Food Waste Management - Colombo - FAO
Food Waste Management - Colombo - FAO
Food Waste Management - Colombo - FAO
Policy brief
Background
About 60% of Sri Lanka’s municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated in its Western Province where
the Colombo District contributes half (2100 t/day) and within the district the Colombo Municipal
Council (CMC) 700 t/day or 10% of the national total. These 700 t are produced on just 37 square
kilometers by a population of about 550,000 (2012). This is about 2.6% of the national population
(or 15% of the national urban population) on less than 1% of the country’s land area.
To cope with this load, CMC is working with three private companies (Abans, Carekleen and Burns)
to share the responsibility across the city where almost all waste is collected. Among all districts
of Sri Lanka, Colombo district accounts for the highest proportion of households relying on local
authorities and the private sector for solid waste (68%; Figure 1). At the national level, only 20% of
households rely on such support, while nearly half (47%) burn their waste. Another 23% dispose it
within (or outside) their premises, while about 8 % resort to backyard composting of the organic
waste fraction.
While within CMC the collection rate is in general keeping pace with waste generation, only 75% of
generated waste gets collected in the larger Colombo district. But also within CMC, collection can
show significant temporal variation, for example, due to heavy rainfall and inaccessible landfills
resulting of piles of trash in the streets.
Accelerated by the collapse of the CMC-managed Meethotamulla landfill in the Colombo district,
which resulted on 14th of April 2017 in the destruction of over 140 homes and 30 deaths, MSW
management has become one of the most discussed and complex challenges in Colombo.
Proposed solutions focus largely on safe disposal, but also resource recovery and reuse (RRR) as
63% of the waste consists of compostable organic (food) residues. Although the Meethotamulla
dumpsite has been closed, alternative locations in proximity remain hard to find. Interim solutions
like close to the wetland sanctuary of the Muthurajawela marsh received Cabinet approval but are
certainly far from desirable given that the location is known for its unique and diverse ecosystem.
In short: Alternative locations for landfills are hard to find and there is an urgent need to discuss
ways to reduce, recycle, recover and reuse in particular the large fraction of organic (food) waste.
Present place of dumping adjacent to an internationally recognized wetland within the CMC area [Source: ©FAO,IWMI,RUAF (Unpublished)]
Context
There are a myriad of institutions concerned with waste management at different stages, including
the Ministry of Local Government and Provincial Councils, Ministry of Mahaweli Development and
Environment, the Urban Development Authority under the Ministry of Megapolis and Western
Development, the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) as regulatory body, the National Solid
Waste Management Support Centre, Western Province Waste Management Authority, and the
Local Authorities.
However, authorities are still struggling with the enforcement of the new legislation, especially at
household level. The strategy to leave unsorted waste behind might lead to public health hazards
or environmental pollution as households start dumping their uncollected waste elsewhere.
There is an increasing call for fines, taxes on shopping bags and refund on all types of bottles,
plastic and glass. Given the complexity of the institutional landscape, leadership is needed, as
otherwise the burden of implementation remains at the lowest and often weakest end of the
chain, i.e. with the local authorities as per the Local Authority Act. The institutional challenge is
however larger. There appear to be work redundancies, passing of responsibility, unclear resource
allocation for multiple institutions, limited direct customer contact and as a result a high degree
of public dissatisfaction.
Recommendations
Streamline the MSW sector with an empowered umbrella body that coordinates integrating
and implementing MSW management:
• Reason: Vertical and horizontal complexity of the institutional landscape; implementation
of regulations detached from their management.
• Action: Coordinating body to be appointed
• Outcome: Higher degree of overall efficiency, cost savings, higher customer satisfaction
Create an enabling investment climate for private sector engagement in RRR:
• Reason: RRR businesses are relatively new to Sri Lanka and there could be further financial
and regulatory incentives like the existing tax exceptions for the import of renewable energy
equipment.
• Action: Introduce financial schemes to attract and incentivize local entrepreneurs to
enter RRR businesses, discourage food wastage in the retail sector, and support waste
valorization processes.
• Outcome: Reducing waste management volumes while creating value added resource
recovery products.
Create an enabling environment at household level:
• Reason: Currently CMC is attempting to adopt source separation for household and
institutional waste but buy-in is limited.
• Action: CMC to improve on customer communication and awareness creation, support a
refund for bottles, fines for non-source-separating entities, and a price for plastic shopping
bags.
• Outcome: Household buy-in; further reduced organic waste load.
Link food waste generator and potential user:
• Reason: There is demand for food waste as animal feed, but the link between waste source
and the potential user (what, where, when) is missing.
• Action: CMC can be the moderator (e.g. low-cost web-based platform/phone app) for
facilitating direct producer-user linkages.
• Outcome: Further waste reduction and transport savings for CMC, and quality feed for the
local livestock industry.
Introduce by-laws to encourage food waste reduction in canteens and catering:
• Reason: High percentage of food waste is generated by institutional canteens, in food
courts and through event catering.
• Action: Extend source segregation to all businesses, canteens of private and public
schools, hospitals, food courts, etc. by (a) capacity development in food waste reduction,
(b) providing incentives (e.g. school ranking to create peer-pressure) and/or penalties; and
(c) infrastructure support in public markets to keep food fresh.
• Outcome: Less food waste and lower pollution; environmental education.