Janis Bernstein ECSSD - World Banksiteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387... · Janis Bernstein ECSSD UZBEKISTAN SOLID WASTE CONDITIONS IN TASHKENT - 1997

1

SOCIAL ASSESSMENT IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Janis BernsteinECSSD

UZBEKISTAN SOLID WASTE CONDITIONS IN TASHKENT - 1997

2

UZBEKISTANSOLID WASTE CONDITIONS -1997

UZBEKISTANSOLID WASTE CONDITIONS IN TASHKENT - 1997

3



4


UZBEKISTANSOCIAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS - 1997

Figure 5. First Priority Environmental Problem

Most Important Problems

* - inc luding t raf f ic and conges t ion;no ise ; and hazardous was te

HouseholdResponses

28

95 6

45

7

05

1015

202530354045

HouseholdResponses

Air Pollution

Unsafe DrinkingWater

Insufficient WaterSupply

InadequateSanitation

Inadequate MSWM

Other*

N u m b e r s I n d i c a t e P e r c e n t a g e s

5


Figure 8. Household Satisfaction with Solid Waste Service

Reasons forDissatisfaction

Most Important Factors

H o u s e h o l dR e s p o n s e s

4742

21

30 31

3

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

H o u s e h o l dR e s p o n s e s

I n f r e q u e n tC o l l e c t i o n

IrregularC o l l e c t i o n

L o c a t i o n o fC o n t a i n e r

W a s t e L e f t o nG r o u n d A f t e rC o l l e c t i o n

U n s a n i t a r yCondi t ions a tC o n t a i n e r

Other

Numbers Indica te Percentages

3 4 %

6 6 %

Sat is f ied Not Satisfied


Figure 9. Willingness to Pay 15 Sums

HouseholdResponses

61

33

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

HouseholdResponses

Lack ofTrustNo Money

Other

Numbers Indicate Percentages

Reasons forUnwillingness

70%

30%

Yes No

Most Important Factors

6

SOCIAL ASSESSMENT IN MSWM

Ø NEED FOR SOCIAL ASSESSMENT IN MSWMINVESTMENTS

Ø WHAT IS SOCIAL ASSESSMENT?

Ø SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES IN MSWM

NEED FOR SOCIAL ASSESSMENT IN MSWM INVESTMENTS

Ø Planning effective and sustainable MSWM investments requires an understanding of the needs and preferences of a wide range of stakeholders regarding service delivery, costs, and corresponding social impacts.

Ø The specific local and country context defines the MSWM needs of a society and the extent to which users identify with, take ownership of, and contribute either in cash or in-kind to its systems and facilities.

Ø Stakeholders should provide feedback on issues related to the provision, use, location, and design of solid waste facilities as well as level of service, service provider, related local institutions, willingness and ability to pay increased tariffs, and means for tariff collection.

Ø Those managing the system should ensure that investments address users’ objectives, needs, and expectations.

7

NEED FOR SOCIAL ASSESSMENT IN MSWM INVESTMENTS

Ø SA establishes a framework for public participation appropriate to local conditions to help reach consensus on many aspects of MSWM, including proposed facility sites.

Ø The SA can help identify social monitoring indicators and participatory procedures to assess the social impacts of MSWM investments.

WHAT IS SOCIAL ASSESSMENT?

Ø SA is a type of analysis undertaken by the Borrower as part of project design to assess the social feasibility of an investmentproject.

Ø SA “is made up of analytical, process, and operational elements, combining:

(a) Analysis of context and social issues, along with

(b) Participatory process of stakeholder consultations and involvement, to provide

(c) Operational guidance on developing a project design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation framework”

[Social Analysis Sourcebook, World Bank, 2003]

8

WHAT IS SOCIAL ASSESSMENT

Ø Within the context of a World Bank project, social analysis is the responsibility of the task team. If data are not sufficient for carrying out the analysis, the Borrower will be asked to carry out an SA.

Ø SA is the responsibility of the Borrower and an important instrument for obtaining data necessary for adequate social analysis for an investment, and for monitoring implementation progress.

Ø The Borrower usually will hire a team of local social scientists and ensures that the results of SA activities inform and refine subsequent activities and contribute to an overall understanding of the roles and priorities of different stakeholders.

WHAT IS SOCIAL ASSESSMENT

Quantitative and Qualitative Methods and Tools

Ø Collection and review of secondary data

Ø Household surveys

Ø Socio-economic surveys

Ø Semi-structured interviews

Ø Focus group discussions

Ø Willingness-to-pay surveys

Ø Service monitoring survey

Ø Participant observation

Ø Participatory stakeholder workshops

9

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES IN MSWM

Five Points of Social Inquiry

Ø StakeholdersØ Social Diversity and GenderØ Institutions, Rules, and BehaviorØ Public ParticipationØ Social Risks

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: Stakeholders

Ø Who are the main stakeholders in the MSWM system? Which individuals and groups need to be involved and how?

Ø What are the relationships between stakeholders and what are possible sources and consequences of conflicting interests among them.

Ø What may prevent stakeholders from fulfilling their responsibilities in managing waste responsibly?

Ø Whose capacity needs to be built to enable them to participate?

10


Ø Local Level: municipal authorities, solid waste agency, politicians

Ø User Groups: residential (all types), commercial, institutional, industrial, medical facilities

Ø Waste Workers: employees of MSWM service, waste pickers, municipal sweepers, private sweepers, domestic workers, janitors

Ø National Level: relevant Ministries (Public Works, Local Government, Public Health, Finance, Environment)

Ø Vulnerable Groups: residents living near waste facility sites, women or children responsible for disposing of household waste, waste pickers

Ø Waste Recycling Industry: regional industries, city level main dealers, neighborhood dealers, hawkers

Ø NGOs: local environmental groups, church groups, youth groups

Ø CBOs: local groups responsible for managing neighborhood services

Ø Private Sector: private enterprises that use recyclables, private waste collection firms, chambers of commerce

Ø Other Stakeholders: trade associations having an interest in any aspect of MSWM; media; educational institutions


User Preferences, Needs, and Perceptions

Ø What aspect of the existing MSWM system bothers users the most?

Ø Are service users currently satisfied with their existing solid waste collection points?

Ø Where do households and other stakeholders prefer to take their garbage to be collected? How far will they walk to their preferred collection point?

11

Typical Multi-Story Apartment Buildings in Tashkent

Secured Collection Point in Tashkent - 2003

12


13


SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: Social Diversity and Gender

Poverty

Ø Are there any social groups consistently excluded from the formal solid waste service?

Ø Will the poorer neighborhoods be adversely affected by or excluded from the new or improved services?

Ø What is the nature and extent of informal solid waste picking?

Ø How will the investment affect waste pickers?

14


Ø Waste pickers are often among the poorest of the poor. They are vulnerable because they have few assets and few alternative livelihood options if their earnings from waste picking are threatened.

Ø The majority are independent and self-employed, so they have no social security or organizational support to help them through difficult times.

Ø Waste pickers may be of any age. Many children scavenge to supplement the family income. Others are abandoned and are simply trying to survive. Many older people also scavenge. In many countries, more women scavenge than men. Often they are single mothers, who bring their children to work with them.


Ø Changes in collection and disposal practices of solid waste management systems can profoundly affect waste pickers and their livelihoods

Ø Programs can be developed for improving the income, working and living conditions, and providing access to social services.

Ø Doing this effectively requires a full understanding of the situation of waste pickers, their motivations for doing this work, their occupational and living conditions, and the organizational framework within which they work and live.

15

INFORMAL WASTE PICKING IN TASHKENT - 1997

ORGANIZED WASTE PICKERS IN TASHKENT - 2002

16

ORGANIZED WASTE PICKERS IN TASHKENT - 2003

ORGANIZED WASTE PICKERS IN TASHKENT 2003

17

RECYCLING CENTER NEAR MAIN LANDFILL

RECYCLING CENTER NEAR MAIN LANDFILL

18


Willingness and Ability to Pay

Ø What is the current tariff and payment levels?

Ø What tariff level is needed to justify investment? Are beneficiaries willing and able to pay this amount?

Ø Are users willing to pay more to maintain current service level?

Ø What measures will be taken to ensure that the poor are subsidized? Would population be willing to pay in kind?

19


Gender, Age, Ethnicity

Ø If women are responsible for household waste disposal, will their role in carrying household waste to bins placed in public places be hindered in cultural settings where women’s presence in public is discouraged?

Ø Are there any political or ethnic issues associated with sharing a waste disposal site?

Ø What role do children play in the MSWM system?

NON-SECURED COLLECTION POINT IN TASHKENT

20

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: Institutions, Rules, and Behavior

Ø What are current waste generating practices of households; formal and informal industries; commercial enterprises; and institutions?

Ø Are service users aware of the need to manage solid waste better? How do they perceive and interact with their MSWM authorities?

Ø If the government is not providing an effective service, to whom do consumers turn for help?

Ø Does the municipal agency provide information and respond to complaints?

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: SOCIAL RISKS

Health Risks

Ø Refuse collection workers and waste pickers are directly exposed to excreta-related pathogens and intestinal parasites when they handle contaminated refuse. Indirect health effects result from the breeding of flies, rats, and other disease vectors at dump sites, open garbage heaps, and waste-filled drains.

Ø Those living close to dump sites would also have additional risks associated with exposure to toxic substances or hazardous materials that may enter the MSW stream.

Ø Municipal workers also are affected by high rates of worker illness and absenteeism due to poor hygienic conditions and the proliferation of disease carrying pests at open dumps.

21

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: Social Risks

NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) Syndrome

Ø How is the public included into the site selection and planning processes?

Ø Will the public be consulted in all facility siting decisions?

Ø Do local EA regulations require adequate public participation?

TRANSFER STATION IN TASHKENT

22



23

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: Social Risks

The World Bank’s safeguard policies are effective vehicles foridentifying and addressing three significant social risks:

Ø OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement. Triggered in cases involving involuntary taking or expropriation of land for purpose of siting a solid waste facility.

Ø OP/BP 4. 10 - Indigenous Peoples. Triggered in the event the Borrower and the Bank determines that indigenous peoples are present in, or have collective attachment to the proposed solid waste facility site. This can be a free-standing assessment or part of a broader environmental assessment process.

Ø OP/BP 4.11- Physical Cultural Resources. Triggered if the Borrower or the Bank identifies potential impacts on physical cultural resources during baseline data collection phase of EA.

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: PARTICIPATION

The SA incorporates two types of participation: participation of poor andvulnerable groups, and participation of the broader group of stakeholdersin planning service levels; siting facilities; and/or introducing new technical,financial, or institutional aspects.

Ø What means are currently available to involve broad stakeholder participation in planning, implementing, or monitoring investments?

Ø What kind of waste related information is currently provided or needed by the public? What kind of public education is needed?

Ø Is the public’s role one of passive recipients of information, or are they able to play a more active and consultative role in designing their community’s MSWM system?

Ø How will the results of participatory activities be incorporated into project design and implementation.

24

SOCIAL IMPACT MONITORING

Ø MSWM investments often are justified on the basis of their meeting people’s needs; improving the living conditions of poorer communities and the working conditions of waste management workers; and improving incomes by encouraging re-use, waste reduction, and re-cycling.

Ø Social impact monitoring provides critical information on results on the ground, and shows whether planned outcomes are met, and if necessary, identifies measures needed to achieve them.

TASHKENT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SA CONTRIBUTIONS

Ø Demonstrated to Mayor that the public viewed MSWM as a priority and would pay more

Ø Allowed project preparation to proceedØ Influenced technical specifications of binsØ Influenced design of collection pointsØ Influenced location of transfer stationØ Influenced closure of one in-city landfillØ Increased awareness of waste picker issuesØ Contributed to successful project

implementation

25

WORLD BANK RESOURCES

Ø Toolkit: Social Assessment and Public Participation in MSWM (2004)http://www.worldbank.org/urban/uswm/socialassesstoolkit.pdf

Ø Social Analysis Sourcebook, World Bank (2003)

Documents

Janis Bernstein ECSSD - World Banksiteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387... · Janis Bernstein ECSSD UZBEKISTAN SOLID WASTE CONDITIONS IN TASHKENT - 1997