered by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, it amounts to 27,009 km2, while the Palestinian Territory amounts 5,655 km2 in the West Bank and 365 km2 in Gaza Strip (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 2004). The Palestinian Territories are divided into 16 governorates as shown in table 1-3. According to Palestinian Bureau of Statistics, 2005 the natural increase is shown in table 1-4. Palestine climate is affected by three factors: First is the mountain series extended from North to South parallel to the coast, second is Sina and North Africa Desert, and the third is Syrian Desert. Jordan River is the Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Tab stops: 3.69", Left 12 longest Palestinian river, this river is an internal one, and its water poured in the Dead Sea (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 1999). Table 1-3*: Enrolment and area of Palestinian Governorates in 1997 Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics: Population, Housing and establishment Census-1997, Final Results- Population Report – Palestinian Territory, First Part. Ramallah- Palestine 1999. Table 1-4 *: Estimated Population Natural Growth Rates in the Palestinian Territory, 1997-2006 Year West Bank Gaza Strip Palestinian Territory 1997 3.6 4.1 3.8 1998 3.6 4.1 3.7 1999 3.5 4.0 3.7 2000 3.4 4.0 3.6 2001 3.4 4.0 3.6 2002 3.3 4.0 3.5 2003 3.2 3.9 3.4 2004 3.1 3.9 3.4 2005 3.0 3.8 3.3 2006 3.0 3.8 3.3 * Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics: Statistical Abstract of Palestine, No “6”. Ramallah – Palestine, 2005. No Governorate Enrolment 1997 Governorate area (Km2) 1 Jenin 195,299 583 2 Tubas 35,216 402 3 Tulkarm 129,030 246 4 Nablus 251,392 605 5 Qalqiliya 69,268 166 6 Salfit 46,688 204 7 Ramallah & Al Bireh 205,448 855 8 Jericho 31,501 593 9 Jerusalem 113,896 345 10 Beithlehem 132,090 659 11 Hebron 390,272 997 Total West Bank 1,600,100 5,655 12 North Gaza 179,690 61 13 Gaza 359,941 74 14 Deir Al-Balah 144,890 58 15 Khan Yunis 196,662 108 16 Rafah 120,386 64 Total Gaza Strip 1,001,569 365 Palestinian Territory 2,601,669 6,020 13 1.2.2 Joint Councils for Services, Planning and Development (JCSPD): The ministry of local government in cooperation with international development agencies has focused on merging some local government units (LGU) together. By grouping small governmental units together into a JCSPD a stronger institutional framework is formed which among other things will build the capacity of the member of the local government units (LGU) and enhance their ability to manage sustainable development in their communities (Ministry of Local Government, 2004). Table 1- 5*: Distribution of Joint Councils for Service, Planning and Development in Districts District No of JCSPD No of LGU Jerusalem 6 54 Ramallah & al Bireh 14 68 Jericho 6 33 Beithlehem 6 49 Hebron 7 79 Nablus 5 41 Tulkarm 4 46 Jenin 6 125 Salfit 3 18 Tubas 3 22 Qalqiliya 4 49 Gaza Strip 6 43 Total 70 627 * Ministry of Local Government:, 2004 Note: The total number of LGUs in West Bank and Gaza is 497. However the total number of LGUs forming JCSPD is 627. This discrepancy is due to some LGUs being members of more than one JCSPD. 14 One of the main aims of the JCSPD is to improve the level of services in rural areas. Currently there is an imbalance between rural and urban areas as shown in table 1-6 (Ministry of Local Government, 2004): Table 1-6 * Level of Services in Rural and Urban areas in Palestine LGUs Service Municipalities Village Councils Project Committy Water 93% 79% 48% Electricity 100% 95% 71% Solid Waste Collection 100% 84% 45% *Ministry of Local Government: Joint Councils for services, planning and development. Ramallah, Palestine, 2004) 1.2.3 Solid Waste Problem Identification Palestine faces the problem of solid waste material, which is becoming more and more difficult. This is due to (1)Ever-increasing population and the change in people’s habits. (2)Low environmental awareness of the citizens. (3)Low level of services presented by local municipalities. (4)Poor mechanical equipment. (5)Lack of funds. (6)Lack of effective enforcement. (7)Pressure and restriction by Israel All of these have resulted in poor management practices of solid waste material and higher potential of pollution (UNEP, 2003). According to household environmental survey done by PCBS 14.5% of households in North West Bank are exposed to bad smells sometimes and very often because of the dumping sites. Also 41% of the households in North West Bank are exposed to smokes sometimes and very often due to burning of waste (Palestinian Central Bureau of statistics, 2005). 15 There are many inconsistencies in the design and management of landfills (dumping sites) throughout Palestine, and many operate with vague, subjective or ineffective controls on hazardous waste disposal. Current international approaches to the landfill disposal of hazardous wastes are out of alignment with all of the Palestinian cities (United Nations Environment Programme, 2003). The improper handling of solid waste in Palestine is a major cause of deterioration of water quality, land degradation, air pollution, pollution of the Gaza shoreline and the coastal marine environment and aesthetic distortion of the visual environment. The risks from leachate from non- sanitary hazardous waste dumps should not be underestimated. Also public health risks related to direct exposure to hazardous or infectious waste are serious (Ministry of environmental affairs, 2000). According to UNEP, 2003, desk study on the environment in the occupied Palestinian Territories, approximately 67% of the West Bank population and 95% of Gaza population is served by a municipal collection system. However, no sanitary landfill exists in the West Bank, except Zahrat Al Finjan landfill in Jenin area which is under construction. There were 500 illegal dumping sites in Israel. Up to 2005, half of these have been closed including the 77 large dumping sites. The current tipping fee in the legal sites for the solid waste ranges between 7 to 8 $ per ton (Nissaim et al., 2005). In Palestinian Territory and in the year 2001 the daily quantity of solid waste reaching dumping sites is 3,696 tons including 2,506 tons in the West Bank, and 1,190 tons in Gaza (Palestinian Central Bureau of 16 statistics, 2002). While the results of household environmental survey in 2005 showed the daily quantity of solid waste generated in the Palestinian Territory was 2,728 tons (Palestinian Central Bureau of statistics, 2005). In the year 2005 the average household daily production of household waste in the Palestinian Territory was estimated to be 4.6 kg, and the average per capita daily production of household waste is estimated at 0.7 kg (Palestinian Central Bureau of statistics, 2005). Comparison with Israel where 5.7 million tons of solid waste were produced in 2002 and the generation rate reaches 1.8 Kg /capita, and the household waste is increasing at a rate of 4-5% (Nissaim et al., 2005). 1.2.4 Dumping Sites in the Palestinian Territory 2001 In 1998, the number of dumping sites in the Palestinian territory was 175 of which 171 lie in the West Bank. In 2001, the number decreased to 137 of which 133 lie in West Bank. No change in the number of sites of Gaza Strip during the period, which remained 4 dumping sites (Palestinian Central Bureau of statistics, 2002). Burning solid waste as a way of treatment is the most common in 116 dumping sites in the West Bank. Solid waste is buried in 17 dumping sites in the Palestinian Territory including 13 on the West bank and the four of Gaza Strip (Palestinian Central Bureau of statistics, 2002). The waste burning is the most important source of smoke for 33.0% of households that are exposed to smoke in the Palestinian Territory (Palestinian Central Bureau of statistics, 2002). 17 Table 1- 7 * Change in Distribution of dumping sites between 1998 and 2001 District No of DS 1998 No of DS 2001 Quantity in 2001 tons/day Palestinian Territory 175 137 3,696 West Bank 171 133 2,506 Jenin 33 23 215 Tubas 1 1 40 Tulkarm 17 15 198 Nablus 17 16 241 Qalqiliya 4 3 433 Salfit 11 9 32 Ramallah 41 32 469 Jericho 5 4 31 Jerusalem 16 9 148 Bethlehem 8 4 47 Hebron 18 17 652 Gaza Strip 4 1,190 North Gaza 1 1 150 Gaza 1 1 650 Deir Al –Balah 1 1 260 Khan Yunis 0 0 0 Rafah 1 1 130 *(PCBS, 2001) The general notes about these dumping sites are: • There is little or no control on what is dumped at these facilities • Open burning is a common practice. • No cover is applied. • Dumping encroaches onto farmlands. • No equipment to manage the incoming waste. • Sitting of the dump is arbitrary. • Unsafe practices (Unsafe slopes, no personal protection equipment…) 18 1.2.5 Legal and Institutional Framework Prior to May 1994, management of local services including solid waste was under Israeli Civil administration. Prior to Israeli occupation of 1967, health laws based upon Jordanian health requirement were utilized in Palestine; with British and Egyptian law applied in Gaza strip (Hickman and Krueger, 2004). The legal framework in Palestine provides a broadly effective basis for solid waste management, but requires implementing instructions in order to be fully implemented. There are positive aspects to the structural framework for solid waste management in Palestine (Hickman and Krueger, 2004). The scope of the Palestinian law is affected by the territorial status of Palestine, which is currently divided into three areas (A, B and C), according to the degree of Palestinian control. Only area A is under full Palestinian control; Area B under joint Israeli-Palestinian control and area C under Israeli control (Hickman and Krueger, 2004). The presence of Israeli colonies which dispose off their wastes in an uncontrolled manner on Palestinian Territory further complicates the applicability of Palestinian law and institutions. Law No. 7 of 1999 entitled “Environmental Law” contains certain provisions related to solid waste management. The most important features of the law related to solid waste are (Hickman and Krueger, 2004): • Master Plan: clause 7 requires EQA to prepare the Master Plan for solid waste management in coordination with other concerned agencies. The Plan is to provide locations and techniques for disposal. 19 • Role of Councils: Clause 7 requires that Local Councils to implement the solid waste Plan. • Recycling: Clause 8 calls for promotion of recycling and reuse. • Technical Requirements: Clause 9 authorizes EQA to develop or specify technical requirements for disposal facilities. • Hazardous Waste: A broad definition of hazardous waste is provided in the Law. There is a need to develop regulations and a criterion to better define the limits of hazardous waste. The definition includes medical waste. Normally medical waste is not considered hazardous in the sense that it has chemical or radioactive concerns. The solid waste rules also address medical waste and allow them in sanitary landfills. The regulations should specify the criteria for accepting treated medical waste at sanitary landfills in order to prevent any conflict with the Law. • Clause 11-13 of the law mandate EQA develop a list of hazardous waste as well as regulation for its storage, treatment and disposal. • Permitting: Clause 23 prohibits waste burning or dumping except at locations approved by EQA and according to its requirements. Therefore, EQA would need to develop a registration or list of approved sites. Clauses 46-48 specifically address permitting and burning. • Other Media: The law contains provisions for air, water and noise (Clauses 19-30) that would be relevant in approval of solid waste facilities. 20 • EIA: Clause 45 authorizes EQA to require EIA for regulated activities according to rules to be published under this clause. According to the EIA policy an EIA will be required for solid waste facilities. • Inception and Enforcement: Clause 49 authorizes inspection and enforcement. Authorized penalty levels for enforcement are not provided in the Law. 1.2.6 Proposed Global Solutions for Solid Waste Disposal Environmental Quality Authority identified several projects and prioritized them for implementation in the West Bank (Center for Engineering and Planning, 2001): • Construction of three landfills in Jenin, Ramallah , and Hebron. • Construction of sanitary landfill site for hazardous waste. • Feasibility study for slurry management and reuse • Feasibility of composting in reducing solid waste quantities The priority was given to the construction of waste facilities, waste reduction and waste recycling. The missing is a comprehensive national solid waste management plan. The plan should be comprehensive and should integrate all aspects of solid waste management and should cover all areas under the control of the Palestinian authority. In the absence of such a plan, the solid waste services will become more expensive (Center for Engineering and Planning, 2001). If composting at the village level is adopted, the total quantities of waste requiring landfilling would be reduced, thereby making the site of landfills and required investment smaller. The need for transfer stations would Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt 21 become more critical if the approach of three landfills was adopted on a national basis (Center for Engineering and Planning, 2001). 1.3 Study Area Framework and Characteristics In this part we will handle the specific characteristics of Nablus area. 1.3.1 Geographical and Historical Background Nablus District is one of the districts in Palestine. According to 1997 statistics Nablus has 72 localities populated by 251,392 inhabitants (Nowadays estimated at about 336,000). Nablus city which is the main city in the District encounters within its boundaries about 170 thousand inhabitants according to 2006 projections (including the refugee camps). The total area of Nablus District is about 605 km2 (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 1999). The city of Nablus is one of the oldest in the world and has been a place of habitation for 4000 years (El-Masri 1996). Located 65 km north of Jerusalem, Nablus is considered the main business and residential center of the northern West Bank. Its prime location also enhances its position in any future development plans, as it is located at the crossroads of the Jerusalem Jenin road running north to south, and the Tulkarm – Jordan Valley road running east to west (Arafat et al., 2006). 1.3.2 Localities and population The existing localities in Nablus District are shown in Table A-1 of the appendix according to 1997 statistics compiled with the natural increase. 22 The table shows that there are 72 localities in Nablus of total population of 336,380 inhabitants in 2006. 1.3.3 Metrological data For Nablus the monthly mean of air temperature and the Evaporation quantity varies between months according to table 1-8: Table 1-8*: Monthly mean temperature and evaporation quantities for Nablus Month Temperature oC Evaporation (mm) Relative humidity January 10.1 49.6 67 February 11.4 67.2 71 March 13.4 99.2 57 April 16.8 149.1 50 May 20.0 202.7 54 June 21.9 225.9 60 July 23.4 237.9 59 August 23.5 218.2 65 September 22.7 177.6 61 October 20.7 131.1 57 November 16.5 74.4 60 December 11.0 48.6 61 Average / Total 17.6 1,681 60.2 *(PCBS, 2005) The annual average rainfall for Nablus is 663.5 mm. In the year 2005 the annual rain was 790.5 mm, and the average relative humidity is 60.2 (PCBS, 2005). 1.3.4 Joint Service Councils for Nablus The ministry of local government in cooperation with international development agencies has focused on merging some local government units (LGU) together. The Joint Service Councils (JSC) in Nablus district is according to table 1-9. 23 1.4 Aim of the Study The study aims at analyzing the current practices of solid waste management in Nablus district. This will be done in three aspects: (1)Evaluation of current practices in solid waste collection and disposal in city, villages and camps (2)Evaluation of the satisfaction and awareness of the citizen with the level of service provided. It is also to figure out the main issues of interest for the citizens about the solid waste. (3) Finding the composition of the solid waste in both city and villages. Another main purpose of the study is finding out the most important problems concerning solid waste collection, transfer and disposal. Finding the main advantages and disadvantages of the current solid waste management system is also one of the aims of the study. The main purpose at the end is to propose a comprehensive practical management system which is environmentally sound and economically feasible for dealing with the solid waste problem in Nablus district. 24 Table 1-9 *: Joint Service councils for Nablus District No Name of JSC Participating LGU Number of Participants 1 South Eastern Nablus Beita , Odala, Awarta, Osarin, Za'atra, 5 2 East Nablus A Beit Furik , Azmut, Deir Al Hatab, Salim, Beit Dajan, Rujeib, Kafr Qallil 7 3 East Nablus B Aqraba , Qabalan, Yanun, Yatma, Jurish, Qusra, Talfit, Majdal Bani Fadil, Qaryut, Jalud, Duma 11 4 Huwwara Huwwara , Jamma'in, Burin, Asira al Qibliya, Urif, Einabus, Zeita Jamma'in 6 5 North West Nablus Sabastiya , Bizzariya, Burqa, Beit Imrin , Nisf Jubeil, Ijnisinya, Deir Sharaf, An Naqura 8 6 Al Aghwar Al Wusta An Nassariya, Al ' Aqrabaniya, Beit Hasan, Ein Shibli, Frush Beit Dajan, 5 * According to interview with officials from MLG-Nablus 25 Chapter 2 Study Methodology 26 2.1 General It is first to review the existing documents that deal with solid waste management issues in Palestine in general and especially in Nablus district. There were some studies done by local councils either to find donation for purchasing solid waste vehicles or for developing their dumping site. Nablus Municipality made a preliminary study on a proposed landfill site in Al Aghwar area. Then it is to collect data. Special questionnaire was designed to collect information about the current management system in all localities of the district. This questionnaire was distributed to the key person of the local councils. The key person was either the head of the local council, one of the members, or the local council engineer. Sometimes the questionnaire was filled through a phone call with the key person. All the local councils were surveyed and one form was filled for each council. In case there was no solid waste management system the questionnaire was not filled. For Nablus municipality several meetings were conducted with the person in charge of the solid waste management, in addition to meetings with the accountant of the municipality. The data collected was the base for documenting the current management system in Nablus district localities. The researcher after that detected the variations between one locality and another. Also this helped in finding the main deficiencies in the current different management systems. It was necessary to find the interaction of the citizens with the solid waste issues. This includes the awareness, concerns, satisfaction and interest. A special questionnaire was designed for this purpose. The questionnaire intends to clarify the above questions and trends. The questionnaire 27 includes data about the geographic location, income, number of family members. It is to check if there is relation between these independent variables and the other studied variables. The questionnaire was distributed to a representative sample of 1,068 households. Each locality received a number of questionnaires in proportion to its population to the total population of the district. These questionnaires were collected and analyzed using SPSS program (Statistical Package for Social Science). The composition of the solid waste is very important in proposing any management system. Thirty samples were analyzed. The samples were chosen to cover the city and villages. For the camps the solid waste is collected with the city. Three sites were chosen for analysis, one that cover the city, the other covers some of the western localities and the third covers some of the eastern localities. The following sections discuss in detail the methods used to achieve the study. 2.2 Household’s Questionnaire In providing any comprehensive solid waste system it is very important to find the trends of citizens. Trends will be in different aspects as the affordable solid waste fees, maximum walking distance to the container, readiness to participate in awareness campaigns. These dependent factors were analyzed with respect to independent factors as the locality type, house type, number of residents, and economic situation. Special questionnaire was designed and distributed on a sample of citizens. It assesses knowledge and attitude of the citizens regarding the current management of solid waste. It detects the variation in attitudes and trends 28 between citizens of the city, camps and villages. It will also find the effect of demographic, geographic and economic conditions on the previously mentioned variables. The satisfaction of citizens with the level of service provided was also assessed. This was correlated to effect of demographic, geographic and economic conditions on the variations if any. The third target was finding the main problems in the current management system as seen by the citizen. Several questions in the questionnaire were guided toward this objective. The forth target is to find out what solutions citizens propose to alleviate the problem of solid waste management. In fact some of the citizens ideas were important and worth discussing. It was needed to know the number of population to be investigated. According to 1997 statistics, the number of households in Nablus Governorate is 42,886 (including the populations not served by solid waste system). The number of households in localities served by solid waste system is 41,883 households. It was assumed that the number of households had the same percentage of increase as the population. The gross percentage of increase will be the multiplication of the percentages of increase from 1997 to 2005 (in the West Bank) as follows: Gross Percentage =1.036*1.036*1.035*1.034*1.034*1.033*1.032*1.031*1.030 =1.34 29 Then the number of households had grown to 56,092 in 2006. A sample was chosen to give a 95 % confidence level with a confidence interval of 3%. The required sample size was calculated according to the following formula (Kachigan, 1986): ss = z2*p*(1-p)/ E2 where: ss: sample size to be taken. z: z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level), proportion of area under the normal curve above the indicated values of z. P: percentage picking a choice, expressed as decimal (.5 used for sample size needed). E= confidence interval, expressed as decimal, or maximum error for a given confidence level (e.g. 0.03 =+-3). Substituting in the above equation we get ss= 0.5*0.5*(1.96/0.03)^2 = 1067.1 The above equation is for infinite population, for a finite population a correction factor shall be applied according to the following: New ss = ss/ (1+(ss-1)/pop) Where pop is the population, the number of households which is 56,092 as calculated in table A-2 =1/ (1 +(1067.1-1)/ 56092) = 1047 We use 1068 questionnaire. Which is larger than the required. The sample chosen for the study was designed to cover all slices of society. The sample was taken from the city, camps and villages in proportion to their percentage. The sample consists of 1,068 households 30 as calculated previously. The distribution of selected households between different localities was done according to the relative population of each locality. Table A-2 in appendix shows also the number of samples applied to each locality. For the city of Nablus and according to table A-2 the number of required questionnaires is 455. These questionnaires were distributed in all parts of the city. Table 2-1 shows the percentage of questionnaire distributed in the three locality types. This matches with the percentage of population in these locality types. Table 2-1: Distribution of households surveyed according to locality type Locality Type number of questionnaires Percent % City 434 40.6 Village 535 50.1 Refugee camp 99 9.3 Total 1,068 100.0 The data were analyzed using the SPSS software which makes it easy to correlate different variables with each other. The questions were directed to find different aspects that may be arranged in categories. The first is related to the location of residence, type of locality (city or village camp), type of house (separate or apartment), and the average monthly income for the household residents. The second group deals with the existing solid waste management system and includes questions about the current solid waste fee, and its collection frequency, and solid waste collection frequency. 31 A third group of question was directed to reflect the awareness of citizens with solid waste issues. This includes questions about the average weight of the daily house solid waste, meaning of solid waste, proposals from the citizen to enhance solid waste management. A fourth group of questions measures the readiness of citizen to increase the solid waste fee and another measures the maximum distance that the citizen is ready to walk in order to throw the garbage. A fifth group of questions that represents an exciting one. It reveals the social habit of who throw the garbage (father, mother or children). Other questions in this group reveal the readiness of citizens to separate the solid waste into five components (glass, plastics, metals, paper, and organics). A third is about the method the citizen is using to get rid of the food residuals. The last question in this group is about readiness of citizen to apply composting in his home. The last group of questions indicates the condition of the current collection system represented by collection containers and the problems associated in addition to questions that indicate the satisfaction of the citizen with the current collection system. Household’s questionnaire is attached in the appendix.. 2.3 Stakeholders questionnaire In order to identify the existing collection and disposal system, a special questionnaire was designed. This questionnaire was directed to the stakeholders in the local councils. Sometimes the data were collected through direct personal interviews and in sometimes through the phone. In 32 all cases the study was explained so that the contacted party has full idea about the issues under study. All the local councils were contacted to ensure comprehensiveness of data. The questionnaire included data about the locality and its population. It also includes data about the existing vehicles and equipment for solid waste collection system and the required ones. It also includes data about the frequency of solid waste collection. The questionnaire includes also other miscellaneous questions; availability of solid waste workers, existence of collection containers, maintenance system, and the way in which the solid waste vehicle track was adopted. Other category of questions deals with the financial aspects like the amount of solid waste fees, percentage collection, and methodology of collection. Other category deals with data about the dumping site, its area, its ownership, method of disposal, and localities sharing the same dumping site. The questionnaire that was distributed to the local councils is in annex A-2. 2.4 Analyzing composition of the solid waste In order to get real data on the generated composition of solid waste a special sieve was designed and fabricated for this purpose. A total of 30 representative solid waste samples were taken and analyzed. Because of the heterogeneous nature of the solid waste, determination of the composition is not an easy task. Samples were taken from two dumping sites (Beit Imrin and Beita) in addition to the transfer station in Nablus. 33 Fourteen samples were taken from the city, eight samples were taken from the dumping site in Beita, and another eight samples were taken from dumping site in Beit Imrin. The procedure of the sampling was done according to WHO method (WHO, 1988). A certain volume of solid waste was screened over the mesh screen for segregation into its different components. Common sense and random sampling was used in selecting the sample. A sample of size 0.5 m3 was chosen each time for the purpose of segregation. The 30 samples were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed in screening equipment 1.5 m width by 3 m long. The screening surface is 10mm x 10 mm mesh size surface that used as go gages. This means that any solid waste less than 10 mm in diameter can pass through the screening surface. A 1m x 0.5 m x 1 m tank was filled with the solid waste sample. The tank was shaken three times without any pressing force on it. Then the tank content was disposed on the screening surface and manually separated into eight main components: (1)Organic and food wastes, (2) Plastic, (3) Paper and cardboard, (4) Glass, (5) Metals, (6) Textiles, (7) Other waste (leather, wood, ashes, etc), and (8) Waste less than 10 mm size. 34 Eight dustbins each of 80- liter capacity were used for the separation of the solid waste components. The empty weight of each dustbin was known. A special scale was brought to the sampling locations. The percentage of the solid waste components was computed. The total weight of the sample equals the summation of the weights of the eight components. The density of the whole sample was computed by dividing the total weight of the sample by 0.5. The sampling of the solid components has been performed during 4 days in July 2006 (2 days in the city and 1 day in each for the other two sites). The fieldwork started on 16th July and ended on 25th July 2006. In addition, the density of each item was calculated using the equation: Density= Weight / volume The density was calculated for the eight items. The equipments used were: steel box with dimensions 1m x 1m x 0.5 m with four carrying hands, classification table covered with screen, whose openings are 1cm x 1cm, eight dust bins to fill in, and the shovels for carrying the solid waste materials for classification, hand gloves, and special balance (WHO, 1988). 35 Chapter 3 Results 36 3.1 Existing system for solid waste management in Nablus District The questionnaire revealed important facts about the current solid waste management system in the localities of Nablus district. The most important results will be handled in the coming sections. The first one is presence or absence of a collection system in these localities. In case of the presence of a system main constituents of this system were recorded for analysis. These constituents deal with collection frequency, equipments, fees, service provider, etc. 3.1.1 Collection system Recorded results were about the collection system in the localities surrounding Nablus city as well the city and the camps. These results were bout the frequency of collection as well as the equipment used for collection. In this study we deal with the following items: (1)Equipments and labour, (2)Service provider, and (3)Main problems. Nineteen localities out of 72 localities in Nablus district have no collection system at all. This represents 26% of the localities. But most of these localities have very small enrolment. The enrolment of the localities that are not served is 8,645 according to the projection for the year 2006. This represents 2.6% of the whole enrolment in Nablus District. Table A-3 in Appendix shows the localities that have no solid waste collection system and enrolment of each one. Fig 3-1 shows the localities that have and those which do not have collection system. 37 One of the main localities that have no solid waste system is Kafr Qallil, where the population density is high. Other examples include some localities in Al Ghour area. But there, the population density is low, and they do not have any collection system. An-Nassariya, Al-A'qrabaniya, and Beit Hasan are some of these localities. According to the citizens there, absence of solid waste collection has created a serious problem in disposal of theIr waste. The results of the study will be presented for the localities that have solid waste collection system. For sake of simplicity we can distinguish between the collection system in the city, in the refugee camps and in the surrounding villages. 3.1.1.1 Equipments and labor Equipment and labor used in the city There is currently no urban door-to –door collection. The collection system depends on equipments shown in table 3-1. • Table 3-1 shows that the municipality has the following equipments: Steel Containers sized of 6,8,10 m3. They are located in dense areas as they are filled quite rapidly. They are kept in their location for 2-3 days and then removed by roll off or lifting trucks • Containers of 1 m3 size. They are the most common type of containers and are located in almost all parts of the city. In the past they were imported or come as aids to Palestinian from different donors. Nowadays they are manufactured locally. They are emptied by compacting trucks. 38 rr %U r r r r %U %U %U r %U r %U %U %U %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U r r r r %U r %U %U %U %U %U r r %U r %U %U %U%U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U %U r %U %U r %U %U %U %U r r r %U r Nablusboundary Builtuparea Collectionsystem r No Collection System %U There is Collection System Fig 3-1: Existence of solid waste collection system in Nablus localities • Steel containers of size 30 m3 which are used in commercial center and removed once or twice a day. • Rubbish carts: usually driven by labor and used for collecting garbage in front of houses and for collecting street littering. • Compressors of solid waste which decreases its volume by 3-4 times. • Special Containers for hospital and medical centers. The medical waste is collected inside these containers. There were 10 special containers around 0.6 m3 each. Only 4 are working and the other 6 were damaged. 39 Table 3-1*: Existing Equipments in Nablus Municipality for solid waste in year 2006 No Item Number 1 Containers 1 m3 1450 2 Containers 6 m3 7 3 Containers 8 m3 62 4 Containers 10 m3 77 5 Containers 30 m3 5 6 Compressor of Solid Waste 4a 7 Rubbish carts wheel 90 8 Special containers for hospitals and medical centers 10b 9 Compacting Trucks 8 10 Transporting Trucks 7 11 Large Tipper with Tractor 0 12 Sterilizing vehicle 1c 13 Medical Incinerator 0 14 Medical waste Truck 1 15 Tractor 1 * (Halawah, 2006) Notes: a Only one is working b Only 4 working and 6 are damaged c Not working • Compacting Trucks that collects the containers and compact it 2-3 times denser. • Transporting trucks that carry the large containers: 6,8,10, and 30 m3. • Large tipper with tractor that carry the bulky items. There were one tipper truck, but now it is out of duty (not working). 40 • Medical Incinerator which is used for incinerating the medical waste. There was one incinerator and was a gift from the Spanish government. Unfortunately now it is not working. • Medical Rubbish truck that collects the medical waste from hospitals and other health centers. There was one truck devoted for this issue. • The total number of containers is 1601 which gives a ratio of 106 citizens / container. • The total number of trucks is 15 which gives a ratio of 11,326 citizen / truck. This percentage compares with the figure of the MLG of providing a compacting truck for each 13,000 citizens (The Japanese grant). A total of 240 laborers are working in the municipality for the health section. This figure also include in addition to labor that collects, the foremen, the administrative staff and also the technical staff. Table 3-2 summarizes the available staff for the solid waste sector. Table 3-2*: Available staff in Nablus Municipality for solid waste sector No Item Number 1 Manager (Doctor) 1 2 Health Inspector 1 3 Driver 15 4 Foreman 27 5 Laborer (Cleaner men) 196 Total 240 * (Halawah, 2006) 41 There is also additional supporting staff that works for other sectors like accountants, secretary, and administrative staff of municipality. Table 3-3 shows distribution of the foremen according to their duties. Table 3-3 *: Distribution of SW foremen in Nablus Municipality No Work Location No. of Foremen 1 Mountain areas and peripherals 11 2 Central Vegetable market 1 3 Eastern city center 1 4 Eastern solid waste dumping site 2 5 With health inspector (morning) 2 6 Follow up with Roll On trucks 1 7 Evening Shift 4 8 City and Commercial center (Western) 3 9 Off duty (for 1 year) 1 10 Other 1 Total 27 (Halawah, 2006) The laborers are distributed in the different parts of the city as table 3-4 shows. The laborers had decreased from 360 in year 2002 to 196 nowadays (Halawah, 2006). Still there is a need to increase the equipments to face the current and future challenges in the field of solid waste collection. Table 3-5 shows the required equipments. Equipments used in the Refugee Camps: In the refugee camps, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) uses hand carts driven by labors in collecting waste from houses. These are collected outside the 42 camp in the 10 m3 size containers that belong to Nablus municipality. After that the municipality takes these containers for disposal. The distribution of laborers working in refugee camps is shown in table 3-6. Table 3-4*: Distribution of SW laborers of Nablus Municipality No Work Location No of laborers 1 Mountain areas and suburbs 94 2 Morning Shift (6-11am) – City center and western commercial market 16 3 Morning Shift –Old city and eastern market (6-11am) 23 4 Evening Shift (5-10 pm) – city center and commercial center 18 5 Compacting Trucks 12 6 Roll–On Trucks 7 7 Central Vegetable market 7 8 Italian Sanitary Unit 1 9 Municipal playground 1 10 Western garage sanitary unit 1 11 Cleaning The eastern garage 1 12 Cleaning sanitary unit at Habs Al Dam 1 13 Prisoner at Israeli prisons 2 14 Maintenance cart wheel 1 15 Spraying rats poisons 1 16 Spraying insecticides 1 17 Working as Foreman 5 18 Waiter in the health office in municipality 1 19 For “Nissan” cars at old city 2 20 Eastern Compressor 1 Total 196 * (Halawah, 2006) 43 Equipments used in the villages: The communities in the villages usually adopt manual door-to-door collection combined with truck transport. The localities can be classified according to the equipment they are using for collecting the solid waste as appears in table 3-7. Table 3-5*: Urgent need for Nablus municipality for solid waste collection section No Specifications Required Unit Price $ Total 1 Truck Compressor- gross weight 30 tons 3 90,000 270,000 2 Roll on off – gross weight 18 tons 3 100,000 300,000 3 Roll on off – gross weight 27 tons 1 150,000 150,000 4 Tipper – gross weight 18 tons 2 120,000 240,000 5 Loader 1 180,000 180,000 6 Truck – gross weight 30 tons 1 100,000 100,000 7 Small Tractor 2 25,000 50,000 8 Sweeper – gross weight 15 tons 2 120,000 240,000 9 Containers 8 m3 size 20 900 18,000 Total 1,548,000 *(Mansour, 2006) Table 3-6*: Solid Waste laborers and carts distribution for Nablus refugee camps Item Balata camp Askar camp Al Ein camp Labor 19 15 6 Carts 19 15 6 Foreman 1 1 1 *(Miary, 2006) Table 3-7 shows that 25 localities are using compacting truck for solid waste collection. These localities are enrolled with 87,362 inhabitants 44 which represents 27% of the served population. It also shows that 22 localities are using Tractor. These localities are enrolled with 64,702 inhabitants which represents 20% of the served population. Only one village is served by an ordinary truck which is Beit Wazen. The rest five localities are served by Nablus municipality. This covers 169,890 inhabitants which represent 53% of the population served. Table 3-7: Classification of Nablus District localities according to the equipment used for solid waste collection (only served localities) Notes: Population according to enrolment projections for 2006 a The compacting truck is a private property of the contractor b The compacting Truck is owned by Aqraba Municipality c The compacting Truck is owned by Beita Municipality Equipment Used The localities Number of Localities Total Populatio Pop. % Compacting Truck Burqa, (Yasid, Beit Imrin, Sabastiya, Ijnisinya), ( Deir Sharaf, Beit Iba), Asira ash Shamaliya, (Azmut, Beit Dajan), (Sarra, Iraq Burin, Tell), Rujeib, ( Madama a, Burin a, Einabus a, Urif a), (Huwwara, Beita, Odala c) , Beit Furik, (Osarin b, Aqraba b, Majdal Bani Fadil b) 25 87,362 27% Tractor Bizzariya, Nisf Jubeil, Talluza, An Naqura, Al Badhan, Zawata, Qusin, Deir Al Hatab, Salim, Asira al Qibliya, Awarta, Zeita Jamma'in, Jamma'in, Yatma, Qabalan, Jurish, Qusra, Talfit, As Sawiya, Al Lubban Ash Sharqiya, Qaryut, Duma 22 64,702 20% Truck Beit Wazan 1 1,120 0% Different Vehicles Al Ein camp, Balata camp, Askar camp, Nablus city, Al Juneid 5 169,890 53% Total 53 323,074 100% 45 There is a case where the compacting truck is a private property of a contractor. This case appears in the villages of Madama, Burin, Einabus, Urif. These villages are served by the same contractor. In the case of Aqraba the compacting truck is owned by Aqraba municipality. This municipality is acting as a contractor for the other villages (Osarin, Majdal Bani Fadil). The same case applies for Beita municipality which is acting as contractor for Odala. It is noted that the currently available owned assets for solid waste sector are 10 compacting trucks and two tractors. Most villages depend on collection the waste from a small container (about 50 liters) which is put by the household in front of the house at the collection time. Few exceptions to this case arise in Bizzariya, Burqa, Yasid, Sabastiya, Al Badhan, Asira ash Shamaliya, Azmut, Beit Dajan, Rujeib, Beit Furik which have few containers ranging in sizes between 90 and 1000 liters. In the case of Rujeib, the compacting truck is serving only this village. This reflects on the cost of services as will be seen later. 3.1.1.2 Service provider Nablus city Solid waste Department of Nablus Municipality is responsible for collection of the solid waste in the city. The total population served by Nablus Municipality is 134,503 which represent 42% of the total served population. 46 rr r r r $ % $ % r % Ñ % $ c % %% $ % % $ r r r r % r $ % $ $ % r r % r $ $ %% % $ $ % % $ $ $ $ % % % $ $ r $ % r ( $ $ $ r r r % c Nablusboundary collectionequipment type r No collection % Compacting Truck ( Compacting Truck + Tractor c Different equipments $ Tractor Ñ Truck Figure 3-2: Equipment used for solid waste collection in Nablus localities Refugee camps The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is responsible for collection within the borders of the refugee camps which is Askar Camp, Balata Camp, Al Ein Camp. The total population served by UNRWA is 35,387 which represent 11% of the total served population. This service is not complete. UNRWA only took the solid waste from the camps to the near outside container. After that the municipality is taking it to the dumping site. 47 Surrounding villages The service provider differs from locality to locality. Some localities are included within the collection system of the city like Al Juneid. For the other villages that have a collection system, the service provider is one of the following: • The village council or the municipality: In this case the council has its own equipment and employees and is managing the collection directly . In addition to the city there are 8 localities served by the councils. The population served is 44,797 which represents 14% of the total served population • The Joint service Council Committee: In this case the committee has its own equipment. Each locality is paying his share according to the enrolment ratio with other localities that share the service. Thirteen localities are served by this type. The total served population is 39,137 which represent 12% of the total served population. • A Private contractor: In this a private contractor collects the waste two or three times a week. In most cases the contractor has his own tractor. Usually this contractor is assisted by one of his relatives (In many cases his son). This reduces the cost of the service. In some cases one of the municipalities acts as a contractor for other village as in the case of Aqraba Municipality which is acting as a contractor for Majdal Bani Fadel and Osarin villages. In some cases the contractor has a compacting truck like the contractor of Madama, Burin and Einabous. Twenty seven localities are served by a contractor. The total served 48 population by this type is 69,250 which represent 21% of the total served population. 3.1.2 Solid Waste fees System As the collection system represented by the equipments and service provider changes from location to location, also the fees changes. In this regard we are going to present the amount of the solid waste fee, frequency of collecting the fee (monthly or yearly), method of collecting the fee, and number of participants in the solid waste service. Table 3-8: Classification of Nablus District localities according to the solid waste service provider (only served localities) Service Provider Localities Number of localities Pop. of localities Pop. percentage Council Burqa, Nisf Jubeil, Asira ash Shamaliya, Rujeib, Beit Furik, Awarta, Aqraba, Qusra 8 44,797 14% Contractor Bizzariya, Talluza, An Naqura, Al Badhan, Zawata, Qusin, Beit Wazan, Deir Al Hatab, Salim, Madama, Burin, Asira al Qibliya, Urif , Odala, Einabus, Zeita Jamma'in, Jamma'in, Osarin, Yatma, Qabalan, Jurish, Talfit, As Sawiya, Majdal Bani Fadil, Al Lubban Ash Sharqiya, Qaryut, Duma 27 69,250 21% Joint Service Council (Yasid, Beit Imrin, Sabastiya, Ijnisinya), (Deir Sharaf, Beit Iba), (Azmut, Beit Dajan),( Sarra, Iraq Burin, Tell), (Huwwara, Beita) 13 39,137 12% Nablus Nablus city, Al Juneid 2 134,503 42% UNRWA Al Ein camp, Balata camp, Askar camp 3 35,387 11% Total 53 323,074 100% 49 Amount of fee in Nablus City In Nablus city the existing fee for solid waste is 12JD /year on most residential house. Details about different categories for garbage tax tariff system are presented in table A-6 in the appendix. Amount of fee in The Refugee camps For the Refugee camps the UNRWA is responsible for collecting the solid waste. Thus residents of the camps do not pay any fee for this service # # r # # # $ %U x{ %U # %U $ %U $ r Ú %U $$ $ $ %U $ # # # # $ # x{ Ñ $ $ x{ # # $ # $ $ %Ux{ %U $ $ r %U %U $ $ x{ $ Ñ %U $ $ x{ # $ %U # x{ $ $ $ # # # %U Ú Nablusboundary serviceprovider # No Service $ Contractor %U JSC Ñ Municipality Ú Nablus Municipality r UNRW x{ Village Council Fig 3-3: Classification of localities in Nablus district according to type of service provider 50 Amount of Fee in the Surrounding Villages In the villages where the service is provided, the solid waste fees differ from locality to locality. Not only has the value of the fee differed, but also the method of collecting these fees. And of course the collection percentage differs from one village to another. Table 3-9 summarizes the monthly fee in the different villages. The monthly fee ranges between 5 NIS and 15 NIS. It is noted that the dominant value of the fees is 8-10 NIS per month. From table 3-8 we can conclude that 3 localities do not pay any fee (The camps). These represent 11% of the served population. Twenty nine localities have a fee value between 5NIS and 9 NIS. These represent 28% of the served population. Citizens of seventeen localities are paying the ten NIS fee. This represents 13% of the served population. Four localities are paying fee value more than 10 NIS. This represents 6% of the served population. For the case of the city, the citizens are paying 12JD per year. This is equivalent to 6.2 NIS per month. This applies on 42% of the served population. Some villages had developed an improved fee system. An example of this is An Naqura village. It has a 6 NIS solid waste fee on the electricity bill as well as 6 NIS solid waste fee on the water bill. 51 Table 3-9: Classification of Nablus District localities according to the solid waste Fee amount (only served localities) Monthly fee (NIS) Localities Number of localities Pop. of localities Pop. percentage 0 Al Ein camp, Balata camp, Askar camp 3 35,387 10% 5 Salim, Madama, Asira al Qibliya, Beita, Qusra, Al Lubban Ash Sharqiya 6 24,750 8% 6 Beit Dajan, Beit Furik, Awarta, Urif, Osarin 5 24,271 8% 7 Ijnisinya, Qusin, Azmut, Burqa, 4 9,047 3% 8 Bizzariya, Beit Imrin, Sabastiya, Al Badhan, Talluza, Deir Al Hatab, Sarra, Tell, As Sawiya, Qaryut 12 22,814 7% 9 Beit Iba, Jamma'in 2 9,048 3% 10 Yasid, Nisf Jubeil, Deir Sharaf, Asira ash Shamaliya, Zawata, Beit Wazan, Iraq Burin, Burin, Huwwara, Einabus, Zeita Jamma'in, Yatma, Jurish, Talfit, Majdal Bani Fadil, Duma, Odala 17 42,502 13% 11 Aqraba 1 7,931 2% 12 An Naqura 1 1,658 1% 13 Rujeib 1 3,915 1% 15 Qabalan 1 7,248 2% 76 annual Fee Nablus city, Al Juneid 2 134,503 42% Total 53 323,074 100% Another one is Rujeib which has a 1JD solid waste fee on the electricity bill as well as 1JD solid waste fee on the water bill 52 Another one is Madama which has a 5 NIS solid waste fee on the electricity bill up to 10 person’s family and additional 0.5 NIS for any additional person in the family. Asira al Qibliya has a 5 NIS solid waste fee collected separately up to 5 persons family and additional 1.0 NIS for any additional person of family. Huwwara applies 120 NIS annual solid waste fee collected separately, 150 NIS for grocery stores, 300 NIS for butchers and chicken slaughterhouses. Jamma'in applies 9 NIS solid waste fee collected separately, 15 NIS for commercial stores. Beit foureek applies 6 NIS solid waste fee. But for commercial stores it rises to 8 NIS. Aqraba applies 11 NIS solid waste fee for residential, 18 NIS for commercial stores, and 22 NIS for multi houses invoiced on the electricity bills. For Qabalan the solid waste fee for residential is 15 NIS and for commercial stores it is 30 NIS. Method of collecting the fees differs from locality to locality. Some villages include the fee in the electricity or water bill. Others collect it separately. Some include it in both the electricity and water bill. Table 3- 9 shows method of collection for each locality. 53 It appears that most of the localities include the solid waste fee within the electricity Bill. This may have advantage in achieving better collection percentage in addition to decreasing accountant effort and cost. The table shows that eleven localities use separate collection. This represents 50% of the served population. The reason for the high percentage is presence of the city under this category. Also the table shows that thirty five localities use the electricity bill for collecting the solid waste fee. This represents 35% of the served population. Table 3-9 shows that two localities use the water bill for collecting the solid waste fee. This represents 1.5% of the served population. Also the table shows that two localities use both the water and electricity bills for collecting the solid waste fee. This represents 1.7% of the served population. Another variant is the frequency of collecting the fees; while Nablus, Talluza, Huwwara collect the fee annually, all other localities collect it on monthly basis. Table A-4 in the Appendix shows the number of participants in solid waste service system in each locality. It appears that the number of participants ranges between 80 (in Nisf Jubeil) to 30,480 (in Nablus city). The total number of participants is 55,618. In the city there are 55% of the participants. 54 Table 3-10: Classification of Nablus District localities according to the type of SW collection system Collection System Localities Number of localities Pop. of localities Pop percentage Separate Collection Nablus, Talluza, Al Badhan, Zawata, Beit Iba, Sarra, Tell, Asira al Qibliya, Huwwara, Jamma'in, Al Juneid, Beit Wazan 11 162,570 50% On Electricity Bill Bizzariya, Burqa, Yasid, Beit Imrin, Nisf Jubeil, Sabastiya, Ijnisinya, Asira ash Shamaliya, Qusin, Azmut, Deir Al Hatab, Salim, Iraq Burin, Beit Dajan, Madama, Burin, Beit Furik, Awarta, Urif, Odala, Beita, Zeita Jamma'in, Osarin, Aqraba, Yatma, Qabalan, Jurish, Qusra, Talfit, As Sawiya, Majdal Bani Fadil, Al Lubban Ash Sharqiya, Qaryut, Duma 35 114,565 35% On Water Bill Deir Sharaf, Einabus, 2 4,979 2% On Water & Elec. Bill An Naqura, Rujeib, 2 5,573 2% No Collection Al Ein camp, Balata camp, Askar camp 3 35,387 11% Total 53 323,074 100% 55 (F (F (F (F (F (F ( ( r $ (F r r %U r (F (F r r$ r r $ r (F (F (F (F r (F r r (F ( %U (F (F r (F (F ( r ( ( ( $ (F $ (F ( ( $ r $Z r r r r (F $ ( (F r $ %U Ñ (F (F (F r (F Nablusboundary FeesvalueinNabluslocalities (F No collection system $ 5 r 6 $ 7 ( 8 %U 9 r 10 $Z 11 ( 12 %U 13 Ñ 15 Fig 3-4: Solid Waste Collection Fees in Nablus Localities 3.1.3 Disposal System Nablus City In the case of Nablus city, all the refuse produced in Nablus are discharged in a dump (as a transfer station) located near the industrial area at a distance of approximately 6 kilometers from the city center of Nablus. 56 All the various refuse produced in Nablus city are actually unloaded in the existing dump (transfer station) without being separated. This refuse is generated from the following sources: 1. Residential (single family homes, multi-family homes, parks, etc) 2. Commercial ( Shops, offices, retail stores, parks, landscaping, restaurant, hotels, slaughterhouse, services stations, green market) 3. Industrial (Small –scale manufacturing, trades and crafts) 4. Institutional (universities, schools, hospitals, governmental offices) 5. Agricultural (animal farm wastes, plant nurseries, olive mills) Furthermore in the existing dump are also discharged at present dead animals, infectious materials coming from hospital. There are also blood containers, hazardous and uncontrolled waste. No any restrictions are present in the site and you can expect to find any type of waste. At the moment it is not operating any system to prevent air and groundwater pollution. In fact the unloaded refuse are sometimes burnt in the open air with enormous danger for the health of the citizens of Nablus area. After that, the waste is disposed into Al Aghwar area in a legal site. This costs the municipality a great part of its restricted income. The municipality pays around sixty two NIS for disposal of each ton. In some times of closure, the Israelis prevent the transfer of solid waste, so it is thrown in a near area called Al Sairafy on Al- Badan main road. 57 Refugee Camps The solid waste collected by the UNRWA is merged with the city waste. Nablus municipality is disposing it after that as explained earlier. The municipality is now negotiating with the UNRWA about the responsibility of disposal of these wastes after being collected from the refugee camps. The villages For many municipalities, the closure of initial network before Intifada, has resulted in the establishment of emergency sites closer to collection areas The villages differ in disposing their waste from locality to locality. Some dispose it randomly where the driver of the truck find a place to empty his truck. Some have a definite place where they dispose their waste. And some dispose it with Nablus Municipality like Rujeib village. Some villages are renting their dumping site. Table 3-10 shows the classification of localities according to dumping site ownership type. The table shows that seven localities are using random sites. This represents 6% of the served population. Nine localities are renting land and paying for this rent. This represents 7% of the served population. Six localities are disposing their waste on governmental land. This represents 5% of the served population. For this type of dumping site, there is a specific location where the truck driver empties the waste. Twenty three localities are disposing their waste on a land owned by the local council. This represents 27% of the served population. One of the 58 distinguished ones is that of Aqraba. This dumping site has an area around 40 donums. It is owned by Aqraba municipality and two additional villages are using it. In one case the dumping site is rented by the contractor who collects the waste and is paying 600 NIS for each village he is using the site for. This is the case with the contractor of Burin, Madama, Einabus, and Urif. For the random sites there is no specific place for emptying the truck. Usually there is open area or beside the Wadi. This is usually left to the judgment of the tractor driver. The total number of dumping sites is thirty four. This figure includes the transfer station of the city. Sometimes several localities are benefiting from the same dumping site as can be seen from localities between brackets in the table in the Appendix. For example for the dumping site of Deir Sharaf, Beit Iba other villages of Jenin district are using it like Ajja, Anza, Jaba..etc. For the case of private ownership, this means the land is owned by a citizen but it is used as dumping site without any rental value. The only case is in Burqa. 59 Table 3-11: Classification of dumping sites of Nablus District localities according to ownership type Notes: 1 The dumping site is rented by the contractor who collects the waste and is paying 600 NIS for each village he is using the site for. 2 The dumping site is owned by Beita municipality 3 The dumping site is owned by Asira ash Shamaliya municipality 4 The dumping site is owned by Aqraba municipality Ownership type Localities No of DS Number of localities Pop. of localities Pop. % Random sites An Naqura, Al Badhan, Beit Wazan, Sarra, Salim, Talfit, Duma 7 7 18,304 6% Rented Nisf Jubeil, Zeita Jamma'in, Yatma, Qusra, Al Lubban Ash Sharqiya, (Burin, Madama, Einabus, Urif) 1 6 9 21,680 7% Governme ntal land Bizzariya, (Deir Sharaf, Beit Iba), Qusin, Beit Dajan , Asira al Qibliya 5 6 15,787 5% Council owned (Yasid, Beit Imrin, Sabastiya ,Ijnisinya ), (Talluza, Asira ash Shamaliya)3, Azmut, Deir Al Hatab, Iraq Burin, Tell, Beit Furik, Qabalan, Jamma'in, (Awarta, Odala , Huwwara, Beita,) 2, (Osarin, Aqraba, Majdal Bani Fadil ) 4, Jurish, As Sawiya, Qaryut 14 23 87,568 27% Private Burqa 1 1 4,030 1% With Nablus city Zawata, Rujeib, Askar camp, Balata camp, Al Ein camp, Al Juneid, Nablus city 1 7 175,705 54% Total 34 53 323,074 100% 60 3.1.4 Solid waste expenses and income In this section we will present the expenses and income of the solid waste sector in the city and villages. In addition the role of the private sector in providing the service will be presented. In the city Not so many studies had been made on this issue. But there is a recent study done by municipality about that. This study reveals a huge cost is being expended on solid waste collection and disposal. The study summarizes the expenditures for the year 2005 as shown in table 3-12: Table 3-12*: Cost of solid waste collection and disposal, for Nablus municipality Item Sub Item Cost NIS Direct Operating Costs Transfer and dispose solid waste Fees 3,104,104 Weighting solid waste fees 17,740 Salaries of the health employees 6,496,705 Required cleaning materials and supplies 9,121 Direct Administration Costs Administrative costs (health Section) 270,853 Indirect Costs Indirect Operating Costs 109,638 Indirect Administrative Costs 929,490 Total 10,937,651 *Accounting department, Nablus municipality for the period 1/12/2004 and 30/11/2005 The indirect operating cost that appears in the table represents 5% of the expenditure on insurance, licensing, maintenance and fuel for municipality vehicles. 61 The indirect administrative cost represents 5% of the administrative and salaries expenditure of the accounting, head, mechanical and transport sections. From table 3-12 it is clear that the wages and salaries consume the major part of the budget and reaches around 60% from the expenditures. On this basis we can calculate the cost of collection and disposal of each ton if we know that the total quantity of solid waste was 50,022 tons. Table 3-13*: Breakdown Cost of solid waste collection and disposal per ton, for Nablus Municipality Item Cost of each item per ton Cost (NIS) 1 Transfer and dispose 62 2 Weighing 0.4 3 Wages and salaries 130 4 Cleaning costs 0.2 5 Direct Administrative costs 5 6 Indirect operating costs 2 7 Indirect Administrative costs 19 Total 219 * accounting department, Nablus municipality This table reveals that each ton costs the municipality around 219 NIS for collection and disposal. The tariff system of the solid waste fee in the city of Nablus is 12 JD annually for residential houses. The full details about different categories are presented in table A-6 in the appendix. Currently there are 30,480 participants; most of them are household units. 62 According to municipality the fee collection in 2005 was supposed to be 1,865,091 NIS which represents a small portion of the total expenditure costs (only 17%). So the fee should be six times the current fee in order to cover the expenses. Suggestions for increasing the collection percentage are by increasing awareness, and charging the fee on electricity bill instead of separately. Expenses and income in the surrounding villages The researcher wants to present the adequacy of the current fee for covering the expenses of solid waste collection and disposal. Assuming the percentage of fees collection is 100%, and then the income will be simply the multiplication of the number of participants times the fee value. The expenditure will be the cost paid by the council to cover the solid waste collection and disposal. This cost includes the equipments, the laborer, the street cleaning (if any), and the cost of renting the dumping site (if any). Table A-5 in the appendix shows the income and expenditure of the villages for the solid waste. It is clear that most of the localities is recovering their expenditures assuming 100% collection. One of the localities not recovering their expenditure is Beita. There is a shortage of 2,600 NIS monthly. But currently Beita had raised the fee from 5 to 7 NIS. Another locality is Qabalan. It had the highest fee in the district. But there is a monthly shortage of 3,500 NIS. Another locality is Qusra. There is a monthly deficiency of 1,500 NIS. 63 Another locality is Al Lubban Ash Sharqiya. There is a monthly deficiency of 950 NIS. All other localities are recovering their expenses or making some savings. 3.1.5 Role of the private sector in solid waste management The private sector is already playing a major role in the delivery of solid waste management services in Nablus governorate. About 10,000 household in the villages are served by private contractors. This represents 21% of the served population. The contractors usually own a tractor and a trailer that they use to collect the garbage and deliver it to the local dumping site. Around 15,000 household in the villages are served directly by local councils or joint service councils. This represents 26% of the served population. Even the service provided by the local councils, sometimes the labor for the available equipment is contracted and not salary based appointed. This proves to be a good policy that reduced management effort and costs and improves the service. 3.1.6 Solid waste quantities The quantities of solid waste in Nablus city are accurate. This is because a contractor is taking the waste to a landfill and is charged per ton. The price differs from contractor to contractor and from time to time. The average price in each year could be used for analysis although the variation in the price in each year is very large from one contractor to another. Table 3-14 shows the prices as taken from Nablus Municipality that covers the years 2002-2005: 64 Table 3-14 *: Solid waste quantities and their disposal cost for the years 2002-2005 Nablus municipality Year Quantity (tons/year) Population Mean generation rate (kg/cap/day) Total Cost (NIS) Cost Range NIS/ ton Average cost NIS / ton 2002 42,153 154,649 0.75 1,321,168 20-45 31.3 2003 59,284 159,753 1.02 1,901,148 20-49 32.1 2004 40,716 164,864 0.68 2,492,023 60-62.5 61.2 2005 51,160 169,975 0.82 3,137,029 30-62.5 61.3 * (Fahed, 2006) These quantities cover the localities of Zawata, Ein Beit El Ma refugee Camp, Al Juneid, Nablus, Askar refugee Camp, Balata refugee Camp, and Rujeib. According to population projection in 2006, the total enrolment of the previous localities is 175,705 inhabitants. The method of disposing solid waste is by transferring the waste to a legal site. The municipality tenders this service for contractors and usually the lowest price win the tender. During the year several tenders are done. Column four in the above table shows the total cost burdened by the municipality for disposing the solid waste. Column five shows the contractors prices ranges. It is clear that there is wide range. The lower range of 20 NIS per ton is exceptional. This is the case when there is a closure on the city. In this case the contractor is taking the solid waste to a nearby location (Al Sairafy), with no need to transfer a long distance. This means that the average daily generation of solid waste ranges between 0.75 to 1.02 kg/ cap-day. The average is 0.82 Kg/ cap-day. 65 There are no accurate records about the solid waste quantities in villages. Some studies suggest 0.4-0.6 Kg /cap/day in rural areas and 0.6-0.8 in towns/ villages (United Nations Environment Programme, 2003). 3.2 Interaction of citizens with solid waste issues Awareness of citizens is very important. A special questionnaire was designed as explained in Chapter II. The questionnaire is designed to measure the awareness and concerns of citizens about solid waste issues. This is assessed by asking the citizen about some concepts like definition of solid waste and also his readiness to participate in solid waste campaigns. The response of the citizen for suggesting proposals to improve solid waste management system will be detected. In this part we are going to present the results collected through the questionnaire. The sample was comprehensive and included the separated households as well as the flats in buildings as shown in table 3-15: Table 3- 15: Sample distribution according to residence type Type of house Frequency Percent Separate 767 71.8 Apartment 301 28.2 Total 1068 100.0 The mean number of residents in each house was 6.45. The number of r Also the average monthly income for each household differs in accordance with table 3-17. Residents in each household differs in accordance with table 3-16. 66 Table 3-16: Sample distribution according to number of residents No of residents Frequency Percent 1-3 138 13.1 4-6 405 37.9 7-9 396 37.1 10 or more 129 11.9 Total 1,068 100.0 Table 3-17: Sample distribution according to average monthly income Average monthly income (NIS) Frequency Percent less than 1501 355 33.2 1501-3000 403 37.7 3001-5000 192 18.0 more than 5000 118 11.0 Total 1068 100.0 The maximum y affordable fee for improving solid waste collection In this section we are going to present the affordability of citizens to pay for solid waste services in relation with: locality type, house type, and average monthly income. The question was: what is the maximum monthly fee in Jordanian Dinars that you are willing to pay in case the solid waste collection system was improved. The results were as shown in table 3-18: Table