part ii title sheet
Post on 26-May-2022
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Part II
Survey Results of Phase II
1. Existing Water Quality Analysis Data 2. Result of Solid Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II) 3. Result of Time and Motion Survey 4. Result of Market Survey on Recyclable Waste 5. Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM 6. Flood Analysis and Study
1. Existing Water Quality Analysis Data
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Existing Water Quality Analysis Data
1 - 1 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
1. EXISTING WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS DATA
Various water quality studies were conducted in the Kathmandu Valley especially on Bagmati River and its tributaries, and these studies extend from the periodical/ continuous base monitoring to spot base surveys for specific themes such as thesis and research works.
Among the existing studies of water quality for Bagmati River system, summarized results of the periodical monitoring and spot survey covering widely river system are shown in Tables A.8-1 to 6 focusing on BOD as typical indicator of water pollution. The topics implied form the tables are enumerated below, although some data are considered to be less reliable.
- The water quality of the river system is in general polluted except the samples taken at uppermost locations. The water quality is highly polluted in urban area especially within the Ring Road.
- It can be understood that the water quality in wet season is better due to dilution effect than that in dry season, although some data do not indicate this situation.
- The water quality had been already worse and polluted before closure of Gokarna LFS (2000) and commencement of river dumping according to the existing data. This implies that the domestic and/or industrial waste water are bigger contributors rather than the waste dumping.
Table 1-1 Analysis of Bagmati River Water (BOD) (1993-1998) Unit: mg/L
1996Feb Mar May June Aug Nov Feb May Sep Feb May Sep Sep Mar Aug Dec June Dec
1 Sundarijal 4.5 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.5 2.4 1.1 1.1 - 3.1 7.2 4.8 - 13.2 - 7.2 - 6.32 Gokarna 2.4 1.2 3.0 4.8 4.5 3.4 3.9 5.4 - 7.5 120.0 3.6 - 120.0 - 7.8 - 33.03 Jorpati 8.0 6.9 3.0 5.7 3.0 5.4 3.9 6.3 - 3.6 130.0 39.0 - 140.0 - 24.0 - 60.04 Gaurighat 22.2 10.2 6.0 7.8 4.2 5.4 23.4 11.1 - 42.6 150.0 15.0 - 180.0 - 45.0 - 45.05 Sinamangal 18.5 10.2 9.0 9.6 7.2 6.0 21.6 8.9 - 18.9 140.0 21.0 - 170.0 - 45.0 - 39.06 Min Bhawan 18.3 7.8 14.5 12.6 5.4 9.0 37.8 - - 57.0 110.0 36.0 - 210.0 - 45.0 - 48.07 Sankhamol 9.8 8.4 7.2 6.0 6.0 9.0 7.8 - - 7.8 170.0 15.0 - 190.0 - 24.0 - 27.08 Thapathali 19.6 12.3 12.0 9.0 7.2 9.6 13.2 - - 17.1 160.0 18.0 - 130.0 - 42.0 - -9 Pachali 21.4 37.8 13.5 10.2 9.0 8.4 54.0 - - 30.6 230.0 36.0 - 190.0 - 66.0 - 54.0
10 Balkhu Khola 21.6 30.6 32.5 6.6 - - - - - 40.2 - 42.0 - 200.0 - 54.0 - 84.011 Sundarighat 20.3 43.8 42.0 19.2 12.6 13.8 16.0 - - 52.8 180.0 51.0 - 230.0 - 39.0 - 54.012 Khokana 20.0 - 12.0 9.0 12.6 8.4 30.6 - - 13.8 190.0 36.0 - - - - - -
1998LocationNo.
1993 1994 1995 1997
Source: Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Existing Water Quality Analysis Data
1 - 2 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Table 1-2 Analysis of Bishnumati River Water (BOD) (1993-1998) Unit: mg/L
Jan Mar May June Aug Nov Feb June Sep Feb June Sep Apr Aug Dec June Dec1 Sibapuri 4.9 5.0 3.2 1.7 1.8 5.1 5.6 - - 6.1 9.0 5.7 220.0 - - - -2 Vishnupalika 4.0 3.4 2.0 1.1 1.6 1.6 2.4 - - 3.6 7.8 2.1 20.0 - - - -3 Budhanilkantha 6.5 4.4 4.5 1.9 3.6 3.4 6.3 - - 3.7 10.8 7.8 60.0 - - - -4 Gongabu 4.8 4.2 4.2 3.6 4.0 4.5 - - 8.1 110.0 21.0 - - - -5 Balaju New Bus Park 15.2 3.3 6.0 3.0 4.8 4.8 4.2 - - 5.4 150.0 33.0 40.0 - - - -6 Balaju Bridge 18.1 3.0 7.8 5.7 8.4 10.8 7.8 - - 130.0 21.0 10.0 - - - -7 Soba Bhagbati 13.3 6.3 13.8 21.6 4.8 13.2 12.6 - - 7.8 100.0 81.0 30.0 - - - -8 Kankeswaree 24.2 25.8 18.0 13.2 7.2 15.6 18.6 - - 24.6 130.0 9.0 30.0 - - - -9 Hiumat 27.4 114.1 31.5 12.6 9.0 24.0 69.6 - - 31.8 90.0 24.0 30.0 - - - -
10 Tekudovan 24.0 135.8 52.5 20.4 10.2 63.0 69.0 - - 27.0 110.0 30.0 10.0 - - - -11 Shangla Khola 7.7 6.3 3.6 5.1 4.2 5.4 2.0 - - 150.0 18.0 - - - -
1998LocationNo.
1993 1994 1995 1997
Source: Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
Table 1-3 Analysis of Dhobi River Water (BOD) (1993-1998)
Unit: mg/L
Feb Mar May July Aug Dec Feb May Sep Feb June Sep Apr Aug Jan Dec1 Dhumbarahi Chabahil 36.0 25.8 13.8 22.2 - 21.0 16.5 25.5 - 7.2 50.0 39.0 140.0 - 150.0 -2 Sano GaucharanSiphal 13.8 12.0 14.4 15.0 - 18.0 16.2 18.0 - 18.6 35.0 42.0 80.0 - 150.0 -3 Maitidevi 40.0 17.6 31.2 42.0 - 48.0 55.8 19.5 - 30.0 35.0 39.0 70.0 - 186.0 -4 Bijulibajar 38.2 98.0 35.1 31.5 - 61.8 74.4 13.5 - 34.8 35.0 24.0 106.0 - 222.0 -
1998LocationNo.
1993 1994 1995 1997
Source: Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
Table 1-4 Analysis of Manohara River Water (BOD) (1993-1998) Unit: mg/L
Feb Mar May July Aug Dec Feb May Sep Feb June Sep Apr Aug Jan Dec1 Jadibuti Kendra 9.3 7.5 3.6 3.0 - 7.8 4.8 16.8 - 7.5 55.0 27.0 20.0 - 132.0 -2 Balkumari Bridge 6.0 98.0 4.8 3.9 - 4.8 3.6 8.4 - 8.1 50.0 27.0 50.0 - 96.0 -
1998LocationNo.
1993 1994 1995 1997
Source: Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
Table 1-5 Analysis of Hanumante River Water (BOD) (1993-1998)
Unit: mg/L
Feb Mar May July Aug Dec Feb May Sep Feb June Sep Apr Aug Jan Dec1 Thimi 10.0 96.0 6.0 7.8 - 62.4 33.0 11.3 - 8.4 60.0 33.0 196.0 - 174.0 -2 Balkot Kausaltar 7.2 31.0 7.8 9.6 - 13.8 15.0 21.0 - 10.8 55.0 39.0 170.0 - 138.0 -
1998LocationNo.
1993 1994 1995 1997
Source: Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Existing Water Quality Analysis Data
1 - 3 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Table 1-6 Water Quality Analysis of the Kathmandu Valley Unit: mg/L
2001River/Khola Location May July Oct Aug Nov Feb
1 Hanumante KholaJust before its confluence with ManoharaKhola, about 120 m North of the Imadol 34.0 6.4 4.0 17.0 118.0 127.0
2 Manohara KholaJust upstream of its confluence withHanumante Khola, about 120 m North of the 22.0 1.8 2.0 15.0 29.0 32.0
3 Bagmati River-G Temple. 6.0 1.1 3.0 3.0 13.0 12.04 Bagmati River-UGB About 200 m upstream of the Gorkana bridge. 30.0 4.8 4.0 12.0 18.0 19.05 Bagmati River-DGB bridge. 28.0 5.4 4.0 14.0 24.0 36.0
6 Bagmati River-PDJust downstream of Pashupati Dam, near thebridge of the Ring Road. 105.0 18.2 10.0 20.0 72.0 147.0
7 Bagmati River-MBAbout 500 m South of the Bagmati bridge atthe Min Bhawan. 108.0 21.5 9.0 47.0 79.0 219.0
8 Bagmati River-SJust downstream of its confluence withManohara Khola, near Sankhamul. 48.0 15.8 9.0 32.0 106.0 189.0
9 Dhobi KholaJust before its confluence with Bagmati Riverat Naya Baneswor. 82.0 13.7 20.0 42.0 123.0 150.0
10 Bagmati RiverJust downstream of its confluence withBagmati River. 58.0 16.3 14.0 30.0 75.0 81.0
11 Tukucha KholaNear Blue star Hotel. Before its confluencewith Bagmati River. 63.0 22.9 42.0 51.0 148.0 302.0
12 Bagmati River-DTKJust downstream of its confluence withTukucha Khola. 82.0 23.2 16.0 48.0 82.0 165.0
13 Bishnumati Khola-URRUpstream side, just North of the Ring Road. 30.0 5.7 3.0 10.0 10.0 31.0
14 Bishnumati Khola-UKUpstream side at Kalimati, North of theBishnumati Bridge. 63.0 11.3 7.0 40.0 70.0 187.0
15 Bagmati River-DTKSundarighat near Tribhuvan University gate atKirtipur, downstream of the confluence ofBagmati River with Bishnumati Khola.
105.0 12.4 13.0 55.0 66.0 204.0
16 Nkhu Khola Just before its confluence with Bagmati River. 12.0 6.5 2.0 6.0 2.0 14.0
17 Bagmati River-KAt Khokana, few kilometers South of Chobharand near the Leprosy Hospital. 28.0 11.2 4.0 20.0 74.0 198.0
1999 2000No.
Location
Source: ADB, 2000 “Urban Water Supply Reforms in the Kathmandu Valley, Wastewater Management Plan Assessment
-Volume II-“
The following tables are the data of leachate quality analysis at Gokarna LFS obtained under its operation phase. These data implies that organic pollution and electric conductivity (alkalinity) are highly observed regarding leachate of anaerobic type LFS. Whereas, the detection of heavy metals are comparatively low.
Table 1-7 Leachate Quality Analyzed in 1988 at Gokarna LFS Parameters/Date June 28 Aug 4 Aug 12 Aug 18 Aug 25 Sep 1
pH 7.32 7.49 7.56 7.69 7.77 7.64BOD5 (ppm) 9400 5866 3800 4500 3150 3300COD (ppm) 13305 9000 5518 6140 4399 4528Ammonia-N (ppm) 513 408 500 538 500 450Conductivity (us/cm) 12830 10280 8860 10690 9430 9440Chloride (ppm) 2079 11286 4357 3267 2970 2921
Source: SWMRMC
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Existing Water Quality Analysis Data
1 - 4 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Table 1-8 Leachate Quality Analyzed in December 1988 at Gokarna LFS
Table 1-9 Leachate Quality Analyzed in December 1996 at Gokarna LFS
Parameters Unit ValuepH - 7.10Conductivity µs/cm 10,050Volatile Solids mg/l 2,923Phosphate mg/l 3Dissolved Chloride mg/l as Cl 845Sulphate mg/l CNDAmmonia mg/l 343Nitrate-N mg/l CNDNitrite-N mg/l CNDPotassium (K) mg/l 1,110Magnesium (Mg) mg/l 166.4Calcium (Ca) mg/l 512Manganese (Mn) mg/l 5.4Iron (Fe) mg/l 30.7Nickel (Ni) mg/l 3.7Copper (Cu) mg/l 0.1Zinc (Zn) mg/l 0.31Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 0.3Lead (Pb) mg/l 0.1Mercury (Hg) mg/l 0.0003Chromiun (Cr) mg/l 0.6 CND: Cannot analyzed due to high color Source: SWMRMC
Parameters Unit ValuepH - 6.75Electrical Conductivity µ mhos/cm 13,500Colour (Chromacity Unit) Chromacity Unit 273Turbidity NTU 640Total Suspended Solids mg/l 1144Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 30,036BOD mg/l 3,500COD mg/l 45,500Total Alkalinity as CaCo3 mg/l 8798Total Acidity as alkali consumption mg/l 19.71Total Hardness as CaCo3 mg/l 9,500Dissolved Oxygen mg/l -Chloride mg/l 24,046Phosphate mg/l 0.76Total Phosphorous mg/l 0.80Ammonia-N mg/l 808.0Nitrite-N mg/l 0.980Nitrate-N mg/l 2.73Organic-N mg/l 534Calcium mg/l 2,700Magnesium mg/l 656.1Sodium mg/l 618.25Potassium mg/l 1625.0Iron mg/l 323.11Manganese mg/l 39.74Lead mg/l 0.32Copper mg/l 0.07Nickel mg/l 0.55Chromium mg/l 0.38Zinc mg/l 0.26Cadimium mg/l 0.03
Source: SWMRMC
2. Result of Solid Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 1 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
2. RESULT OF SOLID WASTE QUANTITY AND QUALITY SURVEY (PHASE II)
1 Objectives
The objectives of the Solid Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (the Survey) are:
- To grasp and understand the current conditions on quantity and quality of solid waste generated and collected in five municipalities within the Kathmandu Valley, namely KMC, LSMC, BK, MTM and KRM, and
- To provide information to help examining the essential characteristics and factors for formulating the Action Plan on SWM, such as unit generation ratio and collection rate of waste.
Average waste generation and bulk density at household in the Survey was modified in the narrative by the JICA Study Team in the course of formulating the Draft Action Plan.
2 Methodology
(1) Sampling for the Survey
Sample survey was carried out at household level, commercial places and streets in all of five municipalities on one weekday and on one weekend day. The amount of the samples for the survey is presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2-1 Sample Amount of the Survey KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM
Sampling Place Qnt’y Qlt’y Qnt’y Qlt’y Qnt’y Qlt’y Qnt’y Qlt’y Qnt’y Qlt’y
High Income (HI)
10 1 5 1 3 1 1
Middle Income (MI)
20 1 10 1 6 3 3
House-hold
Low Income (LI)
10 1 5 1 3
1
1
1
1
1
Sub-total 40 3 20 3 12 1 5 1 5 1 Restaurant/Hotel 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 Market 5 1 2 1 1 1 1
Comme-rcial
Office 5 1 2 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
Sub-total 15 3 6 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 Street 5 1 2 1 1 - - - - - Sub-total 60 7 28 7 16 2 8 2 8 2 TOTAL 120
GRAND TOTAL 240
(twice; one weekday and one weekend day) Source: JICA Study Team
The Survey also conducted at four SWM-related facilities, namely Balkhu (Bagmati river dumping site), Teku transfer station, Bhaktapur final disposal site (Hanumante river dumping site), and Bhaktapur composting facility. The field work was done for two days at each facility. All of field works were carried out from March to April in 2004.
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 2 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
(2) Survey Methods
1) Solid Waste Quantity
After confirming the targets as sample households and other commercial centers, the targets were requested to keep their day’s waste using provided plastic bags on designated week day and weekend day for sample collection. The targets were also asked to discard the waste on one day before the designated day. The bags of waste were collected and directly weighed. The volume of collected waste was also measured.
2) Solid Waste Quality
In order to have an accurate data of solid waste quality, mixed mass of sample waste was piled up conically and cut it to divide in four equal parts. Two opposite parts were mixed again and piled to form another groups, whereas other two parts were discarded. This process was repeated till the sample size was approximately 5 kg. The samples processed in this way were measured for the determination of its weight and volume, and then separated into 10 items by hand; i.e. paper, garbage, textile, wood, plastic, rubber or leather, metal, glass, ceramics, and others. Wet and dried physical compositions were measured on all items.
Water content and bulk density of the waste were also calculated.
3) Survey at Four SWM-related Facilities
Total waste transferred or disposed by truck, tractor, tri-cycle etc. at four SWM-related facilities were measured by the truck scale rented from the central laboratory of DOR. Total number of transportation was counted by type of vehicle. The vehicles were weighed with- and without-condition of the solid waste for two days at each site. The volume of wastes of each vehicle was estimated by ocular measurement taking into account the existing records of the municipalities and direct measurement of the vehicle bodies. The quantity of the daily generation was directly calculated on the basis of weight and volume measurement and counting the total number of trips of each type of vehicle. Bulk density is calculated by dividing the total mass by volume.
3 Summarized Results of the Survey
3.1 Solid Waste Quantity
(1) KMC
1) Household Waste
Table 3-1 Average Waste Generation and Bulk Density (KMC, Household)
Weekday Weekend day
Income Level
Waste generation per person weight (g)
Waste generation per person volume (l)
Bulk density
(g/l)
Waste generation per person weight (g)
Waste generation per person volume (l)
Bulk density
(g/l)
HI 288 1.0 299 216 1.0 225 MI 200 0.8 249 203 0.9 235 LI 112 0.6 195 171 0.7 255 Average 200 0.8 246 198 0.83 238
Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 3 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
HI
MI
LI
Weekdays
Weekend
216
203
171
288
200
112
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Waste generation per person weight (g)
Figure 3-1 Comparison between Weekday and Weekend Day Waste Generation
Source: JICA Study Team
2) Commercial Waste
Table 3-2 Commercial Waste Generation and Bulk Density (KMC)
Weekday Weekend day
Source of waste generation
Waste generation per Unit
weight (g)
Waste generation per Unit
volume (l)
Bulk density
(g/l)
Waste generation per Unit
weight (g)
Waste generation per Unit
volume (l)
Bulk density
(g/l)
Hotel/restaurants 32,280 106 440 38,575 128 477 Market 2275 8 312 3537 7 476 Office 2450 9 396 950 4 265
Source: JICA Study Team
3) Street Waste
The streets where waste samples were collected consisted of main highway and side roads in residential area and commercial area. Each sample was collected for approximately 100m length of street. Street waste of weekend could not be collected because of sudden Nepal Bandh. Average waste generation is calculated to be 22,340 g with volume of 58 L and bulk density of 380 g/L per 100 m length of street.
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 4 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
(2) LSMC
1) Household Waste
Table 3-3 Average Waste Generation and Bulk Density (LSMC, Household)
Weekday Weekend day
Income Level
Waste generation per person weight (g)
Waste generation per person volume
(l)
Bulk density
(g/l)
Waste generation per person weight (g)
Waste generation per person volume (l)
Bulk density
(g/l)
HI 236 1.1 254 248 1.5 168 MI 201 1.0 228 193 1 189 LI 121 0.7 170 175 1 162 Average 190 0.95 220 202 1.1 177
Source: JICA Study Team
HI
MI
LI
Weekdays
Weekend
248
193
175
236
201
121
0
50
100
150
200
250
Waste generation per person weight (g)
Figure 3-2 Comparison between Weekday and Weekend Day Waste Generation
Source: JICA Study Team
2) Commercial Waste
Table 3-4 Commercial Waste Generation and Bulk Density (LSMC)
Weekday Weekend day
Source of waste generation
Waste generation per Unit
weight (g)
Waste generation per Unit
volume (l)
Bulk density
(g/l)
Waste generation per Unit
weight (g)
Waste generation per Unit
volume (l)
Bulk density
(g/l)
Hotel/restaurants 3975 21 139 6675 27 396 Market 1275 7.75 164 1225 7.25 170 Office 550 4 137 1100 4.5 244
Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 5 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
3) Street Waste
The streets where waste samples were collected consisted of the side roads in residential area and commercial area. Each sample was collected for approximately 100m length of street. Street waste of weekend could not be collected because of sudden Nepal Bandh Average waste generation is calculated to be 20,977 g with volume of 97 L and bulk density of 217 g/L per 100 m length of street.
(3) BKM, KRM, and MTM
1) Household Waste
Table 3-5 Average Household Waste Generation and Bulk Density (BKM, KRM, MTM)
Waste generation weight (g/person)
Waste generation volume (L/person)
Bulk density (g/liter) Generation Point
Week day Weekend Week day Weekend Week day Weekend BKM 144 135 0.7 0.6 207 193 KRM 119 112 0.5 0.71 244 236 MTM 177 192 1 0.9 230 301
Remark: The data collected from all income levels are averaged by each municipality. Two households belonging to HI level in BKM did not keep samples.
Source: JICA Study Team
Bhaktapur
Kirtipur
Thimi
Weekdays
Weekend
135
112
192
144
119
177
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Waste generation per unit weight (g)
Figure 3-3 Comparison between Weekday and Weekend Day Waste Generation Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 6 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
2) Commercial Waste
Table 3-6 Commercial Waste Generation and Bulk Density (BKM, KRM, MTM)
Waste generation weight (g/unit)
Waste generation volume (L/unit)
Bulk density (g/L) Generation Point
Week day Weekend Week day Weekend Week day WeekendBKM Hotel &
Restaurant 600 300 2.5 1 240 300
Office 1600 1450 6 9 267 161 Market 1350 550 4 2 338 275 KRM Hotel /
Restaurant 3450 8150 18 20 191 407
Office 2000 650 9 3.5 222 185 Market 800 800 5 5 160 160 MTM Office 2500 400 7 1.5 357 267
Remark: Waste samples from hotel/restaurant and market in MTM were not available. Source: JICA Study Team
3) Street Waste
The street where a waste sample was collected consisted of the side road in residential and commercial area. The sample was collected for approximately 100 m length of street. Waste generation is calculated to be 3,500 g with volume of 18 L and bulk density of 194 g/L per 100 m length of street in week end, whereas 2,650 g in weight 15 L in volume and the bulk density of 177 g/L is calculated for weekend.
3.2 Solid Waste Quality
(1) KMC
1) Household Waste
Table 3-7 Composition of Household Waste (KMC)
Waste Components by % of weight HH Type
Garbage Paper TextileWood/Leave
PlasticRubber/Leather
Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday HI 71 15 0 1 5 7 1 0 0 0 MI 79 9 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 LI 67 11 8 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 Average 72.3 11.7 2.6 3 7.7 2.3 0.4 0 0 0 Weekend HI 74 7 2 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 MI 70 9 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 LI 69 8 2 0 15 0 0 0 3 0 Average 71 8 1.8 1.8 14.4 0 0 0 1 0 Average (both days)
71.6 9.8 2.2 2.4 11 1.1 0.2 0 0.5 0
Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 7 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Table 3-8 Moisture Content of Household Waste (KMC)
Moisture Content of each component of solid waste in % HH Type
Garbage Paper TextileWood/Leave
PlasticRubber/Leather
Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday HI 71 57 - 80 40 17 - - - - MI 55 58 50 - 19 - - - - - LI 54 67 1 1 40 - - - - - Average 60 60 25 40 33 17 - - - - Weekend HI 65 50 50 67 43 - - - - - MI 74 27 40 - 46 - - 50 - - LI 60 75 33 - 29 - - - - - Average 66 50 41 67 39 - - 50 - - Source: JICA Study Team
2) Commercial Waste
Table 3-9 Composition of Commercial Waste (KMC)
Waste Components by % of weight Source type
Garbage Paper TextileWood/Leave
PlasticRubber/Leather
Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday Hotel/Restaurant 31 29 0 0 20 0 5 14 1 0 Market 90 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 Office 50 21 0 0 4 1 1 24 0 0 Average 57 17 0 0 9 1 2 13 1 3 Weekend Hotel/Restaurant 75 11 0 0 5 0 7 3 0 0 Market 91 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 Office 22 48 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 12 Average 63 20 0 0 8 0 2 1 0 6 Average (both days)
60 18.5 0 0 8.5 0.5 2 7 0.5 4.5
Source: JICA Study Team
Table 3-10 Moisture Content of Commercial Waste (KMC)
Moisture Content of each component of solid waste in % Type
Garbage Paper TextileWood/Leave
PlasticRubber/Leather
Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday Hotel restaurant 72 72 - - 68 - 0 8 0 - Market 79 - - - 50 - - - - 38 Office 71 52 - - 56 - - 8 - - Average 74 62 - - 58 - 0 8 0 38 Weekend Hotel restaurant 87 50 - - 33 - 0 0 - - Market 73 - - - 67 - - - - 22 Office 87 31 - - 17 - - - - 25 Average 82 40 - - 39 - - - - 23 Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 8 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
3) Street Waste
Composition KMC/Street SweepingWeekend/Weekday
0%
1%9%
8%2% 8%
51%
2%1%
18%
GarbagePaperTextileWood/leavesPlasticRubber/leatherMetalGlassCeramicsOthers
Figure 3-4 Composition of Street Waste (KMC)
Source: JICA Study Team
(2) LSMC
1) Household Waste
Table 3-11 Composition of Household Waste (LSMC) Waste Components by % of weight
HH type GarbagePaper Textile Wood/ Leave Plastic Rubber/
Leather Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday HI 73 9 0 0 12 0 3 3 0 0 MI 76 5 5 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 LI 58 5 2 20 15 0 0 0 0 0 Average 69 6 3 12 12 0 2 2 0 0 Weekend HI 56 15 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 MI 76 4 0 10 4 0 1 5 1 0 LI 60 8 2 10 15 0 1 4 0 0 Average 64 9 1 7 16 0 1 3 0 0 Average (both days) 67 8 2 10 14 0 2 4 1 0
Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 9 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Table 3-12 Moisture Content of Household Waste (LSMC) Moisture Content of each component of solid waste in %
HH type Garbage Paper Textile Wood/Leave Plastic Rubber/
Leather Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday HI 63 67 - - 25 - 0 0 - - MI 65 20 40 50 11 - - - - - LI 54 67 50 33 22 - - - - - Average 61 51 45 42 29 - 0 0 - - Weekend HI 57 40 - - 20 - - - - - MI 65 67 - 38 33 - 0 0 0 - LI 63 67 67 - - 25 - 0 0 - Average 62 58 67 38 27 25 0 0 0 -
Source: JICA Study Team
2) Commercial Waste
Table 3-13 Composition of Commercial Waste (LSMC)
Waste Components by % of weight Source type
Garbage Paper TextileWood/Leave
PlasticRubber/Leather
Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday Hotel/Restaurant 77 10 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 Market Very small sample, Data not available Office 0 73 0 0 18 9 0 0 0 0 Average 39 42 0 0 22 5 0 0 0 0 Weekend Hotel/Restaurant 42 21 4 0 11 0 1 20 2 0 Market Very small sample, Data not available Office 69 5 14 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 Average 56 13 8 2 10 0 1 10 1 0 Average (both days)
48 28 4 1 16 3 1 5 1 0
Source: JICA Study Team
Table 3-14 Moisture Content of Commercial Waste (LSMC)
Moisture Content of each component of solid waste in % Type
Garbage Paper TextileWood/Leave
PlasticRubber/Leather
Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday Hotel restaurant 83 63 - - 40 - - - - - Market Sample not available Office - 25 - - 50 0 - - - - Average 83 44 - - 45 - - - - - Weekend Hotel restaurant 71 54 43 - 5 - 0 0 - - Market Sample not available Office 47 10 33 17 50 - - - - - Average 59 37 38 9 28 - - - - -
Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 10 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
3) Street Waste
9%
4% 6% 8%
52%
5%
2%5%
2% 7%GarbagePaperTextileWood/leavesPlasticRubber/leatherMetalGlassCeramicsOthers
Figure 3-5 Composition of Street Waste (LSMC)
Source: JICA Study Team
(3) BKM
Table 3-15 Composition of Household & Commercial Waste (BKM)
Waste Components by % of weight Source
Garbage Paper TextileWood/Leave
PlasticRubber/Leather
Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday HH 84 6 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial 41 19 1 9 3 10 10 6 0 0 Weekend HH 90 3 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial 28 28 0 9 33 0 2 0 0 0
Source: JICA Study Team
Table 3-16 Moisture Content of Household & Commercial Waste (BKM)
Moisture Content of each component of solid waste in % Source
Garbage Paper TextileWood/Leave
PlasticRubber/Leather
Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday Household 43 50 50 50 60 - - - - - Commercial 64 31 50 50 50 0 0 0 - -
Weekend Household 43 50 - 30 67 - - - - - Commercial 46 15 0 50 20 - - - - -
Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 11 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
(4) KRM
Table 3-17 Composition of Household & Commercial Waste (KRM)
Waste Components by % of weight Source
Garbage Paper TextileWood/Leave
PlasticRubber/Leather
Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday HH 87 3 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial 74 6 1 7 9 0 1 2 0 0 Weekend HH 77 3 6 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial 87 9 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0
Source: JICA Study Team
Table 3-18 Moisture Content of Household & Commercial Waste (KRM)
Moisture Content of each component of solid waste in % Type
Garbage Paper TextileWood/Leave
PlasticRubber/Leather
Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday Household 62 50 50 - 0 - - - - - Commercial 68 38 50 44 27 - 0 - - - Average 65 44 50 44 14 - 0 - - -
Weekend Household
71 50 50 50 33 - - - - -
Commercial 78 26 - - 29 - - - - - Average 75 38 50 50 31 - - - - -
Source: JICA Study Team
(5) MTM
Table 3-19 Composition of Household & Commercial Waste (MTM) Moisture Content of each component of solid waste in %
Type Garbage Paper Textile Wood/Leave Plastic Rubber/
Leather Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday Household 74 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 Commercial Waste not available Weekend Household 94 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 Commercial Waste not available
Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 12 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Table 3-20 Moisture Content of Household & Commercial Waste (MTM) Moisture Content of each component of solid waste in %
Type Garbage Paper Textile Wood/Leave Plastic Rubber/
Leather Metal Glass Ceramics Others
Weekday Household 39 52 40 75 50 - - 20 - - Commercial Waste not available Average 39 52 40 75 50 - - 20 - - Weekend Household 59 40 - - 17 - - 0 - - Commercial Waste not available Average 59 40 - - 17 - - 0 - -
Source: JICA Study Team
3.3 Survey at SWM-related Facilities
(1) Balkhu (Bagmati River Dumping Site)
Table 3-21 Quantity of Waste Disposal at Balkhu
Item Weight of KMC waste (kg)
Weight of LSMC waste (kg)
Weight of total waste disposed (kg)
1st survey 299,791 97,300 397,091 2nd survey 275,650 100,356 376,006 Average 287,720 98,828 386,548
Source: JICA Study Team
Table 3-22 Average Bulk Density of Waste Disposed of at Balkhu (kg/m3)
Item
Average Bulk Density Truck
(Private)
Average Bulk Density Truck (Municipality)
Average Bulk
Density Tractor
(Private)
Average Bulk Density Tractor
(Municipality)
Average Bulk Density
Rikshaw (Private)
Average Trucks
Average Tractor
1st survey 821 411 750 724 - 616 737 2nd survey 1,075 1,138 - 578 788 1,106 578 Average 948 774 750 651 100 861 657 Source: JICA Study Team
(2) Teku Transfer Station
Table 3-23 Quantity of Waste Coming in & Going out at Teku
Item Waste coming in (kg)
Waste going out (kg)
Waste surplus (kg)
1st survey 124,660 152,400 27,740 2nd syrvey 125,220 139,000 13,780 Average 124940 145700 20760
Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result ot Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (Phase II)
2 - 13 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Table 3-24 Bulk Density of Waste at Teku (kg/m3)
Item
Average Bulk Density
Truck (Private)
Average Bulk Density Truck (Municipality)
Average Bulk Density Tractor
(Private)
Average Bulk Density Tractor (Municipality)
Average Bulk Density Rikshaw (Private)
Average Trucks
Average Tractors
Coming in 1st survey 404 303 1,034 440 172 354 737 2nd survey 318 367 1,128 539 367 343 834
Average 361 335 1,081 489 269 348 785 Going out 1st survey - 498 - - - 498 - 2nd survey 495 495 -
Average - 496 - - 496 - Source: JICA Study Team
(3) Bhaktapur Final Disposal Site (Hanumante River Dumping Site)
Table 3-25 Quantity of Waste Disposal at Hanumante
Item Weight of solid waste
(kg) Average bulk density
(kg/m3) 1st survey 25,480 580 2nd survey 25,300 532 Average 25,390 556
Source: JICA Study Team
(4) Bhaktapur Composting Facility
Table 3-26 Quantity of Waste Received at Composting Facility
Item Weight of solid waste
(kg) Average bulk density
(kg/m3) 1st survey 5,600 662 2nd survey 5,750 680 Average 5,675 671 Source: JICA Study Team
3. Result of Time and Motion Survey
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result of Time and Motion Survey
3 - 1 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
3. RESULT OF TIME AND MOTION SURVEY
1. Kathmandu Metropolitan City
Table 1-1 The Route Description and Vehicle Type of the Time and Motion Survey at KMC
Route Route Description Vehicle TypeTankeswor-Chhauni- Dallu-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Dallu . Dallu-Bijayaswori-Dumping Site
1
Dumping Site - Teku Garage
Mini Truck Vehicle no 3756
Garage - Tripureswor-Maitighar-Babarmahal- Baneswor-Maitighar-Tripurswor- -Dumping Site Teku-KMC Garage Garage-Tripureswor-Maitighar-Minbhawan-Koteswor-Sinamanagal-Airport-Kotswor-Maitighar-Dumping Site
2
Dumping Site - Teku Garage
Multi Compactor Vehicle no 4476
Garage - Pipalbot-Baudha- Sundarighat Sunadarighat-Baudha Tusal- Sundarighat
3
Sundarighat - Garage
Triper Vehicle no 2793
Gargae - Ratanpark-Biswojyoti-Jaya Nepal- Simrik Marg-Royal Shinghe Hotel-Durbar Hotel- Sherpa Hotel-IJ Plaza-Jamal-Norboling Resturant- Dumping Site 4 Dumping Site-Garage
Triper Vehicle no 1090
Sorahkhutte-Nayabazar-Balaju-Baisdhara-Balaju-Balkhu- Dumping Site Dumping-Balaju Balaju-Baish Dhara- Nepaltar-Baispass- Dumping Site
5
Dumping-Garage
Triper Vehicle no 4134
Gargae - Khasi Bazar-Kalanki-Dumping Site Dumping-Soltee Mode Soltee Mode - Sundari Ghat
6
Sundari Ghat-Garage
Mini Truck Vehicle no 3255
Garage - Kuleswor-Dumping Site Dumping-Kuleswor Kuleswor - Dumping Dumping –Kuleswor Kuleswor - Dumping
7
Dumping –Kuleswor
Riksaw Vehicle no 25
Garage - Teku- Jamal-Royal Palace-Gairidhara-Baluwatar-Gairidhara-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Kuleswor-Kalimati Kalimati-Jamal-Nirajan-Biswojyoti-Tindhara-Lain Chaur-Lajimpat-Nagpokhari-Dilli Bazar- Sundarighat
8
Sundarighat-Kalimati-Garrage
Mini Truck Vehicle no 3354
Garage - Teku- Jamal-Royal Palace-Gairidhara-Baluwatar-Gairidhara-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Kuleswor-Kalimati Kalimati-Jamal-Nirajan-Biswojyoti-Tindhara-Lain Chaur-Lajimpat-Nagpokhari-Dilli Bazar- Sundarighat
9
Sundarighat-Kalimati-Garrage
Triper Vehicle no 4129
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result of Time and Motion Survey
3 - 2 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Route Route Description Vehicle TypeGarage - Sundhara- New Road-Bir Hospital- Rani Pokhari-Asan-Kamaladi-Bagbazar-Ratnapar- Exhibition Road- Sundhara- Sundarighat Sundarighat-Kalimati- Tripureswor Tripureswor- Sundhara- Mahakal- Bhadrakali- Finance Ministry- Kamaladi- Sundarighat
10
righat-Kalimati-Garrage
Triper vehicle no 4128
Garage – Bhagwan Pau- Bhawan Pau- Teku Dumping Site Dumping Site -Kankeswori Kankeswori- Chagal-Dallu- Bijayswori-Teku Dumping Site Teku –Dllu Dallu- Bhagwan Pau-Chhauni- Teku Dumping Site
11
Teku –Garage
Tractor Vehicle no 541
Garage – Soltee Mode- Kalimati- Dumping Site Dumping Site -Kalimati Kalimati-Teku Dumping Site Teku –Kalimati Kalimati- Teku Dumping Site
12
Teku –Garage
Riksaw Vehicle no 3
Source: JICA Study Team
Table 1-2 The Results of the Time and Motion Survey at KMC
Route
Average Collection/
Dumping Time (minutes)
Total Distance Travel (km)
Average Speed of Vehicle
(km/hour)
Average Speed of vehicle including
collection and dumping
Return Distance
(km)
Average Speed on Return (km/hr)
1 49.90 11.90 18.50 5.80 6.00 21.80 2 3.80 8.60 13.60 5.00 5.40 20.30 3 15.80 18.30 8.00 9.50 10.40 21.20 4 4.90 11.30 31.50 23.80 6. 00 24.00 5 4.80 11.30 11.50 5.10 6 7.25 4.50 10.50 0.00 4.80 17.17 7 14.83 1.20 5.67 1.12 8 5.34 16.15 14.92 6.60 4.80 18.81 9 5.86 7.40 12.80 4.64 6.00 20.00
10 6.45 11.95 18.36 6.45 6.40 23.60 11 5.47 5.87 9.34 4.15 5.70 12.99 12 1.93 2.20 4.81 1.72 2.57 11.75
Note: The field survey was conducted on April 12, 14 and 15, 2004. Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result of Time and Motion Survey
3 - 3 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
2. Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City
Table 2-1 The Route Description and Vehicle Type of the Time and Motion Survey at LSMC
Route Route Discription Vehicle TypeGarage- Mangal Bazar-Mapal-Gahabal-Natole-Balkhu- Sundarighat Sundari Ghat-Ringroad-Ekantkuna-Jawalakhel- Lagankhel Lagankhel-Lagankhel-Prayagpokhari-Balkhu-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Ringroad-Ekantkuna-Jawalakhel- Pulchoke-Patandhoka Nagbahal-Kanibahal-Balkhu-Sundari Ghat Sunadrai Ghat-Ekantkuna-Satdobato-Sichahit Sichahiti-Kanibahal- Balkhu- Sundari Ghat
1
Sundarighat-Ekantkuna-Satdobato-Gwarko- LSMC Garage.
Triper ( Eicher-10.6 G) Vehicle no 791.
Garage- Mahapal-Balkhu-Bhimsensthan-Adarskanya-Thalyacha-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Ringroad-Sanepa-Bagdole- Puclchok-HariharBhawan-Krishnagalli Krishnagalli-Patan Buspark-Shankhamul-Setuganesh-Kumbheswor-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Ringroad-Sanepa-Jawalakhel- Pulchoke-Patandhoka-Ashok Hall Ashok Hall-Chandi Bidhyalaya-Swati Narayan-Sundari Ghat
2
Sunadrai Ghat- Bagdole-Ekantkuna-Jawalakhel-Gwarko-Garage
Tripper (199 B) Vehicle NO 803
Mangalbazar- Haungal-Ibab-Tangal-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Ringroad-Bhanimandal-Jawalkhel-Lagankhel-Loksi. Loksi-Loksi-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Ringroad- Bhanimandal-Jawalkhel-Lagankhel-Thatitol Thatitol-Prayagpokhari-Prayagpokhari-Thaina-Sundari Ghat
3
Sunadrai Ghat-Ringroad-Jawalkhel-Garage
Tripper (10.60 G) Vehicle no
Garage- Mahapal-Balkhu-Bhimsensthan-Adarskanya-Thalyacha-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Ringroad-Sanepa-Bagdole- Puclchok-HariharBhawan-Krishnagalli. Krishnagalli-Patan Buspark-Shankhamul-Setuganesh-Kumbheswor-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Ringroad-Sanepa-Jawalakhel- Pulchoke-Patandhoka-Ashok Hall Ashok Hall-Chandi Bidhyalaya-Swati Narayan-Sundari Ghat
4
Sunadrai Ghat- Bagdole-Ekantkuna-Jawalakhel-Gwarko-Garage
Tripper
Garage- Balkhu-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Mahalaxmi. Mahalaxmi-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Dhalaut Industry Dhalaut Industry-Mahalaxmi-Sundari Ghat Sunadrai Ghat-Balkhu Balkhu-Sundari Ghat Sunadrai Ghat-Kupandole Kupandole-Sundari Ghat
5
Sunadrai Ghat-Lagankhel
Super Placer Vehicle no 349
Garage- Pulchoke-Harihar Bhawan-Kupandole-Harihar Bhawan-Pulchoke-Sundarighat Sundarighat-T Dhoka T Dhoka-Nagal-Khawali-Nagal-Sundarighat Sundarighat-Ihiti Ihiti-Machhendra Dev-Ichapo-Ikhalakhu-Mahapal-Sundari Ghat
6
Sunadrai Ghat-Garage
Triper Vehicle no 3354.
Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result of Time and Motion Survey
3 - 4 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Table 2-2 The Results of the Time and Motion Survey at LSMC
Route
Average Collection/
Dumping Time (minutes)
Total Distance Travel (km)
Average Speed of Vehicle
(km/hour)
Average Speed of vehicle including
collection and dumping
Return Distance
(km)
Average Speed on Return (km/hr)
1 5.30 7.00 8.80 4.00 7.10 22.40 2 8.99 7.22 9.64 2.59 6.70 18.27 3 7.19 7.65 11.98 8.24 7.00 19.34 4 14.7 3.80 12.80 3.70 2.80 12.00 5 3.30 3.12 7.96 6.97 5.11 24.26 6 3.85 6.37 14.15 5.12 5.47 13.72
Note: The field survey was conducted on April 16 and 19, 2004. Source: JICA Study Team
3. Bhaktapur Municipality
Table 3-1 The Route Description and Vehicle Type of the Time and Motion Survey at BKM
Route Route Discription Vehicle TypeGarage- Durbar Square-Kashana-Mahakali-Deokocha-Yache-Lalache-Compost Plant-Gomadi-Pasikhel Dumping Site 1 Dumping Site-Durbar Squre.
Pick Up Van Vehicle no 880
Garage- Durbar Square-Kashana-Mahakali-Deokocha-Yache-Lalache-Compost Plant-Gomadi-Pasikhel Dumping Site 2 Dumping Site-Durbar Squre
Pick Up Van Vehicle no 880
Garage- Durbar Square-Deocho-Bans Gopal-Hanumapati-Buspark-Npuckhu-Kahumachi -Itache-Sallaghari- China Highway- Hukumpoithi- Industrial Area-Cancer Hospital- Dudha Patti- Sidha Pokhari-Old Buspark- Sallaghari Dumping Site
3
Dumping Site-Durbar Square .
Pick Up Van Vehicle no 873
Garage- Durbar Square-Dudhapati-Sidhapokhar-Old Bushpark- Ganesh Primaru-Vawarcho-Dudhpati -Dukche-Bansgopal- Hanumanpati- allaghari Dumping Site 4
Dumping Site-Durbar Square .
Pick Up Van Vehicle no 873
Source: JICA Study Team
Table 3-2 The Results of the Time and Motion Survey at BKM
Route
Average Collection/
Dumping Time (minutes)
Total Distance Travel (km)
Average Speed of Vehicle
(km/hour)
Average Speed of vehicle including
collection and dumping
Return Distance
(km)
Average Speed on Return (km/hr)
1 9.67 6.90 11.71 5.48 0.70 2.33 2 7.69 5.20 13.31 3.98 0.60 2.00 3 3.13 15.90 16.87 8.67 1.10 3.67 4 1.77 4.30 9.94 4.58 1.10 3.67 Note: The field survey was conducted on April 20, 2004. Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result of Time and Motion Survey
3 - 5 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
4. Kirtipur Municipality
Table 4-1 The Route Description and Vehicle Type of the Time and Motion Survey at KRM
Route Route Discription Vehicle Type
Gargae - Nayabazar-Sundar Bazar- Panga-Sundarighat 1
Sundarighat-Panga-Nayabazar .
Tractor Vehicle no 1037
Source: JICA Study Team
Table 4-2 The Results of the Time and Motion Survey at KRM
Route
Average Collection/
Dumping Time (minutes)
Total Distance Travel (km)
Average Speed of Vehicle
(km/hour)
Average Speed of vehicle including
collection and dumping
Return Distance
(km)
Average Speed on Return (km/hr)
1 5.16 5.10 9.43 4.66 2.80 9.33 Note: The field survey was conducted on April 19, 2004. Source: JICA Study Team
4. Result of Market Survey on Recyclable Waste
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result of Market Survey on Recyclable Waste
4 - 1 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
4. RESULT OF MARKET SURVEY ON RECYCLABLE WASTE
1. Recycling Waste Survey
The JICA Study Team carried out Marketing Survey on Recyclable Materials basically three municipalities of the Kathmandu Valley- KMC, LSMC and BKM. Remaining two municipalities- MTM and KRM do not have recyclable material recovery and Kabadi Shop. One of the reasons for this can be presumed that whatever little recyclable material is generated is collected by cycled hawkers, and restaurants and major recyclable waste generating sources have direct link with Kabadi Shops (scrap dealer shops) in KMC/LSMC.
Waste picker survey was carried out at three main waste dumping sites at KMC, LSMC and BKM (about 15 waste pickers). 17 Nos. of small to main wholesaler Kabadi shops, 3 NGOs, a private sector, 2 recycling industries, Nepal Recyclable Producers Association and a Contractor appointed by DDC to collect scrap tax of the Recyclable Materials being exported outside the Kathmandu Valley were surveyed with structured questionnaire.
2. Amount of Trade of Recyclable Waste
It is general situation that one of the limitations of carrying out the study in underdeveloped country like Nepal is lack of reliable database. In absence of this, many information are to be acquired as verbal assurance out of rich past experience in the field of the informant. In this context, data collected on total recyclable waste of different types collected and exported out of the Kathmandu Valley is also based on information given by main (wholesale) supplier, president of NEREPA and information given by KMC, and is presented graphically in Figure 2-1.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Tonne/Month
Paper Plastic Metal Zn/Pb/Al/Cu Bottles (nos.) Broken Glass Tex tile Packaging Box
Types of Recyclables
Recyclables Exported Out of KV in a Month
Figure 2-1 Recyclables Exported out of the Kathmandu Valley in a Month
Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result of Market Survey on Recyclable Waste
4 - 2 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Information given by the wholesaler in plastic recyclable about total collected and recycled is as presented in following Figure 2-2.
150
100
150
50
Gudiya
Milk/oil Package
Plastic Bag
Dalda
Figure 2-2 Types Plastic Product Collected Tonne Per Month in the Kathmandu Valley
Note: Gudiya- type of thick plastics (polystyrene), Dalda- high density polythene plastics Source: JICA Study Team
A previous Study (R.C. Bhattarai, 2003) shows that out of the total collected waste materials, the bulk is exported outside the Kathmandu Valley and some are utilized within the valley for reuse and recycling. Following Figure 2-3 shows the share of export and reuse within the Kathmandu Valley. It shows that of the total value of waste materials collected informally, 16% is reused in the valley and 84% is exported outside of the valley.
The Study also shows that about Rs 371 millions is annually contributed by the informal sector to the national income from waste materials in the Kathmandu Valley.
Reuse in the
Valley
16%
Export from the
Valley 84%
Figure 2-3 Type of Plastic Product Collected Ton Per Month in the Kathmandu Valley
Source: JICA Study Team
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Result of Market Survey on Recyclable Waste
4 - 3 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
BOX. Plastics Identification Code / Recycled Products (Plastic Industry Association in USA)
Code 1 (PET): Polyethylene Terephthalate- Non food bottles, T-shirts, carpet, containers
Code 2 (HDPE): High Density Polyethylene- Compost & recycling bins
Code 3 (V): Polyvinyl Chloride- Drain pipes, detergent bottles, ducting cables, hoses
Code 4 (LDPE): Low Density Polyethylene- Recycled shopping bags
Code 5 (PP): Polypropylene- Plastic storage boxes, auto-parts, batteries, carpets
Code 6 (PS): Polystyrene- Insulation board, office equipments, reusable cafeteria trays
Code 7 (OTHER): All other resins and mixes of plastics- Generally not recycled.
5. Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 1 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
5. HOUSEHOLD BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDE SURVEY ON SWM
1. Introduction
1.1 Objectives
The objectives of the Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM (hereafter are herewith:
- To identify the current practices and attitudes regarding SWM among the local residents and the local establishments in five municipalities, namely Kathmandu Metropolitan (KMC), Lalitpur-Sub Metropolitan City (LSMC), Bhaktapur Municipality (BKM), Madhyapur Thimi Municipality (MTM) and Kirtipur Municipality (KRM).
- To provide information to help formulating strategies and Action Plan for effective SWM.
1.2 Methods
Survey site and sample design: The five Municipalities were categorized into two groups i.e. Group A (KMC & LSMC) and Group B (BKM, MTM and KRM). The above two groups were categorized into 2 to 6 subgroups based upon the population density, economy, settlement patterns as well as land use patterns of the municipalities. The total interviewed household (HHs) samples were 765. Out of 765 households, 330, 160, 126, 75 and 75 HHs were from KMC, LSMC, BKM, MTM and KRM respectively. Table 2-1 summarizes the sample frame and sample size of the survey.
Table 2-1 Sample Frame and Sample Size of the Study Demography
HH Popln Area Density S.N Sample Area of the Survey Selected
Ward Nos.(no.) (no.) (ha) per ha
HHs in selected wards
Sample Size
(HH)1 Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC) (I): Kathmandu Core (Total 14 wards) W# 21, 23, 28 23,873 116,885 275 425 5,304 52 (II):Kathmandu Central (Total 6 wards) W# 33 22,760 99,502 719 138 5,064 49 (III): Kathmandu North (Total 5 wards) W# 2, 29 30,903 133,969 1,280 105 8,777 67 (IV): Kathmandu West (Total 3 wards) W# 14, 15 21,723 96,650 952 102 15,294 47
(V): Kathmandu East (Total 7 wards) W# 6, 8, 10,
35 52,896 224,840 1,860 121 25,817 115 TOTAL KMC (35 wards) 12 wards 152,155 671,846 5,086 132 60,256 3302 Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City (LSMC) (I): Lalitpur Core (Total 7 wards) W#18, 20 7,800 38,940 102 380 2,734 36 (II): Lalitpur Extension (Total 15 wards) W# 1, 3, 13 27,196 124,051 1,187 105 5,456 124 TOTAL LsMC (22 wards) 5 wards 34,996 162,991 1,289 126 8,190 1603 Bhaktapur Municipality (BKM) (I): Bhaktapur Core (Total 6 wards) W# 7, 13 3,479 20,598 1,233 35
(II): Bhaktapur South (Total 4 wards) W# 5 3,000 19,096 744 31
(II): Bhaktapur North (Total 3 wards) W# 10 2,976 16,386 713 31(II): Bhaktapur East (Total 4 wards) W# 2, 4 2,678 16,463 1,589 28TOTAL Bhaktapur (17 wards) 6 wards 12,133 72,543 4,279 125
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 2 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Demography HH Popln Area Density S.N Sample Area of the Survey
Selected Ward Nos.
(no.) (no.) (ha) per ha
HHs in selected wards
Sample Size
(HH)4 Madhyapur Thimi Municipality (MTM) (I): Thimi Core (Total 4 wards) W# 7 1,598 8,585 509 20 (II): Thimi Sub Core (Total 3 wards) W# 1, 2, 3 799 4,692 799 30 (II): Thimi Fringe (Total 10 wards) W# 13 7,953 39,166 620 25 TOTAL Thimi (17 wards) 5 wards 10,350 52,443 1,928 755 Kirtipur Municipality (KRM) (I): Kirtipur Core (Total 5 wards) W# 9 1,803 8,470 474 24
(II): Kirtipur Fringe (Total 14 wards) W# 3, 14 7,684 32,365 1775 51TOTAL Kirtipur (19 wards) 5 wards 9,487 40,835 2,199 75
GRAND TOTAL 23 wards 219,121 1,000,658 76,852 765Source: JICA Study Team
Questionnaire: A set of structured questionnaire provided by the JICA Study Team was thoroughly discussed and modified, when found necessary. Subsequently, it was translated into Nepali language. The questions for the HH survey focused on existing practice and attitude, and were broadly grouped into following aspects:
i. General household characteristics ii. Waste disposal and management practices at household level iii. Existing waste collection services at community/ward level iv. Existing situation of waste reduction and recycling v Public awareness and community involvement towards Solid Waste Management
Date collection and Analysis: The survey was conducted from 5th April and completed on 28th April 2004 in the five municipalities. The study team consisted of Team Leader, Data Analyst, Survey Facilitators, Quality Controllers and Enumerators/ Social Surveyors. To solicit the quality data from the sampled households, qualified and experienced field staff and enumerators were recruited from local people living in each municipality. Only female enumerators were recruited for the HH survey. With due considerations to the local culture and extensive involvement of women in managing household waste, it was felt that only the female enumerators can establish effective communications with the respondents.
All the HH survey questionnaires were thoroughly checked for any errors before entering the data in SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science: The SPSS software has been using world wise for statistical data analysis) programmed database to analysis efficiently and was monitored by a senior statistician. The entered data in digital form were also cross-checked to minimize the human errors.
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 3 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD
A. INTRODUCTION Date of Survey:
A.1 Name of House-Head….. ………………………………………………………… A.2 Location ………………….. A.3 Name of interviewee ……………….. A.4 Age/ Sex ……………… A.5 Relationship to House-Head… A.6 Ethnicity/ Caste ……………….. A.7 Name of surveyor…………… A.8 Signature of Surveyor…………… 1. General Questions of Your Household
1.1 Please provide the following information. (i) Total number of family members in the household using the same kitchen….. [ ]
Adult…[ ] Children (Below 17 years)…[ ] Male…[ ] Female…[ ] (ii) Number of families with “separate kitchen” in your house…[ ]
1.2 Which does your house have access to?
[ ] 1. Motarable main road [ ] 2. Lane [ ] 3. Footpath
1.3 What does your house have?
[ ] 1. Open compound/ backyard [ ] 5. No compound/backyard [ ] 2. Closed compound/backyard [ ] 6. Farming/ kitchen garden [ ] 3. Common courtyard [ ] 7. Trees, shrubs, flower plants [ ] 4. Free spaces left around premises
1.4 Did your household migrate from other districts to Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Thimi &
Kirtipur? [ ] 1. Yes, we migrated during our generation [ ] 2. Yes, we migrated during my parents’ generation [ ] 3. Yes, we migrated during my grand parents’ generation [ ] 4 No [ ] 5. Do not know
1.5 How long have you and your family lived in this community?
[ ] 1. Less than 1 year [ ] 2. Less than 5 years [ ] 3. Less than 10 years [ ] 4. Less than 20 years [ ] 5. More than 21 years
1.6 In what household income categories do your think you belong to?
[ ] 1. Low (HH income less than Rs 6000/month) [ ] 2. Lower Middle (HH income between Rs 6000 to 13,000/month) [ ] 3. Higher Middle (HH income between Rs 13,000 to 22,000/month) [ ] 4. Higher (HH income more than Rs 22,000/month)
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 4 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
1.7 How much is the total expenditure per month on average? Amount of money: NRs/ month
1.8 Please specify the priority for your daily life regarding the improvement of the following
aspects? (Fill all three priorities) 1. Water supply 2. Drainage/Sewerage 3. Waste collection/Disposal 4. Air pollution 5. Electricity supply 6. Public Transportation / Traffic jam 7. Access road to my house 8. Noise pollution 9. Others (please specify __________________________________)
1.9 Do you know what has been done so far for Solid Waste Management in Nepal? [ ] 1. Do not know about it [ ] 2. Partially know about it [ ] 3. Yes, I know about it
2. QUESTIONS ON WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICE OF YOUR HOUSE
2.1 How much solid waste does your house generate each day/each week/ each month? [ ] 1. Weight in kg ………………….. [ ] 2. Volume in cm3………………. [ ] 3. Others (please specify __________________________________)
2.2 Who mainly handles wastes at home?
[ ] 1. A male member of the family [ ] 2. A female member of the family [ ] 3. House Keeper / Servant / Maid [ ] 4. Others (please specify __________________________________)
2.3 Who takes the waste out?
[ ] 1. A male adult member of the family [ ] 2. A female adult member of the family [ ] 3. House Keeper / Servant / Maid [ ] 4. Children [ ] 5. Others (please specify __________________________________)
2.4 How do you dispose of waste generated from your house?
[ ] 1. Put outside of the house or into the moving container for door- to-door collection services If yes, go to question no. – 2.5
[ ] 2. Put into municipal or communal waste bins/containers If yes, go to question no. – 2.5 [ ] 3. Put at the municipality disposal site If yes, go to question no. – 2.6 & 2.7 [ ] 4. Open dumping outside of the house (including roads, farmlands, and vacant lands)
Answer: Priority 1st (__________) 2nd (__________) 3rd (__________)
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 5 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
[ ] 5. Open combustion / burning [ ] 6. Bury in our backyard [ ] 7. Composting (producing fertilizer from waste) [ ] 8. Give for recycling [ ] 9. Use for animal feeding (please specify such as dogs, goats, caw, water buffalo, pigs
etc) [ ] 10. Other (please specify __________________________________)
2.5 (Only for those chose 1-3 in Q. 2-4) Do you know where the collected waste is disposed?
[ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No
2.6 (Only for those chose 4”Open dumping” in Q. 2-4) Where do you dispose of your waste by
open dumping? [ ] 1. On roads [ ] 2. On farmlands [ ] 3. On banks of stream / river or in stream / river. [ ] 4. On vacant land [ ] 5. Others (please specify __________________________________)
2.7 (Only for those who chose 4 “Open dumping’ in Q. 2-4) Why do you dispose of your waste by
open dumping? 1. Long practice among our family and neighbors 2. No door to door collection services available 3. Far from the specified collection site 4. No specified container available 5. Other (please specify __________________________________)
2.8 How often do you dispose of waste generated from your house?
[ ] 1. As soon as wastes arise [ ] 2. Once daily [ ] 3. Once every 2 or 3 days [ ] 4. Less frequently
2.9 Where do you store the waste?
[ ] 1. Kitchen [ ] 2. Store room [ ] 3. Backyard [ ] 4. Others (please specify _______________________________)
2.10 If you are requested to carry your waste to a specified collection point, would you cooperate to
do so? [ ] 1. Yes, if it is located within 25m distance (30 seconds to walk) [ ] 2. Yes, if it is located within 50m distance (1 minute to walk) [ ] 3. No, I do not prefer the collection system mentioned above anyway. [ ] 4. We have been already doing. [ ] 5. Others (please specify _______________________________)
Answer: Priority 1st (__________) 2nd (__________) 3rd (__________)
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 6 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
2.11 What type of container do you use for carrying waste to a collection point or for placing the waste outside of your house? (Choose one or more) [ ] 1. Plastic bag [ ] 2. Paper bag [ ] 3. Metal/plastic/wood waste bin or container/bucket [ ] 4. Box [ ] 5. Basket [ ] 6. None – place directly If “None, place directly”, got to Q. 2- 13 [ ] 7. Others (please specify __________________________________)
2.12 (Only those who chose 1-5 & 7 in Q. 2-11) Why do you use it? (Choose one or more)
[ ] 1. It is clean after collection work [ ] 2. It prevents foul odors [ ] 3. It is easy handling [ ] 4. It keeps away pests such as flies [ ] 5. It is cheap or easy to get [ ] 6. Others (please specify __________________________________)
2.13 (Only those who chose “None-place directly” in Q. 2-11) If you are requested to use some
containers for carrying your waste to a collection point or for placing the waste outside of your house, would you cooperate to do so? [ ] 1. Yes, if plastic bag is requested to use. [ ] 2. Yes, if paper bag is requested to use. [ ] 3. Yes, if metal/plastic/wood waste bin or container/bucket is requested to use. [ ] 4. Yes, if box is requested to use. [ ] 5. Yes, if basket is requested to use. [ ] 6. No, I do not prefer the collection system mentioned above anyway. [ ] 7. Others (please specify _______________________________)
2.14 Do you have garden wastes (fallen leafs and branches or grass and weeds)?
[ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No - If no, go to question no. – 3.1
2.15 How do you dispose of your garden wastes generally?
[ ] 1. Dispose it together with other wastes outside of the house or into the moving container for the door to door collection
[ ] 2. Dispose it at the specified collection site [ ] 3. Open dumping [ ] 4. Open combustion/burning [ ] 5. Bury in the backyard [ ] 6. Composting (producing fertilizer from waste) [ ] 7. Give for composting [ ] 8. Use for animal feeding (please specify animals such as dogs, goats, caw, water
buffalo, pigs etc. __________________________________) [ ] 9. Others (please specify __________________________________)
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 7 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
3. Questions on Waste Collection Services in Your Tole
Here we would like to know about the present situation of waste collection services in your area.
3.1 Are there waste collection services in your area? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No If “No”, go to Q3-15.
3.2 Do you use these services?
[ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No (If no, please specify reasons) If no, go to question no. – 4.1
3.3 How is waste collected in your area?
[ ] 1. Collection workers or sweepers or moving containers collect wastes from door to door
[ ] 2. We carry wastes to the specified collection site [ ] 3. We directly carry wastes to a collection container/ truck / vehicle. [ ] 4. Others (please specify __________________________________) [ ] 5. Do not know
3.4 (Only for those who chose 1 in Q. 3-3) Who provides door-to-door collection service? [ ] 1. Municipality [ ] 3. NGOs/ CBOs [ ] 2. Private company [ ] 4. Do not know
3.5 (Only for those who chose 1 in Q. 3-3) What time is your waste normally collected? [ ] 1. 7:00-9:59 [ ] 2. 10:00-12:59 [ ] 3. 13:00-15:59 [ ] 4. 16:00-18:59 [ ] 5. Others (please specify __________________________________________) [ ] 6. Do not know
3.6 (Only for those who chose 2 or 3 in Q. 3-3) How far do you have to walk to reach this point? [ ] 1. 1-25 m [ ] 4. 100-250 m [ ] 2. 26-50 m [ ] 5. Over 250 m [ ] 3. 51-100 m
3.7 How often is your waste collected? [ ] 1. Daily [ ] 5. Less than once per week [ ] 2. More than four times per week [ ] 6. Irregular [ ] 3. Two to three times per week [ ] 7. I do not know [ ] 4. Once a week
3.8 Is the waste collection service done at a fixed time on the collection day? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 3. I do not know
3.9 Have you ever paid for the waste collection and sweeping services?
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 8 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
[ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No If “No”, go to Q3-12
3.10 (Only those who chose 1”Yes” in Q. 3-9), How much do you pay for the waste collection and
sweeping services per month? Answer: (1) Only waste collection service Rs_________
(2) Only sweeping the roads Rs_________ (3) Both waste collection and sweeping roads Rs_________
3.11 (Only those who chose 1”Yes” in Q. 3-9), Do you pay these fees directly to the service providers
(municipality/collection company/ NGOs/ CBOs) or through your community? [ ] 1. Directly (by myself) [ ] 2. Through the community/community organization [ ] 3. Do not know
3.12 Are you satisfied with the collection service?
[ ] 1. Very satisfied If yes, go to question no. – 4.1 [ ] 2. Somewhat satisfied If yes, go to question no. – 3.13& 3.14 [ ] 3. Less than satisfied / somewhat dissatisfied If yes, go to question no. – 3.13& 3.14 [ ] 4. Not satisfied at all If yes, go to question no. – 3.13& 3.14
3.13 (Only those who chose 2, 3 or 4 in Q. 3-12) What are the reasons? (Choose one or more)
[ ] 1. Waste collection / sweeping is not properly done [ ] 2. Waste collection / sweeping frequency is too low [ ] 3. Waste collection / sweeping is irregular [ ] 4. Waste collection time is too early or too late or irregular [ ] 5. Behavior of waste collection workers is bad [ ] 6. (ask people who are paying fees ) Waste collection / sweeping fee is expensive [ ] 7. Waste collection point is too far away [ ] 8. Other (please specify __________________________________)
3.14 (Only those who chose 2, 3 or 4 in Q. 3-12) Have you ever complained about the waste
collection service to the service providers or held meetings on this matter within the community in the last three years? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No
3.15 (Only for those who chose “No” in question Q. 3-1) Do you want to receive a waste collection
service? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No
4. Questions on Recycling and Waste Reduction
Here we would like to know about your opinions on recycling.
4.1 Do you know that some of waste items such as paper, plastics, metal and textile can be recovered and used as resources?
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 9 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
[ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No
4.2 Do you separate your waste into categories?
[ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No If no, go to question no. – 4.4
4.3 (Only for those who chose “Yes” in Q. 4-2) How many categories and what type of waste do
you segregate? [ ] 1. Two….. (__________________) (__________________) [ ] 2. Three….. (__________________)(__________________)(________________) [ ] 3. More than three.(__________________________________________________)
4.4 Recycling of waste is most effective if the waste can be sorted into different categories by the
household. If the service providers such as Municipality, private companies, NGO/CBO introduce a separate waste collection system, you will be requested to separate your wastes into a number of categories, for example, i) recyclable waste such as metals, glass, plastics, paper and ii) other wastes. Are you willing to cooperate with this type of system? [ ] 1. Very much willing to cooperate go to question no. – 4.5 & 4.6 [ ] 2. Somewhat willing to cooperate go to question no. – 4.5 & 4.6 [ ] 3. Less willing to cooperate / somewhat unwilling to cooperate go to question no. – 4.7 [ ] 4. Not willing to cooperate at all go to question no. – 4.7 [ ] 5. We have been already doing go to question no. – 4.5 & 4.6
4.5 (Only who chose either 1 or 2 and 5 in Q. 4-4) What do you think about recycling? (Choose
one or more) [ ] 1. Recycling would reduce the amount of waste going to landfill [ ] 2. Recycling would help to protect the environment [ ] 3. Recycling would allow you to earn some money [ ] 4. Recycling would help to utilize our resources effectively [ ] 5. Others (please specify _______________________________)
4.6 (Only who chose either 1 or 2 and 5 in Q. 4-4) How many categories would you be willing to
separate your wastes into? [ ] 1. Two [ ] 2. Three [ ] 3. More than three
4.7 (Only those who chose 3 or 4 in Q. 4-4) What are the reasons? (Choose one or more)
[ ] 1. It is inconvenient and difficult [ ] 2. It will take much time [ ] 3. Needs for the recycling system is not clear [ ] 4. Benefits of the recycling system is not clear [ ] 5. There may be poor contribution form household members [ ] 6. No space inside the house to keep the separated wastes [ ] 7. Others (please specify _______________________________)
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 10 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
4.8 Is there someone who comes around to collect or buy your reusable or recyclable materials? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No If "No", go to Q4-10.
4.9 Which materials do they collect or buy from you?
[ ] 1. Glass [ ] 8. Plastic [ ] 2. Cardboard [ ] 9. Textiles (e.g. clothes) [ ] 3. Paper [ ] 10. Leather, rubber [ ] 4. Metal can [ ] 11. Wood/Timber [ ] 5. Other metal [ ] 12. Tyres [ ] 6. Kitchen waste [ ] 13. Others (Please specify ______________) [ ] 7. Garden waste
4.10 Do you take your recyclable materials to shops for refund or sale? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No If “No”, go to Q4-13.
4.11 Which materials do you return or sell to shops?
[ ] 1. Glass [ ] 8. Plastic [ ] 2. Cardboard [ ] 9. Textiles (e.g. clothes) [ ] 3. Paper [ ] 10. Leather, rubber [ ] 4. Metal can [ ] 11. Wood/Timber [ ] 5. Other metal [ ] 12. Tyres [ ] 6. Kitchen waste [ ] 13. Others (Please specify ______________) [ ] 7. Garden waste
4.12 (Only for those chose “Yes” in either Q. 4-8 or Q. 4-10) Now we would like to ask you about
up to major three materials collected from you or returned / sold to shops. (1) How much of these materials are collected from you or returned / sold to shops? (2) How much do you sell these for? (NRs. / kg or item) Put 0 if given for free. (3) How often are these materials collected / taken for recycling? (Choose from (a) 2-3
times/week, (b) once a week, (c) once very other week, (d) once a month (e) once every 6 months, (f) once a year (g) irregular, and (f) do not know)
(1) Quantity (2) Price
Type of materials Amount Unit/month NRs. Unit
(3) Frequency
1 2 3
4.13 Do you know what is “compost” produced from municipal waste and food wastes and garden
wastes (fallen leaves, cut trees or grasses)? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 11 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
4.14 Have you ever been taught how to make compost? [ ] 1. Yes, by municipality [ ] 2. Yes, by private companies [ ] 3. Yes, by NGO/CBO [ ] 4. Yes, by others (please specify ) [ ] 5. No
4.15 Have you ever made compost by using kitchen and/or garden waste?
[ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No If “No”, go to Q4-18
4-16 (Only those who chose “Yes” in Q. 4-15) What method do you adopt for composting?
[ ] 1. Open space/organic field [ ] 2. Containers/composing bin [ ] 3. Others (please specify )
4.17 (i) (Only those who chose “Yes” in Q. 4-15) how much of these wastes do you compost per
month? Kitchen wastes [ ] 1. Less than half [ ] 2. Half [ ] 3. More than half [ ] 4. All Garden wastes [ ] 1. Less than half [ ] 2. Half [ ] 3. More than half [ ] 4. All
(ii) How much compost do you produce per month? Answer .
(iii) What do you do with it? [ ] 1. Sell [ ] 2. Own use
(iv) If you sell it, how much do you sell it for? Answer NRs./kg.
(v) If you sell it, who do you sell it to? [ ] 1. Neighbors
[ ] 2. Farmers [ ] 3. NGO/CBO [ ] 4. Private company [ ] 5. Other (Please specify …………………)
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 12 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
4.18 Are you willing to make compost from food waste and/or garden waste? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. Yes, if the training is provided. [ ] 3. Yes, if the compost bin/container is provided free of charge. [ ] 4. Yes, if the compost produced is purchased by any organizations [ ] 5. No [ ] 6. We have been already doing
4.19 (Only those who chose “No” in Q. 4-18) What are the reasons?
[ ] 1. It seems to be inconvenient and difficult [ ] 2. It seems to take much time (We are too busy to do) [ ] 3. It seems to take much money (We cannot afford) [ ] 4. Needs for composing is not clear [ ] 5. Benefits of composing is not clear [ ] 6. No farmland/kitchen garden for using compost available [ ] 7. Others (please specify _______________________________)
5. Public Involvement/ Community Participation & Public Awareness
5.1 Please tell us the disposal practice of your community people, and not yours. What are the most common methods to dispose of the waste in your community? [ ] 1. Picked up by waste collection service [ ] 2. Burnt [ ] 3. Thrown in the open spaces or rivers go to question no. – 5.3 [ ] 4. Just dumped on the yard / in the garden go to question no. – 5.3 [ ] 5. Buried on the yard / in the garden [ ] 6. Others
5.2 Who should be responsible for managing the waste discharged by residents?
1. Government/Ministry of Local Development 2. Municipality 3. Sweepers 4. Yourselves 5. Our Communities/ CBOs
6. Private companies 7. NGOs 8. Do not know 9. Other (please specify __________________________________)
5.3 (Only those who chose 3 or 4 in Q. 5-1) Do you take any actions?
[ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No If “No”, go to Q 5-6.
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 13 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
5.4 (Only those who chose “Yes” in Q. 5-3) What activities do you or your family members take initiatives? 1. Trying not produce household waste as far as possible 2. Reducing waste by composting 3. Reducing waste by recycling/reusing 4. Disposing of waste in the fixed place on fixed time 5. Disposing of organic waste and inorganic waste separately 6. Paying fees for disposal collection services 7. Cleaning the neighborhood go to question no. – 5.5 8. Other (please specify_________________________________)
5.5 (Only those who chose 7” Cleaning the neighborhood” in Q. 5-4) How often does anyone in
your family or your servant clean the side of the road or adjacent public area in front of your premises? [ ] 1. Almost everyday [ ] 2. Sometimes [ ] 3. Do not know
5.6 Solid waste management costs a lot of money. What do you think about if you are requested to
pay for the waste collection services? [ ] 1. We are willing to pay if services are available. go to question no. – 5.5 & 5.8 [ ] 2. We have already paid. go to question no. – 5.10 [ ] 3. We are not willing to pay. go to question no. – 5.9 [ ] 4. Others (please specify _________________________________)
5.7 (Only for those chose 1 in Q. 5-6) To which service providers do you want to pay for waste
collection? [ ] 1. Any service providers including municipality, private companies, NGOs/ CBOs [ ] 2. Municipality [ ] 3. Private company [ ] 4. NGOs/ CBOs [ ] 5. Others (please specify_________________________________)
5.8 (Only for those chose 1 in Q. 5-6) How much is the largest amount of money that your
household would be willing to pay? [ ] 1. Less than 10 Rs per month [ ] 2. 11-30 Rs per month [ ] 3. 31-50 Rs per month [ ] 4. 51-100 Rs per month [ ] 5. 101-150 Rs per month [ ] 6. More than 150 Rs per month [ ] 7. Do not know
Answer: Priority 1st (__________) 2nd (__________) 3rd (__________)
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 14 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
5.9 (Only for those chose 3 in Q. 5-6) What are the reasons for not willing to pay? 1. It is the duty of the Ministry/ Government 2. It is the duty of the Municipality 3. It is the duty of the sweepers 4. Income is very low and could not afford 5. Good services could not be expected 6. Our waste was collected / disposed and we do not have any problem from the waste 7. We and our neighbors have not paid for a long time. 8. Do not know 9. Others (please specify __________________________________)
5.10 Are there any community-based organizations (CBOs), clubs and groups to manage waste in
your community? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No If “No”, go to Q 5-13 [ ] 3. Do not know If “not know”, go to Q 5-13
5.11 (Only those who chose “Yes” in Q. 5-10) What types of activities are CBOs involved in? 1. Waste collection 2. Composting 3. Recycling 4. Pubic Education/Campaign 5. Cleaning 6. Discussion meetings regarding proper waste handling and discharge 7. Do not know 8. Others (please specify ______________________________)
5.12 Have you ever participated in or contribute to these CBOs’ activities?
[ ] 1. Yes, we have participated in/contribute to ____ . [ ] 2. No
5.13 Have you ever been taught or informed methods of proper waste handling and discharge? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No If “No”, go to Q 5-15
5.14 (Only those who chose “Yes” in Q. 5-13) Who taught these to you? (Choose one or more)
[ ] 1. Family members [ ] 2. Community people / Neighbors l [ ] 3. School [ ] 4. Municipality [ ] 5. Central government [ ] 6. NGOs (please specify _______________________________) [ ] 7. Donor agencies (please specify _______________________________) [ ] 8. TV program [ ] 9. Radio program [ ] 10. Newspaper and magazine, [ ] 11. Pamphlet, booklet, posters [ ] 12. Others (please specify _______________________________)
Answer: Priority 1st (__________) 2nd (__________)3rd (__________)
Answer: Priority 1st (__________) 2nd (__________)3rd (__________)
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
5 - 15 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
5.15 Has anyone in this household including children, received any environmental and health education such as the health and environmental impacts caused by solid waste? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No if no go to question no. – 5.5
5.16 (Only those who chose” Yes” in Q5-15) Where did this information come from? (Choose one or more) [ ] 1. Family members [ ] 2. School [ ] 3. Medical worker / center / hospital [ ] 4. Community organization / NGO (please specify _____________________) [ ] 5. Newspaper [ ] 6. Radio program [ ] 7. TV program [ ] 8. Municipality [ ] 9. Ministry of Local Development [ ] 10. Others(please specify _______________________________)
5.17 Do you think community-based Solid Waste Management activities such as collecting wastes,
cleaning the community, mass campaign for raising awareness of people, education program/training on solid waste management for maintaining the cleaner city and environment are necessary? [ ] 1. Very necessary [ ] 2. Somewhat necessary [ ] 3. Not very necessary [ ] 4. Not necessary at all
5.18 If you have a chance, are you willing to participate in these activities?
1. Yes, we are willing to participate in any activities related to solid waste management. 2. Yes, we are willing to participate in collecting wastes in our community 3. Yes, we are willing to participate in cleaning our community 4. Yes, we are willing to participate in mass campaign for raising awareness of people 5. Yes, we are willing to participate in education program/training on solid waste
management 6. Yes, we are willing to participate in reducing wastes/composting. 7. No, we are not willing to participate in any activities 8. Others (please specify _______________________________ )
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
******End******
Answer: Priority 1st (__________) 2nd (__________) 3rd (__________)
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
2. Result of Questinnaire Survey
SECTION 1: GENERAL HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Table 1.1: Household Structure of MunicipalitiesUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 162 126 74 75 768
Size of Family 5.15 5.48 7.12 6.91 5.79Sex Ratio 100%
Male 48% 49% 49% 52% 49%Female 52% 51% 51% 48% 51%
Adult Ratio 100%Adult 70% 70% 69% 69% 69%
Children 30% 30% 31% 31% 31%Comments:
1 BKM and MTM has the largest family size approaching 7 members per household2
3
4 Children (age below 17 years) constitute almost one third of a family in all municipalities
Table 1.2: Access to HousesUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Motarable (main road) 93 28% 55 34% 28 22% 22 30% 28 37%Lane (motorable) 141 43% 69 43% 47 37% 32 43% 36 48%Footpath (pedestrian) 97 29% 38 23% 51 40% 20 27% 11 15%
Comments:1 Most houses in municipalities (around 40%) could be accessed only through narrow motorable lanes.
This figure is highest for KRM at 48% and lowest for BKM at 37%2 On the other hand KRM has the lowest percentage of HHs (15%) access through footpath and
BKM has the highest at 40%. For others footpath access is in the range of 23-29%.3 Facility of motorable main road access varies as shown in the table, with BKM being lowest and
KRM being the highest.
Table 1.3: Open Space with the House.Unit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Open compound/backyard 49 15% 42 26% 0 0% 4 5% 2 3% 97Closed compound/backyard 126 38% 53 33% 7 6% 2 3% 9 12% 197Common courtyard 68 21% 8 5% 56 44% 43 58% 17 23% 192Free spaces left around premises 4 1% 3 2% 1 1% 8 11% 2 3% 18No compound / backyard 74 22% 51 31% 39 31% 6 8% 44 59% 214Family / Kitchen garden 5 2% 1 1% 22 17% 8 11% 1 1% 37Trees, Shrubs, Flower plants 5 2% 4 2% 1 1% 3 4% 0 0% 13
Comments:1
2
3 Houses having closed compound and backyard is most prevalent in KMC and LSMC.4
In MTM very few houses (8%) have open spaces but a large no. of them (58%) avail commoncourtyard.
The average family size for KMC, LSMC and KRM has been recorded as 5.15, 5.48and 5.79 respectively.With the exception of MTM, there are more female members in a family. Thus SWMprogram should be focussed on women.
A significant number of HHs have no open spaces. This figure varies with 22% in KMC and 31% forLSMC and BKM.
Very few houses (almost negligiable at 1-2%) in KMC, LSMC and KRM have family or kitchen garden.But a significant no. of HHs in Bhakatapur (17%) and MTM (11%) have kitchen gardens.
5 - 16
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 1.4: Migration CharecteristicsUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Migration LevelLocal - Indiginous 154 47% 102 63% 118 94% 71 96% 52 69% 497Migrated - Total 177 53% 60 37% 8 6% 3 4% 23 31% 271
Period of MigrationDuring our generation 119 36% 38 23% 7 6% 2 3% 14 19% 180
During my parents 46 14% 16 10% 1 1% 0 0% 7 9% 70During my grand parents 12 4% 6 4% 0 0% 1 1% 2 3% 21
Comments:1
2 Most of migrated households were found to have migrated recently i.e. in their own generation.3 Very few migrated households have migrated two generations before.
Table 1.5: Period of Settlement in CommunityUnit: # & % of sample migrated HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HHs 177 100% 60 100% 8 100% 3 100% 23 100% 294
Sample HHs 331 53% 162 37% 126 6% 74 4% 75 31% 768Less than 1 year 11 6% 2 3% 2 25% 0 0% 1 4% 16Less than 5 years 9 5% 4 7% 1 13% 0 0% 1 4% 15Less than 10 years 61 34% 20 33% 5 63% 2 67% 6 26% 104Less than 20 years 58 33% 17 28% 0 0% 0 0% 6 26% 81More than 21 years 38 21% 17 28% 0 0% 1 33% 9 39% 78
Comments:1
2 In KMC and LSMC, one third of migrated HHs (34% and 33% resp.) have been living in this communitysince 5to 10 years. Thisfigure is exceptionally high for BKM (63%) and MTM (67%).
3 In case of BKM, a sizable 25% HHs have been found to be in this community for less than a year.4 For the case of LSMC, MTM and KRM almost a third of migrated HHs have been living in this
community formore than twenty years. KMC recorded three quarter of this figure and therewere no migrated HHs inBKM some 20 years ago.
Table 1.6: Income Categories of HHs Covered by SurveyUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Low (less than 6000/-per month) 83 25% 43 27% 65 52% 41 55% 18 24% 250Lower Middle (6000/- to 13,000/- pm) 169 51% 81 50% 51 40% 24 32% 46 61% 371Higher Middle (13000/- to 22000/- pm) 66 20% 35 22% 9 7% 7 9% 10 13% 127Higher (more then 22000/- per month) 13 4% 3 2% 1 1% 2 3% 1 1% 20
Comments:1
2
3
Remarks:1 It is to be noted that the present survey with small sample size and sort of purposive sampling may
not reflectthe actual income structure.
BKM and MTM are different from other municipalities as Low Income Groups constitute almost 50% ofHHs.
The household income structure of KRM is also similar to KMC and LSMC, but more % of Lower MiddleGroups have been found at the expense of lesser Middle Income Group (income Nrs. 13,000 -22,000pm).
The household income structure of KMC and LSMC are almost similar with around 50% belonging toLower Middle Income Group followed by a quarter of HHs having less than NRs. 6000 per monthincome.
The highest number of migrant households were recorded at KMC (53%) to be followed by LSMC(37%) and KRM (31%). In BKM and MTM migrant households are negligible (6% and 4% respectively).
Total
A majority of migrant HHs in all the five municipalities have been living in the community since last 10years or even before.
5 - 17
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 1.7: Ranking of HH Services & Utilities for Improvements.Unit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
Rank % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Water Supply 1 48% 1 47% 1 46% 2 30% 1 35%Dranage/ sewerage 3 12% 2 20% 2 14% 3 10% 2 25%Waste collection 2 19% 3 13% 3 13% 1 35% 3 20%Air Pollution 4 9% 4 10% 4 12% 3 10% 7 1%Electricity Supply 0% 1% 7 4% 0% 5 4%Public transportation 7 2% 7 2% 0% 5 5% 4 6%Access road to my house 5 6% 5 5% 6 5% 6 3% 4 6%Noise pollution 6 4% 6 3% 5 6% 4 7% 6 2%Others 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Comments:1
SECTION 2: WASTE DISPOSAL AND MANAGEMENTTable 2.1 Methods Adopted by HHs for Waste disposal
Unit: # & % of sample HHsMunicipalities
Particulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total# % # % # % # % # %
Sample HH nos. 331 128% 162 109% 126 115% 74 147% 75 133% 768Dispose of waste by door to door collectionservice 214 65% 91 56% 50 40% 8 11% 42 56% 405Dispose of waste by putting into Municipal orCommunal Container 65 20% 54 33% 5 4% 5 7% 2 3% 131Dispose of waste at Municipality'sdesignated disposal site 25 8% 11 7% 63 50% 13 18% 1 1% 113Dispose of waste by open dumping out sidethe house 18 5% 3 2% 7 6% 44 59% 17 23% 89Dispose of waste by open combustion 37 11% 4 2% 2 2% 16 22% 26 35% 85Dispose of waste by burrying in the ground 3 1% 1 1% 2 2% 5 7% 4 5% 15Dispose of waste by Composting 30 9% 9 6% 15 12% 17 23% 8 11% 79Dispose of waste by giving it for recycling 20 6% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 22Dispose of waste by using as animal feed 11 3% 2 1% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 14Dispose of waste by Other means 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Comments:1
2
3
4 Combustion and Composting is a popular practice in MTM (adopted by 22% and 23% respectively).5
Remarks: 1
Table 2.2 Family Members reponsible for Waste Related ActivitiesUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesDiscription of Family member KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
Handleby
Takenout
Handleby
Takenout
Handleby
Takenout
Handleby
Takenout
Handleby
Takenout
Sample HH nos. 331 162 126 74 75 768Male Adult member 5% 6% 2% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 4% 3%Female Adult member 66% 54% 69% 29% 81% 79% 80% 55% 67% 65%House Keeper/servant 6% 7% 7% 9% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0%Children of the family 23% 3% 22% 4% 19% 0% 18% 3% 29% 1%Any of the members 0% 31% 0% 56% 0% 20% 0% 42% 0% 31%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Comments:1
2
3 Children of the family are also considerably involved in handling wastes.
Considering more than one answere sought from the respondent, the summation of responses exceeds100%.
Female members are sometimes helped by other members of the family for taking out the waste fordisposal.
As indicated by more than 50% of the sample households, disposal of waste by door to door collectionservice is the most prevalent practice adopted in KMC, LSMC and KRM. However in case of BKM only50% and in MTM only 18% households follow this practice. A majority (50%) HHs in BKM dispose oftheir waste at Municipality's designated disposal sites and 59% HHs of MTM just dump their waste atopen places outside their house.
SWM has been considered as top priority in MTM municipality, to be followed by KMC where it isranked next to water supply. For other three municipalities it is ranked third and next to water supplyand drainage/sewerage.
In case of KMC, 20% HHs have also indicated that they dispose by putting their waste in Municipal orCommunal containers located in the vicinity. Around 11% HHs do open combustion and around 8% arealso engaged in making compost.In case of LSMC, 33% HHs have indicated that they dispose by putting their waste in Municipal orCommunal containers located in the vicinity. Around 7% HHs use Municipality's designated disposalsites and 6% HHs have also adopted composting.
Composting is practiced by 9%, 6%, 12% and 11% HHs in KMC, LSMC, BKM and MTM municipalitiesti l
Female members are exclusively responsible for Handling Wastes and Taking it out for disposal. Incase of LSMC though, females are less involved as other members of the family do it most of the times.
5 - 18
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 2.3 Places of Open Waste Dumping Unit: # & % of sample HHs practicing open space dumping
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HHs 18 100% 3 100% 7 100% 44 100% 17 100% 89
Sample HHs 331 5% 162 2% 126 6% 74 59% 75 23% 768On Road 7 39% 0 0% 4 57% 2 5% 1 6% 13On farmland 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 7% 4 24% 7On bank of stream/river 1 6% 1 33% 1 14% 10 23% 6 35% 19On Vacant Land 10 56% 2 67% 2 29% 29 66% 6 35% 47
Comments:1
2
3 A significant large number of HHs in KRM followed by MTM use farmland as disposal sites.Table 2.4 Frequency of HH Waste Disposal
Unit: # & % of sample HHsMunicipalities
Particulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total# % # % # % # % # %
Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
As soon as wastes arise 17 5% 3 2% 22 17% 3 4% 3 4% 48Once Daily 214 65% 84 52% 87 69% 35 47% 25 33% 445Once every 2 or 3 Days 96 29% 67 41% 16 13% 35 47% 43 57% 257Less frequent 4 1% 8 5% 1 1% 1 1% 4 5% 18
Comments:1
2
3
Table 2.5 Storage of waste in the houseUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Kitchen 80 24% 20 12% 80 63% 10 14% 12 16% 202Store room 2 1% 0 0% 3 2% 0 0% 0 0% 5Backyard 146 44% 92 57% 31 25% 62 84% 62 83% 393No Specfic Place 103 31% 50 31% 12 10% 2 3% 1 1% 161Others 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7
Comments:1 Place of waste storage varies from municipality to municipality2 The nature of the place of waste storage is almost same in KMC & LSMC where the majority of HHs
use backyard and the remaining HHs use kitchen and other palces for storing the waste. 3
4
Table 2.6 Type of Container Used for Carrying Waste to Collection PointUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Plastic bag 250 76% 128 79% 42 33% 44 59% 48 64% 533Paper bag 4 1% 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0% 6Metal/plastic/wood bin 24 7% 7 4% 2 2% 2 3% 15 20% 52Box 24 7% 12 7% 6 5% 5 7% 3 4% 50Basket 15 5% 14 9% 75 60% 19 26% 8 11% 143None 11 3% 0 0% 0 0% 3 4% 0 0% 14Others 3 1% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 5
Comments:1
2
3
4 Box is used by some HHs (7%) in KMC, LSMC and MTM as well as 5% in BKM and 4% in KRM.5 A very few % of HHs in all the municipalities also use paper bag.
Baskets are also used to a lesser extent in MTM (26%) followed by KRM (11%), LSMC (9%) and KMC(5%).
Similarly, the nature of the place of waste storage is same in MTM and KRM where majority % of HHalmost 84% using backyard and remaining HHs using kitchen.
Majority of HHs in KMC (65% ) and LSMC (52%) have been disposing waste once daily and around29% and 41% HHs respectively do it once every 2 or 3 days.In case of BKM, around 17% HHs dispose waste as soon as it arises and 13% HHs once every 2 or 3days, but 69% do it daily. In MTM, equal % (47% ) of HHs do it once daily or once 2 or 3 days.
In case of BKM, the nature of the place waste storage is completely different from other municipalities.A significant % of HHs (63%)usie kitchen followed by 25% of HHs using the backyard and 10% have nospecific place.
Plastic Bag is the most common container used for carrying waste to collection points in allmunicipalities except BKM. In case of BKM Baskets are used by majority 60% of the HHs.
Metal/plastic/wood made bins are used by alarge number of HHs (20%) in KRM, followed by 7% inKMC and 4% in LSMC.
In KMC, LSMC and MTM, an overwhelming majority of HHs (around 60%) practicing 'Open SpaceDumping" dispose of their waste on vacant land. In case of BKM, roads are commonly used. KMCIn LSMC, MTM and KRM, a large number of HHs dispose waste on bank of stream rivers. This practiceis also found in KMC and BKM but in smaller numbers.
Disposing waste with the frequency of once daily is the most common practice followed inmunicipalities. However, in the case of KRM, an overwhelming majority do it once every two or three
5 - 19
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 2.7 Disposal of Garden Waste Unit: # & % of sample HHs that generates garden waste
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos 331 27% 162 31% 126 17% 74 23% 75 23% 768Respondent HH nos. 91 152% 50 110% 21 90% 17 135% 17 106% 196Together with other waste in movingcontainer for DD collections 44 48% 12 24% 6 29% 0 0% 3 18% 65Specifice collection Site 4 4% 3 6% 0 0% 0 0% 2 12% 9Open Dumping 4 4% 5 10% 1 5% 3 18% 1 6% 14Open Combustion 39 43% 17 34% 3 14% 7 41% 10 59% 76Bury in the backyard 9 10% 7 14% 2 10% 4 24% 0 0% 22Compostiong 34 37% 21 42% 11 52% 9 53% 4 24% 79Giviing for composting 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 0% 1 6% 2Using for animal feeding 4 4% 1 2% 2 10% 0 0% 0 0% 7Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 89
Comments:1
2
3
Remarks:1
2
SECTION 3: EXISTING WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
Table 3.1 Availability and use of waste collection service Unit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Service available and used 295 89% 155 96% 119 94% 26 35% 42 56% 637Service available and not used 13 4% 6 4% 2 2% 0 0% 6 8% 27Service not available but required 7 2% 1 1% 5 4% 47 64% 23 31% 83service neither available nor required 16 5% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 4 5% 21
Comments:1
2 Very few HHs (almost negligiable at 0-5%) in all municipalities are not interested for the services.
Table 3.2 Mode of Waste Collection Unit: # & % of sample HHs that avail waste collection servicesMunicipalities
Particulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total# % # % # % # % # %
Respondent Sample HH nos. & % 295 100% 155 100% 119 100% 26 100% 43 100% 638Sample HHs and % of respondent 331 89% 162 96% 126 94% 74 35% 75 57% 768
Door to door collection 227 77% 94 61% 52 44% 8 31% 41 95%Carrying to specific site 33 11% 10 6% 63 53% 14 54% 1 2%Carrying to containner /truck 34 12% 51 33% 4 3% 4 15% 0 0%Do not know/others 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2%
Comments:
1
2 The HHs in BKM - 53% & in MTM - 52% are reported carrying the waste at the specific site.3 33% of HHs of LSMC, 12% of KMC and 15% of MTM are disposing the waste through container/truck.
The % of respondent HHs that generates garden waste ranges between 31% in LSMC to 17% in BKM.In KMC they constitute 27% and for MTM and KRM they account for 23%.
A majority of HHs in LSMC (42%), BKM (52%) and MTM (53%) use garden wastes for composting. InKMC and KRM also 37% HHs and 24% HHs respectively follow the practice of composting.
In KMC, a large majority of HHs (48%) dispose garden waste with other wastes in moving container orfollow the practice of open combustion (43%). A few of them (10%) bury garden waste in the backyard.
In LSMC, a large number of HHs (24%) dispose garden waste with other wastes in moving containerbut even larger (34%) follow the practice of open combustion. A few of them (14%) bury garden wastein the backyard or dump outside. Almost similar trend is observed in BKM and a mix of above trends inMTM and KRM.
Considering more than one answere sought from the respondent, the summation of responses exceeds100%.
An overwhelming large majority of HHs in KMC, LSMC and BKM avail waste collection services.Among the newly established municipalities, only 35% HHs in MTM and 56% in KRM avail theservices. But in both cases a large number of HHs have expressed their need to have such services.
Among the HHs availing waste services, almost all the respondent HHs in KRM (98%) followed by alarge majority of 77% and 66% in KMC and LSMC have door to door collection service. available tothem.
5 - 20
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 3.3 Service Prioviders of Door to Door Collection and Their TimingUnit: # & % of sample HHs that avail door to door collection services
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % 227 100% 94 100% 52 100% 8 100% 41 100% 422Sample HHs and % of respondent 331 69% 162 58% 126 41% 74 11% 75 55% 768
Service ProviderMunicipality 145 64% 18 19% 52 100% 8 100% 7 17%
Private company 29 13% 5 5% 0 0% 0 0% 4 10%NGO/CBO 43 19% 69 73% 0 0% 0 0% 30 73%
Do not know 10 4% 2 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Respondent Sample HH nos. & % # % # % # % # % # %227 100% 94 100% 52 100% 8 100% 41 100%
Timing7:00 - 9:59 175 77% 69 73% 48 92% 8 100% 15 37%
10:00-12:59 20 9% 16 17% 2 4% 0 0% 12 29%13:00 - 15 :59 9 4% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 1 2%16:00 - 18 : 59 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 22 10% 9 10% 1 2% 0 0% 13 32%Do not know 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%Comments:
1 Majority HHs (37% to 100%) in all municipalities reported collection of waste in the morningat 7: to9.59 AM, followed bwteen 10 AM to 1 PM.
3 A few % of the HHs in all municipalities reported collection of waste in other times.Table 3.4 Distance Travelled for Waste Disposal Unit: # & % of sample HHs that carry waste to collection point by themselves
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % 67 100% 61 100% 67 100% 18 100% 1 100% 214Sample HHs and % of respondent 331 20% 162 38% 126 53% 74 24% 75 1% 768
1 - 25 m 40 60% 38 62% 38 57% 6 33% 1 100%26 - 50 m 10 15% 23 38% 28 42% 8 44% 0 0%51 - 100m 5 7% 0 0% 1 1% 1 6% 0 0%100 - 250 m 11 16% 0 0% 0 0% 3 17% 0 0%Over 250 m 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Comments:1
2 In case of KMC around 15% walk 26-50m and 16% walk for 100-250m in doing so.3 For LSMC, BKM and MTM around 40% walk for 26-50m.
Table 3.5 Frequency of Waste Collection ServiceUnit: # & % of sample HHs that avail waste collection services
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % 295 100% 155 100% 119 100% 26 100% 42 100% 637Sample HHs and % of respondent 331 89% 162 96% 126 94% 74 35% 75 56% 768
Daily 193 65% 72 46% 112 94% 11 42% 7 17%More 4 times / week 54 18% 20 13% 1 1% 9 35% 4 10%2 or 3 times / week 30 10% 50 32% 0 0% 5 19% 13 31%1 / week 2 1% 2 1% 2 2% 0 0% 0 0%less than 1 /week 3 1% 2 1% 1 1% 0 0% 1 2%Irreqular 11 4% 8 5% 3 3% 1 4% 17 40%I do not know 2 1% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Comments:1
2 The frequency of waste collection in KRM was reported irregular (40% HHs) and less frequent.3 In case of KMC, 18% HHs have more than 4 times per week and for 10%, 2 or 3 times a week.4 In case of LSMC, 13% HHs have more than 4 times per week and for 32%, 2 or 3 times a week.5 Except KRM, very few HHs reported irregular waste collection frequency.
Table 3.6 Paid for Waste Collection ServicesUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Yes 218 66% 87 54% 72 57% 2 3% 43 57% 422No 113 34% 75 46% 54 43% 72 97% 32 43% 346
Comments:1 Almost all the HHs (97%) of MTM reported not paying the waste collection services charge2 In other four municipalities, 54% to 66% HHs are paying the service charge.
A large majority of HHs in KMC, LSMC and BKM that avail door to door services have to walk less than25m for disposing the waste to collection point. This figure is 100% for KRM.
Almost all the HHs (94%) of BKM reported that their wastes are collected on daily basis. In case ofKMC, LSMC and MTM 65%, 46% and 42% reported daily frequency of waste collection services
5 - 21
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 3.7 Amount of Payment for Waste Collection and sweeping Services Unit: NRs/HH/month
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % 218 0% 87 0% 72 0% 2 0% 43 0% 422
Type of ServiceAvg. Amt. Avg. Amt. Avg. Amt. Avg. Amt. Avg. Amt.
Waste collection service charge paid 93.4 79.5 25.9 12.5 46.4Sweeping the road charge 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Both collection and sweeping charge 77.9 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0
Comments:1 Almost all the HHs of LSMC, MTM & KRM reported paying NRs. 79.5, 12.5 & 46.4 /HH/Monthin
average against the waste collection charge2 Only 60% of HHs of BKM & 92% of HHs of KMC reported paying NRs. 25.9 & 93.4 repectively3 Out of these five municipalities, HHs of the KMC are paying more charge than others4 Almost all the HHs of all the municipalities reported not paying the road sweeping charge separately5 But 40% of HHs of Bhatapur are paying the road sweeping charge along with the waste
collection charge ie combined charge, 6 HHs of the four municipalities except BKM reported not paying the collection & sweeping
charge in combined
Table 3.8 Mode of payment Unit: # & % of sample HHs that pay for waste service charge
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % 218 100% 87 100% 72 100% 2 100% 43 100% 422
Modality of Paymentmy Self 179 82% 81 93% 68 94% 2 100% 42 98%through community 20 9% 5 6% 1 1% 0 0% 1 2%others 19 9% 1 1% 3 4% 0 0% 0 0%
Comments:1 Almost all the respondent HHs of all the municipalities reported paying the service charge themselves2 Negligible % (0-9) of HHs are paying the service charge through community and others
SECTION 4: WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
Table 4.1: Knowledge and Practice on Waste SeparationUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. and % sum 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768Have knowledge & practice seperation 215 65% 89 55% 70 56% 23 31% 20 27%Have knowledge but do not practiceseparation 65 20% 41 25% 16 13% 29 39% 14 19%Do not have knowlede but do practiceseparation 30 9% 4 2% 15 12% 1 1% 17 23%Neither have knowledge nor practiceseparation 21 6% 28 17% 25 20% 21 28% 24 32%
Comments:1
2
Table 4.2: Extent of Waste SeperationUnit: # & % of sample HHs that practice source separation
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample Respondent HHs nos. and % sum 245 100% 93 100% 85 100% 24 100% 37 100% 484
Two 149 61% 65 70% 61 72% 17 71% 30 81% 330Three 62 25% 24 26% 17 20% 6 25% 6 16% 119More than three 34 14% 4 4% 7 8% 1 4% 1 3% 47
Comments:1
In KMC very few HHs (6%) reported not having knowledge and practice, but 20% HHs do not practiceseparation despite having knowledge of it.
Of the total HHs, mojority of HHs of in all municipalities separate waste into two categories. Some HHsalso separate waste into three and more than three categories.
A majority of HHs in KMC (65%), LSMC (55%) and BKM (56%) are having both the knowledge andpractice of waste separation. In case of MTM, this figure is limited to 31% only. But, a majority of HHsin MTM 39% have knowledge but do not practice. Similarly, significant no. of HHs (32%) in KRM andMTM (28%) have neither knowledge nor practice of waste separation.
5 - 22
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 4.3: WIillingness to Cooperate for RecyclingUnit: # & % of sample HHs that do not practice source separation
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % sum 86 100% 69 100% 41 100% 50 100% 38 100%Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 26% 162 43% 126 33% 74 68% 75 51% 768
Very much 45 52% 32 46% 25 61% 8 16% 18 47%Somewhat 27 31% 28 41% 5 12% 32 64% 13 34%Less willing 7 8% 7 10% 8 20% 7 14% 2 5%Not willing 7 8% 2 3% 3 7% 3 6% 5 13%
Comments:1
2
Table 4.4: Perception on Waste Recycling by Non Practitioner but Willing HouseholdsUnit: # & % of sample HHs that are quite willing to practice waste separation in Table 4.3
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. 72 60 30 40 31
Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 22% 162 37% 126 24% 74 54% 75 41% 768
Reduces waste production 53 74% 52 87% 28 93% 24 60% 18 58%Reduces environmental pollution 51 71% 52 87% 11 37% 21 53% 27 87%Provides income generating opportunities 26 36% 8 13% 4 13% 2 5% 10 32%Provides opportunity for effective resourceutilization 25 35% 3 5% 1 3% 8 20% 2 6%Others 2 3% 0 0 0 1
157 218% 115 192% 44 147% 55 138% 58 184%Comments:
1
Remarks: Summation of responses exceeds 100% due to the multiple answers.
Table 4.5: Reasons for Unwillingness to Waste Seperation Unit: # & % of less willing and unwilling respondent in Table 4.3
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. 14 9 192% 11 147% 10 138% 7 184% 51
Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 4% 162 6% 126 9% 74 14% 75 9% 768
It is inconvenient and difficult 7 50% 3 33% 9 82% 7 70% 6 86%It takes much time 5 36% 6 67% 1 9% 2 20% 6 86%Needs for recycling system is not clear 0 0% 1 11% 5 45% 1 10% 0 0%Benefits of recycling system is not clear 0 0% 0 0% 5 45% 2 20% 0 0%No space inside the house to keep theseperated waste 9 64% 6 67% 3 27% 1 10% 1 14%
Comments:1
2
Table 4.6: Preferred Extent of Waste Seperation Unit: # & % of sample HHs that are quite willing to practice waste separation in Table 4.3
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. and % sum 72 100% 60 100% 30 100% 40 100% 31 100% 233Two 31 43% 33 55% 10 33% 30 75% 22 71%Three 29 40% 19 32% 12 40% 10 25% 9 29%More than three 12 17% 8 13% 8 27% 0% 0%
Comments:1
2In case of BKM, 33%, 40% and 27% respondents prefered two, three and more than three respectively.
The majority of HHs in KMC (64%) & LSMC (67% ) cited lack of space inside the house as reason fortheir unwillingness. Equal no. of HHs in LSMC (67%) reported that it takes much time and 33% found itinconvenient. In case of KMC, half of respondents found it inconvenient and around one third thought itA large no. of respondents in BKM, MTM and KRM also found waste separation as too inconvenient. Asignificant number of them in BKM (45%) and MTM (10-20%) were not clear on needs and benefit ofwaste separation.
Majority of respondent HHs in KMC (43%), LSMC (55%), MTM (75%), and KRM (71%) preferseperation of waste into two categories. But a significant numbers of them (25% to 40%) in those fourmunicipalities also prefer three categories. Few of the HHs in KMC and LSMC prefer more than threecategories.
A majority of HHs in all municipalities except MTM are very much inerested to cooperate for recycling.The figure varies from 46-61% . In MTM, 64% HHs are somewhat interested.Only upto 20% HHs in all the five municipalities expressed their unwillingness to cooperate forrecycling.
A large majority of respondents in all the five municipalities felt that waste separation helps reducewaste production and reduces environmental pollution.
5 - 23
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 4.7: Disposal/Income Generated through Recyclable Materials Unit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768Mode of DisposalCollected/Sold at Households' Doorstep 205 62% 79 49% 72 57% 13 18% 13 17% 376Sold at Households' Doorstep 1 0% 1 1% 0% 1 1% 1 1% 4Returned/Sold at Market 123 37% 82 51% 48 38% 18 24% 45 60% 313None of above 3 1% 1 1% 6 5% 43 58% 17 23% 70
Comments:1
2
3
Table 4.8: Recyclable Material Collected or Sold Unit: # of responses
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
Collected/Bou
ght atHome
Return/Sold atShop
Collected/Bou
ght atHome
Return/Sold atShop
Collected/Bou
ght atHome
Return/Sold atShop
Collected/Bou
ght atHome
Return/Sold atShop
Collected/Bou
ght atHome
Return/Sold atShop
Sample HH nos. 331 162 126 74 75 768Glass 318 159 155 69 114 53 25 8 56 13Paper 318 138 158 66 103 41 24 6 53 10Tin 153 22 65 6 71 9 9 2 26 1Metal 88 18 28 4 19 4 7 2 11 0Kitchen waste 0 0 56 0 27 0 17 0 313 0Garden waste 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0Plastic 209 36 87 5 17 1 5 1 3 0Rubber 38 13 5 0 0 0 3 0 46 0Wood 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0Tyres 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 12 0Others 38 31 5 1 1 0 1 0 45 0
Comments:1
Table 4.9: Linkage between Practice of Source Separation and Composting (Q4.2/4.15) Unit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticular KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Practice both- Waste Seperation andComposting 46 14% 34 21% 23 18% 11 15% 6 8%Practice Waste Seperation but notComposting 199 60% 59 36% 62 49% 13 18% 31 41%Do not practice Waste Seperation but doComposting 9 3% 6 4% 12 10% 8 11% 7 9%Neither practice Waste Seperation nor doComposting 77 23% 63 39% 29 23% 42 57% 31 41%
Comments:1
2
Table 4.10: Knowledge and Practice on Composting (Q4.13/4.15)Unit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. & % sum 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Have knowledge (heard of) & make compost 40 12% 39 24% 34 27% 18 24% 11 15%
Do not have knowlede but do make compost 15 5% 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% 2 3%Have knowledge but do not make compost 152 46% 86 53% 68 54% 31 42% 32 43%
Neither have knowledge nor make compost 124 37% 36 22% 23 18% 24 32% 30 40%Comments:
1
2
3 Negligible % of HHs of all the municipalities do not have knowledge and do make compost.
A large number of HHs in KMC (60%), BKM (49%) and KRM (41%) practice waste separation but arenot engaged in composting. In LSMC and MTM only 36% and 18% HHs respectively belong to thisOn the other hand, 39% of HHs in LSMC, 57% of HHs in MTM and 41% HHs in KRM neither practicewaste separation nor do composting. In KMC and BKM 23% belong to this group.
Majority of HHs of all the municipalities have knowledge but do not make compost, the figure variesfrom 42-54% in which lowest figure in MTM at 42% and highest figure in BKM at 54%.On the other hand, 32-40% of the HHs of the KMC, MTM & KRM neither have knowledge and nor makecompost. 24-27% of HHs of the LSMC, BKM, and MTM have knowledge and make composting.
On the other hand, the majority of HHs of LSMC & KRM fall in the category of returned /sold at market.37% of KMC, 38% of BKM and 24% of MTM also fall into this category.But, for the majority of HHs ( 58%) in MTM the mode of disposal is different from that presented in thetable.
The major items collected for sell are glass and paper in all municipalities whereas kitchen waste isreported as the major item in KRM. In KMC and LSMC , large number of repondents also mentionedtin and plastic.
Majority of HHs of KMC (62%) & BKM (57%) fall in the category of collected/sold at Households'doorstep. In LSMC 49% belong to this category.
5 - 24
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 4.11: Source of Knowledge on Compost MakingUnit: # & % of sample HHs that have knowledge of Compost MakingMunicipalities
Particulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total# % # % # % # % # %
Respondent Sample HH nos. & % sum 192 100% 125 100% 102 100% 49 100% 43 100% 511Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 58% 162 77% 126 81% 74 66% 75 57% 768
Municipality 0 0% 5 4% 3 3% 10 20% 0 0%Private Company 1 1% 1 1% 0 0% 5 10% 0 0%NGO/CBO 3 2% 16 13% 2 2% 17 35% 0 0%Others 17 9% 14 11% 2 2% 3 6% 0 0%None of above/ by ourself 171 89% 89 71% 95 93% 14 29% 43 100%
Comments:1
2
Table 4.12: Methods adopted for Making Compost Unit: # & % of sample HHs that have experience with Compost Making
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % 55 100% 40 100% 35 100% 19 100% 13 100% 162
Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 17% 162 25% 126 28% 74 26% 75 17% 768
Open space/ organic field 39 71% 24 60% 32 91% 10 53% 12 92% 115Containers/compsting bin 13 24% 15 38% 3 9% 9 47% 1 8% 40Others 3 5% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4
Comments:1
2
Table 4.13: Willingness to make CompostUnit: # & % of sample HHs that do not have experience with Compost Making
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % 276 100% 122 100% 91 100% 55 100% 62 100% 606
Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 83% 162 75% 126 72% 74 74% 75 83% 768Willing 41 15% 12 10% 5 5% 3 5% 1 2% 82Willing, If tranning is provided 72 26% 62 51% 14 15% 33 60% 10 16% 204Willing, If compost making box is providedfree 9 3% 10 8% 2 2% 4 7% 0 0% 25Willing, if assured of buyer (organization) 9 3% 0 0% 2 2% 3 5% 0 0% 14Not Willing 145 53% 38 31% 68 75% 12 22% 51 82% 316
Comments:1
2 In LSMC and MTM, training was considered as a condition for doing composting by majority of HHs.
Table 4.14: Reasons for Unwilling to make CompostUnit: # & % of sample HHs that are Not Willing in Table 4.13
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % 145 100% 38 100% 68 100% 12 100% 51 100% 314
Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 44% 162 23% 126 54% 74 16% 75 68% 768It is inconvenient and difficult 13 9% 2 5% 15 22% 3 25% 4 8%It takes much time as we have no time 36 25% 5 13% 8 12% 3 25% 10 20%It takes much money as we cannot afford 7 5% 5 13% 10 15% 2 17% 12 24%Needs for composing is not clear 19 13% 6 16% 20 29% 3 25% 7 14%Benefits of composing is not clear 10 7% 5 13% 2 3% 1 8% 8 16%No space is available 60 41% 13 34% 12 18% 0 0% 7 14%Others (please specify 0 0% 2 5% 1 1% 0 0% 3 6%
Comments:1 Unavailibility of space was cited as the main reason for unwillingness to composting in KMC and LSMC. 2 A large number of respondents in BKM and MTM were not clear on the need for composting. 3 Other reasons, as shown in the table were also cited by some HHs.
A large majority of HHs in KMC (58%), LSMC (77%), BKM (81%), MTM (66%) and KRM (57%)reported to have knowledge in composting. Out of them, an overwhelming repondents had received theknowledge on their own.The involvement of NGO/CBO is not appreciable except for MTM (35%). In MTM , municipality alsoseems to be active in disseminating knowledge. But in other municipality the agencies have not beeninvolved in this activity as such.
The HHs that reported to have experience in compost making accounted for 17% in KMC, 25% inLSMC, 28% in BKM, 26% in MTM and 17% in KRM. Out of them, an overwhelming repondents pracicecomposting in open space or organic fields.
Among the sample HHs that do not have experience with compost making, a majority of them in KMC(53%), BKM (75%) and KRM (82%) asserted that they are not willing at all in any condition.
Some HHs also do composting in containers and compost bins. Their number is significant in KMC,LSMC and MTM.
5 - 25
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 4.15: Assessment of CompostingUnit: # & % of respondents that make compost & as shown
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % sum 55 40 35 19 13 162Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 17% 162 25% 126 28% 74 26% 75 17% 768
A. Kitchen WasteLess than half 13 24% 5 13% 0 0% 3 16% 0 0% 21
Half 13 24% 14 35% 18 51% 11 58% 6 46% 61More than half 13 24% 3 8% 9 26% 4 21% 2 15% 31
All 12 22% 11 28% 8 23% 1 5% 5 38% 3751 93% 33 83% 35 100% 19 100% 13 100%
B. Garden WasteLess than half 10 18% 5 13% 0 0% 4 21% 1 8% 20
Half 6 11% 6 15% 5 14% 3 16% 3 23% 23More than half 11 20% 3 8% 2 6% 2 11% 2 15% 20
All 13 24% 7 18% 5 14% 0% 2 15% 27Total 40 73% 21 53% 12 34% 9 47% 8 62% 90C. Amount of Waste
Minimum 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00Maximum 15.00 6.00 20.00 10.00 10.00
Mean 3.93 1.99 6.66 2.92 5.31Std. Deviation 2.78 1.28 4.60 2.01 3.07
D. Proportion of sell/own useSell 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Ownuse 51 98% 38 100% 35 100% 19 100% 13 100%Total 52 100% 38 100% 35 100% 19 100% 13 100%E. Selling Rate NA NA NA NA NATotal NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0
E. Customers of Compost 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Comments:1
2 In the case of garden waste, views of HHs differ from municipality to municipality.3 Almost all of the HHs in all municipalitites do not sell the compost.
Remarks: Summation of responses exceeds 100% due to the multiple answers.
SECTION 5. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTTable 5.1: Awareness on SWM in Nepal
Unit: # & % of sample HHsMunicipalities
Level of Awareness KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total# % # % # % # % # %
Sample HH nos. & % sum 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Not Awared 147 44% 52 32% 13 10% 5 7% 28 37% 245Partially Awared 149 45% 80 49% 27 21% 51 69% 26 35% 333Awared 35 11% 30 19% 86 68% 18 24% 21 28% 190
Comments:1 Awareness level on SWM in BKM is high or more than the other municipalities2
3
Majority of HHs in all the municipalities making compost of almost half of the kitchen waste, this figurevaries from 24-58% with lowest figure in KMC and highest figure in MTM.
KMC has the Lowest awareness level on SWM (11%) followed by LSMC (19%), MTM (24%) and KRM(28%)A majority of HHs in KMC and LSMC however reported partial awareness. In MTM 69% were reportedin this category.
5 - 26
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 5.2: Mode of Waste Disposal in the CommunityUnit: # of respondent HHs
MunicipalitiesMode of Waste Disposal KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 162 126 74 75 768
(1) Waste collected by Collector 300 91% 159 98% 120 95% 28 38% 47 63% 654(2) Waste is Burnt 95 29% 25 15% 6 5% 35 47% 43 57% 204(3) Waste thrown in the open space 51 15% 9 6% 15 12% 50 68% 24 32% 149(4) Waste dumped on the vicinity of thehouse/yard 23 7% 2 1% 15 12% 25 34% 21 28% 86(5) Waste burried in the yard/garden nearthe house 22 7% 8 5% 1 1% 16 22% 5 7% 52(6) Others 12 4% 2 1% 2 2% 0 0% 1 1% 17
Total 503 152% 205 127% 159 126% 154 208% 141 188% 1162sum of (3) & (4) 74 22% 11 7% 30 24% 75 101% 45 60%
Comments:1
2 Throwing waste in open space and dumping in the vicinity is quite prevalent in MTM and KRM
Remarks:1 Summation of responses exceeds 100% due to multiple answers.
Table 5.3: Perception on Responsibility for Waste ManagementUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesActor and Institutions KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. & % sum 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Government 36 11% 7 4% 4 3% 2 3% 8 11% 57Municipality 105 32% 33 20% 60 48% 24 32% 55 73% 277Sweepers 7 2% 0 0% 15 12% 1 1% 0 0% 23Yourselves 147 44% 109 67% 35 28% 34 46% 5 7% 330Pvt. Company. 28 8% 7 4% 11 9% 13 18% 7 9% 66NGO 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1Do not know 7 2% 5 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 12Others 1 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2
Comments:1
2
3 NGOs were not considered responsible for SWM in all the municipalities.
Table 5.4: Household Initiatives towards Waste ManagementUnit: # & % of sample HHs that react against open space dumping
MunicipalitiesInitiatives KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % sum 65 100% 11 100% 3 100% 1 100% 6 100% 86Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 20% 162 7% 126 2% 74 1% 75 8% 768
Reducing Waste Generation 14 22% 2 18% 2 67% 0% 3 50% 21Making Compost 6 9% 0% 0% 0% 2 33% 8Using Recycle and Reuse 1 2% 1 9% 0% 0% 0% 2Disposing waste at designated place andtime 20 31% 3 27% 0% 0% 0% 23Practicing Waste Separation 6 9% 0% 0% 1 100% 0% 7Paying service charge to collector/sweeper 4 6% 4 36% 0% 0% 1 17% 9Cleaning Negibours 11 17% 1 9% 1 33% 0% 0% 13Others 3 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3
Comments:1
2 It is to be noted that except KMC, very few respondents in other four municipalities have taken anyinitiative.
It was reported in table 5.3 that 22%, 7%, 24%, 100% and 60% of sample HHs in KMC, LSMC,Bhaktapu, MTM and KRM respectively indicated that open dumping in various forms was beingpracticed in the community. But only 20%,7%, 2%, 1% and 8% respective.
The most common mode of waste disposal in the communities of KMC (91%), LSMC (98%), BKM(95%) and KRM (63%) was in the form of waste collected by Collector from house to house. In KRM,burning was also common (57%). Burning of waste was reported practiced by significant number ofHHs in KMC (29%), LSMC (15%) and MTM (47%) as well.
A majority of HHs in KMC (44%), LSMC (67%) and MTM (46%) perceived that they are themselvesresponsible for SWM. But majority of HHs in BKM (48%) and KRM (73%) wanted Municipality to beresponsible for it.Few HHs in all the municipalities considered Government or Private Company as the responsible bodyfor SWM.
5 - 27
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 5.5: Frequency of Cleaning the NeighborhoodUnit: # & % of sample HHs who Cleans neighourhood (table 5.4)
MunicipalitiesFrequency of Cleaning KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % sum 11 100% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 13Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 3% 162 1% 126 1% 74 0% 75 0% 768
Almost every day 2 18% 1 100% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3Not Frequently 9 82% 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 10
Comments:1
Remarks: The validity of this table could be questioned on the ground of very few responses.
Table 5.6: Willingness to Pay for SWM Services Unit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesLevel of Willingness KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. & % sum 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Willing to pay if service is available 95 29% 66 41% 46 37% 69 93% 28 37%We have already paid 220 66% 88 54% 70 56% 3 4% 42 56%We are not willing to pay 16 5% 8 5% 10 8% 2 3% 5 7%
Comments:1
2 A small % of HHs (3-8%) in all municipalities declined to pay for the services.
Table 5.7: Preference of Willing Households for payments to the receipient Service ProviderUnit: # & % of sample HHs that are willing to pay (table 5.6)
MunicipalitiesService Providers KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % sum 95 100% 66 100% 46 100% 69 100% 28 100% 304Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 29% 162 41% 126 37% 74 93% 75 37% 768
Concerned Service Provider 94 99% 66 100% 44 96% 64 93% 28 100% 296Municipality 1 1% 0 0% 2 4% 4 6% 0% 7Private Company 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0NGOs/CBOs 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0% 1Others 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 0
Comments:1
Table 5.8: Affordability to SWM Service ChargeUnit: # & % of sample HHs that are willing to pay (table 5.6)
MunicipalitiesRange of Payments KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % sum 95 100% 66 100% 46 100% 69 100% 28 100% 304Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 29% 162 41% 126 37% 74 93% 75 37% 768
Less than Rs 10 14 15% 14 21% 18 39% 13 19% 1 4% 6011 - 30 per month 37 39% 15 23% 23 50% 44 64% 8 29% 12731 - 50 per month 23 24% 23 35% 5 11% 11 16% 16 57% 7851 - 100 per month 15 16% 10 15% 0% 1 1% 2 7% 28101 - 150 per month 3 3% 3 5% 0% 0% 1 4% 7more than 150 per month 3 3% 1 2% 0% 0% 0% 4
Comments:12
3
4
5
A majority of respondent HHs of LSMC (35%) and KRM (57%) indicated to pay between NRs. 31 to 50per month against SWM service charges. Around 24% of KMC, 11% of BKM and 16% of MTM alsoreported the same.Around 16% of KMC and 15% of LSMC could pay between Nrs. 51-100. Some HHs in thesemunicipalities could go even higher, but in other three municipalities HHs would not like to pay aboveNRs. 50 per month.A significant number of respondent HHs in KMC (15%), LSMC (21%), BKM (39%) and MTM (19%)would prefer to pay only less than Nrs. 10 per month.
A majority of respondent HHs of KMC (39%), BKM (50%) and MTM (64%) indicated to pay upto NRs.30 per month against SWM service charges. Around 23% of LSMC and 29% of KRM also reported thesame.
A negligible small % of sample HHs in KMC (3%), LSMC (1%) and BKM (1%) clean theirneighbourhood, and that too not frequently (LSMC reported almost daily). This was reported zero forMTM and KRM.
A majority of HHs in KMC (66%), LSMC (54%), BKM (56%) and KRM (56%) reported already payingfor SWM services. Besides, a significant % of HHs that do not pay now, expressed their willingness topay provided service is available.
The respondents included 29%, 41%, 37%, 93% and 37% of the sample HHs of five municipalities
Almost all the respondents of all the municipalities prefer any service provider whereas only negligible% HHs prefers municipality. This figure varies from 0-6%.
5 - 28
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 5.9: Reason for Unwillingness to Pay Unit: # & % of sample HHs that are not willing to pay (table 5.6)
MunicipalitiesReasons for Unwillingness to Pay KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % sum 16 100% 8 100% 10 100% 2 100% 5 100% 37Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 5% 162 5% 126 8% 74 3% 75 7% 768
It is duty of the Ministry/Government 4 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4It is duty of the Municipality 8 50% 0% 6 60% 1 50% 2 40% 17Duty of the sweeper 0% 0% 0% 1 50% 0% 1Could not afford 1 6% 1 13% 2 20% 0% 0% 4Good service could not be expected 0 0% 1 13% 0% 0% 0% 1We have no problem from the waste 1 6% 5 63% 1 10% 0% 3 60% 10We have not paid for a long time 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Others 2 13% 1 13% 1 10% 0% 0% 4
Comments:1
2
3
4
Table 5.10: Activities of CBO's in the CommunityUnit: # & % of sample HHs that know about CBOs activities
MunicipalitiesActivities KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % sum 268 100% 157 100% 117 100% 26 100% 49 100% 617Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 81% 162 97% 126 93% 74 35% 75 65% 768
Waste Collection 261 97% 152 97% 113 97% 21 81% 44 90% 591Composting 0% 1 1% 1 1% 4 15% 0% 6Recycling 2 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2Public Eductaion/ Campaign 1 0% 1 1% 1 1% 1 4% 0% 4Cleaning 3 1% 2 1% 1 1% 0% 5 10% 11Discussion meeting 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1Do not know 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2
Comments:1
2 It follows that NGOs/CBOs has lot to do to make their activities being felt in other aspects of SWM too.
Table 5.11: Participation in CBO's ActivitiesUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Participated/Cooperated in CBO Activities 82 25% 80 49% 47 37% 12 16% 12 16% 233Not Participated/Cooperated in CBOActivities 249 75% 82 51% 79 63% 62 84% 63 84% 535
Paticipated in Training 69 10% 49 14% 38 14% 39 23% 6 4% 201Enviroment & Health Education 282 41% 143 40% 105 39% 56 33% 69 46% 655
Total 682 151% 354 154% 269 153% 169 156% 150 150% 1624Comments:
1
A large majority of sample HHs in KMC (81%), LSMC (97%) and BKM (93%) followed by KRM (65%)and MTM (35%) reported being aware of involvement and activities of CBOs/NGOs in the field of SWMin their municipalities. But almost all of them took notice of CBOs/NGOs involvement in door to doorwaste collection activities. Except for MTM (15%) and KRM (10%) respondents are not informed ofCBOs involvement in other activities like composting, education campaign, recycling etc.
A majority of sample HHs were reported not to have participated in CBOs activities, but significant % ofrespondents in LSMC (49%) and BKM (37%) have either participated or cooperated in CBOs activities.In case of KMC (25%), MTM (16%) and KRM (16%) participation could be considered as low.
A majority of respondents in KMC (50%), BKM (60%) and MTM (50%) were of the view that SWM isthe duty of municipality, and hence they should not be asked to pay any additional charges for SWMservices. About 40% respondents in KRM also thought the same.
It was reported in table 5.7 that a few of sample HHs; 5% in KMC & LSMC, nearly 8% in BKM & KRMalong with 3% in MTM declined to pay for SWM service. The reasons for unwillingness to pay isdescribed above.
A majority of respondents in LSMC (63%) and KRM (60%) were of the opinion that they had noproblems with solid waste, hence why to pay. Around 6% in KMC and 10% in BKM also thought thesame.A significant % of respondents in KMC (25%) opined that Ministry/Government should take care ofSWM without levying any additional charges
5 - 29
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 5.12: Source of Training/Information on SWMUnit: # & % of sample HHs exposed to appropriate information on SWM
MunicipalitiesSources KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % sum 131 100% 91 100% 79 100% 70 100% 12 100% 218Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 40% 162 56% 126 63% 74 95% 75 16% 768
by Family Members 29 22% 7 8% 1 1% 8 11% 0 0% 45by Community people/Neighbour 9 7% 9 10% 2 3% 3 4% 2 17% 25by school 16 12% 8 9% 19 24% 10 14% 2 17% 55by Municipality 4 3% 10 11% 14 18% 9 13% 0% 37Central Government 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0by NGO 10 8% 15 16% 5 6% 18 26% 1 8% 49by donor agencies 3 2% 0% 1 1% 2 3% 1 8% 7by TV program 36 27% 23 25% 16 20% 7 10% 3 25% 85by radio program 13 10% 9 10% 12 15% 1 1% 2 17% 37by Newspaper/Magazine 7 5% 8 9% 4 5% 12 17% 1 8% 32by Pamphlet/Booklet/Poster 3 2% 1 1% 5 6% 0% 0% 9by Others 1 1% 1 1% 0% 0% 0% 2
Comments:1
2
2
Table 5.13: Source of Family Members' Enviromental and Health EducationUnit: # of sample HHs whose family members are exposed to env. Health education
MunicipalitiesSources KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % sum 282 143 105 56 69Sample HHs nos. and % of respondent 331 85% 162 88% 126 83% 74 76% 75 92% 768
From other family member 71 25% 35 24% 2 2% 5 9% 7 10% 120Fom school 180 64% 92 64% 91 87% 41 73% 47 68% 451From Medical worker/ health center/hospital 12 4% 0% 6 6% 0% 4 6% 22From CBOs/NGOs 18 6% 11 8% 4 4% 10 18% 4 6% 47From Print Media (newspapers etc.) 121 43% 67 47% 23 22% 5 9% 31 45% 247From radio program 142 50% 62 43% 63 60% 16 29% 21 30% 304From TV program 219 78% 83 58% 81 77% 28 50% 57 83% 468From Municipality 6 2% 13 9% 8 8% 4 7% 1 1% 32From HMG/MLD 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0From Others 9 3% 2 1% 0% 4 7% 15 22% 30
778 276% 365 255% 278 265% 113 202% 187 271% 1721Comments:
1
2
Remarks:1 Summation of responses exceeds 100% due to the multiple answers.
Table 5.14: Perception on Participatory SWM ProgramsUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Is very necessary 298 90% 160 99% 109 87% 45 61% 62 83%Is some what necessary 30 9% 2 1% 10 8% 25 34% 13 17%Is Not very necessary 2 1% 0 0% 3 2% 2 3% 0 0%Is Not necessary at all 1 0% 0 0% 4 3% 2 3% 0 0%
Comments:1
The % sample HHs that reported their family members being exposed to environmental healtheducation were 85%, 88%, 83%, 76% and 92% respectively.School and TV programs were reported to be the main source of learning for all municipalities. Radioand print media was also an important source. In case of KMC and LSMC family members were alsohelpful in disseminating information. Importance of other sources varied municipality to municipality, asshown in table. So far NGOs/CBos or Municipality have not been instrumental in diseminatinginformations.
Most of the respondent HHs of KMC (27%), LSMC (25%) and KRM (25%) have been informed aboutSWM through TV programs. But this figure is 10% and 20% for the case of BKM and MTM respect.
The other important source of information has been identified as school (BKM) or NGO (MTM). In caseof KMC a large % of respondents (22%) got information through family members. Other sources likeneighbour, municipality, radio programs, newspaper etc. were also cited in all the municipalities.
The % sample HHs that reported exposed to information on SWM were 40%, 56%, 63%, 95% and 16%respect.
An overwhelming large majority of sample HHs have voted for participatory SWM programs in allmunicipalities.
5 - 30
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 5.15: Willingness for Participation in Preferred SWM ActivityUnit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesScope of Participation KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
First Priority ResponsesAny activity related to SWM 56 17% 111 69% 27 21% 35 47% 20 27% 249Collecting Waste in our Commumity 15 5% 9 6% 13 10% 13 18% 21 28% 71Cleaning our Community 53 16% 7 4% 24 19% 1 1% 18 24% 103Campaign for raising Awarness of People 116 35% 17 10% 28 22% 8 11% 9 12% 178Education program on SWM 46 14% 6 4% 24 19% 6 8% 4 5% 86Reducing Waste/Composting 15 5% 4 2% 1 1% 6 8% 1 1% 27Not Willing 30 9% 8 5% 9 7% 5 7% 2 3% 54
Comments:1
2
3
SECTION 6: ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOUR AND ATTITUDE
6-I: Open Dumping Practices (refer Q2.7)
Table 6_I.1: Reasons for Open Waste Dumping Practices (Q2.7)Unit: # & % of sample HHs practicing open space dumping
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HHs 18 100% 3 100% 7 100% 44 100% 17 100% 89
Sample HHs 331 5% 162 2% 126 6% 74 59% 75 23% 768Long practice among our family 6 33% 2 67% 1 14% 24 55% 2 12%No door to door collection service 8 44% 0% 5 71% 11 25% 12 71%Far from specific collection site 1 6% 1 33% 0% 1 2% 2 12%No specified container available 2 11% 0% 1 14% 8 18% 1 6%Other 1 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Comments:1
2
3
4
Table 6_I.2: Availability of "open space with the house" wrt practitioner of "open space dumping" (Q1.3/Q2.4)Unit: # & % of sample HHs practicing open space dumping
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HHs 18 100% 3 33% 7 100% 44 93% 17 100% 89
Open compound/backyard 6 33% 1 33% 0 0% 2 5% 0 0%Closed compound/backyard 3 17% 1 33% 0 0% 1 2% 2 12%Common courtyard 6 33% 0 0% 3 43% 25 57% 2 12%Free spaces left around premises 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 9% 0 0%No compound/backyard 3 17% 0 0% 2 29% 5 11% 13 76%Family /Kitchen garden 0 0% 0 0% 2 29% 6 14% 0 0%Trees, Shrubs, Flower plants 0 0% 1 33% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0%
Comments:1
2 In KMC, BKM and MTM, a large majority of respondents have common courtyard.3
It was found in Table 2.1 (Q2.4) that a large proportion of sample HHs (59% and 23% respectively) in MTM and KRM follow open dumping practice.This figure was reported 5%, 2% and 6% for KMC, LSMC and BKM respectively. It is to be noted that both MTM and KRM are the newly establishedmunicipalities and the other three are the old ones. Does the institutional set up i.e. being municipality or VDC affect the open dumping practices?There could be other determinants as well. The following section attempts to identify major determining factor for this behaviour.
In the case of KMC, respondents reported that unavailabilty of door to door collection services (44%)and long practice (33%) are the major two factors for following open space dumping practice. Somerespondent (11%) attributed unavailability of specified container.In the case of LSMC, majority of respondents (67%) cited long practice of the family followed by beingtheir house far from collection site and other reasons for following open space dumping.Similar to the case of KMC, an overwhelming majority of respondents (71% HHs) in BKM and KRMcited unavailability of door to door collection services as the major factor.
In case of KMC and BKM, awareness raising followed by any activity related to SWM, cleaningcommunity, education program and collecting waste have been identified as preferred activities indescending order.In case of LSMC and MTM, majority preferred any activity related to SWM followed by raisingawareness or collecting waste and education program as well as composting. HHs in KRM also wantedto be engaged in similar activities but with varied interests.
A few of the sample HHs in KMC (9%), LSMC (5%), BKM and MTM 7% and KRM (3%) expressedunwillingness to participate in any SWM related activities. The rest have expressed varied interests.
In the case of MTM, Long practice (55%) followed by absence of door to door service (25% HHs) andcontainer (18% HHs) were the determining factor.
In case of KMC and LSMC, there seems to exist positive correlation between open space dumping andavailability of open compound or backyard to dump them.
In case of KRM, there seems to exist a strong positive correlation between open space dumping andunavailability of compound or backyard. Thereby forcing respondents to dump outside in the open.
5 - 31
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 6_I.3: Migration Characteristics and Settlements with respect to practitioner of "open space dumping" (Q1.3/Q2.4)Unit: # & % of sample HHs practicing open space dumping
MunicipalitiesMigration Characteristics KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 18 100% 3 100% 7 100% 44 100% 17 100% 89
Migration LevelLocal - Indigenous 8 44% 3 100% 5 71% 41 93% 10 59%
Migrated - Total 10 56% 0 0% 2 29% 3 7% 7 41%Period of Migration
During our generation 7 70% 0 0% 2 100% 2 67% 3 43%During my parents 2 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 57%
During my grand parents 1 10% 0 0% 0 0% 1 33% 0 0%Length of Settlement
Less than 1 year 1 10% 0 0% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0%Less than 10 years 5 50% 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 1 14%Less than 20 years 3 30% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 29%More than 21 years 1 10% 0 0% 0 0% 1 33% 4 57%
Comments:1
2
3
4
Table 6_I.4: Knowedge about SWM in Nepal wrt practitioner of "open space dumping" (Q1.9/Q2.4)Unit: # & % of sample HHs practicing open space dumping
MunicipalitiesParticular KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 18 100% 3 100% 7 100% 44 100% 17 100% 89
Do not know 10 56% 0 0% 1 14% 5 11% 7 41%Partially know about it 6 33% 2 67% 3 43% 35 80% 5 29%Yes I know about it 2 11% 1 33% 3 43% 4 9% 5 29%
Comments:1
Table 6_I.5: Views on reponsibility of managing the waste by practitioner of "open space dumping" (Q5.2/Q2.4)Unit: # & % of sample HHs practicing open space dumping
MunicipalitiesParticular KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 11 100% 1 100% 7 100% 31 100% 13 100% 63
Government 2 18% 0 0% 0 0% 2 6% 2 15%Municipality 6 55% 1 100% 3 43% 10 32% 9 69%Sweepers 1 9% 0 0% 2 29% 1 3% 0 0%Yourselves 2 18% 0 0% 1 14% 13 42% 0 0%Pvt. Company. 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 5 16% 2 15%Total
Comments:1
Table 6_I.6: Participation in CBO activities by practitioner of "open space dumping" (Q5.12/Q2.4)Unit: # & % of sample HHs practicing open space dumping
MunicipalitiesParticular KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 18 100% 3 100% 7 100% 44 100% 17 100% 89
Yes 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 1 2% 2 12%No 18 100% 3 100% 6 86% 43 98% 15 88%
Comments:1
A large number of respondent thoght that Municipalities are responsible for waste management. But42% of HHs in MTM felt that they are themselves responsible for it.
In case of LSMC, BKM and MTM, an overwhelming majority of respondent HHs are indigenous. But inBKM, 29% of them are also migrated HHs.Most of the migrated HHs came in their own generation. But in KRM, a large % of them (57%) came inparents' generation.A large proportion of migrated respondent HHs have been in the coomunity for less than 10 years inKMC and MTM. But in KRM, a majority (57%) have been living for more than 21 years.
In KMC and MTM very few repondent HHs know about SWM in Nepal. In case of other threemunicipalities only about one third of them (29-43%) are aware of SWM.
As expected, very few to none of the respondents that practice open space dumping responded to haveparticipated in CBOs activities.
In case of KMC and KRM, it seems that open space dumping is followed by both the indigenous andmigrated HHs alike (with minor variation).
5 - 32
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 6_I.7: Training received on proper waste handling/discharge by practitioner of "open space dumping" (5.13/Q2.4)Unit: # & % of sample HHs practicing open space dumping
MunicipalitiesParticular KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 18 100% 3 100% 7 100% 44 100% 17 100% 89
Yes 2 11% 1 33% 1 14% 13 30% 1 6%No 16 89% 2 67% 6 86% 31 70% 16 94%
Comments:1
Table 6_I.8: Education received on environment and health by any family member (Q5.15/Q2.4)Unit: # & % of sample HHs practicing open space dumping
MunicipalitiesParticular KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 18 100% 3 100% 7 100% 44 100% 17 100% 89
Yes 15 83% 3 100% 4 57% 27 61% 17 100%No 3 17% 0 0% 3 43% 17 39% 0 0%
Comments:1
Major Determinants related to the Behaviour of Open Space Dumping:1
2
3
4
5
6
6-II: Behaviour and Attitude wrt Payment of Waste Collection Services
Table 6_II.1: Use of Available Waste Collection Services and Payments (ref Q3.2/3.9)Unit: # & % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticular KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Sample HH nos. 331 100% 162 100% 126 100% 74 100% 75 100% 768
Have used the services and paid for it 218 66% 87 54% 72 57% 2 3% 43 57%Have used the services but not paid for it 77 23% 68 42% 47 37% 24 32% 0 0%Have not used the services but paid for it 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%Neither used the services nor paid for it 36 11% 7 4% 7 6% 48 65% 32 43%
Comments:1
It was found in Table 3.6 that a large proportion of sample HHs in KMC (34%), LSMC (46%), BKM (43%), MTM (97%), and KRM (43%) do not pay forwaste collection service charge. In order to ascertain the determining factors towards this attitude and behaviou, multi-facet enquiry into variousaspects has been undertaken. In this connection, attempts have also been made to explore the attitude and behaviour of HHs that do pay servicecharge so that a comparative evaluation of determining factors be made and positive aspects are taken up in the proposed action plan.
It is evident from the above table that 11% HHs in KMC, 4% in LSMC, 6% in BKM, 65% in MTM and43% in KRM do not pay because they have not used the services. The rest of 23%, 42%, 37% and 32%Hhs in the four municipalities, do not pay despite availing the service.
There seems to exist positive correlation between open space dumping and availability of opencompound or backyard to dump them. But in KRM, the practitioner do not have open compound orbackyard, thereby forcing them to dump outside their houses.In KMC and MTM very few repondent HHs know about SWM in Nepal. In case of other threemunicipalities only about one third of them (29-43%) are aware of SWM. In all five municipalities, veryfew respondents had participated in CBO activities or had received training on proper waste handling.However, in many cases at least a member was educated on environment and health.A large number of respondent opined that Municipalities are responsible for waste management, but amajority in MTM and some HHs in KMC and BKM felt that they are themselves responsible for it.
Respondents reported that unavailabilty of door to door collection services and long practice or habitare the two major factors for following open space dumping. Some respondents attributed unavailabilityof specified container or they being located far away.
It may be concluded that open space dumping practice is quite prevalent in the newly establishedmunicipalities of MTM and KRM. This figure was reported 5%, 2% and 6% for KMC, LSMC and BKMrespectively.An overwhelming large proportion of indeginous HHs in LSMC, BKM and MTM were found involved inopen dumping. But in case of KMC and KRM, locals and migrated alike were involved. Most of suchmigrant HHs had migrated recently (own and parents generations).
It is even more surprising to note that 83%,100%, 57%, 61% and 100% respondent HHs of respectivemunicipalities have had their family members received education on environment and health.
It is surprising to note that 11%, 33%, 14%, 30% and 6% respondent HHs of respective municipalitieshave had received training on waste handling, yet they practice open space dumping.
5 - 33
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 6_II.2: HH Income Categories of Payee/Non Payee Households (refer Q1.6/3.9)A: Payee HHs Unit: # & % of sample HHs that pay for waste collection services
MunicipalitiesHH Income Categories KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HHs 218 100% 87 100% 72 100% 2 100% 43 100% 422
Sample HHs 331 66% 162 54% 126 57% 74 3% 75 57% 768
low ( less than 6000/-per month) 39 18% 19 22% 32 44% 1 50% 5 12%Lower Middle( between 6000/- to 13,000/- per 111 51% 42 48% 32 44% 0 0% 32 74%Middle ( 13000/- to 22000/- per month) 58 27% 24 28% 8 11% 0 0% 5 12%High ( more then 22000/- per month) 10 5% 2 2% 0 0% 1 50% 1 2%B: Non Payee HHs Unit: # & % of sample HHs that do not pay for waste collection services
HH Income Categories # % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HHs 113 100% 75 100% 54 100% 72 100% 32 100% 346
Sample HHs 331 34% 162 46% 126 43% 74 97% 75 43% 768
low ( less than 6000/-per month) 44 39% 24 32% 33 61% 40 56% 13 41% 154Lower Middle( between 6000/- to 13,000/- per 58 51% 39 52% 19 35% 24 33% 14 44% 154Middle ( 13000/- to 22000/- per month) 8 7% 11 15% 1 2% 7 10% 5 16% 32High ( more then 22000/- per month) 3 3% 1 1% 1 2% 1 1% 0 0% 6
C: Payee HHs in Each Income Category Unit: # of sample HHs in each category and % of payee HHs in each categoryHH Income Categories # % # % # % # % # %
Sample HHs 331 66% 162 54% 126 57% 74 3% 75 57% 768
low ( less than 6000/-per month) 83 47% 43 44% 65 49% 41 2% 18 28% 154Lower Middle( between 6000/- to 13,000/- per 169 66% 81 52% 51 63% 24 0% 46 70% 154Middle ( 13000/- to 22000/- per month) 66 88% 35 69% 9 89% 7 0% 10 50% 32High ( more then 22000/- per month) 13 77% 3 67% 1 0% 2 50% 1 100% 6
D: Non Payee HHs in Each Income Category Unit: # of sample HHs in each category and % of non payee HHs in each categoryHH Income Categories # % # % # % # % # %
Sample HHs 331 34% 162 46% 126 43% 74 97% 75 43% 768
low ( less than 6000/-per month) 83 53% 43 56% 65 51% 41 98% 18 72% 154Lower Middle( between 6000/- to 13,000/- per 169 34% 81 48% 51 37% 24 100% 46 30% 154Middle ( 13000/- to 22000/- per month) 66 12% 35 31% 9 11% 7 100% 10 50% 32High ( more then 22000/- per month) 13 23% 3 33% 1 100% 2 50% 1 0% 6
Comments:1
2
3
Table 6_II.3: Mode of Waste Collection among Payee/Non Payee Households (refer Q3.3/3.9)A: Payee Households Unit: # & % of sample HHs that pay for waste collection services
MunicipalitiesParticular KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HHs 218 100% 87 100% 72 100% 2 100% 43 100% 422
Door to door collection 208 95% 85 98% 37 51% 1 50% 41 95% 373Carrying to specific site 5 2% 1 1% 33 46% 0 0% 1 2% 40Carrying to containner /truck 5 2% 1 1% 2 3% 0 0% 0 0% 8Others 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 1 2% 8
B: Non Payee Households Unit: # & % of respondent HHs that have used the service but not paid for itMunicipalities
Particular KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total# % # % # % # % # %
Respondent Sample HHs 77 101% 68 100% 47 100% 24 100% 0 0% 216
Door to door collection 18 23% 9 13% 14 30% 7 29% 0 0%Carrying to specific site 29 38% 9 13% 31 66% 13 54% 0 0%Carrying to containner /truck 30 39% 50 74% 2 4% 4 17% 0 0%Others 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Comments:1
2
It is evident from the above tables that a large % of respondent HHs that pay for the services uses doorto door collection services for waste disposal. In case of non payee HHs in four municipalities, theservice charge might have been paid by the houseowners, as it is difficult to conceptualize that how canthey manage without paying at all to the service providers.For other mode of disposal, that most of the non payee HHs adopt, it is apparent that they are notforced to pay to the municipality (service providers).
In case of KMC, a large proportion of Middle Income Group (88%) followed by 77% of High, 66% ofLMIG and 47% of Low income group pay for the service, indicating a positive linkage betweenhousehold income and payment. Less % of High as compared to Middle could be attributed to nonavailability of the service in that area. Similar trend was noted for LSMC and BKM as well.In case of KRM, as expected all High (100%), Lower Middle (70%) and Low (28%) pay for the service -indicating positive linkage between income and payment but data showing 50% for Middle incomegroup is difficult to explain.MTM is excluded from analysis due to low frequency of the response (few respondents).
5 - 34
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table No 6_II.4 (3.9) Level of Satisfaction with Collection Services (Q3.12/3.12)Unit: # & % of sample HHs that pay for waste collection services
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % 218 100% 87 100% 72 100% 2 100% 43 100% 422Sample HHs and % of respondent 331 66% 162 54% 126 57% 74 3% 75 57% 768
Level of satisficationVery Satisfied 146 67% 60 69% 54 75% 1 50% 4 9%Somewhat satisfied 56 26% 23 26% 13 18% 1 50% 34 79%Less than satisfied 14 6% 4 5% 3 4% 0 0% 5 12%Not satisfied at all 2 1% 0 0% 2 3% 0 0% 0 0%
Comments:1
Table 6_II.5: Reasons for Less SatisfactionUnit: # & % of sample HHs that are not fully satisfied with waste collection services
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
# % # % # % # % # %Respondent Sample HH nos. & % 72 100% 27 100% 18 100% 1 100% 39 100% 157Sample HHs and % of respondent 331 22% 162 17% 126 14% 74 1% 75 52% 768
ReasonsWaste coll. & swpg. not poperly done 35 49% 5 19% 7 39% 1 100% 12 31%Waste coll. & swpg. frequency is too low 12 17% 1 4% 3 17% 0 0% 8 21%Waste coll. & swpg. Irregular 8 11% 9 33% 5 28% 0 0% 9 23%Waste coll. & swpg. Too late,erly or irregular 6 8% 6 22% 3 17% 0 0% 7 18%Waste coll. & swpg. behaviours is bad 5 7% 3 11% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3%Waste coll. & swpg. fee expensive 6 8% 3 11% 0 0% 0 0% 2 5%Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Comments:1
2
3
Table 6_II.6: Perception on Responsibilities of Waste Collection refer Q5.2/3.9)Unit: % of sample respondent HHs by each agency
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
PayeeHHs
NonPayee
PayeeHHs
NonPayee
PayeeHHs
NonPayee
PayeeHHs
NonPayee
PayeeHHs
NonPayee
Respondent Sample HH nos. 218 113 87 75 72 54 2 72 43 32 768Respondent HHs % 66% 34% 54% 46% 57% 43% 3% 97% 57% 43%
Government 10% 13% 3% 5% 1% 6% 0% 3% 12% 9%Municipality 31% 34% 18% 23% 50% 44% 0% 33% 67% 81%Sweepers 3% 1% 0% 0% 8% 17% 0% 1% 0% 0%Yourselves 46% 42% 69% 65% 33% 20% 50% 46% 12% 0%Pvt. Company. 9% 8% 5% 4% 7% 11% 50% 17% 9% 9%NGO 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Do not know 2% 3% 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Others 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Comments:
1
Among the payee Hhs that expressed unsatsfaction with the service, a majority of reespondents inKMC, LSMC, BKM and KRM blamed irregularity, inefficiency and inadequacy of waste collection andsweeping services.
In table 5.4, a majority of sampled HHs in KMC (44%), LSMC (67%) and MTM (46%) perceived thatthey are themselves responsible for SWM. But majority of HHs in BKM (48%) and KRM (73%) wantedMunicipality to be responsible for it. Disaggregating the above data by payee/non payee Hhs, it isconcluded that overall trend of response remains the same except for MTM, where payee Hhs preferprivate company as their second choice as compared to Municipality by the non payee Hhs.
Majority of payee Hhs in KMC (67%), LSMC (69%), BKM (75%) and MTM (50%) are very satisfied withthe door to door collection service. But in case of KRM only 9% expressed the same and majority(79%) reported somewhat satisfied.
All the HHs of MTM Municipality reported waste collection and sweeping not done properly, but onlyone response question the validity of the interpretation.Timing of waste collection and sweeping bothered a significant % of respondents in KMC (8%), LSMC(22%), BKM (17%) and KRM (18%). Other problems like bad behaviour, expensive fee was cited by anumber of respondents, particularly in KMC, LSMC and KRM.
5 - 35
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 6_II.7: Willingness to Pay for Improved Waste Collection Services by Income Categories of Non Payee Households (Q1.6/5.6)Unit: % of sample HHs in each category that do not pay for waste collection services
MunicipalitiesHH Income Categories KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
Willingto pay
Notwilling
Willingto pay
Notwilling
Willingto pay
Notwilling
Willingto pay
Notwilling
Willingto pay
Notwilling
Respondent Sample HHs nos. 113 75 54 72 32 34695 18 66 9 45 9 69 3 28 4
Respondents sample Hhs % sum 84% 16% 88% 12% 83% 17% 96% 4% 88% 13%
low ( less than 6000/-per month) 84% 16% 83% 17% 76% 24% 98% 3% 85% 15%Lower Middle( between 6000/- to 13,000/- per 84% 16% 90% 10% 95% 5% 92% 8% 86% 14%Middle ( 13000/- to 22000/- per month) 75% 25% 91% 9% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%High ( more then 22000/- per month) 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Comments:1
Major Determinants related to non payments for Waste Collection Services:
1
2
3
6-III: Behaviour and Attitude wrt Composting (Q4.15, 4.18)
Table 6_III.1: Availability of "open space with the house" wrt practitioner of "Composting" (Q1.3/Q4.15)Unit: # of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
MakeCompo
st
Do notmake
MakeCompo
st
Do notmake
MakeCompo
st
Do notmake
MakeCompo
st
Do notmake
MakeCompo
st
Do notmake
Respondent Sample HHs nos. 55 276 40 122 35 91 19 55 13 62 768Respondent HHs % 17% 83% 25% 75% 28% 72% 26% 74% 17% 83%
Open compound/backyard 5% 17% 35% 23% 0% 0% 5% 5% 0% 0%Closed compound/backyard 62% 33% 45% 29% 9% 4% 0% 4% 15% 3%Common courtyard 13% 22% 3% 6% 40% 46% 21% 71% 15% 11%Free spaces left around premises 4% 1% 5% 1% 3% 0% 21% 7% 0% 24%No compound/backyard 9% 25% 8% 39% 17% 36% 11% 7% 62% 3%Family /Kitchen garden 5% 1% 3% 0% 29% 13% 26% 5% 8% 58%Trees, Shrubs, Flower plants 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Comments:
1
2
3
Disaggregating table 1.3 data in terms of HHs that do and do not engaged in composting, it is observedthat in case of KMC, LSMC and BKM, lesser % of composting Hhs do not have compound/backyard.Somehow this reflects that having compound/backyard do help or encourage composting in urban area.
In case of MTM and KRM, no linkage could be established between HHs having space around theirhouse and composting. This implies that in these two municipalities composting is done mostly onagricultural fields.
A significant proportion of the 23%, 42%, 37% and 32% sample HHs in KMC, LSMC, BKM and MTMthat reported not paying despite availing the service infact were dependent on the municipal service i.e.carrying waste to certain point or container truck. This way they are not compelled to pay for it directly.Such Hhs constituted 77%, 87%, 70% and 71% of them respectively. Rest of 23%, 13%, 30% and 29%respectively were using the door to door services and not paying for it.It was also observed that there exist a positive linkage between HH income group and Payee Hhs, butinterestingly in KMC more of Middle Income Group were unwilling to pay for improved services than thelower strata groups. Overall, an overwhelming large majority of respondents in all the five municipalitiesexpressed their willingness to pay for improved solid waste collection services.
It was found in Table 4.9 that 28% sample Hhs of BKM, 25-26% Hhs of MTM and LSMC followed by 17% sample HHs of KMC and KRM docomposting. The rest of Hhs, particularly in KMC and LSMC cited unavailibility of space as the major factor for not making compost (refer table 4.13).An effort has been made below to cross check the linkage between availability of space and composting. Other aspects pertaining to attitude andbehaviour towards composting have been analyzed in detail in section 4 of this chapter.
It was found in Table 1.3, that 22% sample HHs in KMC, 31% in LSMC and BKM, 8% in MTM and 59%in KRM did not have had any compound or backyard in their houses.
2 As expected, higher % of low income respondents of LSMC (17%), BKM (24%) and KRM (15%) wereamong the non willing respondents. But in case of KMC, a significant % of non willing respondents(25%) belonged to Middle Income Group, followed by equal % of Low and Lower Middle groups (alongwith KRM).
It was discussed in Table 3.2 that door to door collection service is availed by a large majority of Hhs inKMC, LSMC and KRM. It was found that most of the users of this service pay for it.
An overwhelming large % of respondent HHs that presently do not pay for waste collection serviceshave in fact expressed their willingness to pay for the improved services.
5 - 36
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 6_III.2: Availability of "open space with the house" wrt willingness to "Composting" (Q1.3/Q4.18)Unit: # of sample HHs that do not practice composting
MunicipalitiesParticiulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
Willingto
Compost
NotWilling
Willingto
Compost
NotWilling
Willingto
Compost
NotWilling
Willingto
Compost
NotWilling
Willingto
Compost
NotWilling
Respondent Sample HHs nos. 276 122 91 55 62 606131 145 84 38 23 68 44 11 11 51
Respondents sample Hhs % 47% 53% 69% 31% 25% 75% 80% 20% 18% 82%
Open compound/backyard 19% 14% 27% 13% 0% 0% 2% 18% 0% 4%Closed compound/backyard 28% 39% 31% 24% 9% 3% 5% 0% 9% 12%Common courtyard 27% 18% 5% 8% 48% 46% 70% 82% 9% 27%Free spaces left around premises 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 9% 2%No compound/backyard 24% 26% 35% 50% 30% 38% 9% 0% 73% 55%Family /Kitchen garden 0% 1% 0% 0% 13% 13% 7% 0% 0% 0%Trees, Shrubs, Flower plants 2% 1% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Comments:
1
2
3
Table 6_III.3: Perception on Responsibilities of Waste Collection wrt practitioner of "Composting" (refer Q5.2/4.15)First priority answers Unit: # or % of sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
MakeCompo
st
Do notmake
MakeCompo
st
Do notmake
MakeCompo
st
Do notmake
MakeCompo
st
Do notmake
MakeCompo
st
Do notmake
Respondent Sample HHs nos. 55 276 40 122 35 91 19 55 13 62 768Respondent HHs % 17% 83% 25% 75% 28% 72% 26% 74% 17% 83%
Government 7% 12% 0% 9% 3% 3% 0% 4% 23% 8%Municipality 18% 34% 15% 22% 46% 48% 26% 35% 62% 76%Sweepers 2% 2% 0% 0% 3% 15% 0% 2% 0% 0%Yourselves 53% 43% 75% 65% 34% 25% 47% 45% 8% 6%Pvt. Company. 20% 6% 5% 4% 11% 8% 26% 15% 8% 10%NGO 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Do not know 0% 3% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Others 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 103% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Comments:
1
2
6-IV: Behaviour and Attitude wrt Participation in Community SWM Activities (Q5.12,5.18)
It was found in Table 5.12 that participation of the sample HHs in community based SWM activities was relatively low for KMC (25%), MTM (16%),and KRM (16%). The figures for LSMC (49%) and BKM (37%) were though better, but less than fifty percent. Considering the important role ofCBOs/NGOs in the SWM activities, it is desired that various factors of behaviour and attitude, leading to participation in community based activitiesbe analyzed in the context of proposed SWM action plan. In the tables below Active HHs refer to respondents that have participated in SWMactivities.
In BKM and KRM, it is well established that open space in the house is not the only detemining factorfor being willing to composting.
In KMC, HHs that do composting favour private sector more than municipality, but a majority of 53%want to depend on themselves. Similar trends are observed in MTM but BKM markedly favoursmunicipality.In LSMC, respondent Hhs seems to be less dependent on other agency and overwhelmingly want torely on themselves. Contrary to that respondents of KRM excessively want municipality andgovernment to be responsible.
The data of table 1.3 has been disaggregated in terms of willing and unwilling Hhs on composting. It isobserved that they are almost equally divided in KMC (47:53), but more HHs are willing in LSMC (69%)and MTM (80%). On the other hand, less HHs are willing to make compost in BKM (25%) and KRM(18%).In KMC availability of space do not seem to be a determining factor, but in case of LSMC and MTM itsems to have encouraged a few to be willing. But 9% respondent of MTM highlights the fact that HHscould be willing without having any space (compound/backyard) as well.
5 - 37
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 6_IV.1: Migration Characteristics of Active/Passive Participant Households in CBOs ActivitiesUnit: # or % of Sample HHs
MunicipalitiesMigration Characteristics KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
Respondent Sample HHs nos. 82 249 80 82 47 79 12 62 12 63 768Respondent HHs % 25% 75% 49% 51% 37% 63% 16% 84% 16% 84%
During our generation 28% 39% 30% 17% 4% 6% 0% 3% 25% 17%During my parents 9% 16% 9% 11% 0% 1% 0% 0% 17% 8%During my grand parents 9% 2% 3% 5% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 3%Migrated (Total) 45% 56% 41% 33% 4% 8% 0% 5% 42% 29%No, Local - Indiginous 55% 44% 59% 67% 96% 92% 100% 95% 58% 71%Do not know 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 8% 2% 0% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Comments:
1
2
3
Table 6_IV.2: Awareness on SWM in Nepal of Active/Passive Participant Households in CBOs ActivitiesUnit: # or % of Sample HHs
MunicipalitiesMigration Characteristics KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
Respondent Sample HHs nos. 82 249 80 82 47 79 12 62 12 63 768Respondent HHs % 25% 75% 49% 51% 37% 63% 16% 84% 16% 84%
Not Awared 33% 48% 35% 29% 0% 16% 0% 8% 25% 40%Partially Awared 56% 41% 43% 56% 15% 25% 50% 73% 67% 29%Awared 11% 10% 23% 15% 85% 58% 50% 19% 8% 32%
Comments:1
2
3
Table 6_IV.3: Perception on Responsibility for Waste Managemen of Active/Passive Participant Households in CBOs ActivitiesUnit: # or % of Sample HHs
MunicipalitiesActor and Institutions KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
Respondent Sample HHs nos. 82 249 80 82 47 79 12 62 12 63 768Respondent HHs % 25% 75% 49% 51% 37% 63% 16% 84% 16% 84%
Government 6% 12% 4% 5% 4% 3% 0% 3% 17% 10%Municipality 28% 33% 15% 26% 49% 47% 0% 39% 50% 78%Sweepers 0% 3% 0% 0% 4% 16% 0% 2% 0% 0%Yourselves 60% 39% 75% 60% 26% 29% 67% 42% 17% 5%Pvt. Company. 5% 10% 4% 5% 17% 4% 33% 15% 17% 8%NGO 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Do not know 1% 2% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Others 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Comments:1
2
3 The active HHs in MTM just wanted to depend on themselves and the private companies.
In BKM and KRM, Municipality was considered as the responsible agency by both the majority of activeand passive HHs. Among the rest of active HHs, equal preference were given to Government, PrivateCompany and Yourself in KRM, whereas depending on themselves and private sector was givenprominence in BKM.
In KMC, LSMC and KRM around one third or one quarter active HHs reported unawared of SWMactivities in Nepal. In BKM and MTM, none reported unawared.Considering that a majority of respondents, whether active or passive, are only partally awared orunawared of SWM, it is imperative that appropriate awareness campaign be initiated in the action plan.
Based on above data, it can be concluded that level of awareness is not the sufficient condition forparticipation in CBOs activities.
In KMC and LSMC, majority of both the active and passive HHs want to depend on themselves. Otherspreferred Municipality more than Government or private companies. Role of NGO was not consideredat all.
In KMC, indiginous local population was found more active in CBOs activities, constituting 55% ofsample HHs. Among the migrants, the first generation (28%) were more active than second or thirdgeneration migrants 99% each), however more of first and second generation migrants remainedinactive (39% & 16% respectively)Similar trends were observed in LSMC and KRM, but with the difference that indiginous population alsoconstituted overwhelming majority amongst the passive Hhs.In case of BKM and MTM, migrant HHs are almost out of the picture.
5 - 38
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 6_IV.4: Perception on Participatory SWM Programs by Active/Passive respondent HouseholdsUnit: # or % of Sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
Respondent Sample HHs nos. 82 249 80 82 47 79 12 62 12 63 768Respondent HHs % 25% 75% 49% 51% 37% 63% 16% 84% 16% 84%
Very necessary 88% 91% 100% 98% 100% 78% 92% 55% 92% 81%Some what necessary 12% 8% 0% 2% 0% 13% 8% 39% 8% 19%Not very necessary 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 3% 0% 0%Not necessary at all 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 3% 0% 0%
Comments:1
Table 6_IV.5: Willingness for Participation in Preferred SWM Activity by Active/Passive Households (Q5.3/5.18)Unit: # or % of Sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
ActiveHHs
PassiveHHs
Respondent Sample HHs nos. 82 249 80 82 47 79 12 62 12 63 768Respondent HHs % 25% 75% 49% 51% 37% 63% 16% 84% 16% 84%
First Priority ResponsesAny activity related to SWM 22% 15% 86% 51% 15% 25% 42% 48% 42% 24%Collecting Waste in our Commumity 9% 3% 4% 7% 17% 6% 33% 15% 17% 30%Cleaning our Community 17% 16% 0% 9% 23% 16% 0% 2% 25% 24%Campaign for raising Awarness of People 39% 34% 4% 17% 26% 20% 8% 11% 17% 11%Education program on SWM 11% 15% 3% 5% 15% 22% 0% 10% 0% 6%Reducing Waste/Composting 1% 6% 3% 2% 2% 0% 17% 6% 0% 2%Not Willing 1% 11% 1% 9% 2% 10% 0% 8% 0% 3%Others 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Comments:1
2
Table 6_IV.6: Willingness for Participation in Preferred SWM Activity by Migration Characteristics (Q1.4/5.18)Unit: # or % of Sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
Migrated HHs
NonMigrate
d
Migrated HHs
NonMigrate
d
Migrated HHs
NonMigrate
d
Migrated HHs
NonMigrate
d
Migrated HHs
NonMigrate
dRespondent Sample HHs nos. 177 153 60 102 8 118 3 71 23 52 768
Respondent HHs % 54% 46% 37% 63% 6% 94% 4% 96% 31% 69%
First Priority ResponsesAny activity related to SWM 14% 20% 72% 67% 25% 21% 0% 49% 70% 8%Collecting Waste in our Commumity 5% 5% 7% 5% 13% 10% 67% 15% 0% 40%Cleaning our Community 15% 17% 5% 4% 0% 20% 33% 0% 4% 33%Campaign for raising Awarness of People 35% 35% 3% 15% 38% 21% 0% 11% 17% 10%Education program on SWM 19% 8% 7% 2% 13% 19% 0% 8% 4% 6%Reducing Waste/Composting 4% 5% 5% 1% 0% 1% 0% 8% 4% 0%Not Willing 8% 9% 2% 7% 13% 7% 0% 7% 0% 4%
Comments:1
2
3
Fewer migrant HHs than indiginous ones in LSMC, MTM and KRM have expressed unwillingness toparticipation in SWM activities. It is opposite for BKM and is equally divided in KMC.The migrant Hhs in KMC and BKM have shown marked inclinations towards raising awareness andcollecting waste as compared to their passive counterparts. In case of MTM, collecting waste andcleaning are exclusively marked by migrants.In LSMC and KRM, an overwhelming % of migrant HHs are willing to participate in any SWM relatedactivity.
An overwhelming majority of active HHs supported the concept of participatory SWM program. Exceptfor MTM and BKM, none of the Hhs, even the passive ones, could oppose it.
A large number of respondents in all the municipalities have expressed willingness to participate in anyactivities related to SWM. In this regard the response in LSMC had been exclusive. Except for BKMand MTM, more of active HHs than passive ones have shared willingness for any activity.
The active HHs in KMC, BKM and KRM have shown marked inclinations towards raising awareness,cleaning community and collecting waste as compared to their passive counterparts. In case of MTM,collecting waste and composting are preferred.
5 - 39
The Study on the Solid Waste Managementfor the Kathmandu Valley
Supporting Report IIPart II
Household Behavior and Attitude Survey on SWM
Table 6_IV.7: Willingness for Participation in Preferred SWM Activity wrt Awareness on SWM in Nepal (Q1.9/5.18)Unit: # or % of Sample HHs
MunicipalitiesParticulars KMC LSMC BKM MTM KRM Total
Awared&
Partialawared
NotAwared
at all
Awared&
Partialawared
NotAwared
at all
Awared&
Partialawared
NotAwared
at all
Awared&
Partialawared
NotAwared
at all
Awared&
Partialawared
NotAwared
at all
Respondent Sample HHs nos. 184 147 110 52 113 13 69 5 47 28 768Respondent HHs % 56% 44% 68% 32% 90% 10% 93% 7% 63% 37%
First Priority ResponsesAny activity related to SWM 21% 12% 65% 75% 20% 31% 48% 40% 23% 32%Collecting Waste in our Community 4% 5% 6% 4% 12% 0% 19% 0% 32% 21%Cleaning our Community 14% 19% 5% 4% 20% 8% 1% 0% 21% 29%Campaign for raising Awarness of People 38% 32% 12% 8% 24% 8% 10% 20% 15% 7%Education program on SWM 11% 17% 4% 4% 18% 31% 9% 0% 4% 7%Reducing Waste/Composting 3% 6% 4% 0% 1% 0% 7% 20% 2% 0%Not Willing 10% 8% 5% 6% 5% 23% 6% 20% 2% 4%
Comments:1
2
3
4
5
In KMC, unawared HHs have preferred raising awareness, education program and cleaning thecommunity as prominent activities. Around 21% & 12% awared and unawared HHs respectively woulddo any related SWM activities.In LSMC, a large % of both the awared and unawared would do any activity. They have also givenprominence to raising awareness, among others.In case of BKM, awared HHs attach importance to raising awareness (24%) followed almost equally byeducation program, cleaning and collecting waste as well as any related activity. Unawared ones havepreferred education program more than others.A majority of awared HHs in MTM (48%) would engage in any activity, but some of them would focuson collecting waste, raising awareness, education program and composting. Similar view points havebeen expressed by awared ones in KRM, but with varying frequency.
Almost equal % of awared and unwared sample HHs in KMC and LSMC (5%) have expressedunwillingness to participate in any SWM related activities. For the rest of municipalities, unwaredconstitute majority in this aspect.
5 - 40
6. Flood Analysis and Study
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Flood Analysis and Study
6 - 1 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
6. FLOOD ANALYSIS AND STUDY
1. Introduction
The Sisdol short-term Landfill site (S/T-LFS) is located at the right bank of Kolpu Khola. Since there are no available data and information regarding the flood conditions of the river which may cause the adverse effects on the LFS, the flood discharge and flood water level at the outlet point of Sisdol site is preliminarily examined hereinafter.
On the other hand, the Bagmati River dumping is intruding the river cross section which may obstruct the flood flowing of the river. The available information is also consolidated in this appendix in order to grasp the flood situation at the dumping site.
2. Flood Analysis of Kolpu Khola
2.1 The Catchment Area
Sisdol S/T-LFS is located in Ward 4 of Okharpauwa VDC, and the catchment area of Kolpu Khola at the site is approximately 28 km2. The catchment area is situated on the northwest of the Kathmandu Valley between 27o45’ to 27 o49’ north latitude and 85 o13”30”’ to 85o17’30” east longitude, being spread over Okharpauwa VDC of Nuwakot DDC and Jitpurphed VDC of Kathmandu DDC. Agricultural land use is predominant including terrace cultivation, and many small forest plots are scattered within the catchment. Uppermost areas are covered by dense forest such as the Nagarjun Reserved Forest and Shivapuri Watershed and Wildlife Reserve.
Kolpu Khola at Sisdol S/T-LFS has a number of small tributaries with large tributaries such as Kule Khola, Kaule Khola, Khani Khola and Thulo Khola. The elevation of uppermost boundary of watershed is about 2,100-2,300 m while that of riverbed near the site is about 1,110-1,120 m. The average longitude gradient of the river is considerably high reaching about 13.6% up to the site.
2.2 Flood Analysis
There are no available data on hydrological conditions of Kolpu Khola. Therefore, the rational approach is employed which is the most widely used method to examine the flood discharge of different return periods in case of the absence of the existing data. The flood analysis includes the following steps:
- Rainfall analysis - Runoff analysis - Flood water level analysis
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Flood Analysis and Study
6 - 2 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
(1) Rainfall Analysis
There is one rainfall gauging station within the catchment; namely Kakani station showing the detail in Table 2-1. The daily (24 hours) rainfall data of Kakani is available and collected from 1971 to 2000 with some years non-available.
Table 2-1 Kakani Rainfall Station No. & Name
Latitude LongitudeElevation
(m) Established
Data collected
Mean annual rainfall (mm)
Kakani No. 1007
27o48’ (N) 85o15’ (E) 2,064 Jan. 1962 1972-1990 1995-2000 (25 years)
2,894
Source: Climatological Records of Nepal, Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
Based on the maximum daily (24 hours) rainfall of each year, frequency analysis was carried out for estimation of the probable maximum daily rainfall. Gumbel method was applied for estimation since it projected higher probable rainfall than others such as Iwai method and logarithmic normal distribution method, meaning tendency to the safer side. The result for different return period is presented in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2 Probable Maximum Daily Rainfall (Kakani) Unit: mm/day
Return period (year) 2 5 10 25 50 100 Estimated rainfall 113 136 151 170 184 198
Source: JICA Study Team
Based on the above result, the rainfall intensity curves by specific return period were established by Monobe’s equation as follows which is generally applied in mountainous catchment.
where, Rt : Rainfall intensity in t hours (mm/hr) R24 : Daily rainfall (mm) t : Time of flood concentration (hr)
The rainfall intensity duration table with corresponding figure is shown in Table 2-3.
32
24 2424
=
tRRt
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Flood Analysis and Study
6 - 3 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Table 2-3 Probable Maximum Daily Rainfall (Kakani)
Source: JICA Study Team
(2) Runoff Analysis
A rational formula was employed for calculation of the flood discharge volume from the catchment at the outlet point of Sisdol short-term LFS.
where, Qp : Maximum flood discharge in m3/s f : Dimensionless runoff coefficient (=0.6)
r : Average rainfall intensity within the time of flood concentration in mm/hr
A : Catchment area in km2 (=28.3 km2, measured on 1:25,000 scaled topo map)
The average rainfall intensity “r” was calculated, based on the time of flood concentration at the LFS point derived from Kraven formula using the measured parameters on 1:25,000 scaled topo map.
The result of probable flood discharge volume in each return period at Sisdol LFS point is shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4 Flood Discharge Volume of Kolpu Khola Estimated at Sisdol Point Unit: m3/s
Return period (year) 2 5 10 25 50 100 Probable flood
discharge volume 263 316 352 396 430 462
Source: JICA Study Team
(3) Flood Water Level Analysis
Flood water level was calculated by Manning’s mean velocity formula in the river cross section of Kolpu Khola at the outlet point of Sisdol LFS (single cross section case).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 4 8 12 16 20 24Time (hr)
Rai
nfa
ll In
tensi
ty (
mm
/hr)
R2
R5
R10
R25
R50
R100
Year 2 5 10 25 50 100Rainfall
(mm) 113 136 151 170 184 198
t (hour) R2 R5 R10 R25 R50 R100
1 39.1 47.0 52.3 58.9 63.9 68.72 24.6 29.6 32.9 37.1 40.2 43.34 15.5 18.7 20.7 23.4 25.3 27.38 9.8 11.8 13.1 14.7 16.0 17.2
12 7.5 9.0 10.0 11.2 12.2 13.116 6.2 7.4 8.2 9.3 10.1 10.820 5.3 6.4 7.1 8.0 8.7 9.324 4.7 5.7 6.3 7.1 7.7 8.3
Probable Maximum Daily Rainfall at Return Periods
Rainfall Intensity in t hours at Each Retutn Period (mm/hr)
ArfQP ⋅⋅=6.3
1
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Flood Analysis and Study
6 - 4 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
where, U : Mean velocity Q : Discharge A : Cross-sectional area n : Manning’s coefficient of roughness (= 0.05) R : Hydraulic radius I : Longitude gradient of drainage (=1/50 for Kolpu Khola at the outlet
point of Sisdol S/T-LFS)
The rating curve at Sisdol S/T-LFS derived by the above formula is presented in Figure 2-1, with the estimated probable flood discharge and critical points to be assessed.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000Discharge (m3/s)
Depth (m)
2 years5 years 10 years
25 years
50 years
100 years
River Bed
Toe of Dam Body
Dam Crest
Leachate Treatment Facilities
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000Discharge (m3/s)
Depth (m)
2 years5 years 10 years
25 years
50 years
100 years
River Bed
Toe of Dam Body
Dam Crest
Leachate Treatment Facilities
Figure 2-1 Rating Curve of Kolpu Khola at Sisdol Site
Remark: Dam crest level indicated in the above is on as built base as of May, 2004. Source: JICA Study Team
2.3 Conclusion and Suggestion
Based on the analysis hereinbefore, the following can be preliminarily concluded regarding the probable effect on Sisdol short-term LFS by the flood of Kolpu Khola.
- The paddy field on the left bank can be considered to provide retarding function when flood comes. Therefore, the flood level even of return period 100 years will not exceed the crest of storage dam.
- The flood level of return period 10 years may reach up to about 1.5 m below the toe of storage dam, and difference of elevation between flood level and toe of dam may be less than 1 m in case of return period of 25 or 50 years.
21
321 IR
nAQU ==
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Flood Analysis and Study
6 - 5 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
- Sosdol S/T-LFS facilities will not be directly damaged by any probable flood of Kolpu Khola. However, the leachate treatment system will be installed on the river terrace at the same elevation of the toe of storage dam. Therefore, river training work along the section of leachate treatment system is suggestive as river bank protection, since bank collapse may bring about destructive damage to the treatment facilities when 10 % or more probability flood comes.
3 Flood Study of Bagmati River
3.1 Available Information for Understanding Flood Condition
In order to grasp the flood situation at the dumping site of Bagmati River, some local people along the river were interviewed, and the major findings are summarized below:
- The water level of the river does not exceed the top surface of dumped waste, except the flood occurrence.
- When we have heavy rain in wet season, the flood level at dumping site comes just below the surface of the existing road along with the right bank of the Bagmati River. It can be assumed that the flood level is above the top surface of waste over 1 or 2 m. According to the local people, the flood probability of this type can be observed once in a year or two years.
- A big flood sometime happened in the last two decades, whose flood level reached just below the pedestrian bridge crossing over the dumping site. (River water could be scooped directly by bucket on the pedestrian bridge when big floods came, according to the local people.) It is said that the probability of big flood is 2 to 4 times in last two decades.
- Even when the big flood comes, the water level mostly falls back to the normal one within 2 to 3 days.
The depth of river water of Bagmati is observed from 1991 at Khokana gauging station located about 6 km downstream from the pedestrian bridge, as shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-2 shows the data simulated by other study on flood discharge for different return periods at Chobhar. Based on these information and dumping site condition, it can be assumed that the occurrence of inundation of the top surface of dumped garbage by flood would be observed on 50%-probability basis at least in case of about 2 m-hight dumping from the elevation of original river area, although the flood level is dependent on site-specific conditions of river regime such as cross section, longitudinal gradient, toughness of wetted perimeter, etc.
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part II Flood Analysis and Study
6 - 6 CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Table 3-1 Maximum Water Depth by Year Recorded at Kokana Unit: m
Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Max. depth 2.99 2.85 4.39 3.85 3.4 3.55
Highest water level (EL)
1,257.99 1,257.85 1,259.39 1,258.85 1,258.40 1,258.55
Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Max. depth 4.03 4.49 4.00 3.71 3.11 1.34 Highest water
level (EL) 1,259.03 1,259.49 1,259.00 1,258.71 1,258.11 1,256.34
Source: Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
Table 3-2 Probable Flood Discharge Volume Estimated in Other Study at Chobhar
Unit: m3/s Return period (year) 2 5 10 25 50
Estimated probable flood discharge volume
408 624 787 1012 1175
Source: Report of High Powered Committee for Implementation and Monitoring of Bagmati Area Sewerage Construction /Rehabilitation Project, June 1998
3.2 Conclusion
Waste dumping in Bagmati River is intruding the river cross section, meaning that the flowing area of channel is being reduced. The above studies and findings somewhat indicate that the river dumping may affect discharge capacity and obstruct the flood flow comparing with the original river regime, and subsequently a risk of flood damage around the site and its upper reach may be increasing along the dumping continuity. However, it is unavailable to quantitatively estimate the discharge capacity obstruction and the contribution toward risk increment, due to the limited data and information. When the necessity of precise prospect of causality among dumping activities, obstruction of flood flowing and flood damage risk is recognized, the further studies and analysis should be carried out including field surveys and investigation.
Part III
Pilot Projects
Pilot Project A
A-1 Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) Municipal Solid Waste Management Operational Handbook
A-2 As-built Drawings for Improvement Work at Teku Transfer Station
Pilot Project B B-1 Result of Market Survey on Compost Product B-2 Result of Data Collection at Bhaktapur Composting Facility B-3 Suggested Layout and Specification for Large-Scale
Composting Facility B-4 Result of Analysis of Compost Quality B-5 Training Manual for Trainers on Home Composting B-6 User Manual for Home Compost Bin
(“How to Use Home Compost Bin”) B-7 Practice of Medium-Scale Vermi-Composting in KMC B-8 Manual for Medium Scale Vermi-Composting
Pilot Project C C-1 Practice of Evaluation of Potential Landfill Sites at Bungamati C-2 Practice of Scoping and TOR for EIA on Banchare Danda
Landfill Site in Okharpauwa C-3 Practice of Scoping and TOR for EIA on Pharsidol North Landfill
Site in Bungamati C-4 Practice of EIA at Taikabu Landfill Site C-5 Detailed Design and As-built Drawings for Improvement Work at
Sisdol Short-term Landfill C-6 Operation Manual for Sisdol Short-term Landfill C-7 Environmental Monitoring at Sisdol Landfill Site
Pilot Project E E-1 Result of Solid Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (I) E-2 Result of Solid Waste Quantity and Quality Survey (II) E-3 User Manual for Solid Waste Database Management System
PILOT PROJECT A
IMPROVEMENT OF
COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION
Pilot Project A-1
Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) Municipal Solid Waste Management
Operational Handbook
Publ
ic P
rivat
e Pa
rtner
ship
(PPP
)
M
unic
ipal
Sol
id W
aste
M
anag
emen
tOp
erat
iona
l Han
dboo
k
Publi
c Priv
ate Pa
rtners
hip (P
PP)
Mun
icipa
l Sol
id W
aste
M
anag
emen
t Op
eratio
nal H
andb
ook
Prep
ared
by
2005
Dev
elopm
ent
Mana
gem
ent
Inst
itute
ljsf;
Joj:
yfkg
;+:y
f
iiPPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
iiiPPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Cont
ents
Prep
ator
y St
age:
Intr
oduc
tion
to P
ublic
Priv
ate
Part
ners
hip
in S
olid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t (SW
M)
1A
. O
bjec
tives
1
B.
Term
s and
Key
Con
cept
s 2
C.
Nec
essa
ry In
stitu
tiona
l Arr
ange
men
ts
6
Stag
e 1:
Pla
nnin
g fo
r Pub
lic P
rivat
e Pa
rtne
rshi
p in
SW
M
8St
ep 1
: Pr
epar
atio
n of
SW
M A
ctio
n Pl
an
8St
ep 2
: A
ppro
val o
f SW
M A
ctio
n Pl
an a
nd A
nnua
l Wor
k Pl
an
11St
ep 3
: C
ondu
ctin
g A
Pre
-Fea
sibili
ty S
tudy
11
Stag
e 2:
Pro
curin
g Pu
blic
Priv
ate
Part
ners
hips
13
Step
1:
Iden
tifyi
ng P
rocu
rem
ent P
roce
ss
13St
ep 2
: Pr
epar
atio
n of
Par
tner
ship
Pro
cure
men
t Doc
umen
ts
15St
ep 3
: Pr
e-Q
ualif
icat
iono
n of
the
Part
ners
15
Step
4:
Invi
tatio
n fo
r Bi
ddin
g (R
eque
st fo
r Pr
opos
al)
16St
ep 5
: O
rgan
izin
g Bi
dder
s’ M
eetin
g 17
Step
6:
Ope
ning
and
Exa
min
atio
n of
the
Bid
Doc
umen
t 17
Step
7:
Eval
uatio
n of
Bid
Doc
umen
t and
Sel
ectio
n of
Par
tner
18
Stag
e 3:
Pre
para
tion
and
Awar
d of
Par
tner
ship
cont
ract
21
Item
1:
The
Par
ties t
o th
e A
gree
men
t 22
Item
2:
The
Obj
ectiv
e an
d Sc
ope
of A
gree
men
t 22
Item
3:
The
Obj
ectiv
es a
nd S
cope
of t
he F
inan
cial
Req
uire
men
ts
22Ite
m 4
: D
urat
ion
of A
gree
men
t and
Sco
pe fo
r R
eneg
otia
tion
or E
arly
Term
inat
ion
of
Agr
eem
ent
22Ite
m 5
: T
he R
ight
s and
Res
pons
ibili
ties o
f the
Pri
vate
Sec
tor
23Ite
m 6
: T
he R
ight
s and
Res
pons
ibili
ties o
f the
Mun
icip
ality
23
Item
7:
Reg
ulat
ory
Req
uire
men
t and
Con
sent
s 23
Item
8:
Iden
tific
atio
n an
d M
anag
emen
t of K
ey R
isks
24Ite
m 9
: Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
rem
ent a
nd M
onito
ring
24
Item
10:
Pay
men
t 25
Item
11:
Con
sent
s on
Ow
ners
hip
and
Use
of A
sset
s 25
Item
12:
Disp
ute
Res
olut
ion
and
Arb
itrat
ion
25
ivPPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Stag
e 4:
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
Par
tner
ship
Pro
ject
in S
WM
26
Step
1:
F or
mat
ion
of M
onito
ring
and
Eva
luat
ion
Team
26
Step
2:
Dev
elop
men
t of P
erfo
rman
ce S
tand
ard
and
Cri
teri
a fo
r M
easu
rem
ent
27St
ep 3
: C
ondu
ct P
erio
dic
Prog
ress
, Mon
itori
ng, R
evie
w
and
Eval
uatio
ns o
f the
Pro
ject
28
Step
4:
Rep
ortin
g of
the
Prog
ress
28
Step
5:
Esta
blish
Disp
ute
Res
olut
ion
Mec
hani
sms
28
Anne
xes Ann
ex 1
Che
cklis
t for
Fea
sibili
ty S
tudy
30
Ann
ex 2
Ter
ms o
f Ref
eren
ce fo
r M
unic
ipal
SW
M S
ervi
ce th
roug
h PP
P 32
Ann
ex 3
Sam
ple
Con
trac
tual
Agr
eem
ent
40A
nnex
4 S
ampl
e Fo
rmat
for
Prog
ress
Eva
luat
ion,
Rev
iew
an
d M
onito
ring
of t
he S
olid
Was
te C
olle
ctio
n O
pera
tion
474 4
7
1PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
For
mun
icip
aliti
es in
Nep
al, S
olid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t (SW
M) h
as a
lway
s bee
n a
top
prio
rity
iss
ue. C
lean
lines
s of p
ublic
pla
ces a
nd sa
fe d
ispos
al o
f was
tes a
re e
ssen
tial f
or th
e pr
otec
tion
of
publ
ic h
ealth
and
mun
icip
al e
nvir
onm
ent.
The
Loc
al S
elf-
Gov
erna
nce
Act
, 205
5 (1
999)
has
mad
e th
e lo
cal g
over
nmen
ts (f
or e
xam
ple
the
mun
icip
aliti
es) r
espo
nsib
le fo
r m
anag
emen
t of s
olid
was
te r
elat
ed a
ctiv
ities
. The
sam
e A
ct
and
the
rela
ted
Rul
es a
llow
the
mun
icip
aliti
es to
invo
lve
the
non-
gove
rnm
enta
l org
aniz
atio
ns
and
the
user
com
mitt
ees i
n so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent.
The
par
ticip
atio
n of
the
priv
ate
sect
or
has b
een
stip
ulat
ed in
the
Act
, but
the
proc
edur
e of
invo
lvem
ent i
s not
cle
ar a
nd a
dequ
ate.
In th
e pa
st, m
any
mun
icip
aliti
es tr
ied
to im
plem
ent t
he p
artn
ersh
ip a
ppro
ach,
and
som
e of
th
em a
re r
elat
ivel
y su
cces
sful
. As a
res
ult,
subs
tant
ial l
evel
of a
war
enes
s has
bee
n cr
eate
d am
ong
the
mun
icip
aliti
es in
this
rega
rd. B
ut,
at th
e sa
me
time,
the
poor
und
erst
andi
ng o
f pa
rtne
rshi
p ap
proa
ch a
nd th
e pr
ocur
emen
t pro
cess
es h
ave
caus
ed th
e fa
ilure
of t
he p
rogr
am.
So, w
ith a
vie
w to
add
ress
this
gap,
this
‘Ope
ratio
nal H
andb
ook'
has
bee
n de
velo
ped.
The
H
andb
ook
expe
cts t
o en
hanc
e th
e pr
ivat
e se
ctor
par
tner
ship
man
agem
ent c
apac
ity o
f the
m
unic
ipal
staf
f in
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t. A
lso, t
he H
andb
ook
show
s how
the
Publ
ic-
Priv
ate-
Part
ners
hip
in S
olid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t can
be
stru
ctur
ed.
�
Objec
tives
�
Term
s and
Key C
oncep
ts �
Nece
ssar
y Ins
tituti
onal
Arra
ngem
ents
A. O
bjec
tives
The
maj
or o
bjec
tive
of th
e H
andb
ook
is to
pro
vide
a st
ep-b
y-st
ep p
roce
dure
for
Publ
ic
Priv
ate
Part
ners
hip
(PPP
) in
the
deliv
ery
of m
unic
ipal
serv
ices
in so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent.
It ai
ms t
o:
�
Prov
ide
prac
tical
tips
for
plan
ning
, pro
cure
men
t, an
d im
plem
enta
tion
of m
unic
ipal
solid
w
aste
man
agem
ent t
hrou
gh p
riva
te p
artn
ersh
ip a
rran
gem
ent;
Prep
arat
ory
Stag
e
Intr
oduc
tion
to P
ublic
Priv
ate
Part
ners
hip
in S
olid
Was
te
Man
agem
ent (
SWM
)
2PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
�
Serv
e as
a p
roce
dura
l gui
delin
e fo
r pr
ivat
e se
ctor
invo
lvem
ent i
n m
unic
ipal
solid
was
te
man
agem
ent;
and
�
Serv
e as
res
ourc
e m
ater
ial f
or c
apac
ity e
nhan
cem
ent o
f the
mun
icip
al st
aff a
nd th
e pr
ivat
e se
ctor
serv
ice
prov
ider
s in
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t.
B. T
erm
s and
Key
Con
cept
s
i) So
lid W
aste
Man
agem
ent (
SWM
)
Solid
Was
te c
ould
be
desc
ribe
d as
non
-liqu
id (n
ot sl
udge
or
sem
isolid
) ref
usal
s fro
m
hous
ehol
d; n
on-h
azar
dous
solid
was
te fr
om in
dust
rial
and
com
mer
cial
est
ablis
hmen
ts; r
efus
al
from
mar
ket,
publ
ic p
lace
s and
stre
et c
lean
ing.
The
follo
win
g ar
e th
e so
urce
s of m
unic
ipal
so
lid w
aste
s.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Dom
estic
was
teHo
useh
old w
aste
- kitc
hen,
hous
e clea
ning,
old pa
pers,
pack
ing, b
ottles
, croc
kery
ware
s, fur
nishin
g mate
rials,
garde
n trim
ming
s, etc.
Com
mer
cial w
aste
Waste
gene
rated
at bu
sines
s prem
ises, s
hops
, offi c
es, m
arke
ts, de
partm
ental
store
s (pa
per, p
ackin
g mate
rial, s
poile
d, an
d disc
arded
good
s), or
ganic
and i
norga
nic, c
hemi
cally
rea
ctive
and h
azard
ous w
aste.
Inst
itutio
nal w
aste
Schoo
ls, co
llege
s, hos
pitals
, large
hotel
s and
resta
uran
ts, ve
getab
le ma
rkets
, fruit
s, fi sh
, etc
, com
munit
y hall
s, reli
gious
plac
es et
c.
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE
Indu
stria
l / tr
ade
wast
e
Waste
gene
rated
from
indu
strial
man
ufactu
ring e
stabli
shme
nts, b
rewer
ies, le
ather
ind
ustri
es, c
arpe
t fac
tories
, che
mica
l indu
stries
, and
food
proc
essin
g ind
ustry
, repa
ir an
d ma
inten
ance
shop
s.
MEDICAL SOLID WASTE
Med
ical w
aste
All w
astes
gene
rated
by he
alth c
are in
stitut
ions, r
elated
rese
arch f
acilit
ies an
d lab
orato
ries.
Any w
aste
gene
rated
durin
g diag
nosis
, trea
tmen
t, or i
mmun
izatio
n of
huma
n bein
gs or
anim
als or
in re
searc
h acti
vities
there
to or
in th
e prod
uctio
n or
biolog
ical te
sting
.
OTHER SOLID WASTE
Agric
ultu
ral w
aste
Waste
s prod
uced
from
agric
ultura
l acti
vities
and p
roces
ses, c
ottag
e dair
ies, c
hicke
n farm
s, liv
estoc
k rea
ring a
nd fo
rests.
Cons
truc
tion
wast
eWa
stes g
ener
ated a
s a re
sult o
f con
struc
tion a
ctivit
ies or
from
demo
lition
or re
cons
truc-
tion o
f buil
dings
and f
acilit
ies. It
cons
ists o
f ear
th, br
ickba
t, ston
es, s
and,
wood
, pac
king
mater
ials e
tc.
Was
te –
offa
l, de
ad
anim
als,
etc.
Offal
was
tes ge
nerat
ed fr
om sl
augh
terho
uses
, food
, pac
king i
nstit
ution
s, cold
stor
age
premi
ses, e
tc.(S
ourc
e: Th
e St
udy
on S
olid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t for
the
Kath
man
du Va
lley,
Inte
rim
Rep
ort (
1), J
ICA,
June
20
04.)
The
SW
M se
rvic
e, b
eing
a p
ublic
goo
ds, i
s non
excl
usiv
e an
d no
n-ri
vale
d in
nat
ure
and
beca
use
the
bene
fits d
eriv
ed fr
om it
are
con
sum
ed o
r en
joye
d by
all
in th
e co
mm
unity
. By
and
larg
e, w
hate
ver
may
res
ult f
rom
any
kin
d of
par
tner
ship
, the
mun
icip
ality
ass
umes
the
ultim
ate
resp
onsib
ility
and
acc
ount
abili
ty o
f the
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
s.
3PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
ii) P
rodu
cts/
Serv
ices
in S
WM
Solid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t (SW
M) i
s mai
nly
a m
unic
ipal
ity’s
resp
onsib
ility
. Mun
icip
aliti
es ta
ke
the
resp
onsib
ility
for
finan
cing
the
SWM
serv
ices
. Ofte
n, p
riva
te se
ctor
and
the
com
mun
ity
asso
ciat
ions
(use
r gr
oups
, CBO
s, N
GO
s) a
re in
volv
ed in
pro
vidi
ng th
e se
rvic
es a
nd c
olle
ctin
g th
e fe
es fo
r su
ch se
rvic
es.
By u
nbun
dlin
g th
e va
riou
s SW
M se
rvic
es, d
iffer
ent o
ppor
tuni
ties a
nd c
ombi
natio
ns o
f op
tions
to th
e m
unic
ipal
ities
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery
thro
ugh
priv
ate
sect
or p
artn
ersh
ip e
mer
ge.
Mun
icip
aliti
es, b
y as
sess
ing
the
capi
tal m
arke
t and
inst
itutio
nal c
apac
ity o
f the
pri
vate
sect
or,
can
enga
ge a
ppro
pria
te se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers i
n di
ffere
nt c
ompo
nent
s s o
f SW
M. T
hey
can
awar
d th
em th
e co
ntra
ct fo
r m
ain
com
pone
nts o
r ev
en th
e w
hole
pac
kage
of s
ervi
ces.
An
exam
ple
of
unbu
ndlin
g of
the
serv
ices
is sh
own
belo
w:
Mai
n Co
mpo
nent
sSu
b-co
mpo
nent
sPr
imar
y W
aste
Col
lect
ion
Sourc
e to C
ollec
tion P
oint/P
lace (
Stree
t Swe
eping
)So
urce t
o Con
taine
rsSo
urce t
o Tra
nsfer
Stati
onSo
urce t
o Lan
dfi ll S
iteW
aste
Tran
spor
tatio
n an
d M
anag
emen
t
Conta
iners
to Tra
nsfer
Stati
onCo
ntaine
rs to
Land
fi ll Si
teTra
nsfer
Stati
on to
Land
fi ll Si
teSW
M Fa
ciliti
es M
anag
emen
t Tra
nsfer
Stati
on M
anag
emen
tLa
ndfi ll
Site
Mana
geme
ntWa
ste Pr
oces
sing F
acilit
y Man
agem
ent
iii)
Part
ners
hip
A c
ontr
actu
al a
gree
men
t bet
wee
n a
mun
icip
ality
and
a se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er(s
) to
deliv
er th
e SW
M se
rvic
es b
y sh
arin
g th
e re
spon
sibili
ty, r
isk a
nd r
etur
n co
uld
be c
onsid
ered
as
part
ners
hip.
Part
ners
hip
is sim
ply
one
of th
e m
eans
ava
ilabl
e to
the
mun
icip
aliti
es to
add
ress
the
defic
ienc
y of
mun
icip
al se
rvic
es. T
his p
artn
ersh
ip sh
ould
not
be
view
ed a
s a su
bstit
ute
for
exist
ing
dire
ct
serv
ice
deliv
ery
syst
em o
r an
alte
rnat
ive
to im
prov
e th
e ef
ficie
ncy
and
acco
unta
bilit
y of
se
rvic
e de
liver
y by
the
mun
icip
aliti
es. I
n fa
ct, i
t is i
nten
ded
to p
rovi
de g
reat
er fl
exib
ility
and
op
tions
to m
unic
ipal
ities
in a
ddre
ssin
g so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent r
equi
rem
ents
.
Not
lim
iting
the
scop
e of
par
tner
ship
to th
e re
gist
ered
pri
vate
com
mer
cial
inst
itutio
ns, t
he
non-
gove
rnm
enta
l soc
ial o
rgan
izat
ions
may
also
con
sider
ed a
s par
tner
s for
SW
M se
rvic
e de
liver
y. T
he p
artn
ers i
n pr
ovisi
on a
re:
4PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
�
Priv
ate
Sect
or P
artn
er
Thi
s typ
e of
par
tner
ship
satis
fies t
he n
eed
for
SWM
serv
ices
, whe
re la
rge-
scal
e ca
pita
l in
vest
men
ts a
nd sk
illed
man
agem
ent a
re r
equi
red.
The
pri
vate
sect
or g
ener
ally
has
the
grea
ter
capa
city
to e
nhan
ce se
rvic
e de
liver
y co
veri
ng la
rge
area
or
thro
ugh
mor
e co
mpl
ex
part
ners
hip
arra
ngem
ents
.
�
CB
O o
r N
GO
Pa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
ts w
ith C
BOs a
nd N
GO
s can
be
bene
ficia
l for
em
pow
erm
ent o
f civ
il so
ciet
y at
the
loca
l lev
el. D
irect
invo
lvem
ent o
f com
mun
ities
hel
ps m
ake
bett
er so
lid w
aste
m
anag
emen
t esp
ecia
lly in
low
-inco
me
com
mun
ities
. Enh
anci
ng in
stitu
tiona
l cap
acity
of
CBO
s and
NG
Os w
ould
be
esse
ntia
l for
thei
r mat
ured
par
ticip
atio
n in
serv
ice
deliv
ery.
iv)
Var
ious
For
ms
of P
ublic
-Priv
ate-
Part
ners
hip
arra
ngem
ents
The
arr
ange
men
ts o
f Pub
lic P
riva
te P
artn
ersh
ips i
n so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent s
houl
d va
ry w
ith
the
degr
ee o
f com
plex
ities
invo
lved
in S
WM
. Gen
eral
ly, th
e le
vel o
f risk
s allo
cate
d be
twee
n th
e pa
rtne
rs, t
he a
mou
nt o
f exp
ertis
e re
quir
ed o
n th
e pa
rt o
f eac
h pa
rtne
r to
neg
otia
te
cont
ract
s and
the
pote
ntia
l im
plic
atio
ns fo
r fe
e pa
yers
det
erm
ine
the
form
of p
artn
ersh
ip
arra
ngem
ent.
The
follo
win
g ar
e th
e m
ost p
ossib
le a
nd w
idel
y us
ed a
rran
gem
ents
of p
artn
ersh
ip b
etw
een
the
mun
icip
ality
and
the
priv
ate
sect
or e
ntiti
es, w
hich
may
be
adop
ted
for
solid
was
te
man
agem
ent.
�
Serv
ice
cont
ract
Pr
ivat
e se
ctor
(or
serv
ice
prov
ider
) rec
eive
s fee
from
the
mun
icip
ality
to m
anag
e a
part
icul
ar o
r al
l tas
ks o
f sol
id w
aste
man
agem
ent s
ervi
ce. S
ervi
ce c
ontr
acts
are
usu
ally
sh
ort-
term
(one
to th
ree
year
s), a
nd m
ore
feas
ibly
app
licab
le to
CBO
s, N
GO
s and
smal
l pr
ivat
e co
ntra
ctor
s for
stre
et c
lean
ing
and
hous
ehol
d co
llect
ion
of w
aste
s.
�
Fran
chis
e co
ntra
ct
Und
er fr
anch
ise c
ontr
act,
the
mun
icip
ality
gra
nts a
pri
vate
serv
ice
prov
ider
an
excl
usiv
e ri
ght t
o pr
ovid
e sp
ecifi
c ty
pe o
f ser
vice
with
in a
spec
ified
are
a. In
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t, fr
anch
ise is
ofte
n ad
opte
d. T
he p
riva
te o
pera
tor
is gi
ven
the
righ
t to
deliv
er a
serv
ice,
for
exam
ple,
doo
r-to
-doo
r co
llect
ion,
whe
re th
e pr
ivat
e op
erat
or is
con
fined
to a
spec
ific
area
an
d ex
erci
ses m
onop
oly
for
a fix
ed p
erio
d. F
ranc
hise
is u
sual
ly g
iven
for
a pe
riod
of o
ne to
tw
o ye
ars.
Pr
ivat
e op
erat
or p
ays s
ome
fee
to th
e m
unic
ipal
ity fo
r th
e fr
anch
ise a
rran
gem
ent.
The
re
venu
e fo
r m
akin
g su
ch p
aym
ent i
s gen
erat
ed b
y co
llect
ing
the
fees
from
cus
tom
er in
the
spec
ified
are
a. F
ranc
hise
arr
ange
men
t con
sists
of c
omm
erci
al r
isk o
f non
-pay
men
t by
the
bene
ficia
ries
. In
fran
chise
, the
mun
icip
ality
is u
ltim
atel
y re
spon
sible
and
acc
ount
able
for
sett
ing
perf
orm
ance
stan
dard
and
its a
chie
vem
ent.
5PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
�
Man
agem
ent
cont
ract
A
serv
ice
prov
ider
can
be
mad
e re
spon
sible
for
the
over
all m
anag
emen
t of s
olid
was
te, b
ut
with
out t
he r
espo
nsib
ility
for
finan
cing
the
oper
atio
n, m
aint
enan
ce, r
epai
r, or
cap
ital c
osts
of
the
serv
ice.
In th
is ar
rang
emen
t, th
ree
to fi
ve y
ears
is c
onsid
ered
the
mos
t sui
tabl
e du
ratio
n of
con
trac
tual
arr
ange
men
t. M
anag
emen
t con
trac
ts g
ener
ally
spec
ify th
e pa
ymen
t of
a fi
xed
fee
agai
nst t
he p
erfo
rman
ce o
f ass
igne
d se
rvic
es. M
anag
emen
t res
pons
ibili
ty o
f th
e op
erat
ion
of tr
ansf
er st
atio
n, la
ndfil
l site
, veh
icle
flee
ts, c
onta
iner
serv
ices
incl
udin
g w
aste
col
lect
ion
from
col
lect
ion
poin
t to
the
tran
sfer
stat
ion
and
tran
spor
tatio
n of
was
tes
to th
e la
ndfil
l site
cou
ld b
e do
ne u
nder
the
man
agem
ent c
ontr
act.
�
Leas
e
The
mun
icip
ality
pro
vide
s its
ass
ets (
faci
litie
s) o
n le
ase
to th
e co
ntra
ctor
to p
erfo
rm
spec
ified
SW
M se
rvic
es. T
he se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er (c
ontr
acto
r) is
res
pons
ible
for
oper
atin
g,
repa
irin
g, a
nd m
aint
aini
ng th
e as
sets
. The
serv
ice
prov
ider
usu
ally
col
lect
s the
fees
from
se
rvic
e us
ers a
nd p
ays t
he r
ent t
o th
e m
unic
ipal
ity fo
r us
ing
its a
sset
s and
faci
litie
s. Be
caus
e of
this,
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
may
bea
r th
e re
spon
sibili
ties f
or c
olle
ctin
g ta
riffs
from
the
serv
ice
user
s and
ass
ume
the
colle
ctio
n ri
sk o
f tra
nsac
tions
. How
ever
, in
case
of s
olid
was
te
man
agem
ent,
the
mun
icip
ality
pay
s the
agr
eed
amou
nt (t
ippi
ng fe
e) to
run
the
spec
ified
se
rvic
es, i
f the
pri
vate
sect
or d
oes n
ot fi
nd th
e co
mm
erci
al o
ptio
n of
val
ue a
dded
serv
ices
(e
.g. l
andf
ill si
te w
ith v
alue
add
ed se
rvic
e of
com
post
pla
nts)
to r
ecov
er th
e se
rvic
e co
sts.
Se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers d
o no
t inv
est n
ew c
apita
ls an
d, o
r re
plac
e th
e le
ased
ass
ets a
nd fa
cilit
ies
unde
r no
rmal
cir
cum
stan
ces.
Leas
es a
re ty
pica
l for
eig
ht to
fifte
en y
ears
. Lea
sing
of
mun
icip
ality
ow
ned
land
for
the
esta
blish
men
t of a
com
post
ing
plan
t or
leas
ing
of w
aste
tr
ansp
orta
tion
vehi
cles
cou
ld b
e ty
pica
l exa
mpl
es o
f lea
se c
ontr
acts
. Gen
eral
ly,
mun
icip
ality
pro
vide
s its
ass
ets o
n le
ases
for
mun
icip
al se
rvic
e de
liver
y un
der
Build
-O
pera
te-T
rans
fer
(BO
T) a
rran
gem
ent.
�
Con
cess
ion
U
nder
this
arra
ngem
ent,
the
SWM
serv
ice
prov
ider
enj
oys t
he h
ighe
st le
vel o
f fre
edom
to
run
the
serv
ices
. It a
ssum
es th
e w
hole
or
part
ial r
espo
nsib
ility
for
the
man
agem
ent,
oper
atio
n, r
epai
r, m
aint
enan
ce, r
epla
cem
ent,
desig
n co
nstr
uctio
n an
d fin
anci
ng o
f all
or
som
e co
mpo
nent
s. In
con
sona
nt to
this,
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
bea
rs a
ll m
anag
emen
t, op
erat
ion
and
finan
cial
risk
s; a
nd p
ays c
once
ssio
n fe
e to
the
mun
icip
ality
. How
ever
, the
m
unic
ipal
ity st
ill r
emai
ns th
e ow
ner
of th
e as
sets
in o
pera
tion,
und
er c
onst
ruct
ion
or th
ose
to b
e co
nstr
ucte
d w
hich
are
tran
sfer
red
to th
e m
unic
ipal
ity a
t the
end
of t
he c
once
ssio
n pe
riod
. Usu
ally
con
cess
ion
arra
ngem
ent i
s con
trac
ted
for
long
er p
erio
ds o
f 15
to 2
5 ye
ars.
The
con
trac
ts su
ch a
s BO
T (B
uild
-Ope
rate
-Tra
nsfe
r) a
nd B
OO
T (B
uild
-Ow
n-O
pera
te-
Tran
sfer
) fal
l und
er th
is ar
rang
emen
t.
Th
is ar
rang
emen
t is s
uita
ble
for t
he d
evel
opm
ent o
f new
serv
ice
infr
astr
uctu
re su
ch a
s the
es
tabl
ishm
ent o
f tra
nsfe
r sta
tion,
land
fill s
ite, c
ompo
st p
lant
, whi
ch m
unic
ipal
ity a
lone
can
not
fund
. As m
entio
ned
earl
ier,
unle
ss th
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er g
ener
ates
ade
quat
e fin
anci
al re
sour
ce
thro
ugh
char
ging
the
serv
ice
fees
from
the
user
s, pa
rtic
ular
ly b
ig b
usin
ess h
ouse
s, co
mm
erci
al e
stab
lishm
ents
, ind
ustr
ies a
nd if
pos
sible
from
hou
seho
lds f
or c
olle
ctin
g,
tran
spor
ting
and
disp
osin
g th
e w
aste
, it i
s diff
icul
t to
mee
t the
fina
ncia
l obl
igat
ions
to r
un th
e
6PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
serv
ices
. Hen
ce, a
gain
the
mun
icip
ality
has
to fi
nanc
e fo
r the
serv
ice
fees
inst
ead
of u
sers
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery.
Se
rvic
e co
ntra
ct is
con
sider
ed th
e sim
ples
t con
trac
tual
arr
ange
men
t with
the
priv
ate
sect
or,
and
subs
eque
ntly
man
agem
ent c
ontr
act,
leas
e an
d co
nces
sion
arra
ngem
ents
bec
ome
mor
e co
mpl
ex a
nd e
xpen
sive
whi
ch d
eman
d fo
r str
engt
heni
ng th
e pa
rtne
rshi
p re
late
d te
chni
cal
and
man
agem
ent s
kills
of t
he m
unic
ipal
ity.
The
follo
win
g m
atri
x sh
ows t
he p
ossib
le p
artn
ersh
ip a
rran
gem
ents
in th
e de
liver
y of
the
SWM
serv
ices
Feas
ible
Par
tner
ship
SWM
Pro
duct
s / Se
rvice
s
Primary Collec-tion (Sweeping)
Collection Point Management
Container Management
Transportation
Transfer Station Management
Landfi ll Site Management
Feas
ible
Tran
sacti
on
Serv
ice Co
ntrac
t
Franc
hise C
ontra
ct
Mana
geme
nt Co
ntrac
t
Leas
e Arra
ngem
ent
Conc
essio
n Ar
rang
emen
t
Feas
ible P
artne
r
Comm
unitie
s / CB
Os / N
GOs
Small
Comp
anies
Large
Comp
anies
Lege
nd:
Fe
asib
le tr
ansa
ctio
n
Sem
i-fe
asib
le tr
ansa
ctio
n
Non
-fea
sible
tran
sact
ion
C. N
eces
sary
Inst
itutio
nal A
rran
gem
ents
Mun
icip
ality
has
the
prim
ary
resp
onsib
ility
for
ensu
ring
that
the
solid
was
te c
olle
ctio
n se
rvic
e pe
rfor
ms i
n ac
cord
ance
with
the
prov
ision
s in
a PP
P co
ntra
ctua
l agr
eem
ent.
For
this
purp
ose,
th
e m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
def
ine
the
follo
win
g in
stitu
tiona
l and
man
agem
ent f
ram
ewor
k:
1) I
nvol
vem
ent o
f Sol
id W
aste
Man
agem
ent/
Envi
ronm
ent C
omm
ittee
; and
2)
Est
ablis
hmen
t of P
PP u
nit/
des
k in
the
mun
icip
al o
rgan
izat
iona
l fra
me
7PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
i) So
lid W
aste
Man
agem
ent C
omm
ittee
Exist
ing
Solid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t Com
mitt
ee/E
nvir
onm
ent C
omm
ittee
with
in th
e m
unic
ipal
st
ruct
ure
shou
ld b
e re
spon
sible
for
prep
arin
g po
licy
fram
e w
ork
and
stra
tegy
for
impl
emen
ting
SWM
serv
ices
in p
artn
ersh
ip a
rran
gem
ent.
It sh
ould
also
be
resp
onsib
le fo
r th
e fo
llow
ing:
�
To d
ecid
e ho
w S
WM
serv
ice
deliv
ery
will
be
impl
emen
ted
with
in th
eir
SWM
Act
ion
Plan
fr
amew
ork
(thr
ough
PPP
arr
ange
men
t and
/or
mun
icip
ality
on
thei
r ow
n);
�
To m
onito
r th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e S W
M A
ctio
n Pl
an a
nd A
nnua
l SW
M W
ork
plan
(in
clud
ing
PPP
in S
WM
rel
ated
Wor
k pl
an);
and
�
To e
valu
ate
and
mon
itor
SWM
serv
ice
deliv
ery
perf
orm
ance
and
mak
e re
spec
tive
repo
rtin
g.
ii) P
PP u
nit/
desk
Mun
icip
ality
shou
ld e
stab
lish
a PP
P un
it/de
sk fo
r SW
M se
rvic
e un
der
the
coor
dina
tion
of a
PP
P fo
cal p
erso
n. T
he P
PP u
nit/
desk
and
the
foca
l per
son
shou
ld b
e re
spon
sible
for
the
follo
win
g:
�
Iden
tific
atio
n of
SW
M se
rvic
es fo
r pa
rtne
rshi
p�
Id
entif
icat
ion
of a
ppro
pria
te m
ode
of p
artn
ersh
ip�
Se
arch
for
part
ners
�
Initi
atio
n of
bid
s�
Se
lect
ion
of b
ids
�
Dev
elop
men
t of c
ontr
act
�
Enfo
rcem
ent o
f con
trac
t�
M
onito
ring
, eva
luat
ion
and
repo
rtin
g
Polic
y Lev
el- S
olid W
aste
Mana
geme
nt Co
mmitt
ee- D
ispute
Reso
lution
Comm
ittee
Mana
geme
nt Le
vel
- Soli
d Was
te Ma
nage
ment
Secti
on- P
PP Un
it/de
sk fo
r SWM
- PPP
Foca
l Poin
t
Oper
ation
Leve
l- A
ssign
ed st
aff fo
r SWM
-PPP
- Des
ignate
d Priv
ate O
pera
tor
8PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Stag
e
Plan
ning
for P
ublic
Priv
ate
Part
ners
hip
in S
WM
Publ
ic-P
riva
te P
artn
ersh
ip (P
PP) i
n so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent (
SWM
) is o
nly
a po
ssib
le
oppo
rtun
ity -
not a
pan
acea
in im
prov
ing
mun
icip
al S
WM
. In
situa
tions
in w
hich
exi
stin
g se
rvic
e de
liver
y is
too
cost
ly o
r in
adeq
uate
, pri
v at
e se
ctor
shou
ld b
e ex
amin
ed a
s a m
eans
of
enha
ncin
g ef
ficie
ncy
and
mob
ilizi
ng p
riva
te in
vest
men
t. In
this
rega
rd, P
PP in
SW
M se
rvic
e de
liver
y op
tion
shou
ld b
e co
nsid
ered
in th
e co
ntex
t of S
WM
Act
ion
Plan
.
Step 1
: Prep
arati
on of
SWM
Actio
n Plan
Step 2
: App
roval
of SW
M Ac
tion P
lan an
d Ann
ual W
ork P
lanSte
p 3: C
ondu
cting
a Pre
-feas
ibility
Stud
y
Step
1: P
repa
ratio
n of
SW
M A
ctio
n Pl
an
Mun
icip
ality
shou
ld p
repa
re a
SW
M A
ctio
n Pl
an b
ased
on
the
long
-ter
m m
unic
ipal
de
velo
pmen
t pla
n, w
hich
shou
ld c
lear
ly se
t the
stra
tegi
c di
rect
ion
and
appr
oach
es to
invo
lve
priv
ate
serv
ice
prov
ider
in S
WM
serv
ice
deliv
ery.
Base
d on
the
SWM
Act
ion
Plan
, for
eac
h fis
cal y
ear,
the
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld d
evel
op A
nnua
l SW
M W
ork
Plan
s whi
ch sh
ould
, am
ong
othe
r ac
tiviti
es, c
lear
ly sp
ecify
the
leve
l and
inte
nsity
fo
r in
volv
ing
priv
ate
serv
ice
prov
ider
s. T
he A
nnua
l Wor
k Pl
an sh
ould
also
set o
ut th
e re
sour
ce
mob
iliza
tion
stra
tegy
for
SWM
and
mec
hani
sm fo
r se
rvic
e de
liver
y (in
clud
ing
the
activ
ities
th
at th
e m
unic
ipal
ity r
equi
res t
o ca
rry
out o
n its
ow
n an
d th
e ac
tiviti
es w
ith p
artn
ersh
ip
arra
ngem
ent)
. Bas
ical
ly, it
shou
ld d
eter
min
e w
here
and
how
the
SWM
serv
ices
are
to b
e de
liver
ed w
ith th
e pa
rtne
rs.
SWM
Ann
ual W
ork
Plan
shou
ld in
clud
e th
e fo
llow
ing
step
s:�
Iden
tific
atio
n of
the
SWM
pro
duct
s/se
rvic
es th
at c
ould
be
deliv
ered
by
part
ners
;�
A
ctiv
ities
for
invo
lvin
g pa
rtne
rs in
SW
M se
rvic
es;
�
Cho
ice
of p
artn
er fo
r th
e pr
oduc
ts/s
ervi
ces d
eliv
ery;
and
�
Tim
elin
e fo
r pl
anni
ng/p
repa
ring
/im
plem
entin
g PP
P pr
ojec
t
Iden
tifi c
atio
n of
the
SWM
pro
duct
s/se
rvic
es fo
r pa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
t
Mos
t SW
M a
ctiv
ities
can
be
deliv
ered
thro
ugh
priv
ate
sect
or in
volv
emen
t. Si
nce
the
natu
re
and
impo
rtan
ce o
f a sp
ecifi
c co
mm
unity
or
area
mig
ht d
iffer
from
one
ano
ther
, the
1
9PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld fo
cus o
n th
ose
activ
ities
, whi
ch a
re m
ost i
neffi
cien
tly p
erfo
rmed
if
impl
emen
ted
on it
s ow
n.
Solid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t pro
duct
s/se
rvic
es fo
r par
tner
ship
arra
ngem
ent s
houl
d be
iden
tifie
d on
th
e fo
llow
ing
basis
:�
Whi
ch S
WM
serv
ices
cou
ld fa
cilit
ate
utm
ost p
artic
ipat
ion
of lo
cal a
nd c
omm
unity
peo
ple
and
the
use
of th
eir
skill
s?�
Whi
ch S
WM
pro
duct
s/se
rvic
es c
ould
exp
ect v
iabl
e co
st r
ecov
ery?
�
Whi
ch S
WM
pro
duct
s/se
rvic
es th
e co
mm
unity
and
loca
l peo
ple
wou
ld b
e w
illin
g to
pay
fo
r th
e pr
oduc
ts/s
ervi
ces?
�
Whi
ch S
WM
pro
duct
s/se
rvic
es id
entif
ied
for
part
ners
hip
arra
ngem
ent w
ould
faci
litat
e th
e tr
ansit
ion
of m
unic
ipal
ities
’ rol
e fr
om im
plem
enta
tion
to su
perv
ision
/ m
onito
ring
? �
Whi
ch S
WM
pro
duct
s/se
rvic
es w
ould
enh
ance
and
exp
ose
capa
city
bui
ldin
g op
port
uniti
es
to th
e pa
rtne
rs (m
unic
ipal
ity a
s wel
l as t
he p
riva
te o
pera
tor)
?
The
mos
t suc
cess
ful m
etho
d of
SW
M in
one
war
d m
ight
not
be
equa
lly su
cces
sful
in a
noth
er
war
d w
here
ther
e is
a di
ffere
nt se
t of l
ocal
con
ditio
ns. T
he su
cces
s dep
ends
on
vari
ous f
acto
rs.
The
refo
re, t
he m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
con
duct
an
asse
ssm
ent s
tudy
to id
entif
y fe
asib
le S
WM
pr
oduc
ts/s
ervi
ce fo
r PP
P th
roug
h th
e fo
llow
ing
step
s:
i) C
olle
ctio
n of
info
rmat
ion
The
firs
t ste
p in
the
iden
tific
atio
n of
SW
M p
rodu
cts/
serv
ice
for
part
ners
hip
arra
ngem
ent i
s th
e co
llect
ion
of in
form
atio
n of
the
exist
ing
situa
tion
in a
par
ticul
ar w
ard
or/a
nd c
omm
unity
. T
his i
nvol
ves:
Gen
eral
info
rmat
ion
�
Sett
lem
ent
and
nat
ure
of th
e w
ard/
com
mun
ity/f
ocus
ed a
rea;
�
Num
ber
of h
ouse
hold
s in
the
war
d/co
mm
unity
/foc
used
are
a;�
In
com
e, e
duca
tion
and
awar
enes
s lev
el o
f the
com
mun
ity;
�
Gen
eral
not
ion
abou
t the
was
te m
anag
emen
t; an
d�
Stre
ngth
and
wea
knes
s
Soli
d w
aste
rel
ated
info
rmat
ion
�
Sour
ces o
f was
te g
ener
atio
n;�
Was
te q
uant
ity, d
ensit
y, a
nd c
ompo
sitio
n;�
Met
hod
of c
olle
ctio
n in
clud
ing
tran
sfer
faci
lity
and
disp
osal
opt
ions
;�
Tran
spor
t dist
ance
and
roa
d co
nditi
on;
�
Cos
t inc
urre
d (p
er m
onth
or
unit
cost
per
cub
ic m
eter
of g
arba
ge);
�
Hum
an r
esou
rces
em
ploy
ed; a
nd�
Tech
nolo
gy a
pplie
d
SWM
ser
vice
pro
vid
ers’
info
rmat
ion
�
Loca
l clu
bs a
nd o
ther
com
mun
ity b
ased
org
aniz
atio
ns in
volv
ed in
SW
M a
ctiv
ities
; and
�
Stre
ngth
and
wea
knes
s
10
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
ii) A
naly
sis
of in
form
atio
n
The
seco
nd st
ep in
volv
es th
e an
alys
is of
the
info
rmat
ion
to:
�
defin
e th
e pr
oble
ms r
egar
ding
the
adeq
uacy
of e
xist
ing
serv
ices
and
con
stra
ints
to se
rvic
e im
prov
emen
t;�
asse
ss th
e ne
ed a
nd d
eman
d fo
r se
rvic
es;
�
asse
ss th
e ca
paci
ty o
f the
loca
l SW
M se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers i
n te
rms o
f ski
lls, e
xper
ienc
e, a
nd
acce
ss to
cre
dit a
nd h
uman
res
ourc
es;
�
invo
lve
publ
ic in
bui
ldin
g co
nsen
sus t
o th
e so
lutio
n of
the
prob
lem
s;�
deve
lop
stra
tegy
for
priv
ate
sect
or in
volv
emen
t in
SWM
and
det
erm
ine
the
serv
ices
in
whi
ch p
riva
te o
pera
tors
cou
ld b
e in
volv
ed.
iii)
Defi
nin
g th
e ob
ject
ive
Mer
e SW
M se
rvic
e im
prov
emen
t thr
ough
pri
vate
sect
or in
volv
emen
t sho
uld
not b
e th
e ob
ject
ive
of th
e pa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
t. T
he m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
aim
at s
usta
inab
le a
nd c
ost-
effe
ctiv
e SW
M se
rvic
e. S
uch
arra
ngem
ent s
houl
d fa
cilit
ate
win
-win
rel
atio
nshi
p w
ith th
e pr
ivat
e op
erat
or. B
ased
on
the
prin
cipl
e th
at th
e ar
rang
emen
t is m
utua
lly b
enef
icia
l.
Stra
tegi
c di
rect
ion
for
invo
lvin
g pa
rtne
rs in
SW
M s
ervi
ces
The
cho
ice
to u
se P
riva
te P
artn
ers i
n so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent i
s ent
irel
y th
e m
unic
ipal
ity’s
deci
sion.
The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld d
ecid
e, b
ased
on
the
com
mun
ity n
eeds
and
the
mun
icip
al
capa
city
, to
unde
rtak
e su
ch a
rran
gem
ents
. The
mun
icip
ality
’s de
cisio
n sh
ould
be
base
d on
the
exist
ing
situa
tion
and
stra
tegi
c di
rect
ion
to in
volv
e pa
rtne
rs in
SW
M. T
he fo
llow
ing
coul
d be
so
me
of th
e gu
idin
g fa
ctor
s:a)
The
eng
agem
ent o
f the
pri
vate
sect
or in
SW
M se
rvic
e pr
ovisi
on d
oes n
ot r
elie
ve th
e m
unic
ipal
ity o
f its
res
pons
ibili
ties.
The
mun
icip
ality
will
rem
ain
the
regu
lato
r of
SW
M
serv
ices
and
hav
e th
e ul
timat
e re
spon
sibili
ty.
b) T
he m
unic
ipal
ity e
nsur
es th
at th
e pa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
t is m
ade
acco
unta
ble
to th
e en
d-us
ers i
n te
rms o
f cos
t and
safe
env
iron
men
t.c)
The
mun
icip
ality
pro
mot
es 3
R’s
conc
ept (
redu
ce, r
e-cy
cle
and
re-u
se) i
n PP
P ar
rang
emen
ts.
d) T
he m
unic
ipal
ity a
dopt
s the
pri
ncip
le th
at th
e “p
ollu
ters
pay
” for
cos
t rec
over
y of
the
serv
ices
. Thi
s pri
ncip
le is
use
d al
so fo
r po
sitiv
e re
-enf
orce
men
t in
chan
ging
the
beha
vior
of
the
serv
ice
user
s.e)
The
mun
icip
ality
enc
oura
ges c
omm
unity
par
ticip
atio
n w
here
ver
poss
ible
. f)
The
mun
icip
ality
sets
SW
M se
rvic
e de
liver
y st
anda
rds j
oint
ly w
ith th
e pa
rtne
rs a
nd
enfo
rce
the
qual
ity o
f del
iver
y w
ithin
the
fram
e of
the
set s
tand
ards
. g)
The
mun
icip
ality
pro
mot
es c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t am
ong
the
priv
ate
part
ies b
ased
on
the
bene
ficia
ry o
utre
ach,
serv
ice
stan
dard
s, a
nd d
istri
butio
n of
res
pons
ibili
ties,
risk
s and
re
turn
s. h)
The
mun
icip
ality
stre
ngth
ens i
ts o
rgan
izat
iona
l cap
acity
for
PPP
arra
ngem
ent i
n SW
M. I
t en
cour
ages
cap
acity
enh
ance
men
t of t
he p
artn
ers a
s wel
l.
11
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Cho
ice
of p
artn
er
The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld c
hoos
e w
heth
er to
invo
lve
priv
ate
sect
or, a
nd/o
r a
CBO
/NG
O a
s its
pa
rtne
r fo
r SW
M. T
he d
ecisi
on w
ill d
epen
d on
the
need
of t
he m
unic
ipal
ity, w
ard/
com
mun
ity’s
dem
and
for
serv
ices
, and
man
agem
ent a
nd te
chni
cal c
apab
ilitie
s req
uire
d fo
r th
e se
rvic
es.
PPP
Plan
for
impl
emen
tatio
n
Plan
ned
activ
ities
for
impl
emen
ting
PPP
arra
ngem
ents
shou
ld b
e in
corp
orat
ed in
the
Ann
ual
SWM
Wor
k Pl
an. T
his P
PP P
lan
shou
ld c
lear
ly in
dica
te th
e ac
tiviti
es th
at n
eed
to b
e ac
com
plish
ed fo
r th
e PP
P ar
rang
emen
t alo
ng w
ith th
e tim
e fr
ame
and
assig
ned
resp
onsib
ility
. So
lid W
aste
Man
agem
ent C
omm
ittee
shou
ld su
bmit
the
SWM
Act
ion
Plan
and
the
Ann
ual
SWM
Wor
k Pl
an to
the
Mun
icip
al B
oard
for
appr
oval
.
Step
2: A
ppro
val o
f SW
M A
ctio
n Pl
an a
nd A
nnua
l Wor
k Pl
an
As p
art o
f pla
nnin
g pr
oces
s for
PPP
in S
WM
, the
Mun
icip
al B
oard
shou
ld c
onsid
er w
hich
se
rvic
es c
ould
bes
t be
prov
ided
dir
ectly
by
the
mun
icip
ality
and
whi
ch se
rvic
es c
ould
be
deliv
ered
thro
ugh
priv
ate
sect
or’s
invo
lvem
ent.
Thu
s, S
WM
Act
ion
Plan
and
Ann
ual S
WM
w
orkp
lan
shou
ld b
e su
bmite
d to
the
Mun
icip
ality
Boa
rd fo
r ap
prov
al .
The
Boa
rd’s
deci
sion
then
shou
ld b
e th
e A
nnua
l SW
M W
ork
Plan
of t
he m
unic
ipal
ity.
Step
3: C
ondu
ctin
g A
Pre-
Feas
ibili
ty S
tudy
The
con
duct
ion
of th
e pr
e-fe
asib
ility
stud
y or
rev
iew
is th
e th
ird
step
, whi
ch sh
ould
pro
vide
fa
irly
cle
ar p
ictu
re a
bout
the
plan
ned
PPP
activ
ities
so th
at it
serv
es a
s a p
relim
inar
y ba
sis fo
r pa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
t. O
nce
the
Mun
icip
al B
oard
dec
ides
on
pote
ntia
l SW
M p
artn
ersh
ip
proj
ects
and
bud
get,
the
mun
icip
ality
can
do
a pr
e-fe
asib
ility
stud
y of
the
poss
ible
par
tner
ship
ar
rang
emen
t. T
he st
udy
shou
ld le
ad to
a r
epor
t cov
erin
g m
ajor
asp
ects
of t
he p
ropo
sed
part
ners
hip
arra
ngem
ent.
A c
heck
list f
or c
onte
nts o
f a p
re-f
easib
ility
rep
ort i
s giv
en in
the
box
belo
w. F
or si
mpl
e an
d sm
all s
ize
part
ners
hip
arra
ngem
ent i
n SW
M se
rvic
es (e
.g. s
tree
t sw
eepi
ng a
nd d
oor-
to-d
oor
colle
ctio
n), e
ach
rele
vant
topi
c m
ay b
e co
vere
d in
a sh
ort
para
grap
h.
The
am
ount
of d
etai
l und
er e
ach
head
ing
in a
rep
ort w
ill d
epen
d on
the
size
and
com
plex
ity
of th
e PP
P. F
or c
ompl
ex p
artn
ersh
ip a
rran
gem
ents
, mun
icip
ality
will
con
duct
det
ail f
easib
ility
st
udy.
Suc
h st
udy
shou
ld in
clud
e:-
gene
ral i
nfor
mat
ion
abou
t the
par
tner
ship
pro
ject
; -
tech
nica
l and
fina
ncia
l via
bilit
y;
- so
cial
impa
ct a
nd e
nvir
onm
enta
l sus
tain
abili
ty;
12
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
- pr
obab
le r
isks a
nd b
enef
its fo
r th
e m
unic
ipal
ity ,
resid
ents
and
oth
er k
ey st
akeh
olde
rs; a
nd
- in
stitu
tiona
l arr
ange
men
t, ca
pabi
lity
requ
irem
ent a
nd sk
ill e
nhan
cem
ent.
Che
cklis
t for
such
feas
ibili
ty st
udy
is gi
ven
in A
nnex
1.
As p
er th
e C
laus
e 11
3 of
the
Loca
l Sel
f-Gov
erna
nce A
ct (L
SGA
) 199
9, it
is th
e re
spon
sibili
ty o
f th
e m
unic
ipal
ity to
con
duct
the
pre-
feas
ibili
ty st
udy
befo
re p
ublis
hing
not
ice
to re
ques
t for
pr
opos
als.
In c
ase,
the
mun
icip
ality
lack
s the
cap
acity
for c
ondu
ctin
g su
ch a
stud
y, ac
cord
ing
to
the
prov
ision
in R
ule
72 o
f loc
al S
elf G
over
nanc
e R
egul
atio
n (L
SGR
) 200
0, th
e m
unic
ipal
ity
coul
d un
dert
ake
such
stud
y th
roug
h co
nsul
tanc
y se
rvic
es. T
he p
re-fe
asib
ility
stud
y an
d /o
r fe
asib
ility
stud
y sh
ould
be
rele
ased
as a
pub
lic d
ocum
ent,
so th
at a
ll in
tere
sted
pot
entia
l par
tner
s ca
n re
view
and
add
cre
ativ
e an
d co
st e
ffect
ive
idea
s for
par
tner
ship
arr
ange
men
t.
Proc
urem
ent o
f par
tner
ship
is c
ruci
al in
any
PPP
arr
ange
men
t. Pr
ocur
emen
t pro
cess
shou
ld
be a
ble
to a
chie
ve "
valu
e of
mon
ey"
for
the
mun
icip
ality
, par
tner
s and
ulti
mat
ely
the
bene
ficia
ries
. Exi
stin
g pr
ocur
emen
t leg
islat
ion
and
regu
latio
ns a
re fo
cuse
d on
ly o
n th
e ci
vil
wor
ks c
onst
ruct
ion
and
purc
hase
of e
quip
men
t and
serv
ices
. The
ess
entia
l diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
conv
entio
nal p
rocu
rem
ent a
nd p
artn
ersh
ip p
rocu
rem
ent i
s tha
t in
the
form
er, t
he
mun
icip
ality
pur
chas
es a
sset
s and
serv
ices
from
par
tner
s so
that
it c
an d
eliv
er m
unic
ipal
se
rvic
e its
elf.
In c
ase
of p
artn
ersh
ip p
roje
ct, p
artn
er d
eliv
ers m
unic
ipal
serv
ice,
whi
ch
invo
lves
del
egat
ion
of r
espo
nsib
ility
. Suc
h de
lega
tion
crea
tes h
ighe
r le
vel o
f risk
s to
both
the
mun
icip
ality
and
the
part
ner.
Thu
s, w
hile
pro
curi
ng p
artn
ersh
ip a
rran
gem
ent f
or S
WM
, risk
s im
plic
atio
n ne
eds t
o be
car
eful
ly a
naly
zed.
Che
cklis
t of
cont
ents
of
pre-
feas
ibili
ty s
tudy
1. Ob
jectiv
es to
be ac
hieve
d by t
he SW
M pro
ject
2. Be
nefi c
iaries
(ward
, com
munit
y or f
ocus
ed ar
ea)
3. Alt
erna
tive w
ays t
o mee
t proj
ect o
bjecti
ves
4. Ch
oice o
f PPP
mod
el5.
Descr
iption
of pr
eferre
d par
tnersh
ip6.
Tech
nical
analy
sis7.
Finan
cial a
nalys
is (co
st, in
come
and r
equir
ed in
vestm
ent, s
ource
of fu
nd, re
turn o
n inv
estm
ent. e
tc )
8. Be
nefi ts
(qua
ntifi a
ble an
d non
-quan
tifi ab
le)9.
Risks
in th
e proj
ect a
nd m
ethod
of ha
ndlin
g10
. Im
pact
on th
e env
ironm
ent
11.
Over
all pr
oject
viabil
ity in
quali
tative
term
sNo
te: Ea
ch po
int sh
ould
be co
nside
red bu
t not
all ne
eds t
o be i
nclud
ed fo
r sma
ll and
simp
le PP
P in S
WM.
13
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Stag
e2
Proc
urin
g Pu
blic
Priv
ate
Part
ners
hips
Proc
urem
ent o
f PPP
for
SWM
serv
ices
del
iver
y pr
oces
s inv
olve
s a se
ries
of a
ctiv
ities
be
ginn
ing
from
iden
tific
atio
n of
the
appr
opri
ate
proc
urem
ent p
roce
ss to
mak
e in
vita
tion
for
bidd
ing
and
eval
uatio
n of
bid
doc
umen
t. T
he fo
llow
ing
are
the
step
s tha
t nee
d to
be
follo
wed
fo
r Pa
rtne
rshi
p Pr
ocur
emen
t:
Step 1
: Ide
ntifyi
ng Pr
ocure
ment
Proce
ssSte
p 2:
Prepa
ratio
n of P
artne
rship
Procu
remen
t Doc
umen
tsSte
p 3:
Pre-qu
alifi c
ation
of th
e Par
tners
Step 4
: Inv
itatio
n for
Bidd
ing (R
eque
st for
Prop
osal)
Step 5
: Or
ganiz
ing Bi
dders
’ Mee
ting
Step 6
: Op
ening
and E
xami
natio
n of t
he Bi
d Doc
umen
tSte
p 7:
Evalu
ation
of Bi
d Doc
umen
t and
Selec
tion o
f Par
tner
Step
1: I
dent
ifyin
g Pr
ocur
emen
t Pro
cess
Part
ners
hip
proc
urem
ent f
or th
e SW
M se
rvic
es sh
ould
be
cond
ucte
d th
roug
h a
com
petit
ive
bidd
ing
proc
ess b
y fo
llow
ing
the
Cla
use
117
of L
SG A
ct (1
999)
and
Cha
pter
5 o
f LSG
Fi
nanc
ial R
ules
(rev
ised
2005
).
How
ever
, it m
ay n
ot b
e fe
asib
le to
app
ly su
ch c
ompe
titiv
e pr
ocur
emen
t pro
cess
in a
ll pa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
ts. P
ossib
le c
ombi
natio
n of
par
tner
ship
arr
ange
men
t and
app
ropr
iate
pr
ocur
emen
t pro
cess
are
pre
sent
ed in
the
follo
win
g m
atri
x:
Proc
urem
ent P
roce
ssPa
rtne
rshi
p Ar
rang
emen
t
Conc
essio
n Ar
rang
emen
tLe
ase
Cont
ract
Man
agem
ent
Cont
ract
Fran
chise
Co
ntra
ctSe
rvice
Co
ntra
ctNe
gotia
tion
and
MOU
Form
al Co
mpeti
tive T
ende
ring
√√
Comp
etitiv
e Neg
otiati
on√
√√
Comp
etitiv
e Soli
citati
on
√√
√
Users
Comm
ittee
s, CBO
s/NGO
s√
14
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Form
al C
ompe
titiv
e Te
nder
ing
Form
al C
ompe
titiv
e Ten
deri
ng p
roce
ss o
f par
tner
ship
pro
cure
men
t is a
pplic
able
for
BOT,
BO
OT
and
con
cess
ion
arra
ngem
ents
. It c
an a
lso b
e us
ed fo
r th
e m
anag
emen
t and
serv
ice
cont
ract
if th
e tr
ansa
ctio
n is
of v
ery
high
mon
etar
y va
lue.
The
mun
icip
ality
can
also
use
this
proc
urem
ent p
roce
ss fo
r le
asin
g of
hig
h va
lue
asse
ts
(fac
ilitie
s, c
apita
ls). T
he d
evel
opm
ent,
man
agem
ent a
nd o
pera
tion
of a
sani
tary
land
fill s
ite,
tran
sfer
stat
ion;
or
leas
ing
of a
lrea
dy e
xist
ed S
WM
faci
litie
s or
plan
ts (w
aste
pro
cess
ing
plan
ts, v
ehic
les,
etc
.); o
r aw
ardi
ng o
f cer
tain
geo
grap
hica
l ser
vice
cov
erag
e fo
r th
e w
hole
SW
M p
acka
ge o
n a
fran
chise
bas
is ar
e ap
prop
riat
ely
liabl
e fo
r th
is bi
ddin
g pr
oces
s.
Com
petit
ive
Neg
otia
tion
Com
petit
ive
nego
tiatio
n is
a sim
ple
vers
ion
of c
ompe
titiv
e bi
ddin
g pr
oces
s. T
his p
roce
ss
allo
ws t
he m
unic
ipal
ity m
ore
flexi
bilit
y to
pro
cure
the
arra
ngem
ents
, whi
ch a
re le
ss c
ompl
ex,
less
risk
y, a
nd h
ave
mod
erat
e ca
pita
l val
ue. T
he m
unic
ipal
ity se
lect
s a p
refe
rred
bid
der
and
ente
rs in
to c
ontr
act n
egot
iatio
n af
ter
a fo
rmal
bid
eva
luat
ion.
Thi
s pro
cure
men
t pro
cess
is su
itabl
e fo
r le
ased
and
man
agem
ent c
ontr
actu
al a
rran
gem
ents
. T
he le
asin
g of
the
SWM
faci
litie
s suc
h as
com
post
ing
equi
pmen
t, pl
ants
, veh
icle
s and
land
in a
sin
gle
pack
age
or in
the
form
of v
ario
us c
ompo
nent
s; a
nd m
anag
emen
t con
trac
t of w
aste
co
llect
ion,
tran
spor
tatio
n an
d op
erat
ion
faci
litie
s can
be
cons
ider
ed u
nder
this
proc
urem
ent
proc
ess.
Com
petit
ive
Solic
itatio
n
Com
petit
ive
solic
itatio
n ap
plie
s to
thos
e pa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
ts th
at h
ave
the
shor
test
du
ratio
n, lo
wes
t mon
etar
y va
lue
and
risk
, and
less
com
plex
ity. A
com
petit
ive
solic
itatio
n re
quir
es p
ropo
sals
from
two
or m
ore
pote
ntia
l par
tner
s.
Serv
ice
cont
ract
and
fran
chise
con
trac
t of p
rim
ary
colle
ctio
n, sw
eepe
rs’ c
ontr
act,
was
te
colle
ctio
n an
d tr
ansp
orta
tion;
or
supp
ly o
f tra
nspo
rtat
ion,
aut
omob
ile a
nd o
ther
par
ts (i
n sm
all a
mou
nts)
are
the
best
-sui
ted
com
pone
nts o
f SW
M fo
r th
is ty
pe o
f pro
cure
men
t.
Use
rs C
omm
ittee
, CBO
s an
d N
GO
s.
The
mun
icip
ality
can
pro
cure
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
s thr
ough
or
arra
nge
join
tly
with
use
rs g
roup
s, C
BOs a
nd N
GO
s. A
join
t par
tner
ship
can
be
form
ed b
y de
finin
g th
e te
rms
and
cond
ition
s of s
ervi
ces.
Cro
ss su
bsid
y, c
ost s
hari
ng, a
nd u
sers
’ con
trib
utio
n ar
e th
e re
sour
ce sh
arin
g m
odal
ities
that
can
be
used
in th
is ty
pe o
f arr
ange
men
t. W
ith b
ette
r un
ders
tand
ing
of th
e se
rvic
e re
quir
emen
ts a
nd b
y de
visin
g ap
prop
riat
e co
ntra
ct m
echa
nism
s,
the
com
mun
ity c
an b
e m
ade
resp
onsib
le fo
r th
e de
velo
pmen
t, m
anag
emen
t and
ope
ratio
n of
15
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
the
serv
ices
. The
mun
icip
ality
nee
ds to
pro
vide
tech
nica
l and
man
agem
ent s
uppo
rt c
lose
ly if
th
e pa
rtne
rs la
ck su
ch c
apac
ity to
man
age
the
serv
ices
. Pr
imar
y co
llect
ion,
sour
ce se
para
tion,
hou
seho
ld d
ispos
al, w
aste
tran
spor
tatio
n to
tran
sfer
st
atio
ns, a
war
enes
s cam
paig
n, c
onfli
ct r
esol
utio
n in
tran
sfer
stat
ions
and
land
fill s
ites a
re th
e ar
eas w
here
the
user
s gro
ups,
CBO
s and
NG
Os c
an b
e ef
fect
ive.
Step
2: P
repa
ratio
n of
Par
tner
ship
Pro
cure
men
t Doc
umen
ts
The
PPP
uni
t/de
sk's
fore
mos
t tas
k w
ould
be
to p
repa
re d
ocum
ents
for
part
ners
hip
proc
urem
ent.
A c
lear
and
qua
litat
ive
purc
hase
doc
umen
t is a
pre
-req
uisit
e fo
r su
cces
sful
pa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
t.
The
PPP
Uni
t/de
sk o
f the
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld p
repa
re th
e fo
llow
ing
docu
men
ts b
efor
e pu
blish
ing
publ
ic n
otic
e fo
r bi
ddin
g:�
Fo
rm fo
r Bi
ddin
g �
Pr
ocur
emen
t con
ditio
ns�
C
ontr
act c
ondi
tions
�
Sc
ope
and
spec
ifica
tion
of se
rvic
e�
A
gree
men
t doc
umen
t�
Pe
rfor
man
ce m
onito
ring
mod
ality
�
Prov
ision
s of b
ank
guar
ante
e�
Sc
hedu
le o
f pri
ces
Step
3: P
re-Q
ualifi
catio
non
of th
e Pa
rtne
rs
Gen
eral
ly, p
rior
to m
akin
g in
vita
tion
for
bidd
ing,
pre
-qua
lific
atio
n ex
erci
se is
initi
ated
. Pre
-qu
alifi
catio
n is
desig
ned
to id
entif
y w
hich
pot
entia
l bid
ders
are
cle
arly
suita
ble
as se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers f
or S
WM
. It i
s also
con
duct
ed to
exc
lude
uns
uita
ble
bidd
er fr
om th
e ac
tual
bid
ding
pr
oces
s, th
us S
impl
ifyin
g th
e pr
oces
s. T
he m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
dev
elop
pre
-qua
lific
atio
n cr
iteri
a be
fore
the
com
men
cem
ent o
f the
pro
cess
.
The
cri
teri
a fo
r pr
e-qu
alifi
catio
n m
ight
incl
ude
the
follo
win
g:
Som
e cr
iteria
for
preq
ualifi
cat
ion
�
Spec
ifi c ex
perie
nce i
n the
fi elds
of SW
M se
ctor
�
Past
succe
ssful
perfo
rman
ce in
simi
lar pr
oject
�
Capa
bilitie
s with
resp
ect t
o man
agem
ent o
f lab
or an
d equ
ipmen
t ope
ratio
n�
Fin
ancia
l cap
abilit
ies to
carry
out t
he pr
oject
�
Proof
of ab
senc
e of i
llega
l reco
rd his
tory
16
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
If th
e PP
P un
it/de
sk fe
els i
t nec
essa
ry (d
epen
ding
on
the
natu
re a
nd c
ompl
exity
of t
he
proj
ect)
, the
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld se
ek e
xpre
ssio
n of
inte
rest
from
the
pote
ntia
l par
tner
s. T
he
follo
win
g w
ould
be
the
step
s in
the
pre-
qual
ifica
tion
proc
ess:
1)
Inv
itatio
n fo
r pr
e-qu
alifi
catio
n;2)
Eva
luat
ion
and
anno
unce
men
t of t
he r
esul
t of p
re-q
ualif
icat
ion;
and
3)
App
eal p
roce
ss.
For
pre-
qual
ifica
tion
of th
e po
tent
ial p
artn
ers,
the
mun
icip
ality
will
follo
w th
e pr
oces
s as p
er
the
Rul
e 58
in th
e LS
GR
, 200
0.
Step
4: I
nvita
tion
for B
iddi
ng (R
eque
st fo
r Pro
posa
l)
The
mun
icip
ality
will
invi
te th
e po
tent
ial p
artn
ers (
i.e. t
hose
who
hav
e be
en p
re-q
ualif
ied)
to
subm
it pr
opos
al fo
r SW
M se
rvic
e de
liver
y. T
he n
otic
e sh
ould
be
publ
ished
in b
oth
the
loca
l an
d na
tiona
l new
spap
ers,
whi
ch sh
ould
men
tion
the
follo
win
g in
form
atio
n ab
out t
he
prop
osed
par
tner
ship
pro
ject
:�
O
bjec
tive,
scop
e an
d jo
b sp
ecifi
catio
n of
the
proj
ect (
Term
s of R
efer
ence
);�
D
ate
and
time
for
subm
issio
n of
the
bid
docu
men
t;�
Pl
ace
whe
re th
e bi
ddin
g fo
rm w
ould
be
avai
labl
e an
d w
here
it n
eeds
to b
e su
bmitt
ed; a
nd�
Fe
e fo
r bi
ddin
g fo
rm.
The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld p
rovi
de b
iddi
ng fo
rm to
the
part
ners
upo
n th
eir
requ
est.
Ofte
n su
ch
form
s are
sold
to th
e po
tent
ial p
artn
ers.
The
bid
ding
form
shou
ld in
clud
e a
vari
ety
of
sequ
entia
l ste
ps n
eces
sary
for
part
ners
hip
proc
urem
ent,
nam
ely:
�
Lett
er o
f inv
itatio
n,�
In
trod
uctio
n to
bid
ders
cov
erin
g ba
ckgr
ound
,�
Sc
ope
of w
ork,
�
Con
tent
s of b
id d
ocum
ent,
�
Proc
ess o
f sub
miss
ion
and
eval
uatio
n of
bid
s, �
Det
ails
of p
ropo
sal p
repa
ratio
n an
d su
bmiss
ion
of b
id,
�
Des
crip
tion
of b
idde
rs a
nd th
eir
com
mitm
ent t
o th
e SW
M p
roje
ct,
�
Poss
ible
risk
fore
seen
by
the
bidd
er in
the
proj
ect a
nd p
ossib
le m
easu
res f
or m
itiga
tion,
�
Fact
ors d
eter
min
ing
posit
ive
envi
ronm
ent f
or th
e pr
ojec
t,�
A
gree
men
t for
tech
nica
l pro
posa
l and
fina
ncia
l pro
posa
l,�
Pr
e-qu
alifi
catio
n cr
iteri
a (if
the
mun
icip
ality
feel
s nec
essa
ry),
�
Det
ails
abou
t aw
ard
of c
ontr
act,
�
Sign
ing
of A
gree
men
t, an
d�
T
ime
fram
e fo
r ta
king
up
the
wor
k.
Not
e: S
ampl
e Ter
ms o
f Ref
eren
ce (T
OR
) for
Sol
id w
aste
col
lect
ion
proj
ect i
s giv
en in
A
nnex
2.
17
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Step
5: O
rgan
izing
Bid
ders
’ Mee
ting
The
mun
icip
ality
cou
ld c
all f
or b
idde
rs’ m
eetin
g af
ter
the
publ
icat
ion
of th
e bi
ddin
g no
tice.
T
he ti
me
and
loca
tion
of th
e bi
dder
s’ m
eetin
g sh
ould
be
adve
rtise
d in
the
bid
docu
men
t or
by
a se
para
te le
tter
to th
e bi
dder
s. T
he m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
cal
l the
mee
ting
for
the
follo
win
g re
ason
s:�
To
am
end
or m
odify
the
bid
docu
men
t. �
To
pro
vide
suffi
cien
t inf
orm
atio
n an
d cl
arify
any
con
fusio
n in
the
clau
ses
of th
e bi
d do
cum
ent.
�
To a
ddre
ss a
ny se
riou
s com
men
ts in
the
bid
docu
men
t.�
To
ext
end
the
subm
issio
n da
te o
f the
bid
doc
umen
t.
Step
6: O
peni
ng a
nd E
xam
inat
ion
of th
e Bi
d Do
cum
ent
Bid
docu
men
t sho
uld
be o
pen
only
at t
he ti
me,
dat
e an
d lo
catio
n sp
ecifi
ed in
the
bid
invi
tatio
n no
tice
or a
t the
tim
e, d
ate
and
loca
tion
spec
ified
by
any
exte
nsio
n of
the
dead
line
for s
ubm
issio
n of
the
bid.
The
pro
cedu
re fo
r ope
ning
the
bid
docu
men
t sho
uld
be a
ccor
ding
to th
e R
ule
63 o
f th
e LS
GR
, 200
0. W
hile
in th
e pr
oces
s, th
e m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
ado
pt th
e fo
llow
ing
step
s: �
A
ppoi
nt a
com
pete
nt st
aff w
ith a
utho
rity
to a
ccep
t or
not t
o ac
cept
the
bid
docu
men
t;�
Ope
n bi
d do
cum
ent e
ven
thou
gh th
e bi
dder
s or t
heir
repr
esen
tativ
es a
re n
ot p
rese
nt. T
he b
id
may
be
open
ed in
the
pres
ence
of a
t lea
st tw
o re
pres
enta
tives
from
the
gove
rnm
enta
l offi
ces;
�
Ann
ounc
e th
e na
me,
and
add
ress
of e
ach
bidd
er a
nd p
repa
re a
rec
ord
(Muc
hulk
a) o
f thi
s an
noun
cem
ent t
oget
her
with
the
nam
e of
all
pers
ons (
bidd
ers i
n pe
rson
or
the
repr
esen
tativ
es) p
rese
nt a
t the
tim
e of
ope
ning
; and
�
Sign
and
get
the
mee
ting
min
ute
signe
d by
all
thos
e pr
esen
t at t
he o
peni
ng o
f the
bid
.
Afte
r op
enin
g th
e bi
d, n
o in
form
atio
n sh
ould
be
disc
lose
d to
any
bid
der
or th
eir
repr
esen
tativ
es u
ntil
the
succ
essf
ul b
idde
r ha
s bee
n no
tifie
d th
e aw
ard
of th
e ag
reem
ent.
At t
he ti
me
of o
peni
ng, a
ll th
e bi
ds r
ecei
ved
by th
e de
adlin
e of
subm
issio
n sh
ould
be
exam
ined
to d
eter
min
e th
e re
spon
siven
ess o
f eac
h bi
d to
the
bid
docu
men
t. Bi
ds n
ot
resp
onsiv
e sh
ould
be
reje
cted
and
shou
ld b
e re
cord
ed. S
uch
exam
inat
ion
coul
d be
don
e ag
ains
t the
follo
win
g cr
iteri
a:�
A
ckno
wle
dgm
ent o
f rec
eipt
of t
he b
id (d
ate
and
time)
on
the
enve
lop
with
the
mun
icip
al
stam
p;�
Pr
e-qu
alifi
catio
n of
the
bidd
er (i
f pre
-qua
lific
atio
n ex
erci
se h
ad b
een
initi
ated
);�
D
ocum
ent s
eale
d;�
D
ocum
ent s
ubm
itted
in th
e fo
rm so
ld b
y th
e m
unic
ipal
ity;
�
Com
plet
enes
s of t
he d
ocum
ent;
�
Cur
renc
y in
the
bid;
�
The
bid
bon
d;�
A
rith
met
ic e
rror
s; a
nd�
A
utho
rize
d sig
natu
res.
18
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Step
7: E
valu
atio
n of
Bid
Doc
umen
t and
Sel
ectio
n of
Par
tner
Part
ners
hip
proc
urem
ent t
eam
shou
ld a
lso c
ondu
ct e
valu
atio
n of
the
bid
docu
men
t. Fo
r SW
M se
rvic
e bi
ddin
g, tw
o en
velo
pe sy
stem
(one
seal
ed te
chni
cal e
nvel
ope
and
the
othe
r fin
anci
al e
nvel
ope)
is r
ecom
men
ded.
The
eva
luat
ion
team
firs
t eva
luat
es th
e te
chni
cal
prop
osal
. Any
bid
that
doe
s not
mee
t the
tech
nica
l req
uire
men
ts is
rej
ecte
d, a
nd th
e fin
anci
al
enve
lop
from
such
bid
der
is no
t ope
ned.
The
satis
fact
ory
bids
may
be
rank
ed a
ccor
ding
to th
eir
tech
n ic
al m
erits
. The
fina
ncia
l pr
opos
als o
f the
satis
fact
ory
bidd
ers a
re th
en o
pene
d. T
he b
idde
r of
feri
ng th
e lo
wes
t (r
easo
nabl
e) p
rice
for
the
serv
ice
is in
vite
d fo
r ne
gotia
tion.
Tech
nica
l Eva
luat
ion
The
follo
win
g fa
ctor
s sho
uld
be c
onsid
ered
in th
e te
chni
cal e
valu
atio
n:�
Pr
opos
ed te
chni
cal d
etai
ls of
all
the
com
pone
nts o
f the
pro
ject
(How
the
serv
ices
wou
ld
be p
rovi
ded)
;�
Pr
opos
ed w
orki
ng p
roce
dure
and
des
crip
tion
of e
very
step
of t
he p
roje
ct (u
nder
stan
ding
of
the
wor
k re
quir
emen
t);
�
Hum
an r
esou
rces
, mat
eria
ls, e
quip
men
t and
faci
litie
s req
uire
d to
per
form
eac
h st
ep o
f the
pr
ojec
t; �
O
wne
rs' e
xper
ienc
e in
pro
vidi
ng si
mila
r op
erat
iona
l ser
vice
s lik
e sw
eepi
ng, c
olle
ctio
n of
ga
rbag
e, tr
ansp
orta
tion
etc.
;�
Ev
iden
ce th
at th
e fir
m is
cap
able
of c
omm
enci
ng se
rvic
e pr
ovisi
on w
hen
requ
ired
.�
C
ost e
stim
ate
of th
e co
mpo
nent
s of t
he p
roje
ct a
nd e
stim
ated
val
ue o
f ass
ets o
wne
d by
the
bidd
er;
�
Proc
urem
ent p
lans
and
pro
pose
d pr
ocur
emen
t met
hods
, pro
cure
men
t sch
edul
e an
d bu
dget
, and
rea
sons
for
sele
ctin
g th
e pr
opos
ed p
rocu
rem
ent s
ched
ule;
�
Proj
ect i
mpl
emen
tatio
n pr
oces
s pur
sued
by
the
mun
icip
ality
and
pla
ns a
nd sc
hedu
le fo
r pa
rtne
r co
nsul
tatio
n; a
nd
�
Proj
ect i
mpl
emen
tatio
n sc
hedu
le in
clud
ing
an a
naly
sis o
f the
exp
ecte
d pr
oble
m in
serv
ice
deliv
ery
The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld p
erfo
rm te
chni
cal e
valu
atio
n of
bid
ding
doc
umen
t with
in th
e fr
ame
of S
ub-r
ules
10
to 1
8 of
the
Rul
e 72
in L
SGR
, 200
0.
Fina
ncia
l Eva
luat
ion
The
fina
ncia
l pro
posa
l of t
he te
chni
cally
succ
essf
ul b
idde
rs sh
ould
be
eval
uate
d us
ing
the
pres
ent v
alue
met
hod
of fi
nanc
ial d
iscou
nt. R
astr
a Ba
nk’s
daily
rat
e sh
ould
be
cons
ider
ed a
s a
basis
for
calc
ulat
ing
the
disc
ount
rat
e fo
r th
e fin
anci
al e
valu
atio
n.
19
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
The
follo
win
g fa
ctor
s sho
uld
be c
onsid
ered
in th
e fin
anci
al e
valu
atio
n:�
Fi
nanc
e re
quire
d to
put
the
proj
ect i
nto
oper
atio
n. N
orm
ally,
it c
ould
be
clas
sifie
d in
to th
ree
broa
d ca
tego
ries
:Fix
ed A
sset
sLa
nd, b
uildin
g, eq
uipme
nt, ve
hicles
Wor
king
Cap
ital
Cost
of pr
oject
oper
ation
and m
ainten
ance
until
reven
ue st
arts
comi
ng in
Pre-
oper
atin
g co
stEx
pens
es in
curre
d in p
repar
ing pr
oject
study
, regis
tratio
n etc.
�
Sour
ce fi
nanc
ing
incl
udes
ana
lysis
of p
artn
ers i
nves
tmen
t req
uire
d, lo
an (i
f any
), a
nd c
ost
of m
oney
, ter
ms,
risk
s and
exp
ecte
d ra
te o
f ret
urn.
�
A c
ost-
bene
fit a
naly
sis sh
ould
cov
er th
e co
mpa
rativ
e an
alys
is of
the
expe
cted
cos
t and
ben
efits
of
the
proj
ect o
ver t
he e
xpec
ted
dura
tion
of th
e pr
ojec
t (fin
anci
al a
naly
sis a
nd p
roje
ctio
ns).
�
Fina
ncia
l fea
sibili
ty st
udy
shou
ld a
lso c
over
fina
ncia
l eva
luat
ion
to e
xam
ine
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of t
he p
roje
ct.
Besid
es, t
he fi
nanc
ial e
valu
atio
n sh
ould
also
be
mad
e on
the
follo
win
g ba
sis:
�
The
fina
ncia
l flo
ws u
sed
in th
e bi
ds d
ocum
ent s
houl
d be
con
siste
nt w
ith th
e te
chni
cal
deta
ils d
efin
ed in
the
bid
docu
men
ts.
�
The
fina
ncia
l flo
ws o
f all
bids
shou
ld b
e ev
alua
ted
over
the
sam
e tim
e pe
riod
spec
ified
in
the
bid
docu
men
t.�
Ta
riff
assu
mpt
ion
shou
ld b
e in
con
siste
nt w
ith th
ose
in th
e bi
d do
cum
ent.
�
The
impl
emen
tatio
n sc
hedu
le o
f the
pro
ject
shou
ld b
e in
con
siste
nt w
ith th
e ca
sh fl
ows
cont
aine
d in
the
finan
cial
ana
lysis
.�
D
ebt s
ervi
ce, f
inan
cing
arr
ange
men
ts, i
nter
est a
nd a
mor
tizat
ion
of d
ebt s
houl
d be
pro
perl
y in
dica
ted
and
acco
unte
d fo
r in
fina
ncia
l ana
lysis
.
Bid
Eval
uatio
n Re
port
The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld th
en p
repa
re a
bid
eva
luat
ion
repo
rt, w
hich
shou
ld a
t lea
st c
onta
in
the
follo
win
g in
form
atio
n:�
pr
oces
s and
pro
cedu
re fo
llow
ed in
eva
luat
ing
the
bids
;�
th
e cr
iteri
a fo
r bi
d ev
alua
tion;
�
list o
f bid
ders
that
subm
itted
bid
s inc
ludi
ng li
st o
f bid
ders
pre
-qua
lifie
d as
pot
entia
l ser
vice
pr
ovid
ers;
�
lis
t of b
ids t
hat w
ere
reje
cted
and
rea
sons
for
reje
ctio
n;�
co
mpe
rativ
e an
alys
is of
the
eval
uate
d bi
ds a
nd th
eir
rank
ing;
�
re
com
men
ded
succ
essf
ul b
idde
r; a
nd�
th
e pr
opos
ed sc
hedu
le fo
r co
ntra
ct n
egot
iatio
ns.
Reje
ctio
n of
Bid
ding
Pro
cess
The
mun
icip
ality
may
rej
ect a
ll th
e bi
ds a
nd/o
r in
itiat
e th
e pr
oces
s of r
e-bi
ddin
g, if
it fe
els
nece
ssar
y. In
such
cas
e, it
shou
ld p
rovi
de ju
stifi
catio
n of
rej
ectio
n. T
he fo
llow
ing
coul
d be
the
com
mon
gro
unds
for
reje
ctio
n:
20
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
�
Non
e of
the
bids
subm
itted
wer
e re
spon
sive
to th
e bi
d do
cum
ents
;�
T
here
was
lack
of c
ompe
titio
n;�
R
eque
sts w
ere
mad
e by
the
bidd
ers f
or r
ejec
tion.
How
ever
, the
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld c
lear
ly sp
ell o
ut th
e re
tent
ion
of r
ight
to r
ejec
t all
bids
in
the
bid
notic
e its
elf.
The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld n
ot in
cur
any
liabi
lity
to a
ny b
idde
r be
caus
e of
its
dec
ision
to r
ejec
t a b
iddi
ng p
roce
ss.
Not
ifi ca
tion
of th
e Bi
d Ev
alua
tion
Resu
lt
The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld n
otify
all
the
bidd
ers a
bout
the
resu
lt of
bid
eva
luat
ion.
At t
his s
tage
, th
e m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
:�
Se
t dea
dlin
e fo
r co
nclu
ding
the
nega
tions
and
res
erve
the
righ
t to
begi
n ne
gotia
tion
with
ot
her
bidd
ers,
if th
e ne
gotia
tion
with
the
first
ran
ked
bidd
er c
an n
ot sa
tisfa
ctor
ily b
e co
nclu
ded;
�
Not
ify in
wri
ting
all b
idde
rs o
f the
res
ult o
f the
bid
eva
luat
ion
and
prop
osed
con
trac
t ne
gotia
tions
; and
�
Publ
ish th
e re
sult
of th
e bi
ds a
nd p
ropo
sed
cont
ract
neg
otia
tions
in w
idel
y ci
rcul
ated
ne
wsp
aper
and
mun
icip
al b
ulle
t in
boar
d.
App
eal P
roce
ss
Uns
ucce
ssfu
l bid
ders
will
hav
e th
e op
port
unity
to a
ppea
l the
res
ult o
f the
bid
ding
pro
cess
. T
he m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
mak
e th
e fo
llow
ing
fact
ors c
lear
in th
e ap
peal
pro
cess
:�
App
eal p
roce
ss sh
ould
be
to p
rovi
de a
mec
hani
sm fo
r re
view
of t
he b
iddi
ng p
roce
ss.
�
It sh
ould
be
limite
d to
a r
evie
w o
f the
fair
ness
of b
iddi
ng p
roce
ss. I
t sho
uld
not b
e co
nsid
ered
as a
“sec
ond
chan
ce” t
o w
in.
�
Invi
te th
e fir
st-p
lace
bid
der
for
cont
ract
neg
otia
tions
.�
T
he p
roce
ss sh
ould
be
the
revi
ewin
g of
uns
ucce
ssfu
l bid
der’s
bid
subm
issio
n ag
ains
t the
m
unic
ipal
bid
eva
luat
ion
crite
ria.
Any
dat
a su
bmitt
ed a
fter
the
clos
ing
date
shou
ld n
ot b
e co
nsid
ered
.
21
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Stag
e3
Prep
arat
ion
and
Awar
d of
Pa
rtne
rshi
p co
ntra
ct
Sinc
e th
e m
unic
ipal
ity is
ulti
mat
ely
resp
onsib
le fo
r th
e de
liver
y of
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t se
rvic
es, t
he o
blig
atio
n do
es n
ot e
nd b
y ju
st in
volv
ing
the
priv
ate
sect
or. I
t sho
uld
be
cons
ider
ed a
s one
of t
he a
ltern
ativ
es fo
r ef
fect
ive
and
effic
ient
del
iver
y of
solid
was
te se
rvic
e.
Invo
lvem
ent o
f pri
vate
sect
or in
SW
M d
eman
ds fo
r an
agr
eem
ent b
etw
een
the
mun
icip
ality
an
d th
e pr
ivat
e th
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er, w
hich
cou
ld fa
cilit
ate
the
follo
win
g:�
D
istri
butio
n of
res
pon
sibili
ty;
�
Dist
ribu
tion
of R
isk; a
nd
�
Dist
ribu
tion
of R
ewar
d.
Thu
s, th
e m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
pre
pare
/dev
elop
con
trac
tual
agr
eem
ent o
n ea
ch o
f the
solid
w
aste
man
agem
ent p
rodu
ct a
ddre
ssin
g al
l the
thre
e im
port
ant e
lem
ents
of a
par
tner
ship
.
Thi
s sec
tion
prov
ides
a g
uide
line
for
prep
arin
g th
e co
ntra
ctua
l agr
eem
ent s
peci
fical
ly fo
r so
lid
was
te c
olle
ctio
n se
rvic
e (w
hich
incl
udes
doo
r to
doo
r co
llect
ion,
stre
et a
nd p
ublic
pla
ce
swee
ping
and
tran
spor
tatio
n of
gar
bage
to th
e tr
ansf
er st
atio
n) o
f the
mun
icip
al so
lid w
aste
. G
ener
ally,
serv
ice
cont
ract
and
/or
fran
chise
con
trac
t are
con
sider
ed a
s fea
sible
arr
ange
men
t fo
r pa
rtne
r in
volv
emen
t.
The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld p
repa
re c
ontr
act d
ocum
ent a
nd in
vite
the
first
-pla
ce b
idde
rs fo
r co
ntra
ct n
egot
iatio
ns. A
spec
ts th
at n
eed
to b
e co
vere
d in
a c
ontr
actu
al a
gree
men
t are
:
Item
1: Th
e par
ties t
o the
agree
ment
Item
2: Th
e obje
ctive
and s
cope
of ag
reeme
ntIte
m 3:
The o
bjecti
ves a
nd sc
ope o
f the
fi nan
cial re
quire
ments
Item
4: Th
e dur
ation
of ag
reeme
nt an
d the
scop
e for
rene
gotia
tion o
r ear
ly ter
mina
tion o
f agre
emen
tIte
m 5:
The r
ight a
nd re
spon
sibilit
ies of
the p
rivate
secto
rIte
m 6:
The r
ights
and r
espo
nsibi
lities
of th
e mun
icipa
lityIte
m 7:
Regu
lator
y req
uirem
ent a
nd co
nsen
tsIte
m 8:
Identi
fi cati
on an
d man
agem
ent o
f key
risk
sIte
m 9:
Perfo
rman
ce m
easu
remen
t and
mon
itorin
g Ite
m 10
: Pa
ymen
tIte
m 11
: Co
nsen
ts on
owne
rship
and u
se of
asse
tsIte
m 12
: Dis
pute
resolu
tion a
nd ar
bitra
tion
22
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Item
1: T
he P
artie
s to
the
Agre
emen
t
Thi
s sec
tion
of th
e ag
reem
ent s
houl
d de
scri
be th
e ro
les a
nd r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s of t
he c
once
rned
pa
rtie
s. U
sual
ly in
solid
was
te c
olle
ctio
n pa
rtne
rshi
p, th
e m
unic
ipal
ity is
the
gran
tor,
and
the
cont
ract
or/f
ranc
hise
is th
e pr
ivat
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er (a
lso in
clud
e C
BO/N
GO
).
The
follo
win
g po
ints
shou
ld b
e cl
earl
y m
entio
ned
in th
e se
ctio
n:�
A
utho
rity
and
lega
l sta
ndin
g of
the
gran
tor,
�
Lega
l ide
ntifi
catio
n of
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
(joi
nt v
entu
re, p
artn
ersh
ip o
r m
icro
ent
erpr
ise
or c
omm
unity
org
aniz
atio
ns),
and
�
Reg
ulat
ory
prov
ision
.
Item
2: T
he O
bjec
tive
and
Scop
e of
Agr
eem
ent
For
colle
ctio
n of
solid
was
te, t
he a
gree
men
t cou
ld b
e st
ruct
ured
eith
er a
s �
Se
rvic
e co
ntra
ct: W
here
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
pro
vide
s the
col
lect
ion
serv
ice
in th
e sp
ecifi
ed a
rea(
s) fo
r pe
riod
ic fe
es p
aid
by th
e m
unic
ipal
ity, o
r as
�
Fran
chis
e: W
here
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
get
s mon
opol
y ri
ghts
for
a sp
ecifi
ed p
erio
d to
de
liver
col
lect
ion
serv
ice
in sp
ecifi
ed a
reas
and
cha
rges
was
te g
ener
ator
s dir
ectly
for
the
serv
ice.
Thi
s sec
tion
shou
ld c
lear
ly m
entio
n th
e�
de
scri
ptio
n of
are
as fo
r so
lid w
aste
col
lect
ion;
�
oper
atio
nal r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s of t
he se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er a
nd ta
rget
ben
efic
iari
es; a
nd�
sp
ecifi
c ob
ligat
ion
of se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er to
the
solid
was
te c
olle
ctio
n se
rvic
e.
Item
3: T
he O
bjec
tives
and
Sco
pe o
f the
Fina
ncia
l Req
uire
men
ts
In th
is se
ctio
n, fi
nanc
ial a
rran
gem
ents
shou
ld b
e m
entio
ned.
For
solid
was
te c
olle
ctio
n th
roug
h se
rvic
e co
ntra
ct, m
unic
ipal
ity le
vies
and
col
lect
s rev
enue
. In
fran
chise
, the
serv
ice
prov
ider
is
give
n au
thor
ity to
col
lect
serv
ice
fees
dire
ctly
from
the
was
te g
ener
ator
. The
bas
is fo
r ser
vice
fee
coul
d be
eith
er b
ased
on
nego
tiatio
n be
twee
n th
e ge
nera
tor a
nd th
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er, o
r the
m
unic
ipal
ity m
ay se
t the
tari
ff ba
sed
on th
e ab
ility
and
will
ingn
ess o
f the
gen
erat
or to
pay
. Pr
ovisi
on o
f sub
sidiz
atio
n an
d ro
yalty
cou
ld a
lso b
e in
clud
ed in
the
prov
ision
.
Item
4: D
urat
ion
of A
gree
men
t and
Sco
pe fo
r Ren
egot
iatio
n or
Ea
rly T
erm
inat
ion
of A
gree
men
t
The
follo
win
g po
ints
shou
ld b
e co
nsid
ered
to fi
x th
e du
ratio
n of
agr
eem
ent:
� D
urat
ion
shou
ld b
e lo
ng e
noug
h fo
r th
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers t
o re
pay
the
loan
s tak
en to
pu
rcha
se e
quip
men
t for
the
wor
k;
23
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
�
The
re sh
ould
be
a pr
ovisi
on fo
r th
e m
unic
ipal
ity to
be
able
to v
ary
the
dura
tion
of th
e ag
reem
ent;
�
The
agr
eem
ent s
houl
d co
ntai
n ad
equa
te p
rovi
sion
for
adju
stm
ent o
f con
trac
t dur
atio
n as
a
resu
lt of
una
void
able
del
ays;
and
�
It sh
ould
con
tain
the
poss
ibili
ties o
f ear
ly te
rmin
atio
n of
the
cont
ract
Impo
rtan
t poi
nts t
hat n
eed
to b
e ad
dres
sed
for
agre
emen
t ren
egot
iatio
n ar
e:�
Ex
pans
ion
of th
e sc
ope
of se
rvic
e; a
nd�
Pr
oced
ures
for
rene
gotia
tion.
Item
5: T
he R
ight
s and
Res
pons
ibili
ties o
f th
e Pr
ivat
e Se
ctor
The
follo
win
g w
ill b
e th
e ri
ghts
and
res
pons
ibili
ties o
f the
pri
vate
serv
ice
prov
ider
s:�
Q
ualit
y of
the
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
;�
C
lient
ele
attit
ude;
�
Rea
sona
ble
pric
e; a
nd�
Bu
sines
s pla
n an
d m
anag
emen
t.
Item
6: T
he R
ight
s and
Res
pons
ibili
ties o
f th
e M
unici
palit
y Th
e fo
llow
ing
wil
l be
the
righ
ts a
nd r
esp
onsi
bili
ties
of t
he m
unic
ipal
ity:
�
M
aint
aini
ng th
e se
rvic
e st
anda
rd;
�
Prot
ectio
n of
pub
lic in
tere
st;
�
Reg
ulat
ion
and
mon
itori
ng o
f ser
vice
s;
�
Cre
ate
envi
ronm
ent t
o en
able
the
priv
ate
oper
ator
; and
�
Sh
owin
g ac
coun
tabi
lity
to th
e pu
blic
.
Item
7: R
egul
ator
y Re
quire
men
t and
Con
sent
s
Reg
ulat
ory
issue
s sho
uld
be c
lear
ly st
ated
in th
e ag
reem
ent.
The
y in
clud
e:�
R
egul
ator
y po
wer
of m
unic
ipal
ity in
a sp
ecifi
c iss
ue li
ke ta
riff
sett
ing,
mon
itori
ng th
e ag
reem
ent e
tc.
�
Fund
ing
of r
egul
ator
y ac
tiviti
es--
-who
shou
ld b
ear
the
cost
of r
egul
ator
y in
spec
tion,
he
arin
g an
d ot
her
regu
lato
ry se
rvic
es.
�
Proc
edur
es o
f reg
ulat
ing
the
agre
emen
t sho
uld
bala
nce
with
the
need
of c
ost e
ffect
ive
serv
ice,
enh
ance
men
t of e
ffici
ency
in o
pera
tion,
enh
ance
men
t of i
nves
tmen
t and
ac
cept
ance
of r
easo
nabl
e ra
te o
f ret
urn.
24
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Item
8: I
dent
ifi ca
tion
and
Man
agem
ent o
f Ke
y Ri
sks
It is
diffi
cult
but n
eces
sary
to a
sses
s and
allo
cate
the
risk
invo
lved
in th
e pr
ojec
t. C
aref
ul
draf
ting
of th
e ag
reem
ent i
s nec
essa
ry to
red
uce
risk
to th
e bo
th p
artie
s in
serv
ice
cont
ract
an
d fr
anch
ise a
gree
men
t in
solid
was
te c
olle
ctio
n se
rvic
es.
The
risk
s tha
t nee
d to
be
anal
yzed
and
allo
cate
d in
was
te c
olle
ctio
n ag
reem
ent i
n SW
M
serv
ices
are
:
Risk
sIss
ues
Oper
atio
nal
Risk
s
– Su
ffi cien
t fi na
ncial
capa
city t
o pay
the c
laims
again
st the
contr
actor
/fran
chise
durin
g ope
ration
al ph
ase
– Co
ntrol
meas
ures (
sanc
tion a
nd pe
nalty
) for n
on-co
mplia
nce w
ith st
anda
rds an
d reg
ulatio
n rela
ting
– Re
spon
se to
impro
veme
nts in
prod
uctiv
ity
– No
n-per
forma
nce o
f the
contr
actor
/fran
chise
and/
or th
e mun
icipa
lity du
e to c
ircum
stanc
e bey
ond c
ontro
l –
Defi n
ition o
f ben
chma
rks o
r crit
eria
for m
onito
ring o
perat
ion m
ore ef
fectiv
ely
– Mu
nicipa
l gua
rantee
for t
he av
ailab
ility o
f the
agree
d fac
ilities
and c
harge
s, for
exam
ple tr
uck f
or tr
ansfe
r of
the c
ollec
ted ga
rbag
e to t
ransfe
r stat
ion, th
e tipp
ing fe
e for
was
te de
liver
y to t
rans
fer st
ation
etc.
– Ha
ndlin
g com
plaint
s –
Conti
nuati
on of
serv
ice an
d prov
ision
in ca
se of
defau
lt by t
he co
ntrac
tor /f
ranch
ise
Finan
cial
Risk
s
– Pro
per r
ecord
of in
vestm
ent a
nd ex
pend
iture
on op
erati
on an
d main
tenan
ce
– Re
liabil
ity of
cash
fl ow
– Ac
ceptab
le tar
iff an
d qua
lity of
serv
ice to
the p
ublic
–
Munic
ipal s
uppo
rt for
the fi
nanc
ial ar
rang
emen
t of t
he co
ntrac
tor /f
ranch
ise. F
or ex
ample
– Sh
ort t
erm de
bt or
equit
y acq
uiring
facil
ity fo
r fi na
ncing
the p
rojec
t–
Guara
ntee o
f mini
mum
rate
of re
turn o
r mini
mum
tariff
reve
nue
– As
sura
nce o
f a m
onop
oly fo
r the
fran
chise
in th
e des
ignate
d area
– Co
verag
e to c
ompe
nsate
for a
shor
tfall i
n rev
enue
due t
o non
-paym
ent b
y the
users
–
Distri
butio
n of f
ranch
ise fe
e to t
he m
unici
pality
if it
exce
eds t
he ag
reed l
evel
of re
turn
– Pro
vision
s for
revie
wing
the t
ariff
rate
if de
bt se
rvici
ng fo
und i
nsuffi
cien
t
Regu
lato
ry
Risk
s
– Ro
le an
d pow
er of
the m
unici
pality
/regu
lating
agen
cy–
Limit t
o the
powe
r of d
iscret
ion of
the m
unici
pality
/regu
lating
agen
cy–
Proce
dures
for a
ppea
l aga
inst o
r arb
itrati
on w
ith th
e mun
icipa
lity/re
gulat
ing ag
ency
– Co
mpen
satio
n for
acco
mmod
ating
chan
ges i
n reg
ulatio
n
Polit
ical r
isk–
Politi
cal s
tabilit
y
Item
9: P
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
rem
ent a
nd M
onito
ring
The
agr
eem
ent f
or w
aste
col
lect
ion
shou
ld sp
ecify
the
scop
e of
serv
ices
, the
out
puts
and
the
qual
ity o
f suc
h ou
tput
s req
uire
d fr
om th
e co
ntra
ctor
/fra
nchi
se. T
he m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
sp
ecify
the
broa
d re
gula
tory
fram
e w
ithin
whi
ch th
e co
ntra
ctor
/fra
nchi
se n
eeds
to fu
nctio
n.
Base
d on
this
fram
es th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f the
con
trac
tor/
fran
chise
shou
ld b
e m
onito
red.
Thi
s sec
tion
of th
e ag
reem
ent s
houl
d cl
earl
y sp
ell o
ut th
e fo
llow
ing:
�
Def
initi
on o
f per
form
ance
targ
et/s
tand
ard,
and
�
Info
rmat
ion
that
the
cont
ract
or/f
ranc
hise
shou
ld su
bmit
to th
e m
unic
ipal
ity.
25
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
The
info
rmat
ion
coul
d be
: fin
anci
al a
nd te
chni
cal d
ata
on w
aste
col
lect
ion
wor
ks (i
.e, w
aste
qu
antit
y) su
ch a
s dat
a on
num
ber
and
cond
ition
of p
hysic
al a
sset
s, p
rodu
ctiv
ity o
f wor
kers
, ve
hicl
e au
dite
d co
st in
form
atio
n, a
nd r
epor
ting
requ
irem
ent a
t the
end
of t
he a
gree
men
t pe
riod
.
Item
10:
Paym
ent
Paym
ent f
orm
shou
ld b
e de
fined
and
agr
eed
by b
oth
part
ies i
n ad
vanc
e in
wri
ting
in
agre
emen
t.
Item
11:
Con
sent
s on
Owne
rshi
p an
d Us
e of
Ass
ets
The
rol
e an
d re
spon
sibili
ty in
con
nect
ion
with
con
sent
s sho
uld
be c
lear
ly id
entif
ied
in th
e ag
reem
ent.
The
con
trac
tor/
fran
chise
may
nee
d th
e fo
llow
ing
cons
ents
to p
rovi
de so
lid w
aste
co
llect
ion
serv
ice
effic
ient
ly:
�
Cap
ital m
obili
zatio
n,�
La
bor,
�
Equi
pmen
t for
col
lect
ion,
�
Envi
ronm
enta
l con
sent
s, a
nd�
Le
gal c
onse
nts.
It sh
ould
be
note
d th
at th
e du
ratio
n of
the
valid
ity o
f suc
h co
nsen
ts sh
ould
be
clea
rly
men
tione
d. V
alid
ity o
f suc
h co
nsen
ts sh
ould
be
suffi
cien
t to
min
imiz
e th
e ri
sk fr
om a
dver
se
mod
ifica
tion
of th
ese
cons
ents
dur
ing
the
cour
se o
f agr
eem
ent.
Item
12:
Disp
ute
Reso
lutio
n an
d Ar
bitr
atio
n
The
mec
hani
sm fo
r re
solv
ing
disp
ute
shou
ld b
e st
ated
in th
e ag
reem
ent.
The
res
pons
ibili
ty fo
r re
solv
ing
disp
ute
shou
ld r
est w
ith b
oth
part
ies t
o th
e ag
reem
ent.
The
lega
l fra
mew
ork
gove
rnin
g th
e di
sput
e re
solu
tion
proc
ess a
nd r
espo
nsib
ility
for
unde
rtak
ing
wor
k du
ring
the
disp
uted
per
iod
need
s to
be c
lear
ly st
ated
in th
is se
ctio
n of
agr
eem
ent.
Not
e: Pr
otot
ype
cont
ract
agr
eem
ent f
or so
lid w
aste
colle
ctio
n is
give
n in
Ann
ex 3
.
26
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Stag
e4
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
Pa
rtne
rshi
p Pr
ojec
t in
SWM
Priv
ate
oper
ator
shou
ld p
rovi
de S
WM
serv
ices
acc
ordi
ng to
the
agre
ed c
ontr
actu
al
agre
emen
t. T
he m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
ens
ure
that
the
Priv
ate
cont
ract
ors/
fran
chise
s are
pe
rfor
min
g as
per
the
agre
emen
t con
ditio
n. T
his w
ill d
eman
d fo
r so
me
basis
abo
ut h
ow to
m
easu
re/e
valu
ate
that
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
is in
line
with
the
agre
emen
t. Fo
r th
e pu
rpos
e, th
e m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
ens
ure
the
follo
win
g:
Step 1
: Fo
rmati
on of
Mon
itorin
g and
Evalu
ation
Team
Step 2
: De
velop
ment
of Pe
rform
ance
Stan
dard
and C
riter
ia for
Mea
surem
ent
Step 3
: Co
nduc
t Per
iodic
Progre
ss, M
onito
ring,
Revie
w an
d Eva
luatio
ns o
f the
Proje
ctSte
p 4:
Repo
rting
of th
e Prog
ress
Step 5
: Es
tablis
h Disp
ute Re
solut
ion M
echa
nisms
Step
1: F
orm
atio
n of
Mon
itorin
g an
d Ev
alua
tion
Team
The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld fo
rm a
team
for
mon
itori
ng a
nd e
valu
atio
n fo
r ea
ch o
f the
SW
M
proj
ect i
mpl
emen
ted
by th
e pr
ivat
e op
erat
or. S
uch
team
shou
ld c
ompr
ise o
f a m
unic
ipal
staf
f, re
pres
enta
tive
of th
e pr
ivat
e op
erat
or, a
nd p
refe
rabl
y a
thir
d pa
rty.
Bas
ed o
n th
e re
port
ing
cond
ucte
d by
the
priv
ate
oper
ator
on
a qu
arte
rly
basis
, the
Mon
itori
ng a
nd E
valu
atio
n Te
am
will
disc
uss p
ertin
ent i
ssue
s reg
ardi
ng o
pera
tion.
In a
dditi
on, t
he Te
am c
ould
be
conv
ened
to
deal
with
any
con
tinge
ncy
that
ari
ses w
ithin
the
proj
ect.
Solid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t Com
mitt
ee sh
ould
be
mad
e re
spon
sible
for
mon
itori
ng a
nd
eval
uatio
n of
the
SWM
serv
ice
proj
ect.
The
maj
or fu
nctio
n of
the
Solid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t C
omm
ittee
in r
elat
ion
to m
onito
ring
and
eva
luat
ion
wou
ld b
e th
e fo
llow
ing:
�
Dev
elop
per
form
ance
stan
dard
and
cri
teri
a fo
r m
easu
rem
ent.
�
Con
duct
per
iodi
c pr
ogre
ss m
onito
ring
, rev
iew
and
eva
luat
ion
of th
e pr
ojec
t.
27
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Step
2: D
evel
opm
ent o
f Pe
rfor
man
ce S
tand
ard
and
Crite
ria fo
r M
easu
rem
ent
Sinc
e th
e m
unic
ipal
ity is
res
pons
ible
for
SWM
serv
ice
deliv
ery,
par
tner
ship
arr
ange
men
t is
cons
ider
ed a
n al
tern
ativ
e op
tion
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery.
The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld r
egul
arly
m
onito
r th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f the
serv
ice
prov
ider
(con
trac
tor/
fran
chise
in c
ase
of so
lid w
aste
co
llect
ion
serv
ice)
to e
nsur
e th
at a
dequ
ate
serv
ices
are
bei
ng d
eliv
ered
at a
ppro
pria
te p
rice
to
the
bene
ficia
ries
. Thu
s, th
e m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
dev
elop
a se
t of c
lear
and
una
mbi
guou
s pe
rfor
man
ce st
anda
rds a
gain
st w
hich
act
ual p
erfo
rman
ce c
an b
e m
onito
red.
Perf
orm
ance
stan
dard
s sho
uld
be d
evel
oped
at t
he v
ery
begi
nnin
g. L
ater
, it s
houl
d be
incl
uded
in
the
bid
docu
men
t and
con
trac
tual
agr
eem
ent.
A se
t of p
erfo
rman
ce in
dica
tors
shou
ld b
e in
clud
ed in
the
cont
ract
ual a
gree
men
t. Su
ch
perf
orm
ance
indi
cato
r sh
ould
:�
show
the
perf
orm
ance
mon
itori
ng a
gain
st o
vera
ll ta
rget
, and
yea
r-by
-yea
r ta
rget
of t
he
proj
ect;
and
�
be in
a si
mpl
e fo
rmat
that
shou
ld fa
cilit
ate
regu
lar
com
pari
son
of a
ctua
l per
form
ance
ag
ains
t the
targ
et.
Benc
hmar
king
and
crit
eria
for
perf
orm
ance
mea
sure
men
t in
solid
was
te
man
agem
ent s
ervi
ce
A m
inim
um ta
rget
leve
l per
form
ance
shou
ld b
e sp
ecifi
ed a
nd a
gree
d up
on fo
r so
lid w
aste
m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
. Pen
altie
s or
cert
ain
kind
of p
unish
men
t sho
uld
also
be
spec
ified
in
case
of f
ailu
re to
ach
ieve
the
targ
eted
leve
l.
Con
sider
atio
n in
sel
ectio
n of
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs
�
The
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs sh
ould
be
such
that
they
cou
ld b
e m
easu
red
obje
ctiv
ely.
�
The
tim
e an
d co
st o
f per
form
ance
mon
itori
ng sh
ould
be
min
imum
pos
sible
. �
The
freq
uenc
y of
the
perf
orm
ance
mea
sure
men
t exe
rcise
and
the
time
peri
od o
ver
whi
ch
the
indi
cato
rs a
re to
be
achi
eved
nee
d to
be
spec
ified
. �
The
succ
ess o
f per
form
ance
mon
itori
ng p
roce
ss d
epen
ds o
n th
e ca
paci
ty o
f the
m
unic
ipal
ity a
nd th
e pa
rtne
r. To
mon
itor
the
achi
evem
ent,
the
indi
cato
rs sh
ould
be
simpl
e.
The
supe
rvisi
on, e
valu
atio
n an
d m
onito
ring
of s
olid
was
te m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
s will
be
done
by
a c
omm
ittee
form
ed in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
Rul
e 13
9 of
LSG
R, 2
000.
28
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Step
3: C
ondu
ct P
erio
dic P
rogr
ess M
onito
ring,
Rev
iew
and
Ev
alua
tions
of
the
Proj
ect
PPP
com
mitt
ee fo
r m
onito
ring
and
eva
luat
ion
shou
ld c
ondu
ct m
onito
ring
, rev
iew
and
ev
alua
tion
of th
e pr
ogre
ss m
ade
in S
WM
. In
doin
g th
is, th
e m
unic
ipal
ity m
ay a
dopt
the
follo
win
g st
eps:
�
Stud
y co
ntra
ctua
l agr
eem
ent d
ocum
ent;
�
Rev
iew
dat
a/in
form
atio
n ag
ains
t per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs;
�
Mak
e sit
e ob
serv
atio
n;�
D
iscus
s with
the
bene
ficia
ries
;�
D
iscus
s with
the
priv
ate
serv
ice
prov
ider
s;�
D
iscus
s with
the
PPP
unit
for
SWM
in th
e m
unic
ipal
ity; a
nd�
D
iscus
s with
the
rele
vant
per
sonn
el fr
om th
e ci
vil s
ocie
ty.
For
cond
uctin
g th
e pr
ogre
ss e
valu
atio
ns r
evie
w a
nd m
onit
orin
g, th
e m
unic
ipal
ity c
ould
use
th
e sa
mpl
e fo
rmat
show
n in
Ann
ex 5
to d
eter
min
e th
e st
atus
.
Step
4: R
epor
ting
of th
e Pr
ogre
ss
The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld p
repa
re p
rogr
ess-
mon
itori
ng r
epor
t bas
ed o
n th
e sit
e ob
serv
atio
n an
d di
scus
sion
with
the
stak
ehol
ders
. The
mun
icip
ality
shou
ld a
lso g
et w
ritt
en r
epor
ts fr
om
the
Con
trac
tor/
fran
chise
on
the
prog
ress
mad
e in
col
lect
ion
of so
lid w
aste
aga
inst
the
set
perf
orm
ance
targ
et w
ithin
the
stip
ulat
ed ti
me
and
freq
uenc
y. S
uch
repo
rts s
houl
d in
clud
e th
e fo
llow
ing:
�
Ann
ual t
arge
t and
pro
gres
s mad
e;�
Pr
oble
m e
xper
ienc
ed d
urin
g th
e pr
ojec
t im
plem
enta
tion
with
cau
ses a
nd im
pact
s;�
Po
ssib
le so
lutio
n to
the
prob
lem
s and
effo
rts t
hat a
re m
ade
to so
lve
the
prob
lem
;�
Po
sitiv
e an
d ne
gativ
e ex
peri
ence
dur
ing
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
proj
ect;
�
Cor
rect
ive
actio
n fo
r th
e ne
xt y
ear
plan
;�
Pl
an fo
r th
e ne
xt y
ear;
and
�
Oth
er r
elev
ant f
acts
and
figu
res.
Step
5: E
stab
lish
Disp
ute
Reso
lutio
n M
echa
nism
s
The
res
pons
ibili
ty fo
r re
solv
ing
disp
ute
shou
ld r
est w
ith b
oth
part
ies t
o th
e ag
reem
ent.
The
refo
re, t
he m
unic
ipal
ity sh
ould
join
tly (i
.e. w
ith th
e pr
ivat
e pa
rtne
r) sp
ecify
the
mec
hani
sm fo
r re
solv
ing
disp
utes
. Pro
cedu
res f
or r
esol
ving
disp
utes
bet
wee
n th
e pa
rtie
s of
the
part
ners
hip
arra
ngem
ent s
houl
d be
bas
ed o
n m
etho
ds th
at a
re c
lear
, low
-cos
t, tim
ely
and
effe
ctiv
e. T
his w
ill r
educ
e th
e ri
sk o
f unr
esol
ved
disp
utes
.
29
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
The
disp
ute
in p
artn
ersh
ip a
rran
gem
ent s
houl
d be
res
olve
d fo
llow
ing
the
four
-ste
p ru
le g
iven
be
low
:
1 Th
e affe
cted p
artne
r rais
es di
spute
d iss
ue to
show
othe
r par
tner (
the m
unici
pality
and t
he pr
ivate
serv
ice pr
ovide
r) cle
arly
expre
ssing
the p
roblem
and i
ts eff
ect.
2 Pa
rtners
joint
ly dis
cover
the r
oot c
ause
of th
e disp
ute. F
or th
is, bo
th the
parti
es sh
ould
be re
ady t
o lis
ten to
so th
at the
y und
erstan
d the
prob
lem.
3 Ide
ntify
poss
ible o
ption
s for
reso
lution
.
4 De
velop
agree
ments
base
d on o
bjecti
ve st
anda
rds. N
ormall
y, for
an op
tion t
o prov
ide a
win-w
in so
lution
, it m
ust m
eet o
bjecti
ve st
anda
rds su
ch as
being
wor
kable
, equ
itable
for b
oth pa
rtners
, fair,
legal,
ethic
al, w
ithin
cost,
and c
apab
le of
being
imple
mente
d.
Solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t con
trac
tual
agr
eem
ent s
houl
d cl
earl
y pr
ovid
e:�
M
echa
nism
that
aim
s to
min
imiz
e th
e in
cide
nce
of d
isput
es;
�
Met
hod
of d
isput
e re
solu
tion
that
aim
s to
min
imiz
e th
e in
cide
nt p
rotr
acte
d an
d co
urt
litig
atio
n (f
or e
xam
ple,
con
cilia
tion,
med
iatio
n, o
r ar
bitr
atio
n);
�
Sort
s of d
isput
es th
at m
ay (o
r m
ust)
be
reso
lved
; and
�
Safe
guar
ding
the
cont
inui
ty o
f sol
id w
aste
col
lect
ion
serv
ices
dur
ing
the
time
of d
isput
e.
Stag
es in
res
olut
ion
of d
isput
e
1
Nego
tiatio
n Wh
ere bo
th the
partn
ers to
the a
greem
ent c
ome t
o a di
scuss
ion ta
ble fo
r wi
n-win
solut
ion to
the d
ispute
.
2
Media
tion
Where
a me
diator
or a
comm
ittee
is fo
rmed
for
dispu
te se
ttlem
ent.
3 Ap
peal
at the
cour
t Wh
ere di
spute
d matt
ers ar
e pres
ented
befor
e the
cour
t for
lega
l dec
ision
.
30
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Anne
x1
Chec
klis
t for
Fea
sibi
lity
Stud
y
Mun
icip
ality
shou
ld c
ondu
ct p
roje
ct fe
asib
ility
stud
y of
the
sele
cted
SW
M p
roje
ct fo
r pa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
t. T
he v
iabi
lity
asse
ssm
ent r
epor
t sho
uld
prov
ide
fair
ly d
etai
l in
form
atio
n ab
out t
he p
roje
ct so
that
it se
rves
as a
bas
is fo
r pa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
t.
The
feas
ibili
ty st
udy
shou
ld h
ighl
ight
the
follo
win
g:�
T
he st
atus
in te
rms o
f tec
hnic
al a
nd fi
nanc
ial f
easib
ility
of t
he se
lect
ed S
WM
pro
ject
s;�
A
bro
ad fr
ame
for
deve
lopm
ent o
f PPP
arr
ange
men
t;�
A
stro
ng b
asis
for
tran
spar
ent a
nd m
eani
ngfu
l inv
estm
ent f
or th
e pa
rtne
rs;
�
A b
asis
for
the
mun
icip
ality
and
the
part
ners
to e
valu
ate
the
achi
evem
ent o
f SW
M se
rvic
e de
liver
y; a
nd�
Su
gges
tion
for
appr
opri
ate
form
of p
artn
ersh
ip.
A fe
asib
ility
stud
y sh
ould
cov
er th
e fo
llow
ing:
1. G
ener
al in
form
atio
n�
D
etai
l ana
lysis
of e
xist
ing
SWM
serv
ice
deliv
ery
in th
e fo
cuse
d w
ard,
com
mun
ity o
r are
a.�
A
naly
sis o
f the
stre
ngth
and
pro
blem
are
as o
f the
SW
M se
rvic
e in
the
pres
ent s
ituat
ion.
2. T
echn
ical
fea
sibi
lity
stud
y
Tech
nica
l fea
sibili
ty st
udy
is a
tech
nica
l des
crip
tion
of a
ll th
e re
leva
nt c
ompo
nent
s of t
he
SWM
pro
ject
.
The
follo
win
g de
scri
ptio
ns o
f the
sele
cted
pro
duct
s/se
rvic
es a
re so
ught
in th
is an
alys
is:�
Te
chni
cal a
naly
sis o
f all
the
com
pone
nts o
f the
pro
ject
;–
Wor
king
pro
cedu
re a
nd d
escr
iptio
n of
eve
ry st
ep o
f the
pro
ject
– H
uman
res
ourc
es, m
ater
ials,
equ
ipm
ent a
nd fa
cilit
ies r
equi
red
to p
erfo
rm e
ach
step
of
the
proj
ect
– C
apac
ity o
f the
pro
ject
�
Cos
t est
imat
e of
the
com
pone
nts o
f the
pro
ject
�
A p
rocu
rem
ent p
lan
and
prop
osed
pro
cure
men
t met
hods
, pro
cure
men
t sch
edul
e an
d bu
dget
, and
rea
sons
for
sele
ctin
g th
e pr
opos
ed p
rocu
rem
ent s
ched
ule
�
Proj
ect i
mpl
emen
tatio
n pr
oces
s pur
sued
by
the
mun
icip
ality
and
pla
ns a
nd sc
hedu
le fo
r pa
rtne
r co
nsul
tatio
n�
Pr
ojec
t im
plem
enta
tion
sche
dule
incl
udin
g an
ana
lysis
of t
he e
xpec
ted
prob
lem
in
serv
ice
deliv
ery
3. F
inan
cial
fea
sibi
lity
stud
y
The
follo
win
g ar
e th
e fu
ndam
enta
l obj
ectiv
es o
f fin
anci
al st
udy
of th
e se
lect
ed S
WM
pro
ject
s:�
Q
uant
ify th
e as
sum
ptio
ns o
n th
e le
vel o
f SW
M a
ctiv
ity;
31
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
�
Prov
ide
and
mai
ntai
n av
aila
ble
fund
s to
supp
ort p
lann
ed a
ctiv
ities
at t
he m
inim
um c
ost
poss
ible
;�
D
eter
min
e op
timum
mix
es o
f res
ourc
es (H
R, m
ater
ials
and
faci
litie
s) a
nd e
nsur
e ad
equa
te r
etur
n on
par
tner
’s in
vest
men
t; an
d�
Pr
ovid
e th
e de
sired
fina
ncia
l res
ult o
f ope
ratio
n an
d es
timat
ed fi
nanc
ial c
ondi
tion.
The
fina
ncia
l fea
sibil
ity st
udy
shou
ld p
rovi
de d
etai
l inf
orm
atio
n on
the
follo
win
g:�
Fi
nanc
e re
quir
ed to
put
the
proj
ect i
nto
oper
atio
n. N
orm
ally,
it c
ould
be
clas
sifie
d in
to
thre
e br
oad
cate
gori
es:
– Fi
xed
Asse
ts: la
nd, b
uild
ing,
equ
ipm
ent,
vehi
cles
;–
Wor
king
Cap
ital i
nitia
lly: c
ost o
f pro
ject
ope
ratio
n an
d m
aint
enan
ce u
ntil
reve
nue
star
ts c
omin
g in
; and
–
Pre-
oper
atin
g co
st: e
xpen
ses i
ncur
red
in p
repa
ring
pro
ject
stud
y, r
egist
ratio
n et
c.�
So
urce
fina
ncin
g in
clud
ing
the
anal
ysis
of p
artn
ers’
inve
stm
ent r
equi
red,
loan
(if a
ny),
co
st o
f mon
ey, t
erm
s, r
isks a
nd e
xpec
ted
rate
of r
etur
n;�
A
cos
t ben
efit
anal
ysis
cove
ring
the
com
para
tive
anal
ysis
of th
e ex
pect
ed c
ost a
nd
bene
fits o
f the
pro
ject
ove
r th
e ex
pect
ed d
urat
ion
of th
e pr
ojec
t; an
d�
Fi
nanc
ial f
easib
ility
stud
y al
so c
over
ing
finan
cial
eva
luat
ion
to e
xam
ine
the
abili
ty o
f the
pr
ojec
t.
4. S
ocia
l im
pact
and
env
ironm
enta
l sus
tain
abili
ty a
naly
sis
shou
ld c
over
�
A d
escr
iptio
n of
the
bene
ficia
ries
of t
he p
roje
ct in
clud
ing
will
ingn
ess a
nd a
bilit
y to
pay
fo
r th
e se
rvic
e;�
Id
entif
icat
ion
of th
e po
tent
ial p
riva
te se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers,
thei
r po
ssib
le is
sues
and
m
etho
ds/w
ays t
o ad
dres
s the
issu
es;
�
Soci
al a
sses
smen
t ide
ntify
ing
both
exp
ecte
d po
sitiv
e an
d ne
gativ
e im
pact
s on
vari
ous
area
s of t
he w
ard
and
com
mun
ity in
clud
ing
the
mun
icip
ality
; and
�
Envi
ronm
enta
l im
pact
, inc
ludi
ng th
e m
easu
res f
or m
itiga
tion
if an
y ad
vers
e im
pact
is
expe
cted
.
5. R
isks
and
ben
efi ts
ana
lysi
s�
Id
entif
icat
ion
of th
e m
ajor
risk
s tha
t mig
ht a
rise
whi
le im
plem
entin
g th
e SW
M se
rvic
es,
to th
e m
unic
ipal
ity a
nd th
e pa
rtne
rs;
�
Prop
ositi
on o
f met
hods
for
miti
gatio
n an
d di
stri
butio
n of
thos
e ri
sk.
6. In
stitu
tiona
l and
con
trac
tual
ana
lysi
s�
A
sses
smen
t of m
anag
ing
capa
city
of m
unic
ipal
ity to
und
erta
ke th
e pr
opos
ed
part
ners
hip
proj
ect.
Gen
eral
ly th
e m
unic
ipal
ities
req
uire
enh
anci
ng th
eir
capa
city
to
perf
orm
the
follo
win
g:–
Con
duct
the
part
ners
hip
proc
urem
ent;
– C
arry
out c
ontr
act n
egot
iatio
n;–
Mak
e ag
reem
ent a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce m
onito
ring
; and
–
Dev
elop
pla
n fo
r ca
paci
ty/s
kill
enha
ncem
ent i
f nec
essa
ry.
�
Rec
omm
enda
tion
of th
e fo
rm o
f par
tner
ship
(pri
vate
sect
or o
r C
BO/N
GO
etc
.), a
nd�
Pr
opos
al fo
r co
ntra
ctua
l arr
ange
men
t, its
dur
atio
n, a
nd r
easo
ns fo
r pr
opos
ing
the
arra
ngem
ent.
32
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Term
s of R
efer
ence
for
Mun
icipa
l SW
M S
ervi
ce
thro
ugh
PPP
1.0
Back
grou
nd
Mun
icip
al so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent i
s an
esse
ntia
l pub
lic se
rvic
e fo
r pu
blic
hea
lth a
nd
envi
ronm
ent p
rote
ctio
n. C
lean
ing
publ
ic p
lace
s and
safe
disp
osal
of w
aste
is th
e m
ajor
re
spon
sibili
ty o
f the
mun
icip
ality
. Art
icle
96
(c) 7
of t
he L
ocal
Sel
f-G
over
nanc
e A
ct, 2
055
BS
and
polic
y st
atem
ent i
n ar
ticle
3 (f
) of t
he sa
me
Act
hav
e au
thor
ized
the
mun
icip
aliti
es to
en
cour
age
the
priv
ate
sect
or to
par
ticip
ate
in th
e ta
sk o
f pro
vidi
ng b
asic
urb
an se
rvic
es fo
r su
stai
nabl
e de
velo
pmen
t.
Kir
tipur
Mun
icip
ality
has
dec
ided
to im
plem
ent s
olid
was
te m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
s inv
olvi
ng
priv
ate
oper
ator
. The
mun
icip
ality
exp
ects
the
follo
win
g ou
tcom
e as
a r
esul
t of i
nvol
ving
the
priv
ate
oper
ator
in so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent:
a) u
pgra
ding
of k
now
ledg
e an
d sk
ills;
b)
impr
ovem
ent i
n eq
uipm
ent u
se;
c) r
atio
naliz
atio
n of
ope
ratio
n an
d m
aint
enan
ce;
d) in
crea
se in
acc
ount
abili
ty to
war
ds th
e us
ers;
and
e)
Reg
ular
per
form
ance
mon
itori
ng .
Thu
s, th
e m
unic
ipal
ity r
eque
sts p
ropo
sal f
rom
the
inte
rest
ed p
riva
te o
pera
tors
for
solid
was
te
man
agem
ent s
ervi
ces.
The
pri
vate
ope
rato
rs sh
all s
ubm
it Bu
sines
s Pla
n (T
echn
ical
and
Fi
nanc
ial)
as m
entio
ned
in P
oint
8 o
f thi
s TO
R. T
he se
lect
ed o
pera
tor
will
be
cons
ider
ed a
m
unic
ipal
par
tner
for
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
in th
e sp
ecifi
ed a
rea.
The
par
tner
ship
ar
rang
emen
t will
be
base
d on
equ
itabl
e di
stri
butio
n of
the
resp
onsib
ility
, risk
s and
rew
ard
inco
rpor
ated
in th
e op
erat
ion
of th
e so
lid w
aste
serv
ice.
2.0
Obj
ectiv
e
The
obj
ectiv
e of
this
proj
ect i
s to
prov
ide
nece
ssar
y po
wer
and
res
pons
ibili
ty to
the
priv
ate
serv
ice
prov
ider
, to
oper
ate
mun
icip
al so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent s
ervi
ce in
the
spec
ified
are
a.
Anne
x2
33
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
3.0
Task
s
The
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
will
incl
ude
the
follo
win
g ta
sks:
�
Task
1: I
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
solid
was
te e
duca
tion
prog
ram
at h
ouse
hold
leve
l thr
ough
co
mm
unity
mob
iliza
tion,
in o
rder
to r
educ
e th
e do
mes
tic r
efus
al a
t the
sour
ce.
�
Task
2: P
rovi
de th
e us
ers (
espe
cial
ly w
omen
), th
e te
chni
ques
of p
repa
ring
com
post
at
hous
ehol
d le
vel a
nd e
nsur
e th
e ut
iliza
tion
of k
now
ledg
e;�
Ta
sk 3
: Sw
eepi
ng o
f the
stre
et a
nd p
ublic
pla
ces (
Tem
ples
, Pat
i and
Par
ks),
cle
anin
g of
pu
blic
dra
inag
e an
d re
mov
ing
the
post
ers f
rom
the
wal
l in
the
publ
ic p
lace
s;�
Ta
sk 4
: Col
lect
ing
the
garb
age
and
refu
sals
from
the
stre
et sw
eepi
ng a
nd p
ublic
pla
ce
clea
ning
, cle
anin
g of
pub
lic d
rain
age,
rem
oved
pos
ture
s and
doo
r-to
-doo
r co
llect
ion
of
dom
estic
ref
usal
; and
�
Task
5: T
rans
port
ing
of th
e co
llect
ed g
arba
ge a
nd r
efus
als t
o th
e …
(spe
cifie
d pl
ace
) or
to
the
pres
crib
ed T
rans
fer
Stat
ion
4.0
Scop
e of
wor
k
The
follo
win
g w
ill b
e th
e sc
ope
of w
ork
for
the
abov
e m
entio
ned
task
s:
A. P
rovi
de so
lid w
aste
edu
catio
n to
……
……
…..
no. o
f hou
seho
ld in
Kir
tipur
mun
icip
ality
w
ard
no. …
……
.., …
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
… to
le fr
om
……
……
……
……
……
……
…. t
o …
……
……
……
……
……
……
are
a.
B. C
lean
ing
and
swee
ping
of t
he st
reet
and
pub
lic p
lace
s (Te
mpl
es, P
ati a
nd P
arks
), c
lean
ing
of p
ublic
dra
inag
e an
d re
mov
ing
the
post
ers f
rom
the
wal
l in
the
publ
ic p
lace
s in
Kir
tipur
m
unic
ipal
ity w
ard
no. …
……
.., …
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
… to
le fr
om
……
……
……
……
……
……
…. t
o …
……
……
……
……
……
……
are
a.
C. C
olle
ctin
g …
……
……
……
tonn
es o
f gar
bage
and
ref
usal
s per
yea
r fr
om st
reet
sw
eepi
ng a
nd p
ublic
pla
ce c
lean
ing,
cle
anin
g of
pub
lic d
rain
age,
rem
ovin
g po
ster
s and
do
or-t
o-do
or c
olle
ctio
n of
dom
estic
ref
usal
in K
irtip
ur m
unic
ipal
ity w
ard
no. …
……
..,
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
tole
from
…
……
……
……
……
……
……
. to
……
……
……
……
……
……
… a
rea,
and
sa
fely
tran
spor
t to
the
……
(spe
cifie
d pl
ace
)……
… o
r to
the
pres
crib
ed T
rans
fer
Stat
ion.
5.0
Dur
atio
n of
wor
k an
d re
port
ing
Dur
atio
n of
the
wor
k w
ill b
e fo
r …
……
…. y
ears
from
the
date
of s
igni
ng th
e co
ntra
ctua
l ag
reem
ent p
aper
. The
sele
cted
par
tner
shal
l sub
mit
quar
terl
y w
ork
prog
ress
rep
ort t
o th
e m
unic
ipal
ity.
34
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
6.0
Estim
atio
n of
bud
get a
nd p
artic
ipat
ion
of u
sers
Priv
ate
oper
ator
shal
l sub
mit
thei
r fin
anci
al p
ropo
sal c
onsid
erin
g th
e fo
llow
ing
prov
ision
s for
bu
dget
and
use
rs p
artic
ipat
ion:
A. F
or ta
sks 1
and
2, m
unic
ipal
ity w
ill p
rovi
de p
rogr
am im
plem
enta
tion
cost
(inc
ludi
ng
rem
uner
atio
n, st
atio
neri
es).
B. F
or o
pera
ting
cost
of t
he ta
sks 3
, 4, a
nd 5
, pri
vate
ope
rato
r sh
all c
olle
ct se
rvic
e fe
e fr
om
user
s. Fo
r th
e pu
rpos
e, p
riva
te o
pera
tor
shal
l pro
pose
tari
ff ra
te n
ot e
xcee
ding
upp
er
ceili
ng o
f Rup
ees …
……
. per
hou
seho
ld.
C. P
riva
te O
pera
tor
shou
ld d
epos
it pe
rfor
man
ce b
ond
equi
vale
nt to
the
amou
nt R
s. …
……
(in
wor
d …
……
……
……
.. ru
pees
onl
y) to
the
Mun
icip
ality
.
7.0
Staf
f an
d w
orke
rs
Priv
ate
oper
ator
shal
l em
ploy
and
man
age
staf
f and
wor
kers
nec
essa
ry fo
r th
e ab
ove
men
tione
d ta
sks.
In o
rder
to im
plem
ent t
he ta
sk e
ffect
ivel
y, th
e fo
llow
ing
staf
fs a
nd w
orke
rs
shal
l be
empl
oyed
or
hire
d:a)
Sol
id w
aste
man
ager
: Exp
erie
nced
in so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent w
orks
b) S
uper
viso
r: E
xper
ienc
ed in
man
agin
g sw
eepe
rs
c) W
orke
rs: E
xper
ienc
ed in
swee
ping
and
dra
inag
e cl
eani
ngd)
Dri
ver,
Loa
der
s et
c
Num
ber,
dura
tion,
sala
ry a
nd r
emun
erat
ion
for
the
staf
f and
wor
kfor
ce sh
all b
e cl
earl
y m
entio
ned
in th
e Bu
sines
s Pla
n.
8.0
Che
cklis
t for
bus
ines
s pl
an
Priv
ate
Ope
rato
r sh
ould
subm
it bu
sines
s pla
n fo
r th
e pr
ojec
t men
tione
d ab
ove.
Tw
o en
velo
ps,
one
with
tech
nica
l pla
n an
d th
e ot
her
with
fina
ncia
l pla
n, sh
ould
be
subm
itted
to th
e m
unic
ipal
ity. C
heck
list f
or te
chni
cal p
lan
and
form
at fo
r fin
anci
al p
lan
are
give
n be
low
:
A. T
echn
ical
Pro
pos
al
The
follo
win
g po
int s
houl
d be
cle
arly
ela
bora
ted
in th
e te
chni
cal p
ropo
sal f
or m
unic
ipal
solid
w
aste
man
agem
ent s
ervi
ce:
a) A
naly
sis o
f pre
sent
situ
atio
n in
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t, w
hich
shou
ld in
clud
e:–
Des
crip
tion
of so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent w
orks
by
the
mun
icip
ality
and
pri
vate
op
erat
ors
– A
naly
sis o
f str
engt
h an
d w
eakn
ess o
f the
exi
stin
g w
ork
35
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
b) D
escr
iptio
n of
eve
ry c
ompo
nent
of t
he p
ropo
sed
proj
ect:
– W
orki
ng p
roce
ss a
nd d
escr
iptio
n of
eve
ry st
ep–
List
ing
and
desc
ript
ion
of a
sset
s, m
achi
nery
, equ
ipm
ents
and
tool
s dem
ande
d by
eac
h st
ep–
Cap
acity
of t
he p
roje
ct/p
lant
c) C
ost e
stim
atio
n fo
r ea
ch c
ompo
nent
of t
he p
ropo
sed
proj
ect.
d) D
escr
iptio
n of
cap
abili
ty o
f the
pri
vate
ope
rato
r to
impl
emen
t the
pro
ject
, whi
ch sh
ould
in
clud
e:–
Cap
acity
of t
he v
ehic
les a
nd o
ther
equ
ipm
ent t
hat w
ould
be
used
in so
lid w
aste
m
anag
emen
t pro
ject
(exi
stin
g no
. and
type
or
to b
e pu
rcha
sed)
– Pr
ocur
emen
t pla
n fo
r m
achi
nery
, equ
ipm
ent a
nd to
ols
– Ex
peri
ence
in r
epai
r an
d m
aint
enan
ce o
f mac
hine
ry, e
quip
men
t and
tool
s–
Staf
f and
wor
kers
nec
essa
ry a
nd a
vaila
ble
(num
ber
and
type
or
to b
e hi
red/
empl
oyed
).e)
Und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
wor
k (s
olid
was
te m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
)f)
Pro
prie
tor’s
exp
erie
nce
in so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent w
ork.
g) E
xper
ienc
e of
the
maj
or st
aff a
nd w
orke
rs in
pla
nnin
g, d
esig
ning
, ope
ratio
n an
d im
plem
enta
tion
of so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent w
ork.
h) P
roof
of t
he o
rgan
izat
ion
in o
pera
tion
for
at le
ast t
hree
yea
rs.
i) Pr
opri
etor
’s ca
paci
ty to
man
age
and
deal
with
the
labo
ur u
nion
and
the
proo
f of p
rovi
ding
fa
ir w
age
to th
e w
orke
rs.
j) Fi
nanc
ial s
tate
men
t of t
he p
ast t
hree
yea
rs.
k) R
ecor
d of
pay
men
t of t
ax a
nd o
ther
gov
ernm
ent r
even
ues o
f the
pas
t thr
ee y
ears
.l)
Des
crip
tion
of p
ossib
le h
indr
ance
in th
e so
lid w
aste
wor
k an
d m
easu
res t
hat n
eed
to b
e ta
ken
to o
verc
ome
it.
B. F
inan
cial
Pla
n
The
follo
win
g is
the
form
at fo
r fin
anci
al p
lan
for
the
proj
ect;
B.1
. Pro
ject
Hig
hlig
ht1.
Nam
e of
the
proj
ect
2. L
ocat
ion
and
addr
ess
3. P
ropr
ieto
r4.
Ann
ual c
apac
ity o
f the
pro
ject
5. H
uman
res
ourc
e re
quir
emen
t–
Staf
f–
Wor
kers
6. I
nves
tmen
t:a)
Fix
ed a
sset
sb)
Ini
tial o
pera
ting
capi
tal
c) W
orki
ng c
apita
l
36
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
7. F
inan
cing
:a)
Ow
ners
’ ow
n fu
nd (E
quity
) b)
Loa
n fr
om b
ank/
finan
cial
inst
itute
c) P
erso
nal b
orro
win
gs
8.
Ann
ual i
ncom
e (in
the
first
yea
r)9.
Fin
anci
al a
naly
sisa)
Bre
ak-e
ven
poin
t ana
lysis
b) P
ay b
ack
peri
odc)
Ret
urn
in in
vest
men
td)
Int
erna
l rat
e of
ret
urn
B.2
. Inv
estm
ent
in F
ixed
Cap
ital
1. L
and
and
land
dev
elop
men
t2.
Bui
ldin
g/sh
ed a
nd it
s con
stru
ctio
n3.
Mac
hine
ry, e
quip
men
t and
tool
s4.
Ele
ctri
ficat
ion
5. F
urni
ture
and
fixt
ure
6. P
re-o
pera
tion
cost
7. T
otal
inve
stm
ent i
n fix
ed a
sset
s
B.3
. Ann
ual o
per
atin
g ex
pen
ses
1. A
nnua
l fix
ed c
ost
– D
epre
ciat
ion
of
• Bu
ildin
g/sh
ed
• M
achi
nery
, equ
ipm
ent a
nd to
ols
•
Elec
trifi
catio
n
• Fu
rnitu
re–
Insu
ranc
e –
Inte
rest
on
loan
– A
dmin
istra
tive
expe
nses
– Ex
pens
es o
n ut
ilitie
s
• El
ectr
icity
• Wat
er–
Sala
ry o
f sta
ff–
Oth
er fi
xed
expe
nses
2. A
nnua
l var
iabl
e co
sts
– W
ages
for
wor
kers
– R
aw m
ater
ials
– Fu
el–
Rep
air
and
mai
nten
ance
3. T
otal
ann
ual o
pera
ting
expe
nses
(1 +
2)
37
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
B.4
. Est
imat
ion
of A
nnua
l Dep
reci
atio
n
Depr
ecia
tion
Rate
Tota
l Am
ount
Year
12
34
5Bu
ilding
/shed
Mach
inery
& eq
uipme
ntFu
rnitu
reEle
ctrifi c
ation
Othe
rsTo
tal
B.5
. Est
imat
ion
of A
nnua
l Exp
ense
s
Part
icula
rYe
ar1
23
45
– Ra
w ma
terial
s–
Worke
rs–
Staff
– Fu
el–
Repa
ir an
d main
tenan
ce–
Admi
nistra
tive e
xpen
ses
– Re
nt of
the b
uildin
g–
Insur
ance
– Ot
hers
Oper
atio
nal e
xpen
ses
– Int
erest
– De
precia
tion
– Ot
hers
Tota
l Ann
ual E
xpen
ses
B.6
Ann
ual I
ncom
e Es
tim
atio
n
Part
icula
rYe
ar1
23
45
– Co
llecti
on of
serv
ice fe
e–
Incom
e from
prog
ram
…
……
……
……
……
……
….
…
……
……
……
……
……
….
– Sa
les of
scra
p (pla
stic)
– Ot
her i
ncom
es To
tal A
nnua
l Inc
ome
38
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
B.7
Pro
fit
and
Los
s St
atem
ent
Desc
riptio
nYe
ar1
23
45
1. An
nual
Incom
eLe
ss2.
Annu
al Op
erati
ng Co
st 3.
Gros
s Profi
tLe
ss:
4. De
precia
tion
5. Pro
fi tLe
ss:
6. Int
erest
7. Le
ss O
ther E
xpen
ses
8. Ne
t Profi
t/Lo
ss9.
Cumu
lative
/Und
istrib
uted P
rofi t/
Loss
B.8
Op
erat
ing/
Wor
king
Req
uire
men
t
Desc
riptio
nYe
ar1
23
45
– Ra
w ma
terial
(for …
……
……
mon
ths)
– Sa
lary (
……
….. m
onths
) –
Wage
s (for
……
……
……
. mon
ths)
– Fu
el (fo
r ……
……
……
. mon
ths)
– Ad
m. ex
p. (fo
r ……
……
……
. mon
ths)
– Re
pair
and M
ainten
ance
Tota
l Ope
ratin
g/W
orki
ng C
apita
l req
uire
d
B.9
Bal
ance
She
et
Desc
riptio
nYe
ar1
23
45
1. As
sets
- C
urren
t Ass
ets In
cludin
g Cas
h Bala
nce
- C
umula
tive C
ash F
low Ba
lance
- F
ixed A
ssets
(afte
r dep
reciat
ion)
Total
Asse
ts
2. Lia
bilitie
s
- Loa
n
- Own
ers In
vestm
ent (E
quity
)
- Cum
ulativ
e Profi
tTo
tal Li
abilit
ies
39
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
B.1
0 R
etur
n on
Inv
estm
ent
Valu
eYe
ar1
23
45
- Inv
estm
ent in
Fixe
d Ass
ets ( I
FA )
- Gr
oss O
pera
ting P
rofi t
- Le
ss In
teres
t and
Depre
ciatio
n-
Net P
rofi t (
NP )
Retur
n on F
ixed I
nves
tmen
t ( NP
/ IFA
× 10
0 )
40
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Anne
x3
Sam
ple
Cont
ractu
al A
gree
men
t Bet
wee
n
......
......
...M
unici
palit
y an
d …
……
……
… fo
r
Mun
icipa
l SM
W
Thi
s Con
trac
t is m
ade
on …
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
…. 2
005
betw
een
....
....
.. M
unic
ipal
ity, h
erei
n af
ter
refe
rred
to a
s “M
unic
ipal
ity”
and
……
(Nam
e of
the
Priv
ate
Part
ner)
……
here
inaf
ter
refe
rred
to a
s “P
riva
te P
artn
er” o
n ot
her
part
.
WH
EREA
S th
e M
unic
ipal
ity
wish
es to
shar
e its
res
pons
ibili
ty w
ith th
e pr
ivat
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er in
mun
icip
al so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent,
by o
btai
ning
pri
vate
par
tner
ship
arr
ange
men
t, in
fran
chise
mod
ality
to im
plem
ent t
he ‘s
olid
was
te c
olle
ctio
n’ se
rvic
e;
AN
D
WH
EREA
S, th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er is
will
ing
and
has a
ccep
ted
to u
nder
take
the
resp
onsib
ility
to
pro
vide
such
‘Mun
icip
al S
olid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t’ se
rvic
e;
NO
W, T
HER
EFO
RE,
bot
h th
e pa
rtie
s her
eby
agre
e to
it a
s fol
low
s:
Sect
ion
I (O
ne)
DEF
INIT
ION
S
1.1
Obj
ecti
ve o
f the
Con
trac
tT
he o
bjec
tive
of th
is fr
anch
ise c
ontr
act i
s to
prov
ide
nece
ssar
y po
wer
and
res
pons
ibili
ty to
the
priv
ate
serv
ice
prov
ider
, to
oper
ate
the
mun
icip
al so
lid w
aste
man
agem
ent s
ervi
ce in
the
spec
ified
are
a.
1.2
Def
init
ions
1.2.
1 “.
....
....
....
....
. Mun
icip
ality
” (M
unic
ipal
ity)
mea
ns a
n or
gani
zatio
n fo
rmed
und
er th
e ar
ticle
……
……
. of
Loc
al S
elf G
over
nanc
e A
ct, 2
055,
situ
ated
at D
evdh
okha
, war
d N
o. …
… o
f ...
....
....
....
.. M
unic
ipal
ity, K
athm
andu
dist
rict
.
1.2.
2 “…
…(N
ame
of th
e Pr
ivat
e Pa
rtne
r)…
…” (
Pri
vate
Par
tner
) mea
ns a
n or
gani
zatio
n re
gist
ered
und
er O
rgan
izat
ion
Reg
istra
tion
Act
, 203
4 /
Com
pany
Act
202
2, w
ith
regi
stra
tion
no. …
……
, PA
N N
o. …
……
, and
situ
ated
at …
..…
……
……
.. M
unic
ipal
ity in
war
d N
o. …
……
……
of …
……
……
……
…. d
istri
ct.
41
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
1.2.
3 “M
unic
ipal
Sol
id W
aste
Man
agem
ent”
mea
ns th
e fo
llow
ing
urba
n so
lid w
aste
m
anag
emen
t rel
ated
serv
ices
:
A. S
wee
ping
of t
he st
reet
and
pub
lic p
lace
(Tem
ples
, Pat
i and
Par
ks),
cle
anin
g of
pub
lic
drai
nage
and
rem
oval
of p
osto
rs fr
om th
e w
all i
n th
e pu
blic
pla
ces;
B. C
olle
ctin
g th
e ga
rbag
e an
d re
fusa
ls fr
om th
e st
reet
swee
ping
and
pub
lic p
lace
cl
eani
ng, c
lean
ing
of p
ublic
dra
inag
e, r
emov
al o
f pos
ters
and
doo
r-to
-doo
r co
llect
ion
of d
omes
tic r
efus
al; a
nd
C. T
rans
port
ing
of th
e co
llect
ed g
arba
ge a
nd r
efus
als t
o th
e …
… (s
peci
fied
plac
e)
……
… o
r to
the
pres
crib
ed T
rans
fer
Stat
ion;
1.2.
4 “U
sers
” mea
ns h
ouse
hold
ow
ners
, offi
ces a
nd o
rgan
izat
ions
, and
bus
ines
sman
dw
ellin
g ar
ea fr
om
…
……
……
……
……
……
… to
…
……
……
……
……
……
…..
, whe
re th
e pr
ivat
e pa
rtne
r
has a
gree
d to
pro
vide
Mun
icip
al S
olid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t ser
vice
.
Sect
ion
II (T
WO
)Sp
ecifi
c te
rms
and
cond
ition
s
2.1
Both
the
part
ies t
o th
e ag
reem
ent (
the
Mun
icip
alit
y an
d th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er) a
re
awar
e an
d un
ders
tand
all
the
proc
ess o
f par
tner
ship
pro
cure
men
t (pr
ojec
t fea
sibili
ty/
busin
ess p
lan-
tech
nica
l and
fina
ncia
l; al
l the
doc
umen
t, re
cord
s and
pro
posa
ls su
bmitt
ed
by th
e bi
dder
s) a
nd a
gree
the
stag
e-w
ise d
ecisi
ons i
n th
e pr
ocur
emen
t as a
n in
tegr
al
part
of t
his p
artn
ersh
ip c
ontr
actu
al a
gree
men
t.
2.2
Res
pon
sibi
liti
es o
f the
Mun
icip
alit
y
2.2.
1 M
unic
ipal
ity
shal
l app
rove
the
serv
ice
of P
riva
te P
artn
er fo
r M
unic
ipal
Sol
id W
aste
M
anag
emen
t in
....
....
....
. Mun
icip
ality
War
d N
o. …
……
.., …
……
……
… …
…
… …
……
……
……
tole
from
……
……
……
……
……
……
…. t
o …
……
……
……
……
……
……
are
a.
2.2.
2 M
unic
ipal
ity
shal
l spe
cify
the
garb
age
colle
ctio
n po
ints
for
the
user
s afte
r th
e pr
imar
y (D
oor-
to-d
oor
colle
ctio
n ha
s bee
n do
ne) a
nd p
lace
(spe
cific
pla
ce o
r tr
ansf
er st
atio
n as
de
scri
bed
in A
nnex
1.)
for
safe
tran
spor
tatio
n of
the
colle
cted
gar
bage
.
2.2.
3 M
unic
ipal
ity
shal
l mak
e ne
cess
ary
arra
ngem
ent t
o pr
ohib
it du
mpi
ng d
omes
tic w
aste
an
d th
e co
llect
ed g
arba
ge in
the
plac
e ot
her
than
the
one
spec
ified
in A
nnex
1.
2.3
Res
pon
sibi
lity
of t
he P
riva
te P
artn
er
2.3.
1 P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all d
eliv
er m
unic
ipal
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
in th
e ar
ea
appr
oved
by
the
Mun
icip
alit
y as
men
tione
d in
Art
icle
2.2
.1
42
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
2.3.
2 P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all p
erfo
rm th
e sw
eepi
ng o
f the
stre
et a
nd p
ublic
pla
ces i
n th
e ar
ea
as m
entio
ned
in a
rtic
le 2
.2.1
with
in 8
:00
PM to
6:0
0 A
M, o
r at
the
time
spec
ified
by
the
Mun
icip
alit
y.
2.3.
3 P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all m
anag
e th
e eq
uipm
ent a
nd o
ther
nec
essa
ry fa
cilit
ies f
or th
e m
unic
ipal
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
and
mob
ilize
at l
east
……
……
No.
of
labo
ur a
s men
tione
d in
the
prop
osal
.
2.3.
4 Pr
ivat
e Pa
rtne
r sh
all s
afel
y tr
ansp
ort t
he c
olle
cted
gar
bage
to th
e tr
ansfe
r sta
tion
as
men
tione
d in
Art
icle
1.2
.3 o
r to
the
plac
e sp
ecifi
ed b
y th
e M
unic
ipal
ity w
ithin
7:0
0 A
M.
2.3.
5 A
t lea
st o
nce
in e
very
mon
th, P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all r
emov
e th
e m
ud a
nd g
rass
es fr
om
the
stre
et a
nd p
ublic
pla
ces i
n th
e ar
ea a
s men
tione
d in
Art
icle
2.2
.1.
2.3.
6 In
cas
e of
arr
ival
of i
mpo
rtan
t gue
st, n
atio
nal f
estiv
als a
nd/o
r in
spec
ial o
ccas
ion
Pri
vate
Par
tner
shal
l sw
eep
and
clea
n th
e pu
blic
pla
ces i
n th
e ar
ea a
s men
tione
d in
A
rtic
le 2
.2.1
at a
ny ti
me,
if M
unic
ipal
ity
dem
ands
for.
2.3.
7 Fu
rthe
r to
the
abov
e-m
entio
ned
resp
onsib
ilitie
s, P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all i
mpl
emen
t m
unic
ipal
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t ser
vice
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e di
rect
ives
of t
he
spec
ified
Rev
iew
and
Mon
itori
ng C
omm
ittee
.
2.4
Man
agem
ent
of S
ervi
ce F
ee
2.4.
1 Ta
riff
for
the
Solid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t ser
vice
s for
the
area
men
tione
d in
Art
icle
2.2
.1
shal
l be
set j
oint
ly b
y th
e M
unic
ipal
ity
and
the
Pri
vate
Par
tner
. Tar
iff fo
r So
lid W
aste
M
anag
emen
t ser
vice
s sha
ll be
as s
how
n in
Ann
ex 2
.
2.4.
2 P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all c
olle
ct th
e se
rvic
e fe
e as
spec
ified
in A
nnex
2 fr
om th
e us
ers f
or
deliv
erin
g So
lid W
aste
man
agem
ent s
ervi
ce. T
he P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all m
aint
ain
a se
para
te b
ook
of a
ccou
nt fo
r se
rvic
e ch
arge
col
lect
ion.
The
stat
emen
t of s
ervi
ce c
harg
e sh
ould
be
subm
itted
to th
e M
unic
ipal
ity
with
in 1
5 da
ys o
f the
nex
t mon
th.
In
cas
e of
diff
icul
ty in
col
lect
ing
the
serv
ice
fee,
the
mun
icip
ality
shal
l sup
port
the
Pri
vate
Par
tner
by
free
zing
the
urba
n se
rvic
e to
the
defa
ulte
r.
2.4.
3 Fo
r m
odifi
catio
n of
serv
ice
char
ge, t
he M
unic
ipal
ity
and
the
Pri
vate
Par
tner
shal
l fin
aliz
e it
by d
iscus
sion.
2.4.
4 Fo
r re
cord
ing
of se
rvic
e ch
arge
acc
ount
, the
Pri
vate
Par
tner
shou
ld u
se th
ree
copy
re
ceip
t pap
ers.
The
firs
t cop
y of
the
rece
ipt s
houl
d be
giv
en to
the
user
aga
inst
the
paym
ent o
f ser
vice
fee.
The
seco
nd c
opy
(fir
st c
arbo
n co
py) s
houl
d be
subm
itted
to th
e M
unic
ipal
ity
alon
g w
ith th
e st
atem
ent o
f ser
vice
cha
rge
and
the
thir
d co
py (s
econ
d ca
rbon
cop
y) sh
ould
be
kept
in th
e re
cord
.
2.4.
5 T
he se
rvic
e ch
arge
acc
ount
shou
ld b
e au
dite
d ev
ery
year
. For
such
aud
it P
riva
te
Part
ner
shou
ld a
ppoi
nt a
com
pete
nt a
udito
r. P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
ould
subm
it th
e au
dit
repo
rt to
the
Mun
icip
alit
y.
2.4.
6 P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
ould
dep
osit
perf
orm
ance
bon
d eq
uiva
lent
to R
s. …
……
…
……
… (i
n w
ord
……
……
……
…..
rupe
es o
nly)
to th
e M
unic
ipal
ity.
2.4.
7 P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all h
ave
resp
onsib
ility
to p
ay a
ny H
MG
tax
and
loca
l tax
es.
43
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
2.5
Dur
atio
n of
the
Con
trac
tD
urat
ion
of th
is ag
reem
ent s
hall
be …
……
…. y
ears
from
the
date
of s
igni
ng th
e co
ntra
ctua
l ag
reem
ent p
aper
. The
reaf
ter,
it co
uld
be e
xten
ded
in th
e un
ders
tand
ing
of b
oth
the
part
ies t
o th
e ag
reem
ent.
Prov
ision
al p
erio
d fo
r su
ch c
ontr
act s
hall
be th
ree
mon
ths.
2.6
Perf
orm
ance
Sta
ndar
d fo
r C
olle
ctio
n of
Sol
id W
aste
Mun
icip
alit
y an
d th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all j
oint
ly se
t the
per
form
ance
stan
dard
for
Mun
icip
al S
olid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t ser
vice
men
tione
d in
Art
icle
1.2
.3. B
oth
the
part
ies t
o th
e ag
reem
ent a
gree
to w
ork
for
achi
evin
g th
e pe
rfor
man
ce st
anda
rd m
entio
ned
in A
nnex
3
of th
is ag
reem
ent.
2.7
Act
ivit
ies
Plan
ning
Base
d on
the
perf
orm
ance
stan
dard
men
tione
d in
Art
icle
2.6
, Pri
vate
Par
tner
shal
l sub
mit
activ
ities
pla
n (A
nnex
4) t
o th
e M
unic
ipal
ity.
The
act
iviti
es p
lan
shou
ld in
dica
te th
e fo
llow
ing:
- D
etai
l act
iviti
es;
- R
espo
nsib
le p
erso
ns; a
nd-
Tim
e fr
ame,
The
per
form
ance
stan
dard
men
tione
d in
Art
icle
2.6
and
the
Act
iviti
es P
lan
shal
l ser
ve a
s a
guid
elin
e fo
r th
e ag
reed
Mun
icip
al S
olid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t ser
vice
.
Sect
ion
III (
Thre
e)G
ENER
AL
TER
MS
AN
D C
ON
DIT
ION
S
3.1
Ow
ners
hip
of S
olid
Was
teT
he P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all h
ave
the
owne
rshi
p of
the
colle
cted
was
te a
nd sh
all b
e lia
ble
to th
e w
aste
col
lect
ion
till i
t is s
afel
y tr
ansp
orte
d to
the
spec
ified
……
……
……
pla
ce o
r to
the
tran
sfer
stat
ion.
Afte
r th
e w
aste
had
bee
n tr
ansf
ered
to th
e sp
ecifi
ed …
……
……
……
…..
plac
e or
the
tran
sfer
stat
ion,
Mun
icip
alit
y sh
all h
ave
owne
rshi
p of
that
was
te.
3.2
Rev
iew
and
Mon
itor
ing
of t
he S
olid
Was
te C
olle
ctio
n Se
rvic
eSo
lid W
aste
Man
agem
ent R
evie
w C
omm
ittee
, her
eina
fter
refe
rred
to a
s “R
evie
w C
omm
itte
e”
shal
l rev
iew
and
mon
itor
the
prog
ress
of s
olid
was
te c
olle
ctio
n ev
ery
……
…. d
ays/
wee
ks.
Rep
rese
ntat
ives
from
the
follo
win
g …
……
……
. (N
o.) o
rgan
izat
ions
shal
l be
the
mem
bers
of
the
Rev
iew
Com
mit
tee.
– C
oord
inat
or, r
epre
sent
ativ
e …
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
…..
1 N
o.–
Mem
ber,
repr
esen
tativ
e …
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
… 1
No.
– M
embe
r, re
pres
enta
tive
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
……
1 N
o.
44
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
The
Rev
iew
Com
mit
tee
and
the
part
ies t
o th
e ag
reem
ent s
hall
join
tly se
t the
pro
cess
for
prog
ress
rev
iew
and
mon
itori
ng (A
nnex
5).
Pro
gres
s rev
iew
and
mon
itori
ng o
f the
Sol
id
Was
te M
anag
emen
t ser
vice
shal
l be
base
d on
the
follo
win
g in
form
atio
n:
– Fi
nanc
ial s
tate
men
t and
wor
k pr
ogre
ss r
epor
t sub
mitt
ed b
y th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er;
– O
bser
vatio
n of
the
proj
ect s
ite b
y th
e R
evie
w C
omm
itte
e; a
nd–
Inte
rvie
w w
ith th
e us
ers a
nd th
e st
akeh
olde
rs.
3.3
Subm
issi
on o
f Pro
gres
s R
epor
t
3.3.
1 R
evie
w C
omm
itte
e sh
all s
ubm
it a
copy
of r
epor
t on
prog
ress
rev
iew
and
mon
itori
ng o
f th
e So
lid W
aste
Man
agem
ent S
ervi
ce to
the
Mun
icip
alit
y an
d a
copy
to th
e P
riva
te
Part
ner
for
nece
ssar
y ac
tion.
3.3.
2 Ev
ery
quar
ter
Pri
vate
Par
tner
shal
l sub
mit
prog
ress
rep
ort o
n So
lid W
aste
M
anag
emen
t Ser
vice
to t
he M
unic
ipal
ity,
whi
ch sh
ould
incl
ude
the
follo
win
g in
form
atio
n:
a) Q
uart
erly
/yea
rly
targ
et a
nd d
escr
iptio
n of
the
wor
k pr
ogre
ss;
b) S
tate
men
t of i
ncom
e an
d ex
pend
iture
c) P
robl
ems e
ncou
nter
ed a
nd st
eps t
aken
to so
lve
the
prob
lem
s dur
ing
impl
emen
tatio
n of
solid
was
te c
olle
ctio
n se
rvic
e;
d) D
escr
iptio
n of
pos
itive
and
neg
ativ
e ex
peri
ence
s;
e) A
ctiv
ities
pla
nnin
g fo
r th
e ne
xt q
uart
er;
f) C
orre
ctiv
e ac
tion
nece
ssar
y; a
nd
g) O
ther
s, if
any
.
3.4
Fail
ure
to A
ct a
s p
er T
erm
s an
d C
ond
itio
ns o
f the
Agr
eem
ent
3.4.
1 Fo
r an
y re
ason
, if t
he P
riva
te P
artn
er d
oes n
ot a
ccom
plish
the
resp
onsib
ilitie
s as
men
tione
d in
Art
icle
2.3
and
Rev
iew
Com
mit
tee
prov
es it
with
suffi
cien
t pro
of,
Mun
icip
alit
y ca
n ca
ncel
the
agre
emen
t and
rea
ssig
n th
e w
ork
to a
thir
d pa
rty.
For
this
purp
ose,
Mun
icip
alit
y sh
ould
not
ify th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er w
ith 1
5 da
ys n
otic
e.
Expe
nses
incu
rred
for
such
act
ion
will
be
liabi
lity
of th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er.
3.4.
2. Fo
r an
y sp
ecifi
c re
ason
, if a
ny p
arty
to th
e ag
reem
ent (
eith
er th
e M
unic
ipal
ity o
r th
e Pr
ivat
e Pa
rtne
r) n
otifi
es th
e ot
her
part
y fo
r ca
ncel
latio
n of
the
agre
emen
t, w
ith 3
(t
hree
) mon
th p
rior
not
ice,
the
agre
emen
t sha
ll be
can
celle
d.
3.4.
3 Fo
r an
y re
ason
or
situa
tion
othe
r th
an th
e m
entio
ned
in S
ub-A
rtic
les 3
.4.1
and
3.4
.1, i
f M
unic
ipal
ity
canc
els t
he a
gree
men
t, M
unic
ipal
ity
shou
ld p
ay P
riva
te P
artn
er th
e am
ount
equ
ival
ent t
o th
e lo
sses
due
to su
ch a
ctio
n.
3.5
Fail
ure
on W
ork
Com
ple
tion
3.5.
1 If
Pri
vate
Par
tner
s do
not
per
form
the
Solid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t Ser
vice
in th
e ar
ea
men
tione
d in
Art
icle
2.2
.1 w
ithin
the
spec
ified
tim
e, th
e M
unic
ipal
ity
can
notif
y th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er fo
r pe
rfor
man
ce w
ithin
24
hour
s. If
the
Pri
vate
Par
tner
fails
to d
o
45
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
so, t
he M
unic
ipal
ity
can
mak
e ar
rang
emen
t for
the
sam
e. F
or su
ch a
ctio
n, th
e P
riva
te
Part
ner
shal
l be
mad
e lia
ble
for
the
amou
nt o
f exp
ense
s inc
urre
d.
In
cas
e of
Nat
ural
disa
ster
or
situa
tion
beyo
nd th
e co
ntro
l the
abo
ve-
men
tione
d su
b-A
rtic
le 3
.5.1
shal
l not
app
ly.
3.5.
2 If
the
Pri
vate
Par
tner
’s se
rvic
e de
liver
y is
not f
ound
to b
e at
the
leve
l of t
he p
resc
ribe
d pe
rfor
man
ce st
anda
rd, t
he P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all i
mpr
ove
its p
erfo
rman
ce to
the
leve
l, w
ithin
the
time
dura
tion
fixed
by
the
Rev
iew
Com
mit
tee.
The
Mun
icip
alit
y sh
all a
ct
acco
rdin
g to
the
Rev
iew
Com
mit
tee’
s dec
ision
for
nece
ssar
y co
rrec
tive
actio
n, If
the
Pri
vate
Par
tner
fails
to d
o so
. Exp
ense
s inc
urre
d fo
r su
ch a
ctio
n w
ill b
e re
imbu
rsed
fr
om th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er.
3.6
Res
pon
sibi
lity
for
Loss
and
Dam
age
3.6.
1 In
cas
e of
loss
or
dam
age
due
to P
riva
te P
artn
er o
r its
staf
f or
repr
esen
tativ
e, th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all b
ear
the
resp
onsib
ility
. Mun
icip
alit
y sh
all n
ot b
e re
spon
sible
for
such
loss
or
dam
age.
3.6.
2 In
cas
e of
the
loss
or
dam
age
due
to n
atur
al d
isast
er th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all t
imel
y re
port
the
Rev
iew
Com
mit
tee
in w
ritt
en fo
rm d
escr
ibin
g th
e na
ture
of l
oss o
r da
mag
e an
d its
cau
se. T
he R
evie
w C
omm
itte
e sh
all d
ecid
e fo
r di
stri
butio
n of
such
loss
or
dam
age
afte
r a
deta
il an
alys
is b
ased
on
the
repo
rt.
3.7
Del
egat
ion
of W
ork
Res
pon
sibi
lity
a) W
ithou
t pri
or a
ppro
val f
rom
the
Mun
icip
alit
y th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er sh
all n
ot
furn
ish a
ny w
ork
of c
ontr
actu
al a
gree
men
t by
usin
g a
thir
d pa
rty.
b) S
imila
rly,
Mun
icip
alit
y sh
all n
ot a
ssig
n or
ent
er in
to c
ontr
act w
ith a
ny th
ird
part
y du
ring
the
cont
ract
per
iod
for
the
sam
e w
ork.
3.8
Labo
ur S
ecur
ity
The
Pri
vate
Par
tner
shal
l pro
vide
dre
ss, g
love
s, m
asks
and
boo
ts to
all
the
staf
f acc
ordi
ng to
th
e pr
escr
ibed
rul
es o
f the
Mun
icip
alit
y. T
his d
ress
is m
anda
tory
to a
ll th
e st
aff d
urin
g th
e w
orki
ng p
erio
d. T
he d
ress
shal
l be
alw
ays c
lean
.
3.9
Stri
kes
Solid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t is c
onsid
ered
as a
bas
ic se
rvic
e an
d is
dire
ctly
rel
ated
to p
ublic
he
alth
. Thi
s par
tner
ship
agr
eem
ent i
s a c
omm
itmen
t of t
he lo
cal g
over
nmen
t and
the
priv
ate
serv
ice
prov
ider
for
effic
ient
and
reg
ular
ity in
serv
ice
deliv
ery.
Thu
s, b
oth
the
part
ies t
o th
e ag
reem
ent (
the
Mun
icip
alit
y an
d th
e P
riva
te P
artn
er) u
nder
stan
d an
d ag
ree
not t
o go
into
st
rike
at a
ny c
ircu
mst
ance
.
3.10
Not
ice
for
Pros
ecut
ion
(Pun
ishm
ent)
If an
y pe
rson
(s) o
r or
gani
zatio
n(s)
is d
istur
bing
the
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t act
iviti
es, t
he
Pri
vate
Par
tner
can
req
uest
them
to r
efra
in fr
om d
istur
bing
and
or c
an g
ive
a no
tice
for
lega
l
46
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
actio
n an
dor
puni
sh m
ent.
But f
or ta
king
any
kin
d of
lega
l act
ion
and/
or p
unish
ing
such
pe
rson
or
orga
niza
tion,
Mun
icip
alit
y sh
all b
e in
form
ed in
wri
ting.
Act
ion
take
n by
the
Mun
icip
alit
y in
this
resp
ect s
hall
be in
form
ed to
the
Pri
vate
Par
tner
.
3.11
Dis
put
e an
d C
omp
lain
t H
and
ling
3.11
.1 A
ll co
mpl
aint
s and
sugg
estio
ns o
f the
use
rs r
egar
ding
solid
was
te m
anag
emen
t se
rvic
es sh
all b
e pu
t for
war
d by
the
Pri
vate
Par
tner
. Suc
h re
cord
shou
ld b
e su
bmitt
ed
to th
e M
unic
ipal
ity.
3.11
.2 I
f any
one
par
ty to
the
agre
emen
t is d
issat
isfie
d w
ith th
e qu
ality
of t
he se
rvic
e de
liver
y or
the
acco
mpl
ishm
ent o
f the
res
pons
ibili
ties a
nd, a
s a r
esul
t, di
sput
e ar
ises,
the
follo
win
g st
eps s
hall
be ta
ken
to r
esol
ve th
e di
sput
e:
a) M
unic
ipal
ity
and
the
Pri
vate
Par
tner
shal
l com
e to
the
nego
tiatio
n ta
ble
to a
rriv
e at
the
reso
lvin
g po
int.
b) I
f una
ble
to a
rriv
e at
the
reso
lvin
g po
int a
t the
neg
otia
tion
tabl
e, M
unic
ipal
ity
and
Pri
vate
Par
tner
shal
l nom
inat
e on
e m
edia
tor
each
, and
the
nom
inat
ed m
edia
tor
shal
l sel
ect a
noth
er m
edia
tor
to fo
rm a
thre
e m
embe
r m
edia
tion
team
to r
esol
ve th
e di
sput
e. S
uch
med
iatio
n te
am sh
all r
esol
ve th
e di
sput
e w
ithin
15
days
eith
er b
y vo
ting
or b
y co
nsen
sus.
Both
the
part
ies s
hall
shar
e th
e co
st in
curr
ed in
such
m
edia
tion.
c) I
f the
par
ties t
o th
e di
sput
e ar
e no
t sat
isfie
d w
ith th
e m
edia
tion
team
’s de
cisio
n, th
e di
sput
e sh
all b
e se
ttle
d th
roug
h th
e co
urt o
f law
.
Aut
hori
zed
Sig
natu
re fo
r M
unic
ipal
ity
Sign
atur
e:
Offi
ce S
tam
p
Nam
e: …
……
……
……
……
……
……
..
Des
igna
tion:
……
……
……
……
……
….
Dat
e: …
……
……
……
……
……
……
.
Aut
hori
zed
Sig
natu
re fo
r Pr
ivat
e Pa
rtne
r
Sign
atur
e:
Offi
ce S
tam
p
Nam
e: …
……
……
……
……
……
……
..
Des
igna
tion:
…..
.……
……
……
……
….
Dat
e: …
……
..…
……
……
……
……
….
47
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Anne
x4
Sam
ple
Form
at fo
r Pro
gres
s M
onito
ring,
Rev
iew
and
M
onito
ring
of t
he S
olid
Was
te
Colle
ction
Ope
ratio
nPe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
sW
hat i
s mea
sure
dHo
w it
is
mea
sure
dW
here
it is
m
easu
red
How
oft
en it
is
mea
sure
dBy
who
m it
is
mea
sure
dBa
sis fo
r sa
nctio
n
Clean
lines
s of
serv
ice ar
ea
Exist
ence
of lit
ter
Exist
ence
of cl
ande
stine
was
te pil
e
Waste
in dr
ains
Impro
perly
plac
ed w
aste
bins
Regu
larity
and f
reque
ncy i
n co
llecti
on se
rvice
Numb
er of
colle
ction
point
s an
d com
peten
cy in
colle
ction
se
rvice
s
Safe
dispo
sal
of co
llecte
d wa
ste
Waste
quan
tity d
elive
red at
tra
nsfer
stati
on
Cland
estin
e dum
ping
Custo
mer
satis
factio
n
Perce
ntage
abou
t clea
nline
ss
of ar
eas
Willin
gnes
s to p
ay
Willin
gnes
s to p
artic
ipate
in co
llecti
on re
quire
ments
Custo
mer d
is-sa
tisfac
tion
Comp
laint
abou
t impro
perly
pla
ced w
aste
bins, d
amag
e of
waste
bins
, unc
ollec
ted w
astes
, ru
de be
havio
r by t
he co
llecto
r etc
.
Worke
rs pro
ducti
vity
No. o
f wor
kers
in se
rvice
Waste
quan
tity p
er w
orke
r ea
ch sh
ift
Abse
nteeis
m
48
PPP in SEM, Operational Handbook
Perfo
rman
ce
mea
sure
sW
hat i
s mea
sure
dHo
w it
is
mea
sure
dW
here
it is
m
easu
red
How
ofte
n it
is m
easu
red
By w
hom
it
is m
easu
red
Basis
for
sanc
tion
Vehic
le pro
duc-
tivity
No. o
f veh
icles
in se
rvice
Waste
quan
tity p
er ve
hicle
each
shift
and p
er da
y
Envir
onme
ntal
contr
olsLe
akag
e from
was
te in
vehic
les
Contr
ol of
litter
from
vehic
les
Occu
patio
nal
healt
h and
sa
fety c
ontro
ls
Use o
f glov
es, m
asks
, unif
orms
Tools
on ve
hicles
to lo
ad lo
ose
waste
and s
ize an
d weig
ht of
lift
ed lo
ad
Annu
al me
dical
chec
k-up
Finan
ceRe
gular
paym
ent o
f tax
es
Paym
ent t
o the
wor
kers
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Man
agem
ent
Inst
itu
teP
.O. B
ox
1265
6, K
ath
man
du
, Nep
alTe
l: +
977-
1-47
8 13
94Em
ail:
dm
ing
o@
ntc
.net
.np
Pilot Project A-2
As-built Drawings
for Improvement Work
at Teku Transfer Station
The Study on the Solid Waste Management Supporting Report II for the Kathmandu Valley Part III As Built Drawings for Improvement Work at Teku Transfer Station
A.2 - i CKV Sapha Sahar Hamro Rahar
Clean Kathmandu Valley Study
Table of Contents
S.N. Figure No. Title 1 A.2-1 Location Map 2 A.2-2 Final Layout Plan 3 A.2-3A Plan and Profile 4 A.2-3B Plan and Profile
Unloading Platform 5 A.2-4 Trench Plan 6 A.2-5 Foundation Details Grid CC, DD, EE &FF 7 A.2-6 Foundation Details Grid BB & GG 8 A.2-7 Foundation Details Grid AA 9 A.2-8A Typical Long Frame
10 A.2-8B Typical Long Frame Section Detail 11 A.2-9A Typical Short Frame 12 A.2-9B Typical Short Frame Section Detail 13 A.2-10 Short Secondary Beam 14 A.2-11 Long Secondary Beam 15 A.2-12A Slab Reinforcement Plan 16 A.2-12B Slab Section Detail 17 A.2-12C Section Detail of curved beam, RCC Wall and Drainage outlet Plan 18 A.2-13 Frame BB & GG 19 A.2-14 Isometric View of Vierendeel Girder 20 A.2-15A Vierendeel Girder Detail 21 A.2-15B Vierendeel Girder Detail 22 A.2-16 Roofing Detail
Ramps of Unloading Platform 23 A.2-17 Ramp Detail 24 A.2-18 Longitudinal Section of Approach Ramp 25 A.2-19 Longitudinal Section of Exit Ramp 26 A.2-20 Ramp Section and Expansion Detail 27 A.2-21 Bar Bending Schedule of Approach and Exit
Weighbridge and Scale House 28 A.2-22A Plan and Section of Weighbridge 29 A.2-22B Section Detail of Weighbridge 30 A.2-22C Section Detail of Weighbridge 31 A.2-23 Bar Bending Schedules Weighbridge
Drainage 32 A.2-24 Drainage Layout Improvement Plan 33 A.2-25 Drainage Improvement Section Detail 34 A.2-26 Drainage Improvement Drain Cover 35 A.2-27 Traffic Circulation and Vehicle Parking
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu ValleyThe Study on the Solid Waste Management
KMC OFFICE
BISHNUMATI RIVER
PIPE
DRA
IN (0
.30 D
IA.)
BM1(1280.811)
BM2 (1282.200)
BISHNUMATI RIVER
TEKU TRANSFER STATION
TO KALIMATI
TO
SA
NE
PA
TO TRIPURESHWOR
Figure A.2-1Location Map
SHADEPUMP
BISNUMATI RIVER
BISNUMATI RIVERTO K
ULES
WOR
628,
380.
00
628,
400.
00
628,
420.
00
628,
440.
00
628,
460.
00
628,
480.
00
628,
500.
00
628,
520.
00
628,
540.
00
628,
560.
00
628,
580.
003,064,420.00
3,064,440.00
3,064,460.00
3,064,480.00
3,064,500.00
FILTERATION UNIT
BISNUMATI RIVERBI
SNUM
ATI B
RIDG
E
EMPTY TRANSFER VEHICLE IN
FILTERATION UNIT
PIPE
DRA
IN (0
.30 D
IA.)
SEPT
IC T
ANK
INCENERATOR
GUARD QUARTER
CHIMNEY
PARKING AREA
GUARD QUARTER
DRYING CHAMBER
PLATFORMRAMP
EMPTY COLLECTION VEHICLE OUT
5.0 m.
26.0 m.
628,
600.
00
628,
620.
00
628,
640.
00
628,
660.
00
628,
680.
00
628,
700.
00
628,
720.
00
COVER DRAIN
COMPOUND WALL
OPEN DRAIN
ROAD
COMPOUND FENCE
RIVER
BRIDGE
BARBED FENCE
BUILDING
COMPOUND FENCE WITH POLE
ELECTRIC POLE
STATION POINT
BENCH MARK
ST 9
EP
GATE
TREE
LEGEND BM1
3,064,420.00
3,064,440.00
3,064,460.00
3,064,480.00
3,064,500.00
COMPOST PLANT
3,064,620.00
3,064,520.00
3,064,540.00
3,064,560.00
GARDEN AREA
3,064,580.00
3,064,600.00
NU
RS
ER
Y NURSERY
33.0
m.
TWO
LO
AD
ING
STA
TIO
N
ST4 (1281.742)
UN
LOA
DIN
G P
LATF
OR
M
GAS WELL
LOA
DE
D T
RA
NS
FER
VE
HIC
LE O
UT
14.0 m.
DRAI
N (0
.30*
0.35
)
PARKING AREA
10.6
77 m
.
6.69 m.
R-12.0
m.
LC-13
.633 m
.
KANJI HOUSE
ROPE WAY TOWER
SERVICING CENTER
TOOLS ROOM
WELLSEPTIC TANKPUMP HOUSE
PROPOSED DRAIN AND ROAD EDGE
TOILET
LOADED TRANSFER VEHICLE OUT
SHADE
WORK SHOP
STAFF QUARTER
628,
380.
00
628,
420.
00
628,
440.
00
628,
400.
00
TEKU TRANSFER STATION
628,
520.
00
628,
500.
00
628,
460.
00
628,
480.
00
628,
580.
00
628,
560.
00
628,
540.
00
3,064,620.00
PARKING
TO KALIMATI
OFFICE
GARDEN
LOADED COLLECTION VEHICLE IN
4.30
m.
7.10 m.
WEIGH HOUSE
WEIGHING BRIDGE
2.50
m.
4.50 m.
4.495 m.4.495 m.
GUARD QUARTER
PUMP
TO SANEPA
N
3,064,520.00
3,064,540.00
3,064,560.00
3,064,580.00
3,064,600.00
628,
640.
00
628,
620.
00
628,
600.
00
628,
720.
00
628,
680.
00
628,
700.
00
628,
660.
00
Cons
tructe
d dr
ain
12
34
56
FLUS
HING
CO
NCRE
TE A
S RE
QUI
RED
FLUS
HING
CO
NCRE
TE A
S RE
QUI
RED
The Study on the Solid Waste Management for the Kathmandu Valley
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Figure A.2-2Final Layout Plan
3,064,400.003,064,400.00
The Study on the Solid Waste Management for the Kathmandu Valley
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Figure A.2-3APlan and Profile
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu ValleyThe Study on the Solid Waste Management
Figure A.2-3BPlan and Profile
3700
300
300
300
5200
6250
FEDC
52005200520052005200
A B
3800360018003700 14001200
1
14003800140038001400
3794
500
1910
2
1410
0
2000
1518
2-3
320
00
1350
0
A-BA1406
1518
B C D E F
6250
NorthingEastingS. No. Column No.
628515.243
628521.251
2
1
D2
D1
3064537.877
3064536.154
1800
500
1
1100
6250
2
3
G
628209.2353 D3 3064539.600Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu ValleyThe Study on the Solid Waste Management Figure A.2-4
Trench Plan Unloading Platform
NOTES:-1. The minimum clear cover to any reinforcement shall be 75mm.2. Concrete should be of grade M25/20 having characteritic strength 25N/mm^2.
ONE LAYER FLAT BRICK SOLING
13500
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
3130
3000
2050
650650
2 6 NOS. 25 Ø
100 THICK PCC M15/40
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
RL. 1276.972
950
3
100 C/C10 Ø @
23 4NOS. 20 Ø
100 C/C10 Ø @
100 C/C10 Ø @
1 4 NOS. 25 Ø
3130500 1550
600
RL.1279.972
TIE BEAM
15501570
1 4 NOS. 25 Ø
600 TIE BEAM
2 6 NOS. 25 Ø650
3 4NOS. 20 Ø1
100 C/C10 Ø @
5001570
600
RL.1279.972
TIE BEAM
2253030225 3.85213.923.4842522 53.62
13350
13350
13350
1400
6 10 Ø @ 150 c/c7 10 Ø @ 200 c/c
95020
0
150
5 10 Ø @ 150 c/c
700 4 6 NOS. 12 Ø
400 9066
77 90
10844
55 850
100
33 400
Grand Total for Grid CC,DD,EE & FF
901200 0.621.38 124.209010 77.004
81.18
Sub Total
1090 13.536(3*2)
4061.512
1015.378
50.330.62
60.6
599.40
81.39613.566108 612
10 111 5.4
400 20 15.154
72.280.888
371.630.62
149.3792.465
13350
Bar ShapeBar MarkS. No.
11 400 62.60
Total
(m)Length
(m)BarsDia (mm)
400 25 15.654
Length ofeach bar No. of
Remarks(kg/m) (kgs)
241.1353.852
WeightTotalUnit
Weight
3. Rebars should be thermex TMT having characteristic strength 500N/mm^2.
Japan International Cooperation Agency
The Study on the Solid Waste Management for the Kathmandu Valley
Figure A.2-5Foundation Details Grid CC,DD,EE & FFUnloading PLatform
RL. 1276.972
600 600600
3130
6506503000
2050
ONE LAYER FLAT BRICK SOLING
100 THICK PCC M15/40
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
3
100 C/C950 8 12 Ø @
100 C/C10 Ø @
23 4NOS. 20 Ø
100 C/C10 Ø @
100 C/C10 Ø @ 10 Ø @ 150 C/C
313015501100
1 4 NOS. 25 Ø
RL. 1279.972
TIE BEAM
15501570
2 6 NOS. 25 Ø
1 4 NOS. 25 Ø
TIE BEAM
650
13 4NOS. 20 Ø
100 C/C10 Ø @
5001570
2 6 NOS. 25 Ø
TIE BEAM
RL. 1279.972
88.59613950 108108
90
6 10 Ø @ 150 C/C7 10 Ø @ 200 C/C
95020
0
150
1800
700
5 10 Ø @ 150 C/C
4 6 NOS. 12 Ø
100
88400
850
1650400
77 90
66
13950 90
90
100
55
44
850
0.888
Grand Total for BB & GG
Sub Total
2412 129.605.40
2353.534
1176.767
115.085
0.888
0.62
0.62
0.6210 6
10 94
84.7814.13
176.721.88
10 108
12 6
583.205.4
14.766
52.564
109.566
361.584
78.673
400
400
Bar ShapeBar MarkS. No.
225303022522
40033
13950
40011 13950
Weight(kgs)
Weight(kg/m)(m)
Lengtheach bar Remarks(m)BarsDia (mm)
3.852
3.852
2.465
13.923.48425
420 6315.75
25 4 6516.25
53.62
155.295
250.38
UnitLength ofNo. of
Total Total
Figure A.2-6Foundation Details Grid BB & GGUnloading Platform
for the Kathmandu ValleyThe Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
RL. 1279.972
100 C/C
1910
12 Ø @
2300
12 Ø @
700
150 C/C
3
2000B
AC
KFILLE
D W
ITN S
UITA
BLE
MA
TER
IALS
BA
CK
FILL
ED
WIT
N S
UIT
AB
LE M
ATE
RIA
LS
2 4 NOS. 20 Ø100 THICK PCC M15/40
ONE LAYER FLAT BRICK SOLING
650
6250
10 Ø @100 C/C
10 Ø @10 Ø @ 150 C/C100 C/C
6501 4NOS. 25 Ø
500
RL. 1276.972
FLUSHING CONCRETE AS REQUIRED
RL. 1279.972650 RL. 1279.972
600
FLUSHING CONCRETE AS REQUIRED
2000
12 Ø
@ 1
30 C
/C
12 Ø @ 130 C/C70
0
150
600 0.88862.724.48141233 55.69510
0
54
4
58
16
16
Grand Total for Grid AA & Footing600 TIE BEAM 600
RL. 1279.972
TIE BEAM
5 10 Ø 150 C/C
12006 10 Ø @ 150 C/C
8 8
7 7
Sub Total
108 1850
108 1850
108 12
108 12
55
66
44
8510 9090 10
90 1050 1090
400
400 600
10
557.689
557.689
2.066 33.056
2.066 33.056
0.888 29.354
0.888 29.354
21.55134.768.69 0.62
71.341.23 44.2310.62
237.604.40 147.3120.62
Bars
4
4
No. of 4 10 Ø 150 C/C
700
Bar Mark
11
22
S. No.
8510 300 25300
120
8560300 225 300 20
Bar Shape Dia (mm)
UnitTotalLength of Total
Remarks
140.36736.449.11 3.852
36.449.11 89.8252.465
(m)(m)each bar Length
(kg/m) (kgs)Weight Weight
ONE LAYER FLAT BRICK SOLING
8 12 Ø @ 130 C/C7 12 Ø 130 C/C
RL. 1276.972
100 THICK PCC M15/40
3000
300
180
5.Lap length of column bars is 60*diameter of bars and is according to Earthquake code of Nepal.$.Minimum 3 nos.of stirrups are provided within isolated foundation.3.Rebars is thermex TMT having charecteristic strength 500 N/mm2.Concrete is of grade M25/20 having charecteristic strength 25 N/mm2.1.The minimum clear cover to any reinforcement is 75 mm.
to Earthquake code of Nepal.
NOTES:-
for the Kathmandu ValleyThe Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Figure A.2-7Foundation Details Grid AAUnloading Platform
S. No.
255
510
255
250
900
RL. 1279.972
100 C/C
3 10 Ø @
500
500
6
5
4
3
2
1
1.SAME AS DRAWING NO.7.
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
8 Ø
@ 1
00 C
/C
10 Ø @ 100 C/C10 Ø @ 100 C/C10 Ø @ 100 C/C10 Ø @ 100 C/C
2550
10 Ø @ 100 C/C
A B9
C NOTES:-
5200
10 Ø
@ 1
50 C
/C
10 10 Ø @ 150 C/C 9
8 Ø
@ 1
00 C
/C
65 7
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
8
10 Ø @ 100 C/C
D
743.744193.082*3 32.1827180 3.85225250 250
220
4
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
2600
10 Ø @
100 C/C
13002600
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
1300
4 10 Ø @
100 C/C
2 8Ø @ 150 C/C5 61300
100 C/C
10 Ø @
7
1 6 NOS.12 Ø
13002600
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
81300
10 Ø @
100 C/C
10 Ø @
100 C/C
33000
480
480
150 1509
225Extra4700
1808
180
2600
2600
98.634 1.5782.9016
4.9251225 3.85259.10
2.963020 88.80 2.465
2007
180
200
27720180
250
6 180
250
32920 180
2160
28.08
1.365948
420
807.84 0.395
112.32 2.465
2.66
33.28
25
4*320
2*2*3 31.92 3.852
399.36 2.465Grand Total
155.591
227.653
218.89
319.097
276.87
122.956
984.422
118
Sub Total
150 94000
220
150 16
1300
10 Ø @
100 C/C
7032.585
7032.585
94.30*3 1131.6 1.578 1785.665
No. of Bars
343
WeightLengtheach bar No. of Dia (mm)
560
180
2505 32920 250
100
4
Bar Mark Bar Shape
37.922*325 227.52 3.852
(m)
3.3666110
Bars
2220.96 0.62
(m) (kg/m)
Length of Total UnitWeight
876.407
7 10
S. No. Bar Mark
(235*2)+1911376.99
Remarks(kgs)
100
Bar Shape
10
Dia (mm)
Total
RemarksWeightLength Weighteach bar
1.04 356.72
(m) (m)
0.62 221.17
(kg/m) (kgs)
Length of Total Unit Total
Figure A.2-8ATypical Long FrameUnloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
8 Ø @ 150 C/C
4 LEGGED 10 Ø @ 100 C/C
8 2 Ø 25 + 2 Ø 20
650
450
3504 Ø 20
200
650
200
3506 4 Ø 20
450
200
200
5 6 Ø 25
4 LEGGED 10 Ø @ 150 C/C
8 Ø @ 150 C/C
200
650
3504 Ø 20
450
ONE LAYER FLAT BRICK SOLING 9 2 Ø 25 + 2 Ø 16
350
11 4 Ø 16
350
30010 10 Ø @ 150 C/C
4 Ø 20
450
650
200
4 LEGGED 10 Ø @ 150 C/C
8 Ø @ 150 C/C
Dia @100C/C4LEGGED 10 4
7 8 Ø @ 150 C/C
4 Ø 25
Figure A.2-8BTypical Long Frame Section DetailUnloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
637,
5
2550
6250
8 Ø
@ 1
00 C
/C
637,
5
RL. 1279.972
133 2
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
10 Ø
@ 1
50 C
/C
127515 15
14 1410 Ø @ 100 C/C
13
3 10 Ø @ 100 C/C
8 Ø
@ 1
00 C
/C
10 11
10 Ø @ 100 C/C10 Ø @ 100 C/C
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
12
1
RL. 1279.972
10 Ø @ 100 C/C
605.321383.644*7 1.57813.701611 11920
100 486.0481230.50 0.3955358 2.30033
340
14000
31303130
1 6 NOS.12 Ø
1560
2 8Ø @ 150 C/C
RL. 1283.172 500
100 C/C
4 10 Ø @ 10 Ø @ 150 C/C
10 11
250 15601560
RL. 1283.192
10 Ø @
100 C/C
12
100 C/C
10 Ø @ 10 Ø @ 150 C/C
341.644*613075160
25 14.23577
16088 11900
420
Sub total
25160 2*6
420
14.240 185.04
342055160
6 6 200200480 48
0
44 150 560
180
120.482*3*6 5.02025
1608 78*6 1.360 636.48
10210 342.723.360
3.852
3869.725
3.852 109.705
1315.997
464.0893.852
251.4090.395
212.4860.620
550 80
14 14
13 13
80
340
500
400
12 12 6200
85012900
1560
500
500
100 C/C
10 Ø @
RL. 1283.172
250
Grand Total for Grid CC,DD,EE & FF
Sub Total
16267.326
12397.601
53*21*2
53*21*2
8500
8
3.92 4362.96
3.92 4362.96
25 12*21
400
7.6 1915.20
1723.3690.395
1723.3690.395
7377.353.852
180
TotalLength of
120 7894211
12022 78942
80
Bar MarkS. No. Bar Shape
120 237.546312 79.182
120 312 243.22281.017
No. of BarsDia (mm) (m)(m)
each bar LengthTotalUnit
COVERS 210.9410.888
PLATFORM WHOLE
215.9810.888
Remarks(kgs)(kg/m)WeightWeight
180
100
31209 9
10 10 220
220
S. No. Bar Mark Bar Shape
TotalUnitLength of Total
83.522*2*6 3.4820 1
94*710 710.641.08
No. of BarsDia (mm)
25 2*2*6(m) (m)
3.48 83.52
each bar Length
205.8762.465
440.597.62
Remarks(kgs)(kg/m)321.7193.852
Weight Weight
Figure A.2-9ATypical Short FrameUnloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
4 LEGGED 10 Ø @ 150 C/C
6 8 Ø @ 150 C/C
7 4 NOS. 25 Ø
5 4 NOS. 25 Ø
4 LEGGED 10 Ø @ 100 C/C
9 2 NOS. 25 Ø + 3 NOS. 20 Ø
4 NOS. 25 Ø
8 Ø @ 150 C/C
8 mm Ø @ 150 c/c
4 NOS. 25 Ø
8 2 NOS. 25 Ø + 2 NOS. 20 Ø
4 LEGGED 10 mm Ø @ 150 c/c
11 4 NOS. 16 Ø
10 10 Ø @ 150 C/C
200
350
450
650
350
450
650
200
350
450
650
200
300
300
600
600
600
600
13 8 Ø @ 100 C/C
12 12 NOS. 25 Ø
14 8 Ø @ 150 C/C
12 NOS. 25 Ø
ONE LAYER FLAT BRICK SOLING
200
200
Figure A.2-9BTypical Short Frame Section DetailUnloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
500
3. Concrete should be of grade M25/20 having characteritic strength 25N/mm^2.
6. Lap length of bars of beams should be 60*diameter of bars. The position andlocation of laps should be according to Earthquake code of Nepal.
5. From seismic consideration hooks of stirrup should be 10*diameter of bars.
4. Rebars should be thermex TMT having characteristic strength 500N/mm^2.
2. Increased cover thickness of 50mm shall be provided for top bar.
1. The minimum clear cover to any reinforcement shall be 40mm.
NOTES:-
1
1716
26.74667.712 0.395468 1.47266 536
Grand Total for all secondary beams
Sub Total
536
2802.102
467.017
3130
Bar Shape
100
3 2253
5 5
200
4 4 225
22
1 1225
225
Bar MarkS. No.
43.05 3.852325225225 14.35
32
2
200200
400
12
2253120
25
1.40 44.80 0.888
3.57 7.14 3.852
2
No. of Bars
3225
225
13900
13900
25
25
Dia (mm)
3.58
14.35
3.8527.16
43.05 3.852
Lengtheach bar (m)
Length ofWeight
(m) (kg/m)
Total Unit
SCALE 1:502
18 3
165.830
39.780
27.500
27.580
165.829
RemarksWeight(kgs)
Total
12 Ø 100 C/C
1560
12 Ø 100 C/C
1560750
RL. 1283.172
SCALE 1:20
3130
12 Ø 150 C/C
1716
550
350
150
1 3 NOS.25 Ø 300
200
150
2 4 NOS.25 Ø
200
@ 100 C/CØ6 8
5 12 Ø @ 100 C/C
31301560
RL. 1283.192
12 Ø 100 C/C
18
12 Ø 150 C/C
SCALE 1:20
7501560
12 Ø 100 C/C
RL. 1283.172500
SCALE 1:20
200
350
550
300
350
550
3001 3 NOS.25 Ø
6 8
5 12 Ø @ 100 C/C
@ 100 C/C6 8 Ø
5 12 Ø @ 150 C/C
Ø @ 100 C/C
Figure A.2-10Short Secondary Beam Unloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
1. SAME AS SPECIFIED IN DRAWING NO.7
NOTES:-
A
19 20B
21
97.100245.824167536 53667 1.472 0.3958
2891.854
1445.927
Grand Total for Two Secondry beams
Sub Total
309.557
82.240
437.395
82.240
437.39532900
32900
2600
200
56
200
4 4
100
225
33 225
2 2
1 1
225 2600
225
*1400
200
12 249
225 25 7
348.601.40 0.888
21.353.05 3.852
225 325
225
225
25 7
25 3
113.5537.85 3.852
21.35
113.55
3.05
37.85
3.852
3.852
Bar ShapeBar MarkS. No.
SCALE 1:50 C
No. of Dia (mm) Bars (m)
TotalLengtheach bar
(m)
Length ofWeight(kg/m)
Unit
RemarksWeight(kgs)
Total
D
1 4 NOS.25 Ø
12 Ø @ 100 C/C
1300
200
200
550
12 Ø @ 100 C/C
1300
500
900
500
19
13002600
21
12 Ø @ 150 C/C
20
12 Ø @ 100 C/C
1 3 NOS.25 Ø
SCALE 1:20
300
150
150
&2
350
@ 100 C/CØ6 8
5 12 Ø @ 100 C/C
4 4 NOS. 25 Ø
200
550
550
1300130013002600
12 Ø @ 150 C/C 12 Ø @ 100 C/C
2600
12 Ø @ 150 C/C12 Ø @ 100 C/C 12 Ø @ 100 C/C
SCALE 1:20
300
350
SCALE 1:20
1 3 NOS.25 Ø 300
350
5 12 Ø @ 100 C/C
4 4 NOS. 25 Ø
5 12 Ø @ 150 C/C6 8 Ø @ 150 C/C
3 3 NOS. 25 Ø
6 8 Ø @ 150 C/C
Figure A.2-11Long Secondary Beam Unloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
33000
3793,63
S2
S1
2275
2424
2275
S1
S2
3793,63
3300033000
3793,63
S2
S1
2275
2424
2275
S1
S2
3793,63
33000
2 1
0 Ø
@ 2
60 C
/C2
10
Ø @
260
C/C
AA
725725
11
2275227522752275
350350350350 300300300300
S1S1S1S1
S2S2S2S2
22
22
5 1
0 Ø
@ 1
30 C
/C
5
10
Ø @
130
C/C
5 1
0 Ø
@ 1
30 C
/C
5
10
Ø @
130
C/C
S1S1S1S1
24242424
33
900 1406,37
2424
1406,371406,37
2424
1406,37900
1518
,33
1518
,33
1518
,33
1518
,33
2424
AA
6250
2825
2825
6250
6250
2825
2825
6250
2275
S2
S1S1
S2
22752275
S2
S1S1
S2
2275
BBBB CCCC DDDD EEEE
2275
S2
S1S1
S2
22752275
S2
S1S1
S2
227522752275227522752275227522752275
350350350350 300300300300
2275227522752275
350350350350 300300300300
23232323
4 10 Ø @ 260 C/C4 10 Ø @ 260 C/C4 10 Ø @ 260 C/C4 10 Ø @ 260 C/C
S1 S1S1S1S1 S1S1S1
S2S2S2S2 3 10 Ø @ 130 C/C
6 10 Ø @ 130 C/C6 10 Ø @ 130 C/C
3 10 Ø @ 130 C/C3 10 Ø @ 130 C/C
6 10 Ø @ 130 C/C6 10 Ø @ 130 C/C
3 10 Ø @ 130 C/C
S1S1S1S1
22752275227522752275227522752275
350350350350 300300300300
2275227522752275
350350350350 300300300300
S2
S1S1
S2S2
S1S1
S2S2S2S2S2
S1
RL. 1283.172RL. 1283.172
S1S1
RL. 1283.172RL. 1283.172
S1
S2S2S2S2
S1S1S1S1
FFFF GGGG
750
750
750
750
2800
2800
2800
2800
22752275227522752275227522752275
350350350350 300300300300
725725725725
350350350350
350
575
575
575
575
S2S2S2S2
S1S1S1S1
300
S2S2S2S2
S1S1S1S1
1111
5200
S1
S2S2
S1
52005200
S1
S2S2
S1
52005200
S1
S2
2323
S2
S1
52005200
S1
S2
2323
S2
S1
5200
25252525
S1S1S1S1
1 1
0 Ø
@ 1
30 C
/C
1
10
Ø @
130
C/C
1 1
0 Ø
@ 1
30 C
/C
1
10
Ø @
130
C/C
S1S1S1S1 S1S1S1S1
5200
S2S2
52005200
S2S2
5200
S2S2S2S2 S2S2S2S2
25252525
S1S1S1S1S1S1S1S1 S1S1S1S1
5200
S2S2
52005200
S2S2
5200
S2S2S2S2 S2S2S2S2
BBBB CCCC DDDD EEEE
750
6250
2800
2800
2800
2800
S1S1S1S1
2825
2825
2825
2825S1S1S1S1 22222222
300
5200520052005200
S2S2S2S2
575
575
575
575
350
S2S2S2S2
2222
3333
FFFF GGGG
Figure A.2-12ASlab Reinforcement Plan Unloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
300
2600260026002600 260026002600 2600900 2600 2600 2600 2600
3125
3 10 Ø @ 130 C/C3 10 Ø @ 130 C/C
3125
1
31253125750
500
200
4 EXTRA TOP BAR 10 Ø 260 C/C4 EXTRA TOP BAR 10 Ø 260 C/C
250250
322 3
3125312531253125 750750
6 10 Ø 260 C/C6 10 Ø 260 C/C
250250
A BB
2 EXTRA TOP BAR 10 Ø 260 C/C2 EXTRA TOP BAR 10 Ø 260 C/C
500
200
250
1 10 Ø @ 130 C/C1 10 Ø @ 130 C/C
1.SAME AS SPECIFIED IN DRAWING NO.7.1.SAME AS SPECIFIED IN DRAWING NO.7.
NOTES:-NOTES:-
44 1.6410 0.621406902703
90 648 1062.72 658.88658.881062.72 648902703
90 1406 0.6210 1.644 4
942.150
1294.54
11818.7411818.74
1294.54
942.150
CC DD
3 10 Ø 130 C/C3 10 Ø 130 C/C
6
55
6
55
6617191719
16001600
Grand Total 1182011820Grand Total
5 10 Ø 130 C/C5 10 Ø 130 C/C
1.719
1.601.60
1.7198841010 884
Sub TotalSub Total
1010 13081308
0.621519.601519.60 0.62
2092.802092.80 0.620.62
4542.99
3925.503925.50
4542.99
90902
1
33
1
222
33
11
17601760
14061406909027032703
156156
156156
11701170
9090
909019701970
156156
1.94
3.476
4.444.44
3.476
1.9410 37837810
10109090 14261426
10109090
21082108
0.62733.32 454.65454.65733.32 0.62
6331.446331.44 0.620.62
7327.4087327.408 0.620.62
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu ValleyFigure A.2-12BSlab Section Detail Unloading Platform
250
13
SCALE 1 : 5025
50
10 Ø @ 100 C/C
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
10 Ø @ 100 C/C
10 Ø @ 150 C/C
10 Ø @ 100 C/CRL. 1279.972
13
6250
1560
10 Ø @10 Ø @10 Ø 150 C/C
11 12
100 C/C 100 C/C
3130
111560
12 RL. 1283.192
10 Ø @10 Ø 150 C/C 500
100 C/C
15603130SCALE 1 : 20
500
SCALE 1 : 20
4 4 NOS. 20 Ø
4 4 NOS. 20 Ø
500
6 12 Ø @ 150 C/C
RL. 1289.172
3554
1560
10 Ø
@ 1
50 C
/C
1275
8 Ø
@ 1
00 C
/C
637,
5
1000
8 Ø
@ 1
00 C
/C
637,
5
10 Ø @ 100 C/C
RL. 1283.172
600
1 16 NOS. 25 Ø
SCALE 1 : 20
2 8 Ø @ 150 C/C
26
600
500 3554 V.G.
10 Ø @ 100 C/C
10 Ø @
10
100 C/C
10
1000
26
2827
500
50027
28
V.G.
RL. 1279.972
500
0.395 55.4261.9243 1.44850035023
1900.00Grand Total for Grid B & G
3 6 NOS. 25 Ø
5 4 NOS. 12 Ø8
7
6 12 Ø @ 150 C/C
6
5
4
20412041
Sub Total
250
900
6 250
6 120
120265 12
12
948.19
46 1.27
54 2.54
0.88858.42 51.87
0.888137.16 121.80
1801803653
5
43653
12
20
64403
225 25
3500
140
4 4.082
4 7.666
0.88816.328 14.50
2.46530.664 75.59
12 10.165 3.852 469.86121.98VERTICAL
Weight
1
3 6 NOS. 25 Ø 2
S. No.
Unit TotalTotalLength of
Dia (mm)
2545064401
350802 8
80
Bar ShapeBar Mark
3.852 106.1627.564 6.89
134.1643 3.12 0.395 52.99
LengthBars (m)
No. of each bar (kgs)(kg/m)(m)
Weight
DRG. NO.11A,16A
Remarks
Figure A.2-13Frame BB & GG Unloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
600
V.G.
1. DIAMETER OF PIPE INDICATES FOR NOMINAL BORE.
2. YIELD STRENGTH OF STRUCTURAL STEEL TUBE SHOULD BE 300M PA.
3. BOLTS USED FOR CONECTION OF JOINT OF VIERENDEEL GIRDERS SHOULDBE
NOTES:-
HIGH STRENGTH FRICTION GRIP BOLT.
MAIN PURLIN 65 mm Ø (H)
VIERENDEEL GIRDERS
SECONDARY PURLIN 32 mm Ø (H)
BOTTOM TIE 25 mm Ø (M)
Figure A.2-14Isometric View of Vierendeel GirderUnloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
4th Joint
00
10mm THICK MS PLATE
0.1% SLOPE0.1% SLOPE
35353765
10mm THICK MS PLATE
20 Ø HOLE FOR BOLT
100mm Ø (H) TUBE (CONTINEOUS)
32 Ø (H)65 Ø (H)
O2 O2
1090
1000
26000
7800520052007800
250250 2600260026002600260026002600260026002600
3rd Joint2nd Joint
Ist J
oint
2NOS. 125 Ø (H)
O1 O10 0 X X2 Nos. 100 Ø(H)
Figure A.2-15AVierendeel Girder Detail Unloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
(CONTINEOUS)
(VERTICAL)
2NOS.100Ø (H) TUBE (CONTINEOUS)
CONTINEOUS)
10mm THICK MS PlLATE AT BOTTOM (145*250)
2NOS.100Ø (H) TUBE
10mm THICK MS PLATE.
CANTILEVER BEAM
500
500
TO
100
0
2 NOS. 125 Ø(H) TUBE (VERTICAL)
1 NOS. 25mm Ø (H) TUBE (CONTINEOUS)
145
110
145
250
2NOS.125Ø (H) TUBE VERTICAL
2 NOS. 125 Ø(H) TUBE10mm THICK MS PLATE.
2NOS.100Ø (H) TUBE (CONTINEOUS)
110
65Ø (H) TUBE (CONTINEOUS)
32Ø (H) TUBE (CONTINEOUS)
25Ø (H) TUBE (CONTINEOUS)
2NOS.100Ø (H) TUBE
10mm THICK MS PLATE.
2 NOS. 125 Ø(H) TUBE (VERTICAL)
4 NOS. 20 Ø BOLTS
500*400*12mm
50 200
BASE PLATE
(CONTINEOUS)
500*420*12mm BASE PLATE
4 NOS. 20 Ø BOLTS
2 NOS.100 Ø (H) TUBE
2 NOS.125 Ø (H) TUBE (VIRTICAL)
Y
Y
445
200 5020050
500
250
5060
6050
4 NOS. 65 Ø (H) TUBE
10mm THICK MS PLATE (225*224)
225
65 72 35
657235
BO
LT Ø
+2m
m
100
41.5 mm
50
20 Ø BOLTS
R=11mm
2NOS.100Ø (H)TUBE
10mm THICK MS PLATE
Figure A.2-15BVierendeel Girder Detail Unloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
5.THE SIDE LAP TO BE PROVIDED FOR C.G.I. SHEET SHALL BE MINIMUM TWO CORRUGATIONS.
4. THE END LAP FOR C.G.I. SHEET TO BE PROVIDED SHALL BE 150MM.
3. BOLTS USED FOR CONECTION OF JOINT OF VIERENDEEL GIRDERS SHOULDBE
2. YIELD STRENGTH OF STRUCTURAL STEEL TUBE SHOULD BE 300M PA.
NOT TO SCALE
20 GAUGE PLANE SHEET
NOT TO SCALE
32300
20 GAUGE PLANE SHEET
COLORED 24 GAUGE CGI SHEET.
150
EDGE LAP
MAXIMUM TWO CORRUGATION - SIDE LAP
3554
3554
25mm Ø (M)
VIERENDEEL GIRDERS
VIERENDEEL GIRDERS
1186
1184
1000
VIERENDEEL GIRDERS
1184
MAIN PURLIN 65mm Ø (H)
SECONDARY PURLIN 32mm Ø (H)
COLORED 24 GAUGE CGI SHEET.
GUTTER WIDTH=300mm20 GAUGE PLANE SHEET
Figure A.2-16Roofing Detail Unloading Platform
The Study on the Solid Waste Management
Japan International Cooperation Agency
for the Kathmandu Valley
top related