WASTE
TO ENERGYCONSIDERATIONS FORINFORMED DECISION-MAKINGCopyright © United Nations Environment Programme, 2019
Reproduction
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without
special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The United Nations
Environment Programme would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without priorpermission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views
expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme,
nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.
Mention of a commercial company or product in this publication does not imply endorsement by the United Nations
Environment Programme.
ISBN: (TBC)
Suggested citation: UNEP (2019). Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed
Decision-Making
Credits : ©GettyImagesPlus
The International Environmental Technology Centre works with
developing countries to implement sustainable solutions toenvironmental challenges, with focus on holistic waste management.

UN Environment promotes
environmentally sound practices
globally and in its own activities. Thispublication is printed on 100% recycled paper,using vegetable - based inks and other ecofriendly practices. Our distribution policy aims to
reduce UN Environment's carbon footprint.

WASTETO ENERGYCONSIDERATIONS FORINFORMED DECISION-MAKING

2   Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making

Table of contents
4

List of Figures, Tables, Boxes

5

Acknowledgement

6

Acronyms

7

Foreword

8

Executive summary

48

References

2

1

CHALLENGES FOR
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES25BACKGROUND
11
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

Definition
13
Analytical framework
13
Current WtE technology
16
Thermal WtE development 18
Global status and trends
20

Waste characteristics
Economic aspects
Legal aspects
Environmental aspects
Social aspects

26
28
31
31
34

4

3

KEY CONSIDERATIONS45

OPPORTUNITIES
39
3.1 Climate rationale
3.2 WtE in small island
developing states

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

40
41

4.1 C
 onsiderations fordeveloping countries
4.2 Checklist for decision
makers46
49

Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making   3

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Types of WtE technologies

12

Figure 1.2 Waste management
hierarchy

14

Figure 1.3 Resource management
within a circular economy

15

Figure 1.4 Schematic frameworkof the Integrated Sustainable Waste
Management

15

Figure 1.5 MSW generation in Japan

18

Figure 1.6 Plastic productionin Japan

18

Figure 1.7 Number of waste
incinerators with and without energy
recovery in Japan

19

Figure 1.8 MSW incinerated withenergy recovery and the numberof thermal WtE plants by region

Figure 1.9 Top 11 countries withmost thermal WtE plants

22

Figure 2.5 (Top) Copenhill plant,
Copenhagen, Denmark; (Bottom)
Maishima plant, Osaka, Japan

Figure 1.10 Conservative forecastof growth in global investment in all
WtE technologies

29

Figure 2.6 Estimated total costof a thermal WtE plant in Europe

Figure 1.11 Percentage of global
electricity generation by energy
source, with percentage of renewableenergies

Figure 2.7 Sweden’s waste imports
and exports for R1 energy recovery
in 201423

23

Figure 2.1 Net calorific value ofdifferent waste types found in MSW

26

Figure 2.2 MSW composition indeveloping countries

27

Figure 2.3 Tanner triangle forassessment of combustibility ofMSW (in percentage by weight)

27

30

35

Figure 2.8 MSW treatment methodsof countries in 2016

36

Figure 3.1 CO2 savings from thermal
WtE

41

Figure 3.2 Regional waste
management system in the Maldives42

Figure 4.1 Implementation timelineof the 4 major considerations

46

20

Figure 2.4 Comparison of theinvestment cost and capacityof thermal WtE plants

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF BOXES

Table 1.1 Overview of WtEtechnologies

Box 1 The world’s largest thermal
WtE plants

Box 8 Running out of rubbish
in Sweden?

Table 1.2 Waste treatment methodin the six regions (in percentage)Box 2 Hong Kong - The shift
from landfills to thermal WtE

Box 9 Bottom ash recycling
in Bermuda

Table 2.1 Reasons for closure ofWtE plants in India

Box 3 Reppie, the first thermal
WtE plant in Africa

Box 10 Waste Managementin Sardinia

Table 2.2 Cost estimation fordifferent waste treatment methods
and technologies

Box 4 Jabalpur WtE plant – Publicprivate partnershipBox 11 Waste solution in
the Maldives

16

20

26

29

Table 2.3 Cost estimation ofthermal WtE plant in developed
and developing countries

29

Table 2.4 Emission standards
for thermal WtE plants

33

Table 3.1 Global warming potentialof greenhouse gases emitted fromincineration

28

22

29

30

30

Box 5 Incineration ban in
the Philippines32

Box 6 China’s WtE revolution

32

Box 7 Reported cases of dioxins
emission from thermal WtE plants

33

40

4   Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making

34

42

42

42

Acknowledgement

LEAD AUTHOR AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Man Mei Chim (UNEP-IETC)

SUPERVISOR
Mahesh Pradhan (UNEP-IETC)

PROJECT PRODUCTION TEAM
Qing Xu (UNEP-IETC), Rob Kuipers (UNEP-IETC)

INTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Keith Alverson (UNEP-IETC), Mahesh Pradhan (UNEP-IETC), Iyngararasan Mylvakanam (UNEP-IETC),
Shunichi Honda (UNEP-IETC), Claudia Giacovelli (UNEP-IETC), Yoshie Fujiyama (UNEP-IETC), Daniel Ternald(UNEP-IETC), Qing Xu (UNEP-IETC), Junko Fujioka (UNEP-IETC), Kakuko Nagatani-Yoshida (UNEP Asia andthe Pacific Office), John M. Christensen (UNEP DTU Partnership), Sandra Aparcana (UNEP DTU Partnership),Niklas Hagelberg (UNEP Climate Change subprogramme), Rajiv Garg (UNEP Climate Technology Centre
and Network)

EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Premakumara Jagath Dickella Gamaralalage (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies), Chen Liu(Institute for Global Environmental Strategies), Antonis Mavropoulos (International Solid Waste Association),
Jørgen Haukohl (International Solid Waste Association), Johnny Stuen (International Solid Waste Association),
Björn Appelqvist (International Solid Waste Association), Sirine Rached (Global Alliance for Incineration
Alternatives), Cecilia Allen (Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives), Ella Stengler (Confederation ofEuropean Waste-to-Energy Plants), Makoto Yamamoto (JSEC), Makoto Mihara (Osaka City Government),
Quanyin Tan (Qinghua University), José Alejandro Martínez Sepúlveda (Universidad EAN), Gustavo Solórzano(SIPRA, S.C.), Koji Sakakibara (Hitachi Zosen), Hideo Azuma (Japan International Cooperation Agency),
Amit Jain (IRG Systems South Asia Pvt. Ltd.)COPY EDITOR
Jamie Kemsey

GRAPHIC DESIGN
Anna Mortreux

Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making   5

Acronyms
CEWEP

Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants

EEA

European Environment Agency

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IRENAInternational Renewable Energy Agency

ISWA

International Solid Waste Association

MSW

Municipal Solid Waste

NIMBY

Not In My Back Yard

3Rs

Reuse, Reduce, Recycle

GAIA

Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives

GIZ

The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbHPAHOPan American Health Organization

SAT

Sustainable Assessment of Technology

OECD

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

UKWIN

United Kingdom Without Incineration Network

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

UNSD

United Nations Statistics Department

WtE

Waste-to-Energy

6   Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making

Foreword
Early 2019 marked the fourth United Nations
Environmental Assembly, held in Nairobi, Kenya.
Delegates discussed and resolved to reduce single
use plastics, and better manage waste. Much of the
discourse was centred around transitioning to a “green
circular economy”, sustainability, climate neutrality and“zero” waste. Clearly in an ideal world – one where allthese concepts are a reality – there would be no need
for waste-to-energy plants.

now needs to be paved with sincere efforts to decrease

At the same time, waste collection services in mostAfrican countries are inadequate, with an average
Municipal Solid Waste collection rate of only 55%, andover 90% of waste generated in Africa disposed of in
uncontrolled dumpsites or landfills, often with open
burning. Clearly, in the same ideal world, there would
also be no open burning, and related toxic emissions, inheavily populated areas.

open burning and dumpsites. In addition to striving for

The Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (3Rs) mantra has been
the core of waste management philosophy andstrategy for the last several decades. Over the sametime period, waste volumes have risen dramaticallyaround the world. Recycling rates, even in someof the wealthiest cities in the world, have recently
decreased or plummeted, often with recyclable material
being diverted directly to landfill, or in some cases
to waste-to-energy plants. In light of these trends,“Reality-check” might be a good fourth R to consider.
It is all well and good to talk about circular, green,sustainable economies which don’t generate any waste
as aspirational targets, but the road from where we are

the staggering flow of waste into our environment. At
the same time, as this report points out, we cannot
blindly implement solutions that we think are necessary,
yet which could unfortunately, and ironically, lock us
in to waste treatment options that actually remove
incentives to reduce our generation of waste.
So, while it is certainly true that waste-to-energy plants
don’t have a place in a circular economy, neither doperfection, decision makers contemplating investing in
waste-to-energy solutions must seriously consider thereality on the ground. This report provides a balanced
overview of trends in the numbers of municipal solid
waste-to-energy plants around the world, and theirimpacts on people and the environment, including
climate. It outlines key considerations to assist decision
makers in developing countries when contemplating
thermal waste-to-energy plants as a waste management
option, while recognizing that it is important to always
reduce, reuse and recycle before relying on incineration.
Finally, as with every technology, investment andinstallation are never the end of the story. Integration
within the local socio-economic context as well as longterm monitoring and maintenance are the only way tomake technology work for us. This report approaches
thermal waste-to-energy plants from a holistic
perspective, positing that this knowledge-based outlook
will lead to the positive and progressive outcomes forpeople and communities that help them to thrive.

Keith Alverson
Director
International Environmental Technology Centre
United Nations Environment Programme

Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making   7

Executive summary
Thermal Waste-to-Energy (WtE), also known as
incineration with energy recovery, is a major waste
treatment method in some developed countries andthe most widely adopted technology that dominates
the global WtE market. The European Union, however,which has relied on waste incineration for the pastfew decades, is now moving away from thermal WtE
and other forms of incineration and is focusing on
more ecologically acceptable solutions such as waste
prevention, reuse and recycling as it shifts towards
a circular economy. Though thermal WtE is still usedin developing countries as a waste management
approach, in particular Asia Pacific countries such as
China, India, and Thailand, it is located at the bottomof the waste management hierarchy below reduction,
reuse and recycling. These three actions are now
increasingly recognized as priorities for governments
in terms of policies and investments. All materials havean end-life and eventually become waste, and in thesecases thermal WtE is the preferred way of treatmentcompared to landfilling and open burning. Thermal
WtE has received considerable attention in developing
countries due to its potential benefits for waste volume

reduction and energy generation despite continuing
concerns in regard to its applicability and potential
health, environment and climate change impacts.
Thermal WtE development also remains a challenge
in developing countries due to factors such as waste
characteristics, social opposition, economic feasibility
and noncompliance of environmental standards.
This report aims to illustrate the key facts and major
considerations of thermal WtE implementation for
informed decision-making in developing countries,
taking into account that it should be the option oflast resort. An overview of the development andglobal status and trends that includes a descriptionof thermal WtE technology is presented first, followedby the challenges for developing countries interms of technical, economic, environmental, legal
and social aspects. A discussion of thermal WtE
opportunities under different contexts, including theclimate perspective and the context of small island
developing states, follows. The last chapter presents key
considerations for decision makers when implementing
thermal WtE in developing countries.

SCOPE OF REPORTThe scope of this report is exclusively on thermal WtE in developing countries. The overall objective of this report isto provide key considerations to assist decision makers in developing countries when scrutinizing thermal WtE as
a waste management option.

8   Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making

KEY FINDINGS AND MESSAGES

1

The waste management hierarchy should be
used for integrated solid waste management
systems. Reduction, reuse and recycling should
be prioritized and incorporated into waste
management plans that include thermal WtE
recovery options.

A complete and detailed legislative
framework is a prerequisite for thermal
WtE introduction in developing countries.
The framework should include strategies
for maintenance and plant decommission, aphase out plan, pollution monitoring, guidelines on safe disposal of toxic by-products,
medical monitoring and health care for plant
workers and the local community, and guidelines for accident management.

6

2

There have been significant improvements inemissions control for modern thermal WtE technologies compared to WtE technologies fromthe 1970s to the 1990s. Thermal WtE plants withadvanced emission control technologies that are
well-maintained have minimum public healthimpacts. Nevertheless, mismanaged thermal
WtE plants have been shown to produce unsafe
emissions, despite advanced emission control
technologies.

Thermal WtE utilizes the energy value in
waste to generate electricity and/or heat.
The biogenic component of waste overall
contributes to approximately one per cent of
global renewable energy.

73

In developing countries, the low calorific valueand high moisture content of waste remain
critical technical challenges for thermal WtE.
Low calorific value of waste should average atleast 7 MJ/kg, and never fall below 6 MJ/kg.

Thermal WtE can potentially reduce waste
sector greenhouse gas emissions comparedto open burning and landfills without methanegas capture and use, but will not completely
abate greenhouse gas emissions..

8

4

A large scale modern thermal WtE plant requires
at least 100,000 tonnes of MSW per year over
its lifetime. As with all large investment projects,
thermal WtE can potentially create lock-in
effects that may lead to plant overcapacity andhamper efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle.

Thermal WtE can reduce the volume of waste
entering landfills by 75–90 per cent, but it does
not remove the need for landfills. In addition, it can produce residues that are hazardous and require safe disposal.

95

Thermal WtE requires significant investment
for startup, operation and maintenance. A
holistic cost benefit analysis should be carriedout in the local context to assess the social,legislative and enabling conditions of the plant’slife cycle. Income from waste disposal andenergy sales is often insufficient to cover fullinvestment and operational costs.

Achieving Integrated Sustainable Waste
Management requires integration of appropriate collection with different technologies
and waste treatment methods and governance systems in the local context.

10

Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making   9

1©shaunl/Getty Images

Background
Waste-to-energy (WtE) refers to a variety of treatment technologies that convert waste
to electricity, heat, fuel, or other usable materials, as well as a range of residues including
fly ash, sludge, slag, boiler ash, wastewater and emissions, including greenhouse gases.
Based on its energy conversion processes (Figure 1.1), WtE is classified into four categories:
thermal, mechanical and thermal, thermo-chemical and biochemical. In the waste
management hierarchy, it can also be classified into disposal, other recovery or recycling
operations, according to the energy products produced and recovery level (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.1 Types of WtE technologies (Gumisiriza et al. 2017)

WASTE BIOMASS

Sorting, Transport & Storage

Waste-to-Energy Conversion Technologies

ThermalMechanical& Thermal

Directcombustion(incineration)

Pulverization& drying

Thermo-chemical

PlasmaTechnoTorrefaction

Refuse Derived Fuel
(RDF)

Biomechanical

Pyrolysis

Gasification

Fermentation

Liquefaction

Anaerobic
digestion

SyngasChar

Pyrolysis oil

Solid fuelLiquid fuelCombustion

Thermal energy

12   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING

SyngasEthanol

BiogasGaseousfuel1.1 DEFINITION
This report focuses on thermal WtE (i.e. incineration
with energy recovery) due to its recent emergence indeveloping countries and wide global application. WtE
facilities are often known as WtE plants. In the following
chapters, plants adopting incineration with energy
recovery are referred to as thermal WtE plants.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is a common waste
source used in the thermal WtE process. Definitionsof MSW vary among countries due to different legal
frameworks. In general, however, MSW must include
waste items collected from households. In somecountries, the definition will include commercial
waste, hospital waste, and construction anddemolition waste (World Bank 2018; OECD 2019; UNSD
2019; IPCC 2006). The variation in MSW definitions leads
to inconsistency of waste data, which makes directcomparison between countries difficult.

1.2 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKThis report examines waste-to-energy in the context
of the circular economy and follows the framework ofIntegrated Sustainable Waste Management. A circular
economy is an industrial system that is restorative by
design (Figure 1.3), which replaces the “end-of-life”
concept with restoration (Ellen Macarthur Foundation2013). It preserves resources, reducing the reliance onenergy extraction and disposal that characterizes a linear
economy. In a circular economy, resource and waste
management follow the waste management hierarchy
in order to preserve the value of materials as long as
possible. Users should minimize, reuse, and recycle
before discarding materials and products. Incinerating
materials, regardless of the amount of energy that may berecovered, constitutes a leakage from a circular economy.
Figure 1.3 shows the role of thermal WtE in resource
management in a circular economy.
Thermal WtE captures a portion of the energy embedded
in waste as heat and/or electricity. In order of preferencein the waste management hierarchy, thermal WtE isplaced after prevention, minimization, reuse and recycling(Figure 1.2). To follow the hierarchy, the diversion of wastefrom landfill or open dumps should go hand-in-handwith the creation of increased collection and recycling
capacity and the implementation of waste prevention
policies and programmes. It is equally important to avoid
creating infrastructural barriers to the development ofthese upstream systems. WtE should always be considered

in concert with the order of preference, and based on
the context of each locality and how advanced its waste
prevention and material recovery systems are (Ellen
Macarthur Foundation 2013; UKWIN 2018; EEA 2016;
European Commission 2017).
As over 80 per cent of global MSW is comprised ofdry recyclables or organics, investment in prevention,
recycling and composting can greatly reduce waste
disposal, while providing opportunities to formalize
the work of informal recyclers and strengthening
local economies. Moreover, high-income countries
are increasingly moving away from landfilling andincineration (including thermal WtE) and are increasing
recycling and waste reduction to shift towards a circular
economy (Zero Waste Europe 2018a; World Bank 2018).
Integrated Sustainable Waste Management provides
a useful analytical framework for structuring thermal
WtE considerations and decisions in developing
countries. This report follows the Integrated Sustainable
Waste Management system framework, which integrates
all physical elements, related stakeholders andstrategic aspects throughout the life cycle of thermal
WtE implementation.
The integration of physical elements, stakeholders
and strategies is known as the concept of Integrated
Sustainable Waste Management, which has become
the norm in discussions of solid waste management indeveloping countries (UNEP 2015)1. Figure 1.4 below
shows the basic schematic framework of Integrated
Sustainable Waste Management. The first triangle’s
three primary physical elements – waste collection,
waste treatment and disposal, and the 3Rs – provide thenecessary infrastructure for solid waste management.
The second triangle focuses on governance strategies,
including stakeholder inclusivity, financial sustainability
and legislative framework.
Thermal WtE, as an energy recovery option among
waste treatment methods, falls in the second categoryof physical elements in Integrated Sustainable Waste
Management. Yet it is also closely related to otherphysical elements as it requires a well-developed waste
collection system and existing recycling infrastructure fordifferent waste streams. Thermal WtE is also associatedwith a cross section of stakeholders and includes
strategic health, environmental, social, economic,
technical and legal aspects. All strategic aspects,
stakeholders and physical elements must be addressed
when considering the introduction of thermal WtE into a
waste management system.

1 The Integrated Sustainable Waste Management framework was first developed for the UN-Habitat “Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities” (2010)
publication, and later adopted by the Global Waste Management Outlook (UNEP 2015).
CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND   13Figure 1.2

Waste management hierarchy2 (UNEP 2015; European Commission 2017).

PREVENTIONMINIMIZATION

REUSE

RECYCLING (Anaerobic digestion)
OTHER RECOVERY INCLUDING
ENERGY RECOVERY (Thermal WtE with energy recovery)
LANDFILLCONTROLLED DISPOSAL (Landfill gas utilisation,
Thermal WtE without energy recovery)
UNCONTROLLED DISPOSAL

The waste management hierarchy is an orderof preference for waste management options.
Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (3Rs) are prioritizedover other recovery and disposal options.
The generally accepted principle is to move
waste management up the hierarchy and take
into account life-cycle thinking to reduce theenvironmental impacts of waste.
2
Thermal WtE with energy recovery refers to an energy efficiency that meets the R1 formula as established by the European Commission Waste Directive
2008/98/EC, which suggests that only thermal WtE plants with energy efficiency equal to or higher than 0.60 (for installations in operation before 2009) or
0.65 (for installations permitted after 2009) are regarded as an energy recovery operation (European Commission 2017).

14   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKINGFigure 1.3

Resource management within a circular economy

Mining/materials manufacturing

Farming/collection 1
Parts manufacturer

Biological nutrients
Biochemical
feedstock

Technical nutrients

Product manufacturer

RecycleBiosphere

Restoration

Service provider

Refurbish/
remanufacture
Reuse/redistribute

Biogas

MaintenanceCascades
6 2803 0006 9

Anaerobic
digestion/
composting

Consumer

User

Collection

Collection

Extraction ofbiochemical
feedstock 2

Energy recovery

Leakage to be minimised
Landfill
1 Hunting and fishing
2 Can take both post-harvest and post-consumer waste as an input
Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation circular economy teamFigure 1.4

Schematic framework of Integrated Sustainable Waste Management (UNEP 2015)

1

6

Public health •collectionW
WASTE
RELATEDDATA

Sound institutions
and pro-active policies

25

Environment •Treatment
and disposal

PHYSICAL

3
Resource value • Reduce,
Reuse, Recycle (3Rs)

GOVERNANCE

Financial •Sustainability

4
Inclusivity •User and provider

B    BACKGROUND INFORMATIONCHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND   15

1.3 CURRENT WTE TECHNOLOGY
Table 1.1 Overview of WtE technologies
Table 1.1

Overview of WtE technologies

Incineration withenergy recovery

Gasification

Pyrolysis

TECHNOLOGYDESCRIPTION

Direct combustion of waste between 750
and 1100ºC in the presence of oxygen.

Partial oxidation of waste between 800 and 1200ºC
in the presence of a controlled amount of oxygen.

Thermal degradation ofwaste between 300 and
1300ºC in the absence ofoxygen.

MAJOR PRODUCTS

Produces steam for electricity and/or heat generation in a boiler or steam
turbine. Can generate heat or electricity,or combined heat and power.

Produces synthetic gas for further combustion orconversion to chemical feedstock.

Produces liquid fuel forfurther combustion orconversion to chemical
feedstock.

WASTE INPUT

Mixed MSW or refuse-derived fuel.

Type of technology

Only suitable for relatively homogeneous waste streams, such as wood waste,agricultural residues, sewage sludge, and plastic waste.

VOLUME REDUCTION*

75–90%

75–90%

50–90%POLLUTION CONTROLREQUIREMENTHigh

MediumMediumCOST PER TONNE(IN US DOLLARS)*

95–190For centralized facilities on a moderately
large scale.

95–190For centralized facilities on a moderately large
scale.

95–190For centralized facilities ona moderately large scale.

SCALE OF PLANT

Available from small to large scales.
A centralized large scale plant is morecommon.

Available from small to large scales.

Available from small tolarge scales.

EXTENT OF USE

Widely applied in Europe, Japan and theUnited States. Increasing application indeveloping countries.

Not widely applied and only available at small
scales. Commercial gasification plants are
established in Japan and the Republic of Korea for
20 years with pre-treated waste as input.

Not widely established for
MSW.

GENERAL APPLICABILITY

Suitable for mixed MSW but the wastequality and composition in developing
countries may not be suitable without
specific pre-treatment such as pre-drying.
A district heating system is not common
in low-income countries.

Potential for wood gasification technology.

Not established yet indeveloped or developing
countries.

16   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING

Composting

Anaerobic digestion

Aerobic bioconversion of organic wastes.

Biodegradation of (readily degradable) organic wastes in the absence ofoxygen, with anaerobic microorganisms.

Produces compost which can serve as a soil conditioner, mitigate erosion,
sequester carbon in soil, be used in land reclamation and as a final cover for
landfills.

Produces biogas and digestate. Digestate can be composted for use as a soil
conditioner or dewatered and used as a low calorific value refuse-derived
fuel.

Separated organic fraction of MSW, food waste, or other solid organic waste.
Suitable to treat material high in lignin (woody).

95–100%

Separated organic fraction of MSW, food waste, animal/human excreta, or
liquids and sludges. Less suitable for high in lignin (woody) material.

45–50%

Low
Low-medium

0 –70
For small scale composting. At a pilot site running in Phnom Penh,
Cambodia, for example, the cost can be made-up by the value of the end
product.

Available at the household scale (home composting), community scale(backyard, vermicomposting), or at a centralized, large scale (window,
aerated static pile, in-vessel).

65–120For centralized facilities on a moderately large scale. Cost depends on
subsidies for renewable energy.
Available in decentralized small scale digesters (including on-farm), andlarge scale digesters for the organic fraction of MSW.

Widespread in high-income countries. Asia has a long tradition of making
and using compost.

Widespread use for non-MSW, and increasing use for clean organics fromseparate collection of MSW, including using anaerobic digestion followed bycomposting.

High potential, particularly in developing countries with a high organic
fraction of MSW. Not yet widespread due to operating costs and needfor source separation. Severe environmental impacts such as methane
emissions, odour, leachate, bioaerosols, particulate matter, etc have to beassessed and kept technologically under control during operation.

Small scale anaerobic digesters are used to meet the heating and cooking
needs of individual rural communities.

Note: The volume of waste reduction depends on its composition, the specific type of technology used, and the amount of bottom ash recycled. For incineration with energy
recovery, gasification, and pyrolysis, the typical volume reduction is 75 per cent, while higher volume reduction can be attained through recycling of bottom ashes.
* Cost per tonne (in US dollars) refers to the estimated net operation and investment costs minus revenues from resource recovery. The estimated cost depends on theincome level of the country. The term “refuse-derived fuel” is used in this table to designate all processed fuel outputs.
Source: Moya et al. 2017; Beyene et al. 2018; World Energy Council 2016a; UNEP 2015.

CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND   17

1.4 THERMAL WTE DEVELOPMENT
Thermal WtE was first developed in Europe, with the earliest plant dating back to 1874 in Nottingham,
England. In the early and mid-twentieth century, thermal WtE was extensively applied in developed
countries such as Japan and the United States, as well as in European countries, as a part of the waste
management system. The development of thermal WtE in Japan is illustrated below.
THERMAL WTE DEVELOPMENT IN JAPAN1980s–1990s:
Technological development
Dioxin emissions from incinerators were first reported
in Japan in 1983, drawing attention from the public tothe emissions of these and other acidic gases, as well asother hazardous materials from incineration, that caused
serious air, water and soil pollution, as well as public healthconcerns. Incinerators emitting high concentrations of
dioxin were forced to close down due to public opposition,for example the incinerator in Nose Town in Osaka
Prefecture (Ministry of the Environment, Government ofJapan 2014). To tackle the dioxin problem, the development
of dioxin and pollution control technology escalated quickly
during this period. In 1997, the Government of Japanrevised its Guidelines for Reduction of Dioxin from 1990.
At the same time, the Waste Management Act was revised
to reinforce the structure and maintenance standards for
waste incinerators. In 1999, the Act on Special Measures
Against Dioxins was implemented to manage dioxin
emissions. Dioxin emission standards were reinforced forexisting plants (1 to 10 ng-TEQ/Nm3) and new plants(0.1 to 5 ng-TEQ/Nm3).

Figure 1.5

MSW generation in Japan23

TOTAL MSW GENERATION (THOUSAND T)

60000

Bubble economy period
50000

Rapid economic
growth period

40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1955

1960

1965 1970

1975

Figure 1.6

1985 1990

Plastic production in Japan

8,000

7,518

7,000
6,000

5,128

5,000

6,090 5,720 5,800

4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

17

554

1950

1960

0
1970

1980

Source: Japan Plastics Industry Federation 2019

The production of plastic waste increased bymore than 13-fold from 1960 to 1980 in Japan.

3

1980

1995

MSW generation in Japan has been gradually decreasing in recent years.
packaging during this time, and is now generates the second largest am

Production of plastics in Japan(Units 1,000 tones)

1960s–1970s:
Thermal WtE plant pollution problems
In the 1950s, waste incineration plants were introduced
in Japan. From the 1960s onwards, a period of rapid
economic growth led to extensive urban development
and an increase in income that changed consumption
behaviour, leading to an abrupt increase in municipal andindustrial waste generation (Ministry of the Environment,
Government of Japan 2014). To solve its growing waste
problem, a large number of incinerators were built in Japan.

Data retrieved in Oct 2018 from the waste database of the Ministry of Environment, Government of Japan

18   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING

2000

2010

2017

2000–Present:
Prioritizing the 3Rs
Current pollution control technology has greatly reduced
the level of dioxins from incinerators compared to 1990s
levels. If proper emission controls have been installedin thermal WtE plants, dioxin emissions from waste
incineration are no longer a threat to public health. Since
1998, Japan has been slowly phasing out small capacity
incinerators, as well as those without energy recovery(Figure 1.7), and increasing the energy efficiency ofthermal WtE plants. MSW generation peaked in Japan in

the year 2000 after the introduction of The Basic Act for
Establishing a Sound Material-Cycle Society as a Framework,and the following specific recycling laws:• Containers and Packing Recycling Act (1995)• Home Appliance Recycling Act (1998)• Food Recycling Act (2000)• Green Purchasing Act (2000)• Construction Recycling Act (2000)• Automobile Recycling Act (2002)• Small Appliance Recycling Act (2012)4

Figure 1.7 Number of waste incinerators with and without
energy recovery in Japan4

Establishing a material
recycling society

1,800

Plants without energy recovery
Plants with energy recovery

2015

2016

2013

2014

2011

2012

2010

2009

0

2007

300

2008

. Japan, however, has produced substantial plastic
mount of plastic packaging per capita (UNEP 2018).

2016

2005

2015

2006

2014

2003

2013

2004

2012

2001

2011

2002

2010

600

1999

2005

900

2000

2000

1,200

1998

Number of plants

1,500

LESSONS LEARNED
Waste management progress in Japan provides a good exampleof energy recovery for less developed countries. Technologicaladvancement allows developing countries to choose the lesspolluting thermal WtE technology, compared to what was available
to them in the past. In concert with these new technologies,
waste management strategies should be implemented based on
local needs and subjected to periodic review and adjustment. It
is important to note that the waste hierarchy is not a ladder for awaste management system. Developing countries should consider
leapfrogging and adopting a top-down approach to introduce the3Rs in their waste management systems before considering thermal
WtE recovery options.

4

Data retrieved in Oct 2018 from the waste database of the Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan 2019
CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND   19Figure 1.8	MSW incinerated with energy recovery and number of thermal WtE plants (by region)

NORTH AMERICA
82 plants
11%
LATIN AMERICA
and THE CARIBBEAN
3 plants

Incineration without energy recovery

Table 1.2

AFRICA
1 plant

WEST ASIA
0 plants

ASIA PACIFIC
1120 plants
29%

Incineration with energy recovery

Landfill and other disposal
Waste unaccounted for

EUROPE589 plants
25%

Other recovery (recycling and composting)
The size of the pie charts represents the number of WtE plants by region.

Waste treatment method in the six regions (by percentage)
Landfill andother disposal

Incineration withenergy recovery

Incineration
without energy
recovery

Other recovery(recycling andcomposting)Waste
unaccounted for

Asia Pacific

51.2

29.2

1.3

12.9

5.3

Europe

27.5

24.7

2.7

42.9

2.4

West Asia

89.5

0.0

0.7

15.5

0.02

Africa

93.1

0.0

1.6

2.3

3.0

North America

54.8

11.2

0.5

33.6

0.0

Latin American and the Caribbean

91.2

0.1

0.1

6.4

2.4

Global Average

59.8

15.2

1.2

22.2

2.4

Note: Estimation derived from latest available data from 122 countries, and extracted from the UNSD (2019), OECD (2019) and the World Bank (2018)“What a Waste 2.0” report. Years of data range from 2000 to 2016.
Incineration with energy recovery is often reported together with incineration without energy recovery as one combined category in waste databases, including
at UNSD and the World Bank. Waste data reported by the OECD is the only data accounting for incineration with and without energy recovery. The percentage forincineration with energy recovery includes countries from the OECD with reported data, and assumes countries with reported data from the UNSD and the World Bank
that own thermal WtE plants incinerate MSW with energy recovery.
“Waste unaccounted for” refers to the percentage of waste without a reported waste treatment method.

20   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING1.5 GLOBAL STATUS AND TRENDS
CURRENT STATUS
Globally, 216 million tonnes of collected MSW
are incinerated each year, of which 15 per cent isincinerated with energy recovery (Table 1.2). Thermal
WtE accounts for 29 per cent and 25 per cent of MSW
incinerated in Asia Pacific and Europe respectively(Figure 1.8). At more than 50 per cent in all but one
world region, landfill and open dumping remain major
waste treatment methods. For example, over 90 per
cent of collected waste in Africa and Latin America andthe Caribbean is disposed of in landfills or open dumps(UNEP 2018).
There are over 1,700 thermal WtE plants worldwide(Figure 1.9). Over 80 per cent of thermal WtE plants
are located in developed countries, led by Japan,
France, Germany and the United States. Despite a great
difference between the two countries in the number ofthermal WtE plants, Japan and the United States bothincinerate a similar amount of MSW with thermal WtE
recovery. Many of the thermal WtE plants in Japan have
only small incineration capacity. At present, the only
thermal WtE plants in Latin America and the Caribbean
are located in territories under European jurisdiction(Bermuda - Overseas British Territory, Martinique French overseas region, and Saint Barthélemy - Frenchoverseas collectivity). The only thermal WtE plant in
Africa is in Ethiopia (Box 3), and there are currently no
operational plants in West Asia.
The global WtE market was valued at 9.1 billion USD in2016, and is expected to increase to over 25 billion USD
by 2025, maintaining a steady compound annual growthrate of over 5.5 per cent according to conservative
estimates (Figure 1.10) (World Energy Council 2016b).
Thermal WtE is the most widely established WtEtechnology and it leads the global market, accounting
for 88.2 per cent of total market revenue in 2013 (World
Energy Council 2016b).
Biogenic municipal waste is regarded as a renewablebioenergy source in some countries (IRENA 2018).
Renewable energy generated 10 per cent of global
electricity among all energy sources in 2015
(Figure 1.11) (World Energy Council 2016b). Biogenic
municipal waste contributed to approximately 1 per centof global renewable energy generation, amounting to a
global total of 52 TWh of electricity in 2016 (IRENA 2018).
Globally, more than 200 thermal WtE plants are currently
under construction and will be operational between
2020 and 2023. Thermal WtE plants are emerging indeveloping countries in Asia Pacific, including China,
Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and Myanmar.

The major drivers of thermal WtE growth in developing countries include:
LAND CONSTRAINTS
Thermal WtE can reduce waste volume and mass
by 75–90 per cent, thus reducing the demand for
landfill space.

ENERGY GENERATIONThe energy value in waste can be utilized to generate
electricity and heat during the thermal WtE process. The
biogenic fraction of waste in thermal WtE can contributeto a portion of a country’s renewable energy.

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT
Thermal WtE plants reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by diverting waste from landfills and open burningand by replacing fossil fuels, leading to incentives fordeveloping countries to achieve climate goals.

PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
In many developing countries, waste is often disposedof in open dumpsites. A shift to thermal WtE could
improve hygienic and environmental conditions inthese countries.

Thermal WtE is technologically mature and proven to greatly reduce waste volume. It is also energy-efficient andenvironmentally sound, if implemented with advanced technologies (Table 1.1). However, the lack of appropriate
pollution control and monitoring standards, as well as lack of installed capacity, in most developing countries
necessitates careful management of WtE plants and their by-products. This is often further compounded by a lack ofstrict emission standards and enforcing mechanisms, testing and analysis laboratories and controlled landfills for ash
disposal, in addition to public health and environmental concerns over mismanaged plants. It is also debatable whether
thermal WtE contributes significantly to climate change mitigation.

CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND   21Figure 1.9	Top 11 countries with the most thermal WtE plants, including amount of waste incinerated with energy recovery
SWITZERLAND
4 million tonnes
30 plants

SWEDEN
6 million tonnes
34 plants

UNITED KINGDOM
10 million tonnes
46 plants

JAPAN
30 million tonnes
754 plants

GERMANY
26 million tonnes
121 plants* Waste incineration
data for China includes
incineration with andwithout energy recovery.
FRANCE
14 million tonnes
126 plants
UNITED STATES
30 millions tonnes
77 plants

Box 1

AUSTRIA
4 million tonnes
65 plants

ITALY
CHINA*
6 million tonnes 5 million tonnes
41 plants
286 plants

SOUTH KOREA
5 million tonnes
35 plants

The world’s largest thermal WtE plants

The world’s largest thermal WtE plants are currently under construction in Shenzhen East, China and Dubai, United ArabEmirates. Both plants can process over 5,500 tonnes of waste per day, and will be operational by 2020. The plant in Dubai has acapacity of 185MW, which is roughly 2 per cent of Dubai’s annual energy consumption. The plant in Shenzhen East has a capacityof 165MW and can handle one-third of the waste generated by the city of Shenzhen.

Dubai WtE plant.

Shenzhen East WtE plant with solar panel rooftop.

Source: Schmidt Hammer Lassen 2019; United Arab Emirates Government 201922   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKINGFigure 1.10 Conservative forecast of growth in global investment in all WtE technologies (Ouda and Raza 2014)

30 billion USD

25 billion USD

20 billion USD

15 billion USD

10 billion USD

5 billion USD

2010

2013

2016

2019

2022

2025

Figure 1.11 Percentage of global electricity generation by energy source, with percentage of renewable energies(IRENA 2018; World Energy Council 2016b).

29% Coal

24% GasHydropower
69%

Wind energy
16%

Bioenergy 8%
Biogenic
municipal waste
accounts for 1% of
renewable energy
globally and 0.01%
of global energy
generation

10%
RenewableenergySolar energy
5%Marine energy
0.02%

33% OilGeothermalenergy 1%

4% Nuclear

WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING   232

© Utopia_88/Getty Images

Challenges
for developing
countries
The implementation of thermal WtE in developing countries has technical challenges,
such as waste characteristics, and governance challenges, which include social, financial
and legislative aspects. These factors must be considered to ensure sustainable operationof thermal WtE plants. In this chapter, the challenges of implementing thermal WtE indeveloping countries will follow the primary framework of the Integrated Sustainable
Waste Management concept.

2.1 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
In developing countries, MSW is characterized by its
high level of moisture and organic content, which yields
a low calorific value. Though its calorific value is verylow (Figure 2.1), organic waste averages from 53 to
56 per cent of MSW in low and lower-middle income
countries (Figure 2.2). The energy efficiency of waste
incineration is directly related to waste composition.
According to ISWA Guidelines: Waste-to-Energy in
Low and Middle Income Countries (2013), incineration
requires a fuel with a minimal average calorific valueof 7 MJ/kg, and should never fall below 6 MJ/kg for
combustion without auxiliary fuel. The low calorific valueof MSW collected in developing countries leads to its
overall poor quality for thermal WtE. As an example, thecalorific value of MSW in China typically ranges from
3.5–5 MJ/kg (World Energy Council 2016a).
Another incineration issue to consider is the highmoisture content in organic waste and the presenceof inert materials. In some developing countries,
such as India, inert materials such as construction
and demolition waste are present in mixed MSW.
The presence of inert materials, in addition to otherfactors such as insufficient waste quantity and investor
and public sector lack of due diligence, resulted inoperational failure in several thermal WtE plants in India(Table 2.1).

Figure 2.1

Table 2.1 Reasons for closure of WtE plants in India(Planning Commission 2014)
Reason of closure

TimarpurVijaywada

Hyderabad

Investor and public sector
lack of due diligence







Poor quantity and quality of
waste







Presence of inert materials,
such as construction anddemolition waste,
which makes the WtE process
difficult and expensive







Public outcry against plant
location



N/A

N/A

Plant’s lack of financial viability



N/A

N/A

Waste is theoretically suitable for incineration without
auxiliary fuel when water content is below 50 per cent,ash content is below 60 per cent, and combustibility isover 25 per cent (The World Bank 2000). In developing
countries, the high water content and low combustibilityof waste makes it unsuitable for direct incineration.
Waste streams in India and the Philippines are
marginally suitable for incineration without additional
fuel during summertime due to a lack of segregation(Figure 2.3). Seasonal variation of waste composition
may move it further from combustibility. In addition,
waste quantity may vary due to season and natural
disasters. The risks associated with variation in waste
value and quantity must be carefully assessed.

Net calorific value of different waste types found in MSW (World Energy Council 2016a)

PLASTICS
35 MJ/kg

TEXTILE
19 MJ/kg

PAPER
16 MJ/kg

26   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKINGORGANIC WASTE
4 MJ/kg

METALS
0 MJ/kg

GLASS
0 MJ/kg

Figure 2.2

MSW composition in developing countries (World Bank 2018)

1% Wood<1% Rubber
and leather
11% Plastic

53% Food
and green

56% Food<1% Wood

and green

6.4% Plastic
7% Paperand cardboard

12.5% Paperand cardboard

Lower-middle
incomeLow
income

17% Other

27% Other

2% Metal

1% Metal
1% Glass

3% Glass

Figure 2.3

Tanner triangle for combustibility assessment of MSW (in percentage by weight)1

90

10
20

The Philippines
India

80

Developed countries
30

70

40

Developing countries

50

50
40

60

% Ash content(Non combustible fraction)

Requirement for combustion60% Water content

30

70
80

20

90

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% Combustible fraction(Ignition loss of dry sample)

1	Data from developing and developed countries obtained from Public Interest Consultants (2007). Data from India and the Philippines shows summertime
waste composition (UNEP 2005).
CHAPTER 2 - CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES   272.2 ECONOMIC ASPECTS
Investment and operation costs are the two major
components that determine thermal WtE plantdevelopment. Investment costs refer to costs related
to project planning and development, including siting,feasibility studies, permitting, consultation, design,land, equipment, and construction. Operation costs
include the costs of labour, fuel, energy, maintenanceand repair, emissions control and monitoring, revenue
collection, public communication, management andadministration, safe disposal of residues, accident
response and decommissioning.
A thermal WtE plant requires large investment andoperation costs that on average are much higher thanother waste treatment methods. When assessing publicfinancial support for thermal WtE, it is particularly
important not to undermine the waste management
hierarchy by discouraging waste management options withhigher circular economy potential (European Commission2017). Table 2.2 shows the estimated total cost2 of waste
per tonne for different waste treatment methods. The total
cost of a thermal WtE plant is generally higher in developed
countries than in developing countries (Table 2.3).
Although equipment costs for thermal WtE plants areroughly the same worldwide, engineering, construction
and land and labour costs vary widely among countries
with different income levels. It is therefore difficult toFigure 2.4

compare thermal WtE plant costs in different countries
due to cost variations resulting from different local
conditions. Figure 2.4 shows the relationship between costand incineration capacity of several thermal WtE plants
in developed and developing countries. The capital costof plants in developed countries is higher due to higher
labour costs and more stringent architecture and emission
standards. Given the bad reputation of incineration,
requests are often made for thermal WtE plants to be
iconic buildings. Though this often results in added cost, it
can increase local acceptance, for example the Copenhill
plant in Denmark and the Maishima plant in Osaka(Figure 2.5). Other major costs in developed countries that
contribute to higher capital costs include land acquisitionand construction (Box 2).
Figure 2.6 breaks down the estimated cost of a thermal
WtE plant in Europe. Operational costs strongly depend on
the lifespan of the plant. For a thermal WtE plant with anestimated lifespan of 40 years, about 85 per cent of its
total cost is attributed to the operational costs, while indeveloping countries operational costs can account for atleast 50 per cent of total plant cost (estimated in Table 2.3).
Insecure long-term funding may lead to operational failure
due to high operational costs, which may bring substantial
financial risks to the municipality.

Comparison of investment cost and capacity of thermal WtE plants3

CAPITAL COST (million USD)

3000
2500
Shek Kwu Chau, Hong Kong, China

2000
1500
1000

Tuas South, Singapore

Copenhill, Denmark

Baku, Azerbaijan

500

Dubai, United
Arab Emirates

Senoko, Singapore

0
0

1000

2000

Timarpur, India
3000

Reppie, Ethiopia
Tynes Bay,
BermudaMaishima, Japan

4000

5000

6000

WASTE CAPACITY (TON PER DAY)

Jabalpur,India

2 Estimated total cost refers to net operation and investment costs, minus revenues from resource recovery.
3 The blue line shows the formula adopted from literature describing the cost-capacity relationship of thermal WtE plants (Haghi 2015). Shek Kwu Chau
WtE plant in Hong Kong and Dubai WtE plant in United Arab Emirates are still under construction.

28   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKINGTable 2.2

Estimated cost for different waste treatment methods and technologies (UNEP 2015)
World Bank Project Data
(Nominal Date 2006)“Income (GNI/capita/ 2006”

Low Income
Countries

Lower Middle
IncomeUpper Middle
IncomeHigh Income
Countries<876 USD

876-3465 USD

3466-10725 USD>10725 USD

290

420

Waste generation (kg/cap/yr)

220Collection coverage (percent of households served)

43%

Collection

20-50

30-75

40-90

85-250Sanitary landfill

10-30

15-40

25-65

40-100Open dumping

2-8

3-10

NA

NA

Composting

5-30

10-40

20-75

35-90

Waste-to-energy incinerationNA

40-10060-15070-200Anaerobic digestion

NA

20-80

50-10065-15068%
85%
Cost of collection and disposal (USD/tonne)

780
98%

Disclaimer: All estimates are for comparative purposes only and are not indicative of actual costs at any particular local site. Costs for reduction, reuse andrecycling are not captured in this table.
Table 2.3

Estimated costs of thermal WtE plants in developed and developing countries (GIZ 2017)
Initialinvestment

Capitalcosts

Operation andmanagementcosts

In million Euros

Total
cost

Revenues fromenergy sales

Costs to becoveredEuros per tonne

Developed country

135–185

80–115180

260–295

60 (heat andelectricity) 27(electricity)

200–235

Developing country

30–75

22–55

20–35

42–90

2–10 (electricity)

40–80

Note: Figures shown are rough estimates and do not include land costs. The estimation assumes an incineration capacity of 150,000 tonnes per year.
Thermal WtE plants in developed countries are assumed to have advanced technologies and two furnace lines. Plants in developing countries are assumed
to have a basic technologies with one furnace line.

Figure 2.5 (Top) Copenhill plant, Copenhagen, Denmark;(Bottom) Maishima plant, Osaka, JapanBox 2 Hong Kong - The shift from landfills to thermal WtE
The Shek Kwu Chau WtE plant in Hong Kong, which
will be commissioned in 2024 with a waste capacity of
3,000 tonnes per day, has an estimated capital cost ofover 2 billion USD. The high capital cost is due to plant
siting and high labour and construction costs in HongKong. The plant will be situated next to a remote island
called Shek Kwu Chau, which involves reclamation of
16 hectares of land. Operational costs of the 15-year
contract are estimated to be over 1.7 billion USD.
At present, Hong Kong relies on sanitary landfills for
waste treatment. Due to land constraints and increasing
waste generation, the WtE plant and composting
facilities are planned as the waste treatment alternatives
for reducing reliance on landfills. This decision has
raised environmental concern in regard to the loss of
31 hectares of habitat of the endangered Chinese White
Dolphin and the Finless Porpoise. A marine conservation
park has been proposed to mitigate this loss andconserve both species.

Copenhill was comissioned in 2018, and includes an artificial ski
slope on the plant’s rooftop. The building exterior of the Maishimaplant in Osaka was designed by Austrian artist Friedensreich
Hundertwasser.

Source: Environmental Protection Department,
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2019)

CHAPTER 2 - CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES   29

Due to high investment costs, thermal WtE plants with
only basic technical standards are emerging in lowincome countries (GIZ 2017). These low-cost plants
may omit technical backup systems such as pumps,
piping, electronic control systems, a second furnace andappropriate flue gas filter systems, or use lower steel
quality for highly stressed furnace components. Whether
these low-cost plants can meet appropriate technicaland emission standards in the long term remains
unknown. Breakdown risks associated with these lowcost plants are higher due to the lack of backup systems.
Consequently, operational costs may increase and theoperable lifetime of the plant may be shortened. This
could lead to higher negative human health impacts andirreversible environmental damage.
Long-term funding sources must be secured forsustainable operation and maintenance of a WtE plant.
Sources can include direct revenues, including plant gate
fees, direct waste fees on citizens and revenues from thesale of energy products. In addition, indirect revenues
from regularizing open waste dumping and increasingtipping fees at landfills are also possible financial sources.
Other external funding opportunities include
government subsidies (Box 3), international funds,
and private sector investments (Box 4). Municipalities
may consider regional-based WtE projects rather thancity-level projects to obtain regional or national levelgovernment funding. Public-private partnerships canhelp municipalities raise private capital from investors.
Public-private partnerships have different frameworks,
and the private sector is often involved in building,designing and operating the WtE facility during thecontractual period.
Figure 2.6 Estimated total cost of a thermal WtE plantin Europe (Neubacher 2010)85%

14%
Supply andConstruction
1%
Management,
Consulting &Engineering
Concept andFeasibilit
Study

Operation and
MaintenanceOperational costs
account for85%of the plant’s
total cost

Estimated lifespan: 40 years
Total cost: 705-1815 million Euros

Box 3 Reppie, the first thermal WtE plant in Africa
Thermal WtE projects often support a country’s waste
management and climate policy, and rely on government
subsidies as a major source of revenue. The Reppie
WtE plant, completed in 2017, was fully funded by the
Ethiopian government as part of the country’s Climate
Resilient Green Economy project. Ethiopia aims to become
a middle-income economy by 2025, and has set as oneof its major goals cutting its greenhouse gas emissions.
The Reppie plant was built at the Koshe dumpsite,where approximately 80 per cent of Addis Ababa’s waste
is incinerated. The plant could potentially improve
environmental and health conditions near the dumpsite,
prevent accidents like the Koshe landslide, and abate
future methane emissions (UNEP 2017). Yet, the plant
had to cease operations just weeks after its inauguration,and is currently in the process of reopening (Addisfortune
News 2019). The plant also raises concerns about the
livelihoods and relocation of waste pickers living at the
Koshe dumpsite.

©ZACHARIAS ABUBEKER/AFP/Getty Images
On 11 March 2017, a landslide at the Koshe dumpsite killed more than
110 people.

Box 4 Jabalpur WtE plant – a public-private partnership
Jabalpur WtE plant in India is a long-term public-private
partnership. The plant was commissioned in 2016 witha waste capacity of 600 tonnes per day. The project is
supported by grants from the Government of India (underthe “Clean India Mission” programme) and Governmentof Madhya Pradesh, which covers about 60 per cent ofproject cost. Remaining costs are covered by capital fromthe private operator. The project is positioned on design,build, finance, operate, and transfer, with a performancebased concession period of 21 years (inclusive of the
2 year construction period). Public grants will only bereimbursed after the private operator has satisfactory
output and performance. One advantage of a publicprivate partnership is that it makes projects financially
viable, and project completion and output risks are sharedwith the private operator. Private operator efficiency also
allows for effective project management.
Source: Regional Directorate (Central) Central Pollution Control Board
Bhopal (2016)

Decommissioning cost is not included in the operational costsin this figure as data is not available.

30   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING2.3 LEGAL ASPECTS
Thermal WtE legal challenges vary in developing
countries, depending on the specific country andlocal conditions. Legal aspects are closely tied tosocial, economic and environmental aspects. In thePhilippines, the challenge arises from the seeming policy
contradiction of both an incineration ban and existenceof thermal WtE guidelines (Box 5). In China, even thoughgovernment policies provide economic incentives forthermal WtE development (Box 6), regular noncompliancein regard to environmental emission standards provides
another set of legal and environmental challenges.
While developing countries are opening up to thermal
WtE, the European Union is moving away from it andother forms of incineration, and is gradually phasingout public financing and support for energy from mixed

waste recovery (European Commission 2017). In thiscontext, the European Commission suggests redefining
the role of thermal WtE to ensure that increases in reuse
and recycling are not hampered and that overcapacities
for residual waste treatment are averted (European
Commission 2017).
Thermal WtE legislation should comply withinternationally recognized emission limits to avoid
irreversible damage to environmental and public health(GIZ 2017). As these limits are often not recognized indeveloping countries, they should first be developedin line with internationally recognized standards, suchas the European Union’s Industrial Emissions Directive(Table 2.4), and allow ample capacity for adequate
monitoring and enforcement.

2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
The health and environmental impacts of thermal WtE
are continuing public concerns. Thermal WtE plants built
from the 1970s to the 1990s in countries such as Japanand United States caused a large amount of air pollution
due to dioxin and furan emissions.
What are dioxins and furans?
Dioxins (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins) and furans(polychlorinated dibenzofurans) are groups of toxic
persistent organic pollutants and known humancarcinogens. They are formed as by-products of hightemperature thermal processes due to incomplete burningand the presence of precursors (IPEN 2005). Human shortterm exposure to high dioxin levels may result in skin lesions
such as chloracne, patchy darkening of the skin, and altered
liver functions (World Health Organization, 2016). Long-term
exposure is linked to impairment of the immune system,
the developing nervous system, the endocrine system andreproductive functions.
(World Health Organization 2016)

Globally, waste incinerators are one of the leading
sources of dioxins and furans (Stockholm Convention2017). Appropriate combustion conditions are necessary
to reduce dioxin emissions in thermal WtE plants. The
combustion temperature should be at least 850ºC witha minimum retention time of 2 seconds (European
Commission 2018). Dioxin decomposition reaction isfaster than generation at higher temperatures. Flue gas
oxygen concentration should be at least 6 per cent involume (European Commission, 2018). To avoid dioxin
and furan formation, exhaust gas must be cooled
quickly.
With the current technology, dioxin and furan emissions
can be reduced through the above measures, coupledwith a gas filtering system using a scrubber and bag filters(Mukherjee et al. 2016). Improvements in the design andoperation of combustion and flue gas cleaning systems
have resulted in plants that can reliably achieve lower
emission limit values than the European Union’s Industrial
Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) (Table 2.4).
To ensure minimum environmental and health impact,
thermal WtE plants should ideally meet the stringent
European Union emission standards. Yet in developing
countries, there are often no, or less strict, incineration
emission standards and/or related law enforcement forthermal WtE. For example, in China and India, althoughnational emission standards for waste incineration areavailable, requirements are less strict than European
Union standards (Table 2.4). Excessive dioxin emissions
from thermal WtE plants have been recorded in bothcountries (Box 7). Poor operation and maintenancehas resulted in higher dioxin emissions in plants indeveloped countries as well (Box 7).

CHAPTER 2 - CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES   31Box 5 Incineration ban in the Philippines
The Philippines is the only Asia Pacificcountry with an incineration ban
enforced by law. According to thePhilippines Clean Air Act of 1999,
incineration, which is defined as“the burning of municipal, biomedical
and hazardous waste, which process emits
poisonous and toxic fumes”, is prohibitedin the country. This incineration ban
was lifted, however, for thermal WtE
through approval of Guidelines Governing
the Establishment and Operation of Waste
to Energy Technologies for Municipal Solid
Wastes in 2016. The thermal WtE debate
continues in the country as the Guidelines
are contradictory to the Clean Air Act.
Nevertheless, two thermal WtE projects in
Quezon City and Puerto Princesa City are
currently in the planning stages.
© rweisswald/Getty Images

Box 6 China’s WtE revolution
China has the fastest WtE market growthamong developing countries. In 2017,
there were 286 thermal WtE plants
in the country. China’s 13th Five Year
Plan encourages separate treatment
and non-incineration of organic waste,
as well as the safe management of
MSW. It recognizes the current waste
incineration trend and concerns with
operating incinerators around thecountry while stressing the need forstronger monitoring of incineration
pollution, including air emissions, waste
water discharge, and fly ash disposal. It isestimated that by 2020 more than 50 per
cent of MSW will be treated with thermal
WtE, and the country will have more than
400 operating thermal WtE plants (Chi2017). Government economic incentives
are the major driver for thermal WtE
growth in China. The state funding policy
requires investors to contribute 30 per
cent of the capital investment for the
project, with remaining costs raised bynational subsidies or commercial bankloans (Zhang et al. 2015). Thermal WtE
plants have a 5 per cent income tax
exemption, and are required to pay afeed-in tariff of 0.04 USD/kWh. They
additionally can receive waste disposal
fee subsidies from the local government(Zhang et al. 2015). Despite thesenumerous economic incentives in China,
incinerators still cannot cover their fullcosts, particularly social and health costs,
which are externalized through publichealthcare and to individual citizens(Zhao 2017).

© rweisswald/Getty Images

32   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKINGBox 7 Reported cases of dioxin emissions from thermal WtE plants
CHINA

INDIA

NETHERLANDS

According to China’s National
Implementation Plan for the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (2007), waste incinerationis the third largest source of dioxinsin the nation. Ni et al. (2009) reported
dioxin emissions from 19 thermal WtE
plants in China and discovered that
78 per cent do not meet the European
Union standard of 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3.  In
2014, chicken egg samples taken nearan MSW plant in Hangyang, Wuhan
were found to have high dioxin andfuran content (Petrlik 2015). Due tothe dioxins problem from thermal
WtE plants, China tightened national
dioxin emissions standards in 2014
from 1.0 to 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3 (Zhang
et al. 2015), which is the same as thecurrent European Union standard.
Many large-scale thermal WtE plants
with proven technologies and highemission controls have recently
been constructed in China. The cityof Ningbo has set emission targets
that are stricter than the European
Union’s Industrial Emissions Directive(2010/75/EU) (Zhan 2018). As thethermal WtE industry has matured
in China, technology is no longer abarrier to keeping dioxin emissions at
a safe level. Continuous monitoringis still necessary, however, especiallyfor small-scale thermal WtE plants, toensure emissions limit compliance.

The Okhla WtE plant is controversial
in India and has caused apublic outcry due to dioxin andfuran problems. The plant wascommissioned in 2012 to replace theprevious failed plant (Table 2.1). In
1987, the old Timarpur plant faced
the problem of low calorific value of
waste (2.5–2.9 MJ/kg), which led tooperational failure and its closure
just 21 days after opening (Shah2011). The new plant, known as the
Okhla plant, was accused of emitting
a large amount of dioxins and furansin the neighbourhood, which posedserious citizen health risks (Planning
Commission 2014). In 2013, residents
filed a public interest litigation in
the Delhi High Court, which waslater transferred to the National
Green Tribunal (Luthra 2017). Afterinspection and monitoring from theDelhi Pollution Control Committee
and the Central Pollution Control
Board, the plant was verified as nonpolluting and complying with India’semission standards. The plant is thus
allowed to continue its operations.
The company was liable to pay
25 lakhs (equivalent to 30,000 Euros)
as environmental compensation fornoncompliance of stack emissions up
to the year 2014.

In 2013, high concentrations of
dioxins and furans were found in
the eggs of chickens that lived near
the Reststoffen Energie Centrale
incinerator, despite the plant being
equipped with advanced emissions
control technologies and stringent
emissions limits of 0.01 ng TEQ/Nm3(Zero Waste Europe 2018b). Dioxin
emissions exceeding the Industrial
Emissions Directive limit were later
discovered during the transient stagesof plant operations, such as during
start-up and cleaning (Zero Waste
Europe 2018b). During cold start-up
operations (i.e. slowly raising thetemperature in the furnace fromroom temperature to combustion
temperature), dioxins can be formed
through de novo synthesis in thetemperature window from 250ºC
to 450ºC when sufficient inorganic
chloride is present. Studies haveconcluded that dioxin and furanemissions are substantially higher intransient stages after a cold start-up
than in stable combustion conditions(Gass et al. 2002; Wilken et al. 2003).
The Reststoffen Energie Centrale caseraises the importance of independent
long-term monitoring for plantemissions, in addition to inclusion ofdioxin monitoring during transient
operating stages.

Table 2.4 Emission standards for thermal WtE plants (Ji et al. 2016; ISWA 2013; Central Pollution Control Board,
Government of India 2016)

Pollutants

UnitBest Available
Techniques AssociatedEmission Levels

Industrial Emissions
Directive 2010/75/EU

China National
Standard
GB18485-2014

India
National
Standard

Particulate matter

mg/m3

1-5

10

30

50

Hydrogen Chloride

mg/m3

1-8

10

60

50

Hydrogen Fluoride

mg/m

3

<1

1

-

4

Sulphur dioxide

mg/m3

1-40

50

100

200

Nitrogen oxides

mg/m3

120-180

200

300

400

Carbon monoxide

mg/m3

1-10

50

100

100

Total organic carbon

mg/m3

5-30

10

-

20

Mercurymg/m30.001-0.02

0.05

0.05

0.05

Cadmium

mg/m3

0.005-0.05

0.05

0.1

0.05

Lead

mg/m3

0.005-0.5

≤0.5

1

0.5

Other heavy metals

mg/m

0.005-0.5≤0.5-

Dioxins and Furansng TEQ/Nm3

0.01-0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

Ammonia

mg/m

<10

N/A

N/A

N/A

Opacity

Ringelmann

n/a

N/A

10%

N/A

3

3

Note: “-“refers to no emission limit. TEQ = Toxic Equivalent
CHAPTER 2 - CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES   332.5 SOCIAL ASPECTS
Public opposition is often a major obstacle for thermal
WtE projects in both developed and developing
countries. Public approval, or “social license”, must be
obtained in order to build a thermal WtE plant. Thissection discusses the main causes of public opposition,
including plant site allocation, the lock-in effect, andpotential trade-offs of the 3Rs for thermal WtE.

1. SITE ALLOCATION
Thermal WtE has had negative publicity due to its
adverse environmental and health impacts. Even thoughsome current thermal WtE plants meet European Union
standards, plant siting often triggers public backlash
due to concerns over irreversible environmental andhealth impacts, and the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY)
phenomenon. A set of key criteria should be followed
when choosing sites for thermal WtE plants that follow
European Union standards (The World Bank 2000).

Thermal WtE plants should be located• Relatively close to a controlled and well-operated landfill
for residue disposal• In medium or heavy industry land-use zones• In industrial areas close to power plants• In proximity to energy distribution networks• In a region where transportation time from the waste
generation area to the plant is minimized

Unlocking incineration from waste management
In the future, increases in recycling and waste
minimization may lead to decreases in available waste
for thermal WtE. This is likely to be the case in regions
such as Europe where waste prevention, reuse andrecycling policies are strong and well enforced. Unlocking
incineration from waste management systems will bea critical challenge in both developing and developed
countries. The risk in developing countries, however,is that thermal WtE plants will undermine attempts
to establish or consolidate waste prevention, reuse,
source separation, recycling, composting and anaerobic
digestion systems. Thermal WtE plants are not flexible
and cannot process a decreasing amount of waste.
Companies that manage them often attempt to force
governments into producing a high volume of waste,or pay heavy fines through put or pay contracts. These
fines, in addition to the high cost of thermal WtE, makeit difficult for governments to implement alternative andmore sustainable waste management systems based on
the higher levels of the waste hierarchy.
To avoid the lock-in effect, countries should carefully
project future waste amounts and enact a long-termplan for sustainable waste management that focuses
on waste prevention, reuse, recycling, composting andanaerobic digestion systems. Countries should avoid
put or pay contracts, as well as long-term contracts thatlock them into decades of burning waste that could havebeen prevented, reused or recycled.
Box 8 Running out of rubbish in Sweden?

2. LOCK-IN EFFECT
The lock-in effect generally refers to a dedicatedinvestment in a thermal WtE project, and therequirement of a fixed amount of waste for incineration
over the plant’s life. The lock-in effect could lead toundermining waste prevention, reuse and recycling
policies and programmes due to lack of funds to develop
those systems, or “put or pay” contracts that mandate
municipalities provide a fixed amount of waste to theincinerator or pay a fine. These conditions pose a risk
to the waste management hierarchy, and can hamper
waste reduction, and in turn dampen the potential boost
that local economies often get through reduction, reuse,recycling and composting. In developed countries witheffective prevention and recycling systems, reduced
amounts of MSW for incineration can lead to thermal
WtE plant overcapacity (Box 8).

Sweden imported net waste of over 1.1 million tonnes for
R1 energy recovery* in 2014 (Figure 2.7). It had a shortageof MSW for incineration at the time due to successful waste
reduction efforts and overcapacity of the WtE plant. At the
Sävenäs WtE plant in Gothenburg, the decision to build a
new boiler line in 2009 resulted in the lock-in of waste forincineration (Corvellec et al 2013). The current reduction in
waste generation in the county has resulted in the Sävenäs
plant not being able to obtain enough waste to reach its
designated capacity. This overcapacity problem was solved
by importing waste from neighbouring countries, suchas Norway, for incineration. Due to the lower gate fee in
Sweden, Norway has an incentive to export waste rather
than burn it in its local plants (Corvellec et al 2013).
*R1 energy recovery refers to thermal WtE plants that comply with
the R1 formula of the European Union Waste Framework Directive
2008/98/EC.

34   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKINGFigure 2.7 Sweden’s waste imports and exports for R1 energy recovery in 2014. Data obtained from Eurostat(in thousand tonnes)
WASTE FLOW

3. THE 3RS TRADE-OFF
Thermal WtE plants require a minimum amount offeedstock for operations. This could potentially divert
waste away from the 3Rs as the feedstock, such as
plastics, paper, cardboard and wood, is often recyclable.
Thermal WtE plants also lack the ability to process a
flexible, decreasing amount of waste.
In many European countries, high recycling rates give theimpression that thermal WtE can complement recycling(Figure 2.8). These figures appear to show that with awell-developed waste sorting system, recyclable wastes
can be separated from the waste stream, leaving only
non-recyclable waste for thermal WtE. However, several
studies have shown that thermal WtE plants burn mostly
recyclable or compostable waste (Zero Waste Europe
2017; GAIA 2013). Figures for current recycling rates
also do not show a heavy reliance on waste exports
for recycling abroad, with no accountability regarding
the final destination of these materials. As a result,domestic recycling investments remain insufficient, andthe job creation potential of recycling remains largely
untapped. The unsustainability of the export model forplastic recycling in particular was exposed when China
and other countries banned or severely restricted plastic
waste imports. The European Commission has recently
emphasized the need for countries to reduce thermal WtE
due to its risk as an “infrastructural barrier” to achieving
higher recycling rates (European Commission 2017).

-1 400-1 200-1 000

-800

-600

-400

Net flow– 1 184.479
-200

0

200

Export– 89.746
400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

Import– 1 274.225

In addition, municipalities are often required to provide
a consistent volume of waste for incineration, which
could impact the livelihoods of informal recyclers.
In developing countries, recycling is mostly done by
informal recyclers, often at no cost to local municipalities(World Bank 2018). Informal recyclers are a vulnerable
demographic that includes women, minorities, migrants,
children and the elderly. Despite this, they are not always
considered stakeholders in thermal WtE projects (WIEGO
2018). Informal recyclers should be engaged in recycling
dialogues and their concerns should be addressed during
thermal WtE planning.
To avoid the potential trade-off of using recyclable waste
for incineration, developing countries should prioritize
the 3Rs when introducing thermal WtE. Legislation to ban
the incineration of recyclable and compostable waste,
or introduction of a fee on the waste that is incinerated
and landfilled, are two possible measures to prevent
waste trade-offs. However, an incineration tax can becounterproductive in countries with a high reliance on
landfills – landfill taxes must be higher than incineration
taxes to conform to the waste management hierarchy.
Providing incentives, such as a container deposit scheme,
is another possible strategy to encourage waste recycling.

CHAPTER 2 - CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES   35Figure 2.8

MSW treatment methods in selected countries4

AUSTRIABELGIUM

DENMARK

59% 2016 38%

54% 2016 44%

48% 2016 51%

FINLANDGERMANYNETHERLANDSSINGAPORE

61%

JAPAN

6%
42% 2016 55%

25%

21%

2016

53% 2016 44%

69% 2015

SWEDENSWITZERLAND

SOUTH KOREA

66%

NORWAY15%
42% 2016 54%

37%

2017

49% 2016 50%

52% 2016 48%

Recycling and composting

Landfill and other disposal

Incineration with energy recovery

Incineration without energy recovery

59%

9%

25%

2015

4 Data from OECD and the World Bank from year 2015 to 2017.
* Singapore figures include industrial waste such as construction and demolition waste, ash and sludge, and scrap tires in the recycling rate calculation. The
domestic waste recycling rate in Singapore is 21 per cent.

36   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING© GillesDelmotte/Getty Images
CHAPTER 2 - CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES   373

© kadmy/Getty Images

Opportunities

3.1 CLIMATE RATIONALE
DOES THERMAL WTE CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING, OR CLIMATE MITIGATION?
Carbon neutrality, in a global sense, means net zero
emissions of anthropogenic CO2 (UNEP 2014). In thecontext of thermal WtE, CO2 released from biomass
combustion is assumed to be offset by the CO2 initiallyabsorbed through photosynthesis. Emission credits forthe use of non-fossil waste as a substitute for fossil fuelare also calculated as part of carbon neutrality.

WtE. The global warming impact of biogenic CO2 during
the regrowth period has been shown to correlatewith the crop rotation cycle (Table 3.1). Biomass witha short rotation length of one to two years, such as
corn, soybean, agricultural residue, and grasses, hasa negligible impact on global warming. However, if
produced from forests with long rotation lengths,
wood and paper waste could significantly impact global
warming. Researchers estimated that biomass with arotational length of 100 years (i.e. boreal forest) has
a comparable global warming potential of direct CO2
emissions over a 20-year period. The climate impact of
CO2 emissions from biomass combustion, in addition
to emissions throughout the biomass life cycle, must
be considered in order to avoid overestimation of theclimate benefits of thermal WtE.

In the 2006 IPCC guidelines, carbon emissions from biogenic
waste are excluded from waste inventories and are insteadunder the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use sectionin order to avoid double-counting. This does not necessarilymean biogenic waste is climate irrelevant, despite
frequently being misinterpreted in this way. Agencies suchas the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States
have recommended that biogenic carbon emissions becounted when assessing emissions from individual waste orenergy facilities (Environmental Protection Agency 2010).

The carbon neutrality assumption is being challenged
by a growing number of experts (Liu et al. 2017;
Cherubini et al. 2011) that have assessed the global
warming potential of biomass-associated combustion.
Researchers have also highlighted that human activity
has profoundly altered the natural carbon cycle in a
way that exacerbates climate change, in particular due
to impacts from the timing of anthropogenic biogenic
carbon emissions (Searchinger et al. 2009; Cherubini etal. 2012; Levasseur et al. 2013; Bellinger and Hogg 2015).
Biomass may take many years to regrow to the point
where it absorbs the biogenic CO2 emitted from thermal
Table 3.1

Depending on the waste composition, direct fossil-origin
CO2 emissions from stacks can range from 250–600 kg
per tonne of incinerated waste (Johnke et al. 2001;
Fellner et al. 2007; Larsen et al. 2013; Fuglsang et al.
2014), which is comparable to CO2 emissions from coal
combustion (International Energy agency bioenergy2013). When biogenic emissions are included, direct
CO2 emissions from the stack are approximately 1,000–
1,100 kg per tonne of waste (UKWIN 2018; Bellinger
and Hogg 2015; International Energy Agency Bioenergy2013). Life cycle assessments that include biogenic
CO2 emissions show that burning MSW results in muchhigher CO2 emissions than burning fossil fuel (Bellinger
and Hogg 2015; UKWIN 2018).

Global warming potential of greenhouse gases emitted from incineration (IPCC AR5 2014; Cherubini et al. 2011)
Global warming potential for a given time-horizon

GHGs

IPCC AR5 (2014)

Carbon dioxide, CO2

Cherubini et al. (2011) FIRF*

20 years

100 years

20 years

100 years

1

1

/

/

#

Methane , CH4

84

28

/

/

Nitrous oxide, N2O

264

265

/

/

Biogenic CO2 (r = 2)
e.g. fast growing crops (such as corns, soybeans, grasses)

/

0.04

0.01

Biogenic CO2 (r = 50) e.g. tropical forest

/

/

0.87

0.21

Biogenic CO2 (r = 100) e.g. boreal forest

/

/

0.96

0.43

/

Note: The thermal WtE process does not emit methane as a waste gas, but small amounts of methane may be emitted from waste secured in a waste bunker.
*FIRF = Full impulse response function. This function considers all possible sinks for the removal of CO2 from biomass combustion, including the terrestrial biosphere,
oceans and on-site biomass regrowth.
r = rotation length (in years)

40   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKINGThermal WtE can reduce greenhouse gas emissions
if it is used as an alternative to open burning,
uncontrolled dumping and sanitary landfills. Thermal
WtE can avoid methane gas emissions from decomposing
organic waste in landfills and prevent environmental
pollution associated with leaching. For each tonne of
MSW incinerated in a thermal WtE plant, the equivalentof 1,010 kg of CO2 can be avoided by diverting waste fromlandfills without methane gas utilization when excluding
biogenic carbon emissions (Figure 3.1). The energy
generated in thermal WtE plants can power households
Figure 3.1

in a region, which reduces reliance on fossil fuel power
generation and the associated emissions.
Thermal WtE is sometimes considered a climate
mitigation measure because the biogenic waste in MSW
is treated as carbon-neutral, and emission credits canbe earned through fossil fuel substitution. However,the neutrality of biogenic carbon is questionable, as
illustrated above, while the fossil fuel substitution
decreases as energy policies worldwide move towards
renewable energy options.

CO2 savings from thermal WtE

MSW INCINERATION(600 kg fossil and 500 kg biogenic)

600 kWhe

1
tonne
MSW

1 100 kg CO2

LANDFILL
without gas utilisation

Net reduction in

1 610 kg CO2= 600 − 1610 = − 1010 kg

3.2 WTE IN SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES
Waste management is a big challenge for small island
developing States due to the limited availability of land
for landfills. Thermal WtE may appear to be a good
opportunity for small island developing States to build aself-sustainable waste management system with energy
recovery. However, in addition to the common challenges
faced by developing countries, these countries faceother unique challenges due to island characteristics andenvironment (UNEP 2019).

the release of dioxins, furans, mercury and otherhazardous chemicals (Jones 2010) (Box 9). Bottom
ash could alternatively be utilized as a material forroad construction, which has been widely appliedin European countries, including Denmark, France,
Germany and the Netherlands (ISWA 2015). In
addition, tourism and natural disasters may lead toa sudden surge in waste quantity, and therefore an
appropriate storage system might be required.

Many small island developing States are vulnerable
to extreme weather events or natural disasters. As
most islands are low-lying and located along the
track of tropical storms, the operational risks ofthermal WtE plants, including the safe disposal ofincineration residues, are high. The direct disposalof incineration residues inland may contaminate
freshwater sources. In Bermuda, bottom ashes fromthermal WtE are disposed offshore and utilized as
artificial reef and reclamation materials. This practice,
however, has caused a halo of contamination
around nearby sediment and coral reefs withAt present, there are three small island countries
with thermal WtE plants: Bermuda, Martinique, andSaint Barthélemy. These islands are all French andBritish overseas territories and benefit from financial,political and institutional ties with the United Kingdom
and France (Arden and Allan 1995; Fielding 2014).
A growing number of small island developing States,
such as Jamaica, Mauritius and the Maldives, arenow considering thermal WtE as part of their waste
management systems, although not without resistancefrom local communities, particularly in Mauritius(Rootes et al. 2009; Mediaterre 2009; Rodriguez 2011;
CHAPTER 2 - CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES   41Lorson and Karsdarli 2015). The regionalized waste
management approach in the Maldives is a goodreference for other small island developing states when
considering the incorporation of thermal WtE (Box 11).

Box 9 Bottom ash recycling in Bermuda
Bottom ash is made up of 80–85 per cent minerals, with the remaining 15–20 per cent ferrous and non-ferrous metals (CEWEP2019). After the ferrous and non-ferrous metals are extracted, the residual ashes are often disposed of in landfills. To minimize
final disposal of waste in Bermuda, residual ashes are further utilized for land reclamation and constructing artificial reefs.
Bottom ash is used as a substitute raw material for clay to produce ash concrete blocks. As part of the Bermuda’s artificial reef
programme in 1991, ash concrete blocks are disposed offshore to form an artificial reef (Arden and Allan 1995). The artificial
reefs were colonized by a diversity of animals including sponges, tunicate and corals. At present, the bottom ashes from thethermal WtE plant are disposed in an offshore reclamation site (Jones 2010). Yet, research has shown that the ash has created ahalo of contamination around nearby sediment and coral reefs with the release of dioxins, furans, mercury and other hazardous
chemicals (Jones 2010).

Box 10 Waste management in Sardinia
The story of waste reduction on the Italian Island of Sardinia is a prescriptive case study for small island States. In 2003, only
3.8 per cent of the waste generated in Sardinia was collected separately, with the majority of the remaining waste sent tolandfills or incinerated. Since 2003, however, the island has been implementing measures to reduce waste, including compulsory
separate waste collection standards, increased landfill taxes, promotion of door-to-door collection schemes and the introductionof a bonus/malus system for municipalities to incentivise progress in waste management. As a result, separate collection rates
increased to 56 per cent by 2016 and waste generation per capita decreased from 520 kg per inhabitant in 2013 to 443 kg per
inhabitant in 2016. This progress has reduced demand for disposal and incineration facilities (Zero Waste Europe 2018c).

Box 11 A waste solution in the Maldives
The Maldives is one of several small island developing States incorporating thermal WtE
into its waste management system. As the predominant waste treatment method in theMaldives, open burning has caused pollution and health issues.  Uncontrolled disposalof solid waste, including foreshore dumping and open burning, is estimated to accountfor 15 per cent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions (Ministry of Environment,
Republic of Maldives 2019). To manage this waste problem, a regionalized waste
management system was introduced by dividing the country into seven regional zones,
with each containing one regional facility for material and energy recovery (Figure 3.2)
(Amir 2018). This waste management project is partly funded by The World Bank, AsianDevelopment Bank and the Maldives Government.

Figure 3.2 Regional waste
management systemin the Maldives

An island waste management centre with composting facilities and a waste storage
area was planned for construction on each inhabited island. The waste collected at theisland centres will be transported to the regional centre in each zone for recycling andincineration. At present, one incinerator has been constructed on Vandhoo (Zone 2),an uninhabited island. The heat energy from incineration on Vandhoo is currently
not utilized, but future plans call for industrial use (Lorson and Karsdarli 2015). The
other zones are under ongoing development, with three more WtE plants planned at
Kulhudhuffushi, Thilafushi and Addu city (Amir 2018; Lorson and Karsdarli 2015). Thisregionalized waste management system is a good reference for other small island
developing States.

Credit: Christiane Marwecki

Open burning of waste in the Maldives.
Credit: Premakumara, IGES-CCET.

42   WASTE-TO-ENERGY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING© Cylonphoto/Getty Images
CHAPTER 2 - CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES   43

4

© Cylonphoto/Getty Images

Keyconsiderations

To establish an integrated waste management framework
in developing countries, waste prevention and the
3Rs should always be the top priorities, unless life
cycle thinking justifies diversion from this hierarchy. The
3Rs have the potential to reduce waste disposal whilebuilding local economies through providing green jobs andformalizing the work of informal recyclers. A thermal WtE
plant has less climate impact than landfills and opening
burning, but the fraction of biogenic carbon emissions
has to be considered when evaluating the plant’s overall

climate change impact. Many of the technical, economic,
social, environmental and legal challenges in relation tothermal WtE have yet to be overcome.
Before making a political decision to implement thermal
WtE, it is necessary to first evaluate all the physical andstrategic aspects and challenges in a life cycle thinking
approach. The major considerations detailed in thischapter should be carefully assessed during the projectplanning phase to determine if thermal WtE is anappropriate waste management option for municipalities.

4.1 CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIESThe implementation of a thermal WtE project involves
various stages, from planning, preparation andconstruction to operation and decommission. This section
draws on the experiences of thermal WtE projects in bothdeveloped and developing countries, as discussed inprevious chapters, to present major considerations for thethermal WtE planning stage. Figure 4.1 incorporates boththe physical components and governance aspects of theIntegrated Sustainable Waste Management framework into
four major considerations. For the project planning phase,the timeline follows Figure 4.1, starting with (1) preliminary
considerations, followed by (2) technical considerations,and lastly the parallel examination of (3) enabling
conditions and (4) stakeholder consultation.

Figure 4.1 Implementation timeline of the four major
considerations for the Integrated Sustainable Waste
Management framework

1.

1
PRELIMINARYCONSIDERATIONSASSESSMENT OF WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT LEVEL2TECHNICALCONSIDERATIONSLOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE:TECHNOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

34

ENABLING
CONDITIONSSTAKEHOLDERCONSULTATIONSOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL,LEGAL AND FINANCIALCONSIDERATIONSALL ASSOCIATED STAKEHOLDERSINCLUDING AUTHORITIES,COMMUNITIES, WASTE
AND ENERGY SECTORS

46   Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

Waste characterization is the first important step inpreliminary considerations of thermal WtE. A wasteassessment survey of the region should be carried out toevaluate waste characteristics and trends and make future
projections. Necessary waste data to collect includes waste
composition, calorific value, quantity, collection coverage,
recycling rate, recovery rate and landfill disposal rate. In
addition, factors that may affect future waste quantity
should also be assessed. These include population, intercity
and transboundary waste flow, waste from the tourism
industry, and waste from natural disasters. If waste will
be imported from other cities or municipalities, a wasteassessment survey of these cities or municipalities should
also be carried out in order to better evaluate potential
impacts on waste composition and calorific value.
The next step is an assessment of the overall waste
management performance of the city or municipality using
the data obtained from the waste survey as benchmark
indicators. A waste management assessment tool, such as
the “Wasteaware” Integrated Sustainable Waste Management
benchmark indicators, can be used as a diagnostic for thecity or municipality to determine the performance of its MSW
management system. Wasteaware is applicable to cities in high,middle and low-income countries, and has been applied tomore than 50 cities on six continents. The Wasteaware indicator
set follows the Integrated Sustainable Waste Management
framework (Figure 1.4). It combines well-establishedquantitative indicators for waste generation and composition as
well as qualitative composite indicators for three main physicalcomponents: waste collection, waste treatment and disposal,
and the 3Rs, and three governance aspects: stakeholder
inclusivity, financial sustainability and legislative framework.

To implement thermal WtE, a city or municipality’s waste characteristics and management level should meetthe following preliminary requirements (GIZ 2017; ISWA 2013):• Waste characteristics–– MSW should be sorted, with no or only small fractions of minerals and hazardous wastes–– The average lower calorific value of waste should be at least 7 MJ/kg, and never below 6 MJ/kg–– MSW quantity should be over 100,000 tonnes per year
• Waste management level–– Systematic waste collection and transportation exist–– MSW is disposed in well-controlled landfills–– A collection fee system exists and citizens pay for it–– A comprehensive legal framework addressing WtE is available–– Waste prevention measures are being implemented, MSW dry recyclables and organic waste (both yard and foodwaste) are separated at the source and are separately collected, and there are robust recycling and composting(or anaerobic digestion) systems in place–– High recycling and composting (or anaerobic digestion) rates

2.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

If the above preliminary requirements are fulfilled, thecity or municipality can move on to the technical or
infrastructure considerations of thermal WtE. City ormunicipality infrastructure and conditions must be
carefully considered, including:• Availability of a controlled landfill close to the thermal
WtE plant for flue gas cleaning residue disposal• Market availability and disposal options for thermal
WtE residue• A mature and efficient waste collection andtransportation system to transport waste to thethermal WtE plant• The type(s) of energy (i.e. electricity, heat, fuel) to begenerated, and the demand of, and access to, energy
products produced for local end users• Local capacity to monitor emissions and conduct andanalyse emission tests for POPs and other pollutants
Cities or municipalities should consult experts or
the private sector to carry out an assessment of all
potential WtE technologies based on the overall
waste management performance and local conditions.
Consultants or private companies with previous WtE
project experience in developing countries are highly
preferred. In developing countries, where the organic
waste fraction is large, alternative WtE technologies
such as anaerobic digestion could be more effective
than thermal WtE for treating waste. Other WtE options
should always be assessed.
To minimize incineration and the final disposal ofwaste at landfills, strategies that maximize the reuse,recycling and composting of materials intended forthermal WtE should be proposed. Examples of thesestrategies include development of waste sorting facilities

to extract material for recycling before it is sent for
waste incineration, and utilizing incineration residues forroad construction or reclamation materials. Otherwise,
thermal WtE introduction could derail the waste
management hierarchy, due to the lock-in effect thatmay divert waste from the 3Rs.

3.

ENABLING CONDITIONS

A life cycle assessment that includes a cost benefit
analysis of thermal WtE and other potential WtEtechnologies should be carried out to compare
these technologies’ costs. The social, economic, andenvironmental impacts and co-benefits of a WtE plant
throughout its life cycle should be considered. Site
location should also be carefully assessed. In addition,
GHG emissions should be comprehensively assessed.
The assessment should include all direct emissions at
the stack level, including biogenic carbon emissions, aswell as indirect emissions from burned materials that
could have been reused or recycled. The amount andtoxicity of flue gas and waste residues should also be
carefully examined. WtE technologies generate waste
gases and residues that can potentially cause air,water and soil pollution. The Sustainable Assessmentof Technologies (SAT) Methodology developed by
UNEP-IETC (UNEP 2012) is a technical assessmentthat can be used to analyze such social, economicand environmental impacts of thermal WtE. Thismethodology can help to identify the best possible
technology option, as well as the potential impact of the
proposed technology intervention on the environment,
the implications for sustainable development, and thecultural and socio-economic consequences.

Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making   47A comprehensive legal framework that is in place
before the implementation of WtE technologies is also
necessary. The decision to build a thermal WtE plant thathas a minimum lifespan of 20 years would affect the cityor municipality’s long-term waste management planning.
The city or municipality should review and address
the presiding legal framework before introducing
thermal WtE. The following are some important legal
considerations that should be addressed:• Emissions standards laws relating to thermal WtE
plant flue gas and residue waste disposal should be
enforced and meet strict international standards• Thermal WtE monitoring and regulatory compliancelaws should be enforced• A plant decommissioning law should be enforced• To prevent plant overcapacity, thermal WtE should
be integrated into the national waste management
strategy

Thermal WtE plant long-term operations costs can be
partly covered by direct or indirect revenues, including:• Direct waste fees imposed on citizens• A plant gate fee• Higher landfill tipping fees
• The sale of electricity, heat or residues produced by
the plant

A financial model for the life cycle of the thermal WtE
plant that includes the planning, commission, operations
and decommission stages is needed for making relevant
financial decisions related to raising capital, budgeting,and forecasting. The model should analyse all possible
costs and revenues, in addition to waste pretreatment
and transportation costs. Cities or municipalities should
be careful not to lower technical and emission standards
in order to lower costs.

Stakeholder acceptance is crucial to implementationof a thermal WtE project. A stakeholder mapping
and analysis of the potentially affected groups andcommunities must be carried out so that specificinitiatives or compensatory strategies can be launched.
The stakeholders may include (ISWA 2013):• Authorities: Local governments, planning authorities,
environmental authorities, health authorities andtraffic authorities• Community: Local citizens, non-governmental
environmental organizations, community groups andlocal scavengers• The waste sector: Waste generators, the waste
recycling industry, the waste collecting industry andlandfill operators• Energy sector: Power producers, power distribution
companies, district heating companies and power/
energy users

A thermal WtE plant is a large investment for developing
countries. As discussed in chapter 2, long-term financial
resources are necessary for sustainable plant operation.
Initial investment costs can be covered by public or
private funding bodies. These investments can include:• Government subsidies• International funds• Investments from the private sector through privatepublic partnerships• Tax/fiscal incentives

Apart from financial resources, access to foreign
currency is another necessary requirement. Access willallow plants to acquire spare parts and skilled maintenanceworkers for operations. A thermal WtE project should
not be initiated in a country if its key technology must be
imported and there is no access, or a delay in access, topurchases in foreign currency (GIZ 2017).

4. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

Depending on local conditions, additional stakeholders
may be identified.
Opposition from local citizens and non-governmental
environmental organizations should be expected due tothe potential health and environmental impacts. Cities
or municipalities should complete an evidence-based
feasibility study on thermal WtE that includes a life cycle
assessment, cost benefit analysis and environmental
impact assessment in order to keep the public informedof planning progress and encourage it to support policy
decisions. Municipalities can foster communication withstakeholders and the public through open consultations
and dialogues.

48   Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making

4.2 CHECKLIST FOR DECISION MAKERS
Waste data and characteristics

Legal aspects

Does the waste quality and quantity meet thermal
WtE requirements?

Does a comprehensive legal framework exist
for all planned WtE technologies?

Do seasonal waste variations and transboundary
waste flow affect future waste projections?

Is there a decommission plan or decommission
regulations in place for the thermal WtE plant?

Is the MSW sorted at the source in the environsof the city or municipality, for both households
and commerce?
What percentage of the waste sent for disposal
is recyclable or compostable?
Are source recyclables and organics collected
separately and sent to recycling and composting
facilities?
Infrastructure
Does systematic waste collection and transportation
exist?
Is a controlled landfill available for safe disposalof thermal WtE residues?
Environmental aspects
Do emission standards for thermal WtE follow
international standards?
Are compensatory strategies available to mitigate
environmental impacts?
Is there installed capacity to regularly monitor
emissions, including for persistent organic pollutants?
What are the occupational health risks for workers
and how can they be mitigated in everyday operations
and in case of serious accidents?
Economic aspects
Is the energy produced accessible to local users and/or available for sale in the market?

Social aspects
Can the working conditions of informal recyclers
be improved?
Are compensatory strategies available to mitigatesocial impacts?
Are all relevant stakeholders being considered andconsulted?
Risk assessment
What are the flooding and tsunami risks, and what
would the environmental and health impacts be if
the plant was flooded?
What is the hurricane or cyclone risk, and whatenvironmental and health impacts would result if
the plant was damaged by a hurricane or cyclone?
What is the seismic risk, and what environmental
and health impacts would result if the plant was
damaged by an earthquake?
What is the elevation of the site, and whatenvironmental and health impacts would result
if the site was affected by rising sea levels?
Alternatives
Are there alternative WtE technologies that better
suit the local conditions?
Is thermal WtE, including biogenic CO2 emissions,a good option in the local context according to
the life cycle assessment?

Is there an available market for thermal WtE residues?

Is there a way to improve rates of recycling
and composting?

Have long-term financial sources been secured?

Are there waste prevention policies in place?

Is there access to foreign currency?

Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making   49References
Chapter 1
1. Beyene, H. D., Werkneh, A. A., and Ambaye, T. G. (2018).
Current Updates on Waste to Energy Technologies:
A Review. Renewable Energy Focus, 24, 1-11.
2. European Environment Agency (2016). The Circular
Economy in Europe. https://www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/circular-economy-in-europe/at_download/file.
3. Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2013). Towards the Circular
Economy.
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/
downloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthur-FoundationTowards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf.
4. European Commission (2017). The Role of Waste-toEnergy in the Circular Economy.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/waste-toenergy.pdf.
5. Gumisiriza, R., Hawumba, J. F., Okure, M., and Hensel,
O. (2017). Biomass Waste-to-energy Valorisation
Technologies: A Review Case for Banana Processing in
Uganda. Biotechnology for biofuels, 10(1), 11.
6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/
public/2006gl/vol5.
7. International Renewable Energy Agency (2018).
Renewable Energy Statistics 2018.
http://www.irena.org/publications/2018/Jul/RenewableEnergy-Statistics-2018.
8. Japan Plastics Industry Federation (2019). Statistics.
http://www.jpif.gr.jp/english/statistics/index.html
9. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan(2014). History and Current State of Waste Managementin Japan. https://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/smcs/attach/hcswm.pdf.
10. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan(2019). Waste statistics. http://www.env.go.jp/recycle/
waste_tech/.
11. Moya, D., Aldás, C., Jaramillo, D., Játiva, E., andKaparaju, P. (2017). Waste-To-Energy Technologies:
An Opportunity of Energy Recovery from Municipal
Solid Waste, using Quito-Ecuador as Case Study.
Energy Procedia, 134, 327-336.
12. Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (2019). https://data.oecd.org/waste/municipal-waste.htm.
50   Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making

13. Ouda, O.M.K. and Raza, S.A. (2014). Waste-to-Energy:
Solutions for Municipal Solid Waste Challenges- Global
Perspective. https://www.pmu.edu.sa/kcfinder/upload/
files/indonisa-conference-omar%20ouda.pdf.
14. Schmidt Hammer Lassen (2019).
http://www.shl.dk/shenzhen-east-waste-to-energyplant/.
15. United Kingdom without Incineration Network (2018).
The circular Economy and Resource Productivity.
http://ukwin.org.uk/btb/BtB_Circular_Economy_
Briefing.pdf.
16. United Nations Environment Programme (2015). Global
Waste Management Outlook.
https://www.uncclearn.org/sites/default/files/inventory/
unep23092015.pdf.
17. United Nations Environment Programme (2018).
Single-use Plastics: A Roadmap for Sustainability. https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/single-useplastics-roadmap-sustainability.
18. United Arab Emirates Government (2019). Waste-toEnergy. https://government.ae/en/information-andservices/environment-and-energy/water-and-energy/
energy-/waste-to-energy-.
19. United Nations Statistics Division (2019).
https://unstats.un.org/home/.
20. World Bank (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global
Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
bitstream/handle/10986/30317/9781464813290.
pdf?sequence=12&isAllowed=y.
21. World Energy Council (2016a). World Energy Resources
Waste to Energy 2016. https://www.worldenergy.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Waste_to_
Energy_2016.pdf.
22. World Energy Council (2016b). World Energy Resources
2016. https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/10/World-Energy-Resources-Fullreport-2016.10.03.pdf.
23. Zero Waste Europe (2018a). The Environment Committee
votes to cut funding for incineration.
https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2018/10/envi-committeecut-incineration-funding/.

Chapter 2
1. Addisfortune News (2019). Contentious Waste-to-Energy
Power Plant to Resume Operations.
https://addisfortune.news/contentious-waste-powerplant-to-resume-operations.
2. Central Pollution Control Board, Government of India(2016). Solid Waste Management Rules.
http://cpcb.nic.in/displaypdf.
php?id=aHdtZC9TV01fMjAxNi5wZGY=.

13. International Solid Waste Association (2013). ISWA
Guidelines: Waste to Energy in Low and Middle Income
Countries. http://www.waste.ccacoalition.org/
document/iswa-guidelines-waste-energy-low-andmiddle-income-countries.
14. Ji, L., Lu, S., Yang, J., Du, C., Chen, Z., Buekens, A., andYan, J. (2016). Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in
China and the Issue of Acidification: A Review. Waste
Management and Research, 34(4), 280-297.

3. Chi, Y. (2017). Waste-to-Energy in China. Expert Group
Meeting on Sustainable Application of Waste-to-Energy
in Asian Region 22-23 February 2017, Busan, Korea.

15. Luthra, A. (2017). Waste-to-Energy and Recycling,
Competing Systems of Waste Management in Urban India.
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/waste%20to%20energy_0.pdf.

4. Corvellec, H., Campos, M. J. Z., and Zapata, P. (2013).
Infrastructures, Lock-in, and Sustainable Urban
Development: The Case of Waste Incineration in
the Göteborg Metropolitan Area. Journal of cleaner
production, 50, 32-39.

16. Mukherjee, A., Debnath, B., & Ghosh, S. K. (2016).
A Review on Technologies of Removal of Dioxins
and Furans from Incinerator Flue Gas. Procedia
Environmental Sciences, 35, 528-540.

5. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (2017). Waste-to-Energy
Options in Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Guidefor Decision Makers in Developing and Emerging Countries.
https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/GIZ_WasteToEnergy_
Guidelines_2017.pdf.
6. Environment Protection Department, Governmentof Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2019).
Integrated Waste Management Facilities.
https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/
waste/prob_solutions/WFdev_IWMF.html.

17. Neubacher, F.P. (2010). Waste-to-Energy in Austria.
Aberdeen Exhibition & Conference Center, Scotland.
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/franzneubacher-WTE-Austria.pdf.
18. Ni, Y., Zhang, H., Fan, S., Zhang, X., Zhang, Q., andChen, J. (2009). Emissions of PCDD/Fs from Municipal
Solid Waste Incinerators in China. Chemosphere, 75,1153–1158.

7. European Commission (2017). The Role of Waste-toenergy in the Circular Economy. http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/waste/waste-to-energy.pdf.

19. Petrlik, J. (2015). Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in
Chicken Eggs from Hot Spots in China. Arnika Research.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jindrich_Petrlik2/
publication/315045221_Persistent_Organic_Pollutants_
POPs_in_Chicken_Eggs_from_Hot_Spots_in_China/
links/58c8ce26aca2723ab17be4f8/Persistent-OrganicPollutants-POPs-in-Chicken-Eggs-from-Hot-Spots-in-Chi.

8. European Commission (2018). Best Available Techniques(BAT) Reference Document for Waste Incineration.
http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/WI/
WI_BREF_FD_Black_Watermark.pdf.

20. Planning Commission, India (2014). Report of the Task
Force on Waste to Energy (Volume I).
http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/
rep_wte1205.pdf.

9. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (2013). Waste
Incinerators: Bad News for Recycling and Waste Reduction.
http://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/BadNews-for-Recycling-Final.pdf.

21. Public Interest Consultants, Wales, UK. (2007). Responseto the Consultation on a National Policy Development
Process for High Temperature Thermal Waste Treatment.
http://sawic.environment.gov.za/documents/464.pdf.

10. Gass, H. C., Luder, K., & Wilken, M. (2002). PCDD/Femissions during cold start-up and shut-downof a municipal waste incinerator. Organohalogen
compounds, 56, 193-196.

22. Regional Directorate (central) Central Pollution Control
Board Bhopal (2016). Municipal Solid Waste to Energy
Power Plant at Jabalpur. http://125.19.52.219/annual/
upload/1501153069.pdf.

11. Haghi, E. (2015). Techno-economic Assessment ofMunicipal Solid Waste Incineration Plant - Case Study of
Tehran, Iran. https://wteinternational.com/wp-content/
uploads/2015/09/Techno-economic-assessment-ofmunicipal-solid-waste-incineration-plant-case-study-ofTehran-Iran-1.pdf.

23. Shah, D. (2011). Delhi’s Obsession with “Waste-to-energy”
Incinerators: The Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy
Venture. http://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/
Timarpur.pdf.

12. IPEN (2015). After incineration: the toxic ash problem.
https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/After_
incineration_the_toxic_ash_problem_2015.pdf.

24. Stockholm Convention (2017). Dioxins and furans:
highlights of the effectiveness evaluation 2017.
http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/download.aspx?d=UNEPPOPS-EE-Outcomes-PCDD-PCDF-2017.English.pdf.

Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making   51

25. The People’s Republic of China (2007). National
Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants.
http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/download.aspx?d=UNEPPOPS-NIP-China-1.English.pdf.
26. United Nations Environment Programme (2005).
Solid Waste Management.
https://www.eawag.ch/fileadmin/Domain1/
Abteilungen/sandec/E-Learning/Moocs/Solid_Waste/
W2/Solid_waste_management_UNEP_2005.pdf.
27. United Nations Environment Programme (2015).
Global Waste Management Outlook.
http://web.unep.org/ourplanet/september-2015/uneppublications/global-waste-management-outlook.
28. United Nations Environment Programme (2017).
Ethiopia’s waste-to-energy plant is a first in Africa.
https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/
story/ethiopias-waste-energy-plant-first-africa.
29. Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing &Organizing (WIEGO, 2018). Threat of A New Waste
Incinerator in Mexico City Puts Informal Waste Pickers’
Livelihoods at Risk.
http://www.wiego.org/blog/threat-new-wasteincinerator-mexico-city-puts-informal-waste-pickerslivelihoods-risk.
30. World Bank (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global
Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
bitstream/handle/10986/30317/9781464813290.
pdf?sequence=12&isAllowed=y.
31. Wilken, M., Dehoust, G., Marsch, F. (2003). Start-up of
Hazardous Waste Incinerator-impact on the PCDD/FEmission. Organohalogen compounds, 63, 29-32.
32. World Bank (2000). Municipal Solid Waste Incineration.
A Decision Maker’s Guide. http://siteresources.worldbank.
org/INTUSWM/Resources/463617-1202332338898/
incineration-dmg.pdf.
33. World Energy Council (2016a). World Energy Resources
Waste to Energy 2016. https://www.worldenergy.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Waste_to_
Energy_2016.pdf.
34. World Health Organization (2016). Dioxins and theireffects on human health. https://www.who.int/newsroom/fact-sheets/detail/dioxins-and-their-effects-onhuman-health.
35. Zero Waste Europe (2017). “Deliver or pay”, or how waste
incineration causes recycling to slow down.
https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2017/10/deliver-paywaste-incineration-causes-recycling-slow/.
36. Zero Waste Europe (2018b). Hidden Emissions: A Storyfrom the Netherlands. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/
downloads/hidden-emissions-a-story-from-thenetherlands/.

52   Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making

37. Zhan, L. (2018). Development and Experience in China’s
WtE industry. ISWA World Congress 2018, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
38. Zhang, D., Huang, G., Xu, Y., and Gong, Q. (2015). Wasteto-energy in China: Key Challenges and Opportunities.
Energies, 8 (12), 14182-14196.
39. Zhao, C. (2017). Evaluation of municipal waste
incinerators (MWI) site selection based on full costaccounting using GIS tools: a case study in Beijing, China.
https://download.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/
mseee-17/25882237.

Chapter 3
1. Amir, A. (2018). Waste Management in the Maldives.
From Waste Management to Resource Management– Moving from Theory to Practice. International Forumfor Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP) 2018.
https://www.iges.or.jp/isap/2018/en/day1/tt1/index.
html.
2. Arden, D. J., and Allan, N. D. (1996). Bermuda Tynes Bay
Waste-To-Energy Facility. In Proceedings of the Institutionof Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering. 114(1), 2-11.
3. Bellinger, A. and Hogg, D. (2015). The Potential
Contribution of Waste Management to a Low Carbon
Economy. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/downloads/thepotential-contribution-of-waste-management-to-a-lowcarbon-economy/.
4. Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants(2019). Bottom ash fact sheet.
http://www.cewep.eu/2017/09/08/bottom-ashfactsheet/.
5. Cherubini, F., Guest, G. and Strømman, A. H. (2012).
Application of probability distributions to the modelingof biogenic CO2 fluxes in life cycle assessment.
Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 4.
6. Cherubini, F., Peters, G. P., Berntsen, T., Strømman,A. H. and Hertwich, E. (2011). CO2 Emissions from
Biomass Combustion for Bioenergy: Atmospheric
Decay and Contribution to Global Warming. Global
Change Biology Bioenergy. 3(5), 413–426.
7. Environmental Protection Agency, USA (2010).
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-06-03/
pdf/2010-11974.pdf#page=1.
8. Fellner, J., Cencic, O. and Rechberger, H. (2007).
A New Method to Determine the Ratio of Electricity
Production from Fossil and Biogenic Sources in
Waste-to-energy Plants. Environmental Science andTechnology, 41, 2579-2586.
9. Fielding, R. (2014). “The Good Garbage”: Waste to Waterin the Small Island Environment of St. Barthélemy.
Focus on Geography, 57(1), 1-13.

10. Fuglsang, K., Pedersen, N. H., Larsen, A. W., and Astrup,
T. F. (2014). Long-term Sampling of CO2 from Wasteto-energy Plants: 14C Determination Methodology,
Data Variation and Uncertainty. Waste Management andResearch, 32, 115-123.
11. International Energy Agency Bioenergy (2013).
Municipal Solid Waste and its Role in Sustainability. http://
www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/
IEA-Bioenergy-Update-11-MSW-Position-Paper.pdf.
12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2006).
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.
html.
13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014). Fifth
Assessment Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/.
14. International Solid Waste Association (2015). Bottom Ash
From WtE Plants Metal Recovery And Utilization. https://www.iswa.org/index.php?eID=tx_iswaknowledgebase_download&documentUid=4592.
15. Johnke, B. (2001). Emissions from Waste Incineration.
IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty
Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5_3_
Waste_Incineration.pdf.
16. Jones, R. (2010). Environmental contamination
associated with a marine landfill (‘seafill’) beside a coral
reef. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(11).
17. Larsen, A.W., Fuglsang, K., Pedersen, N.H., Fellner, J.,
Rechberger, H. and Astrup, T.F. (2013). Biogenic Carbon
in Combustible Waste: Waste Composition, Variability
and Measurement Uncertainty. Waste Management andResearch, 31, 56-66.
18. Levasseur, A., Lesage, P., Margni, M. and Samson,
R. (2012). Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage
Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment. Journalof Industrial Ecology, 17.
19. Liu, W., Zhang, Z., Xie, X., Yu, Z., Von Gadow, K., Xu, J.,
Zhao, S. and Yang, Y. (2017). Analysis of the Global
Warming Potential of Biogenic CO2 Emission in Life
Cycle Assessments. Scientific Reports, 7, 39857.
20. Lorson, H. and Karsdarli, C. (2015). Decentralised Waste
Incineration Plant R. Vandhoo in the North of the Maldives:
Project Experience, Energy Use and First Operation Results.
https://www.ask-eu.net/Artikel/27669/DecentralisedWaste-Incineration-Plant-RVandhoo-in-the-North-ofthe-Maldives---Project-Experience-Energy-Use-andFirst-Operation-Results--.htm.
21. Mediaterre. (2009). “Maurice Île Durable : l’Incinérateur
en question”. https://www.mediaterre.org/ocean-indien/actu,20090618083955.html.

23. Rodriguez, M.E.D.B. (2011). Cost-benefit Analysis ofa Waste to Energy Plant for Montevideo; and Waste to
Energy in Small Islands. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/
earth/wtert/sofos/Rodriguez_thesis.pdf.
24. Rootes, C., Leonard, L. J. (2009). Environmental
movements and campaigns against waste
infrastructure in the United States. Environmental
Politics, 18(6). 835-850.
25. Searchinger, T. D., Hamburg, S. P., Melillo, J.,
Chameides, W., Havlik, P., Kammen, D. M. andRobertson, G. P. (2009). Fixing a critical climate
accounting error. Science, 326(5952), 527-528.
26. United Kingdom without Incineration Network (2018).
Evaluation of the climate change impacts of waste
incineration in the United Kingdom. http://ukwin.org.uk/
files/pdf/UKWIN-2018-Incineration-Climate-ChangeReport.pdf.
27. United Nations Environment Programme (2014). The
Emissions Gap Report 2014.
https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissionsgap-report-2014.
28. United Nations Environment Programme (2019) SIDS
Waste Management Outlook.
https://www.unenvironment.org/ietc/publication/sidswaste-management-outlook.
29. Zero Waste Europe (2018c). Case Study 10: The Story ofSardinia. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/downloads/casestudy-10-the-story-of-sardinia/.

Chapter 4
1. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (2017). Waste-to-Energy
Options in Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Guidefor Decision Makers in Developing and Emerging Countries.
https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/GIZ_WasteToEnergy_
Guidelines_2017.pdf.
2. International Solid Waste Association (2013). ISWA
Guidelines: Waste to Energy in Low and Middle Income
Countries. http://www.waste.ccacoalition.org/
document/iswa-guidelines-waste-energy-low-andmiddle-income-countries.
3. United Nations Environment Programme (2012).
Application of the Sustainable Assessment of Technologies
Methodology: Guidance Manual. https://wedocs.unep.
org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8649/IETC_SAT_
Manual_Nov_2012.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y.
4. United Nations Environment Programme (2015). Global
Waste Management Outlook. http://web.unep.org/
ourplanet/september-2015/unep-publications/globalwaste-management-outlook

22. Ministry of Environment, Republic of Maldives (2019).
A Regional Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan
for Zone 6 & 7.

Waste-to-Energy: Considerations for Informed Decision-making   53WASTE TO ENERGYCONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGY CENTRE (IETC)
United Nations Environment Programme
2-110, Ryokuchi koen, Tsurumi-ku,
Osaka, 538-0036, JapanTel:+81 6 6915 4581
E-mail: ietc@unep.org
Web:
www.unep.org/ietc