This webinar highlights three case studies from different parts of the world who are awardees of the Engineering X Open Burning of Waste Grants Programme. With a focus on evidence generation and holistic solutions, the cases will provide insights into how local governments, municipalities, and vulnerable communities can better understand and mitigate the risks of open burning.
You can learn more about all the awardees here >> https://engineeringx.raeng.org.uk/programmes/safer-end-of-engineered-life/open-burning-of-waste/awardees.
We had a few unanswered questions in the live panel, and our moderator, Mike Webster, has responded to them here.
How efficient has it been for you (the team in Indonesia) to improve collection services before ensuring a safe/controlled destination for the waste? Wouldn’t expanding collection services contribute more to open burning if waste keeps being taken to the same destinations where waste is openly burnt?
The waste in Banyuwangi goes to a Regency-mandated dumpsite (unlikely to reach the standards of what could be called a sanitary landfill). As per the recent Nature article I referenced in the webinar, even dumpsites see much less leakage, including burning, than openly dumped/burnt waste. Inasmuch as we can’t control how third parties treat waste, the collection is, in our view, defensibly the best primary solution to open burning.
How are you all working to guarantee the sustainability of your initiatives after the closure of the EngX funding?
Our program was part of a much larger one, and financial sustainability was designed into it from the start. Our team continues to deliver the same approach.
How can we deploy our pyrogasification technology in these cities to process hard-to-recycle waste into energy and cement additives?
In the case of Indonesia, such technologies are far too expensive to be considered at this time.
In the Dominican Republic, I found that households in peri-urban areas and secondary cities often burn bathroom waste. Has anyone observed this practice in their projects? Do you have any insights as to local drivers and gender-differentiated aspects of the practice in your respective countries?
There is a particular cultural treatment of nappy waste (seen to be potentially bad luck to burn), but apart from that, nothing specific in Indonesia. Burning is often seen as a way to sterilise waste.
I wonder how to improve collection coverage and make it financially viable. Given the current social and economic context, I believe this is the key to mitigating waste burning and providing affordable and close disposal methods. Do you have any successful experience with this?
This is the biggest question. Here are a few thoughts on this:
- Waste costs – waste to wealth unfortunately doesn’t work, especially where there is an active informal sector. Someone needs to underwrite the costs, and that will ultimately very likely be the user and the regional government.
- Indirect fee payment (i.e. taxes) is desirable as otherwise, it can’t provide a universal service.
- Waste collection is so important for public health that any system is better than none at all.
- Focusing on the diversion of organics will relieve the burden on landfills and dumpsites. This will not make money but should not cost any more than landfills, and it should be seen accordingly.