Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Waste Management Technologies in
Regions, Georgia
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management
Strategies For the Adjara Autonomous Republic and
Kakheti Region of Georgia
March 14, 2016
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development. It was prepared by ICMA and CENN.
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
USAID Cooperative Agreement AID-114-LA-14-00001
Prepared for:
Mission Environmental Office
Economic Growth Office
USAID | Caucasus
Prepared by:
International City/County Management Association
777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002-4201
Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN)
27, Betlemi str., 0105, Tbilisi, Georgia
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the
United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Executive Summary
Georgia has embarked on an ambitious structural reform to modernize its waste management
system. This transition is supported by an association agreement signed with the European Union,
and a new waste management code providing the legal framework for waste prevention, reduction,
reuse, recycling, and the safe disposal of solid waste.
This report conducts an economic evaluation of alternative waste management options for the
Adjara Autonomous Republic (AR) and the Kakheti region in light of the evolving waste management
system. The goal is to inform policymakers about the economic potential of alternative waste
management strategies; to highlight issues about system integration and stakeholder impacts; and to
suggest a strategy for mobilizing international support for financing recycling and composting
alternatives that reduce methane and CO2 emissions, providing global benefits.
The study considers a number of waste management options. It evaluates the cost of waste disposal
at landfills, the benefits and costs of operating landfill-based materials recovery facilities, the netbenefits of source separation and recycling programs, and the benefits and costs of composting
systems. The analysis is unique in its monetization of the economic value of reducing methane
emissions through local composting programs.
The key findings are summarized in table below, and elaborated as follows:

The total social costs of conventional solid waste disposal in the Adjara AR and the Kakheti
region are quite high, when considering the cost of waste collection and transport, disposal
costs at sanitary landfills, and the social cost of methane emissions -- even with relatively
efficient landfill gas recovery systems. The median social cost of landfilling in the Adjara AR is
about $84 per ton when local costs are converted using a nominal exchange rate, and about
$169 per ton when a purchasing power parity (ppp) index is used to make the conversion.
The corresponding figures for the Kakheti region are about $49 per ton and $75 per ton.
These costs, in particular those for the Adjara AR, are as high or higher than those in some
regions in the United States and Europe.

The incremental costs of operating a landfill-based materials recovery facility (MRF) relative
to landfill disposal is about $3.5 per ton. The value of recovered materials and reduced CO2
emissions will cover this cost under most scenarios considered. The materials recovery
efficiency, the price of commodities, and the mix of materials entering the MRF are the key
parameters influencing the incremental net value of operating a landfill-based materials
recovery facility.

Source separation and recycling programs can also provide net economic benefits relative to
conventional solid waste disposal. These programs will raise collection and transport costs
on net by approximately the total social cost of solid waste disposal (left side of table), but
will also provide value in recovered material and reduced CO2 emissions (not shown in table
below but summarized here). For the reference year considered, the price of glass varies
between about $30 per ton for green to $54 per ton for clear; paper prices vary from about
$57 per ton for mixed grades to $100 per ton for office paper; and plastics vary from about
$128 per ton for colored polyethylene terephthalate (PET) to $671 per ton for high-density
polyethylene (HDPE). Aluminum is valued at $1154 per ton. The value of reducing life-cycle
CO2 emissions also varies by the material recycled, from about $2 per ton for glass, to $14
per ton as an average for different grades of paper and cardboard, to $36 per ton as an
1
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
average for plastics, and to $131 per ton for aluminum. Putting it all together, the benefits of
source separation and recycling in the Adjara AR outweigh the incremental handling costs for
all materials but brown glass, green glass, and mixed glass when the local costs of the
programs are converted using nominal exchange rates, and for aluminum cans and most
plastics when local costs are represented using PPP exchange rates. In the Kakheti region,
source separation and recycling gives positive net social value for all materials but mixed
glass when local costs are converted using a nominal exchange rate, and for all materials but
green glass and mixed glass when local costs are measured using the PPP index.

The benefits of local composting include cost savings from avoided waste haulage, landfill
disposal cost savings, the value of reduced methane emissions, improvements in the
operational efficiency of materials recovery facilities, and the value of the produced
compost. The median benefit of compost from the Adjara AR is about $72 per ton using
nominal exchange rates, and $98 using a PPP index. For the Kakheti region, the comparable
figures are about $61 and $68 per ton. The magnitude of these benefits should cover the
costs of the collection and production processes that give rise to them.
Issues facing policymakers include how to finance the emerging new waste management system,
which is relatively costly, but generates economic value on net; how to balance competing
stakeholder interests; and how to integrate the various parts of the system – the evolving
transportation system, new alternatives such as local recycling and composting, and the use of MRFs
at sanitary landfills. The fact that composting produces a high-valued global public good suggests the
desirability of mobilizing international financial assistance to support the new waste management
system.
The analysis in this report is relatively generic. To provide more information, pilot programs could be
conducted to clarify which program designs maximize net value in what contexts. Data could be
collected on performance and economic cost, as well as stakeholder impacts. Pilot programs could
also assess the impact of alternative fee structures on stakeholder incentives and program revenues.
2
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Summary of Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara Autonomous Republic and Kakheti Region of Georgia
Region
Total Social Cost of
Collection, Transport,
and Disposal of
Municipal Solid Waste,
2015 USD, using
nominal exchange rate
Incremental
cost per ton
from using MRF
(USD, 5%
discount rate)
Value Recovered at
MRFs Per Ton of Waste
Throughput (20%
recovery efficiency,
USD)
Low Price
High Price
Social Value (Benefit) of
Averted CO2 Emissions and
Recyclables Value Per Ton of
Mixed-Waste Processed
(20% recovery efficiency,
USD)
Low Price
High Price
Adjara AR
Batumi
82.9
Kobuleti
75.3
4.32
31.4
5.72
32.89
Khulo
67.9
Khelvachauri
88.5
Shuakhevi
111.7
Kakheti Region
Akmeta
49.1
3.5
Gurjaani
47.1
Dedoplistskaro
46.7
City of Telavi
37.6
3.85
27.86
5.00
29.25
Telavi
50.5
Lagodekhi
60.5
Sagarejo
52.8
Signagi
55.7
Kvareli
44.5
* Assuming 10% mass compaction from composting; Assuming 10% compaction; for year 2020; discounted at 5% to 2015
Benefits Generated Per
Ton of Compost, 2015
USD, using nominal
exchange rate*
Adjara AR
60.8
64.5
110.4
63.1
98.6
Kakheti Region
67.9
63.4
60.8
56.5
66.9
60.6
56.5
67.9
60.3
1
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4
2.
Waste Management in the Adjara Autonomous Republic and Kakheti Region ................... 5
2.1
Adjara Autonomous Republic........................................................................................... 6
2.2
Kakheti Region ................................................................................................................ 7
3.
Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste Collection, Removal, and Landfilling.......................... 8
3.1
The Costs of Landfilling Municipal Solid Waste ................................................................. 8
3.2
The Social Cost of Methane Emissions ............................................................................ 10
3.3
The Cost of Waste Collection and Removal ..................................................................... 11
3.4
The Total Cost of Solid Waste Disposal ........................................................................... 13
4.
Economic Evaluation of Source Separation and Recycling ............................................... 14
4.1
Source Separation at Materials Recovery Facilities ......................................................... 15
4.2
The Social Value of Reducing CO2 Emissions through Recycling ....................................... 16
4.3
Decentralized Source Separation and Recycling .............................................................. 18
4.4
Organic Waste Diversion and Composting ...................................................................... 20
5.
Policy Issues .................................................................................................................. 22
5.1
Economic Evaluation Issues............................................................................................ 23
5.2
Stakeholder Effects ........................................................................................................ 24
6.
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 24
Tables
..................................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix: Data For Value And GHG Emissions Savings For Recovered Recyclables .......................... 55
References .................................................................................................................................... 57
1
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Glossary of Waste Management Terms
Alternative Daily Cover (ADC): Material, other than soil, applied to the surface of a landfill at the end
of daily operating hours, to prevent or mitigate damage or disruption by wind and animals, reduce
fire risk, and control odors.
Anaerobic Digestion: Conversion of complex organic compounds into simpler compounds, especially
gases such as methane and carbon dioxide, in the absence of oxygen.
Co-mingled Recycling: Recyclable materials that are collected together, or a recycling system that
uses such a collection method.
Composting: Controlled aerobic decomposition of organic wastes to produce nutrient-rich materials,
typically for agricultural use.
Dual-Stream Recycling: A recycling system where materials are collected in two separate
categories—usually separating paper/fibers from other recyclables, which remain co-mingled.
Dry Waste: Waste that will not readily decompose on its own, due to low water content; includes
paper and fibers, but not other organic materials, as well as metals, glass, and plastics.
Gasification: In waste management, rapid pyrolysis of waste to produce landfill gas; often uses
plasma torch as a heating source.
Landfill Airspace: The volume of space at a landfill that is available for waste disposal, as specified by
the landfill’s design and permit.
Landfill Cell: Operational unit within a landfill; new cells become operational once the airspace in
existing cells is exhausted.
Landfill Gas (LFG): Mainly methane and carbon dioxide emissions that are produced from the
anaerobic decomposition of organic wastes in a landfill.
Landfill Gas (LFG) Capture: The collection of landfill gas for flaring or use in heating or power
generation.
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF): A plant which takes mixed wastes, co-mingled recyclables, or
dual-stream recyclables, separates them by waste/recyclable type, and processes them into reusable
materials by methods other than composting.
Non-Methane Organic Compounds (NMOC): Organic gases besides methane or CO2, typically present
in trace amounts in landfill gas and potentially including hazardous air pollutants or smog precursors.
Organic Waste: Waste with high carbon content, originating directly from living sources, and
produced by domestic or industrial activities.
Plastics: synthetic resins in the form of long-chain polymers usually derived from petroleum,
Plastic Resin Types:
#1 PET - Polyethylene Terephthalate
#2 HDPE - High-density Polyethylene
2
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
#3 Vinyl
#4 LDPE - Low-density Polyethylene
#5 PP - Polypropylene
#6 PS - Polystyrene
#7 Other - Mixed Plastics
Post-Consumer Waste: Waste originating directly from consumer goods, collected from domestic or
commercial sources, e.g., empty containers or waste paper.
Pre-Consumer Waste: Waste originating from industrial processes that has not been directly used by
consumers, e.g., by-products or excess material from production activity.
Pyrolysis: The chemical decomposition of complex organic compounds using the application of heat,
by processes other than combustion.
Single-Stream Recycling: A recycling system where all recyclable materials, including paper/fibers,
are co-mingled and collected together.
Source Separation: The practice of separating different waste or recyclable categories, as they are
generated, by households or firms.
Tipping Fee: A fee paid in exchange for the right to deliver a certain amount of waste to a landfill or
MRF.
Wet Waste: Organic waste with significant water content, which decomposes readily and is suitable
for composting but not recycling.
Windrow: In waste management, a long, narrow, relatively low pile of organic waste or compost.
3
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
1. Introduction
Municipal solid waste management in Georgia is beginning an important transitional period of
structural modernization. Current problems include inadequate waste collection service, especially in
rural areas; the absence of fee systems for waste collection in all but larger cities; inefficient routings
for waste transportation; and the disposal of municipal wastes into landfills and dumps that do not
meet international standards (SAO 2015). Source reduction and recycling of post-consumer wastes is
not widely practiced in the country.
To tackle these problems, Georgia has embarked on ambitious program of capacity building and new
investment to promote the development of an integrated waste management system. This sectoral
reform will bring to a close all of the old landfills and uncontrolled dump sites in the country, and
replace them with regional sanitary landfills meeting international standards. Existing old landfills
that do not pose a serious risk to the environment and human health and can be brought in
compliance with the Technical Regulation on Construction, Operation, Closure and Aftercare of
Landfills are estimated to be closed within the next eight years, while existing landfill that pose
serious and uncontrollable risks to human health and the environment will be closed no later than 4
years after the entry into force of the new Technical Regulation.1 Source separation, reuse, recycling,
and composting is expected to be an integral part of this new system, and some new landfills will
include on-site materials recovery facilities. An investment of 370 million GEL is expected to be made
in the waste management sector by 2025 (Zhorzholiani 2015).
Supporting this transition is an association agreement reached with the European Union to
encourage environmental protection in Georgia, and a new waste management code that establishes
the legal framework for encouraging waste prevention, reduction, reuse, recycling, and the safe
disposal of solid waste (USAID 2015). This law came into effect on January 15, 2015. Different donors
and International Financial Institutions are supporting Georgia in this transitional period, including
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD); the Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), German Development Bank (Kfw), and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID).
The prospective evolution of the waste management sector in Georgia has significant economic
implications. The development of the new system will represent a change from a status quo in which
citizens do not pay for the full social cost of waste disposal to a system where charges will more
closely reflect social costs. For example, the estimated tipping fee for the new EBRD-financed
Tsetskhlauri sanitary landfill in the Autonomous Republic of Adjara will be about $22 per ton, or close
to 50 GEL (Hygenia, 2009).2 In contrast, tipping fees are not paid under current practice by municipal
collection companies for the disposal of municipal solid waste, although tipping fees are paid by
private companies. Using data for total disposal charges and the tons of waste disposed by
municipalities in the Adjara AR and Kakheti region give an average that ranges from 1.7 to 4.5 GEL
per ton.3 The difference between current charges and planned tipping fees at new sanitary landfills
can be taken as an implicit lower bound of the country’s willingness to pay to avoid the local public
health and environmental costs of continuing with the status quo.
Transportation costs are also likely to change in the new regime. The existing fleet is outdated and
new investment will be needed in the sector. The expansion of waste collection service to rural areas
and the shift from local dumping to the long-range transport of wastes to regional sanitary landfills
will increase transportation costs. These costs will be lowered by the construction of transfer
1
This regulation entered into force on August 11, 2015 pursuant to Government of Georgia Resolution № 421.
All currency values for mid-year 2015. Tons are metric.
3
Computed from data in USAID (2015).
2
4
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
stations, and improved routing efficiencies as part of the waste sector rationalization. However,
additional investments will be needed to bring these efficiencies about. Thus, the net effect of the
sectoral restructuring on waste transport costs is not obvious ex ante, and presumptively will differ
between urban and rural regions.
Apart from country-specific economic issues, there is global economic value to curtailing CO2
emissions and methane, which recycling and composting respectively reduce. Monetary values for
both the social cost of carbon and the social cost of methane are now available and used in
Regulatory Impact Analysis of federal regulations in the United States; for example, for the benefit
cost analysis of new source performance standards for methane emissions from sanitary landfills
(USEPA 2015a). The global willingness to pay to reduce CO2 and methane emissions, in the wake of
Paris Climate Accord, will affect the economic value of integrating materials recycling and
composting methods into the future Georgian waste management system.
The goal of this study is to characterize the benefits and costs of increasing recycling and composting
in the new waste management regime. The study focuses specifically on two regions, the
Autonomous Republic of Adjara (Adjara AR) and the Kakheti region, where primary source
information generated through the WMTR program is available. The study will also rely on secondary
source data from academic research and government reports, and standard methods for benefit cost
analysis and stakeholder impact assessment (e.g., Krutilla 2005).
Relevant site-specific information is not available for this analysis, including the development of new
routings for waste collection, the details of future expansions of waste collection service to remoter
regions, the locations of future transfer stations, and the locations and configurations of recycling
and composting facilities. This kind of detail can significantly affect economic comparisons. However,
the available information is sufficient to support an evaluation of the fundamental economic
tradeoffs associated with recycling, composting, and sanitary landfilling in Georgia, and to offer
suggestions for piloting future site-specific projects whose evaluation could provide additional
insights.
The remainder of this study is structured as follows. Section 2 provides perspective on current waste
management practices in the Adjara AR and Kakheti region to provide context for the analysis which
follows. Section 3 develops an estimate of the social cost of municipal solid waste management
when wastes are collected and disposed of in landfills, using estimates for landfilling costs that will
obtain in the emerging waste management system. Section 4 conducts an economic evaluation of
alternative waste management systems, including centralized materials sorting at materials recovery
facilities, locally-based source separation and recycling programs, and the diversion and processing of
organic wastes into compost for local applications. Section 5 takes stock of the policy issues that are
suggested by the economic evaluation. This final section summarizes the main findings and policy
implications of the analysis, and makes recommendations for future evaluation.
2. Waste Management in the Adjara Autonomous Republic and Kakheti Region
This section provides background on the current waste management systems in the Adjara AR and
Kakheti region. Information comes largely from reports generated through the WTMR program and a
UNDEP-sponsored inventory of waste composition in the region. An assessment from the Georgian
State Audit Office was also used (SAO 2015). Detail on the prospective Tsetskhlauri sanitary landfill in
the Adjara AR came from a report from the limited liability (LLC) company which is developing the
site, and will manage it when the landfill operation commences (Hygenia 2009).
5
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
2.1 Adjara Autonomous Republic
The Adjara Autonomous Republic is a 3,000 km2 region in southwest Georgia on the black sea coast,
bounded to the east by the interior regions of Guria and Samtskhe-Javakheti. It has a total population
of about 393,700. Like other regions of Georgia, the Adjara AR is divided into “municipalities”-subregional administrative districts. Three of the municipalities, Khelvachauri, Batumi, and Kobuleti,
are situated along the 57 km coastline (from south to north respectively). The other three
municipalities -- Keda, Khulo, and Shuakhevi – are located in an interior, mountainous region.
The city of Batumi and Kobuleti are the main urban centers in the Adjara AR, with populations of
over 160, 000 and 93,000 respectively (See Table 1). These cities are popular tourist destinations,
and their populations increase during the summer (Hygenia 2009). There are also seven towns in
Adjara AR, and 333 villages, or “settlements.” Only about 22% of the population lives in villages and
rural areas (USAID 2014a). Population densities range from 46 per km2 in Keda to 2,484 per km2 in
Batumi (See Table 1).
The annual waste stream in the Adjara AR ranges from .34 tons per capita in Batumi to .02 tons in
Shuakhevi. 95% percent of the waste is generated by households.4 Data for the summer time shows
that organics compose about 40% of the waste stream, polyethylene plastics about 20%, paper and
cardboard over 17%, with glass, scrap metal, and other constituents accounting for smaller fractions
(See Table 2). Due to the influx of tourists to the region in the summer time, the waste stream
composition differs on a seasonal basis.
Municipal solid waste collection and disposal is handled by a limited liability company (LLC),
Sandastuptaveba LTD, which is owned by the city of Batumi (USAID 2014a). Residents are charged a
monthly fee for waste collection services that varies by municipality in the region from around .3 to
1.3, with business charged fees from 4 to 16.5 GEL per m3 of waste per month (USAID 2015).5
Collection rates are low, and the revenue yield from waste disposal charges accounts for a minor
share of the total budget allocated to waste management.
The average annual budgetary outlay on waste management services per person receiving them
various considerably among the municipalities, from a low of 12.2 GEL per ton per year in
Khelvachauri, to a high of 91 GEL per year in Shuakhevi. The cost in Batumi of 41.9 per ton is slightly
above the median of 38.0, and below the average of 46.7 (Again see Table 1).
For lack of financial resources, Sandastuptaveba LTD does not collect waste from all of the towns and
settlements in the region. Collection and disposal services ranges from only 5% in the Keda
municipality to 100% in Batumi (See Table 1). Waste transport distances from Keda to a landfill near
Batumi is 140 km. When collection services exist in remoter areas, waste collection frequency is
lower (e.g., every other day). Waste is collected from common containers situated near households
and businesses, and is loaded manually on to dump trucks, or in more urban areas, collected by
modern compacter trucks. Collected waste is then deposited in two main landfills servicing the
region, located on the administrative territory of Batumi city, south of Batumi (“the Batumi landfill”),
and Kobuleti.6 Like other older landfills in Georgia, these landfills never went through a permitting
process, and thus lack monitoring criteria (SAO 2015). They are “old style” non-sanitary landfills
without sufficient isolation of waste from the environment, or perimeter barriers to prevent animals
4
The 5% portion includes wastes from offices and similar commercial establishments; it does not include construction or industrial waste.
Sandastuptaveba LTD and several other companies also provide street sweeping and cleaning services in the municipalities
6
Illegal landfills in Shuakhevi, Khulu, and Keda were closed in 2010, and waste from these municipalities is now shipped to the Batumi
landfill (USAID 2014a)
5
6
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
and scavengers away. These landfills will be eventually be closed as part of the waste management
sectoral reform.
In remoter settlements in the Adjara AR lacking waste collection service, the only option is “backyard” dumping or the use of uncontrolled dump sites (USAID 2014a). Waste collection service
coverage expansion and the introduction of options for materials separation and recovery and/or
decentralized composting are needed to ameliorate the health and environmental problems posed
by these informal waste disposal practices.
Municipally-sponsored recycling programs currently do not exist in the Adjara AR. However, there is
some informal recycling. Sanitation workers or street cleaners recover metals and glass during their
daily routine, and locals scavenge materials from collection bins, or from landfills and unregistered
dump sites (USAID 2014a). This pattern is not uncommon in poorer regions and countries in the
World (Beede and Bloom 1995).There is also a secondary market for plastic resins from small scale
industries (USAIDb). Recovered material is sold to brokers, who then resell the material to local
manufacturers, or export it to manufacturers located nearby in Turkey or on other places.
As part of the planned structural reform of the waste management sector, planning for the
construction of a large-capacity sanitary landfill in Tsetskhlauri, near Kobuleti, is well advanced. This
landfill is financed by a 5.6 million Euro loan from the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD). Delivered waste will be deposited onto the floor of a sorting area, and
recoverable materials will be sorted and removed semi-manually. Recyclable material will be sold,
and residual wastes deposited into the landfill (Hygenia 2009). A methane recovery system will be
installed some period after the landfill begins operating.
The landfill is expected to accept an increasing volume of waste over time as population in the region
grows. The waste stream is projected to start at 40,000 tons per year (tpy), and increase over the 35
year expected life of the landfill to 134 thousand tons per year, with an average of 80,000 tons per
year (Hygenia 2009).
2.2 Kakheti Region
The Kakheti region is situated on the other side of the county in northeast Georgia. It is bounded to
the east by the Caucasus mountain border areas of the Russian Federation and Azerbaijan, and to the
west by the Georgian regions of Mtskheta and Kvemo Kartli. The total area is about 11,310 km2, with
an approximate population of 407,200 people. Population densities range from 19 per km2 in the
Akemeta municipality to 1,744 in the city of Telavi (See Table 2).
The average and median municipal waste generated is respectively .2 and .12 tons per year, 50%
higher than in the Adjara AR. The composition of the waste stream is similar to that in the Adjara AR,
however, with organics accounting for 43% of the waste, polyethylene/plastics 19 percent, and
paper/cardboard 17%. (See Table 2). Agriculture comprises a significant part of the economy in the
Kakheti region, and thus, a significant share of the organic fraction of wastes generated there is likely
to be agricultural in origin.
7
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Municipalities in the Kakheti region are responsible for the collection and transport of municipal solid
waste. This service is contracted to local municipal LLC companies based on annual tenders. Wastes
are collected from common bins located near households and businesses, and transported to
landfills. Transport distances are considerable shorter than in the Adjara AR, and service coverage is
more extensive (See Table 3). The median coverage is 50% in the Kakheti region compared with 21%
in the Adjara AR.
Fees charged for waste collection services range from .2 to .5 GEL per month for households, and can
range as high as 25 Lari per m3 for business. Collection rates are low, and the user fees account for a
small fraction of the municipal budget for solid waste management (SAO 2015). The average and
median budgetary expenditure on waste management services (per person who received these
services) is 18.3 and 18.9 GEL per year respectively. A comparison of these figures for the Adjara AR
in Table 1 shows that per capita waste expenditures are significantly lower in the Kakheti region than
in the Adjara AR. In fact, the maximum expenditure, 35.7 in the Sagarejo municipality of the Kakheti
region is less than the median in Adjara AR of 38.0.
Since 2012 the Solid Waste Management Company of Georgia (SWMCG), a state-owned company,
has been given the responsibility of managing municipal waste sites/landfills in the Kakheti region
(and all other regions in Georgia except for the Adjara AR and the city of Tbilisi). There are 6 official
landfills in the Kakheti region. The SWMCG has been tasked with improving the conditions of these
landfills, and beginning to the close them in preparation for the transition to the future period when
all wastes from the Kakheti region will be shipped to a regional sanitary landfill. The construction and
operation of new landfills will be responsibility of SWMCG, and the collection and transportation of
wastes in the new system will be the responsibility of municipal LLCs.
No municipally-run recycling or composting programs exist at the present time in the Kakheti region.
As in other parts of Georgia, informal networks of individuals scavenge metals and glass from waste
containers or unprotected landfills for sale to brokers. Recovery of materials from landfills is actually
declining in the Kakheti region, as the landfill perimeters are being secured to prevent the public
health concerns associated with un-restricted access to these sites. Scrap metals and plastic resins
from producers is also recovered and sold in secondary markets for materials (USAID 2014b).
3. Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste Collection, Removal, and Landfilling
This section focuses on the costs of the evolving system for collecting, transporting, and landfilling
municipal solid waste in the Adjara AR and Kakheti region. The goal is to develop an estimate of the
social costs of this system for comparison to dry-waste recycling and the diversion and processing of
organic waste materials.
The first order of business is to estimate the local social cost of landfilling municipal solid waste. Then
an assessment is made of the social cost of methane, a significant global externality associated with
landfilling the organic component of municipal wastes. The cost of municipal waste collection and
transport is considered next. The last subsection adds all of these cost categories together to derive
the total social cost of landfilling municipal solid waste in the Adjara AR and Kakheti region.
3.1 The Costs of Landfilling Municipal Solid Waste
The estimation of the economic costs of sanitary landfilling should embody two dimensions. The first
is what the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) refers to as “full cost accounting.” This is a
temporal accounting perspective that records all private costs incurred over the landfill lifecycle
(USEPA 1997). These costs include those for the initial construction of structures and completing the
8
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
first cell of the landfill, the costs of continuing to add capacity and operating the landfill during its
operational period, the costs incurred for closure at the end of the landfill’s life, and the costs for
post closure monitoring of the site afterwards -- often for a period of 30 years or more. All these
costs should be annualized over the landfill’s operational life in order to render landfilling costs
comparable to the costs of other alternatives (USEPA 1997).
The second cost concept embodies the term “social cost” in its usual sense; that is, to denote both
the “internalized” resource costs of conventional landfill inputs such as capital and labor, that are
priced in markets, and the “externalized” environmental costs that are borne by the public without
compensation. All these costs need to be included in the economic assessment to provide an
accurate measure of landfilling opportunity costs.
The external cost of older un-regulated landfills are well-known, while modern sanitary landfills
internalize a significant share of these costs. Liners and leachate control systems will prevent water
pollution, and daily capping and perimeter barriers will reduce local environmental and public health
risks. The anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in landfills generates landfill gases (LFG), which
are around 50% methane and 50% carbon dioxide, with trace amounts of non-methane organic
compounds (NMOC). The NMOC fraction of LFG includes volatile organic compounds and hazardous
air pollutants (USEPA 2015a). However, gas recovery systems when properly operated will destroy
around 98% of these compounds. Therefore, these local emissions do not pose significant hazards in
well-operated modern landfills.
In the Adjara AR and Kakheti region the private charges for landfill disposal currently do not cover
the private costs, which are subsidized out of municipal budgets, nor internalize the health and
environmental costs associated with the waste disposal. Table 4 indicates average disposal charges,
derived by dividing total recorded disposal charges by the total tons of solid waste deposited into
landfills. These average charges range from 1.7 GEL per ton in Batumi to 4.47 GEL in Kobuleti, while
4.7 GEL is the average for the municipalities in the Kakheti region. These costs are dwarfed by the
average costs per ton for waste collection, street sweepings, and removal. Average disposal charges
respectively amount to 1%, 4%, and 11% of the total for Batumi, Kobuleti, and the municipalities in
the Kakheti region.
Landfill tipping fees are expected to rise in the future to cover most of the relevant costs. These
include the opportunity costs of land, the construction cost for sanitary landfill designs, the costs to
operate the sanitary landfill, including the landfill gas recovery and leachate control systems, and the
cost to close and monitor the landfill after its operating life. In view of landfill capacity limits, the
opportunity cost of “air space”– the waste disposal volume in the landfill – is another important cost.
Economic gains will result from air space conservation measures such as greater waste compaction,
the use of alternative daily covers (which do not take up as much space as daily soil applications) and,
of course, lowering deposition rates through recycling or organic waste diversion (Okereke et al,
2006). The economic gain from capacity conservation could be realized in one or of several ways, or
in a combination of these ways: as an extension of the landfill life at the current usage rate and
planned capacity; as a reduction in the size of the landfill at the current usage rate and planned
lifetime; or as an increase of the current usage rate for the current planned lifetime and capacity
(reducing the need for waste disposal in other locations).
Data for the cost structure of the proposed tipping fee for the new Tsetskhlauri sanitary landfill in the
Adjara region are indicated in Table 5 (Hygenia 2009). This fee is quite close to what can be
independently calculated from spreadsheets provided by the EBRD (dated 2014) which give a cost of
$23.5 per ton, when the air space estimate from Table 5 is added into the equation. Both of these
estimates encompass the relevant categories, including the costs of a leachate control system, gas
recovery system (which are planned to begin operating in the fifth year) and the annualized costs of
9
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
closure and post closure monitoring. They also includes the capital and operating costs of a materials
recovery facility. Without the materials recovery facility, the cost per ton for the Tsetskhlauri landfill
using the data from EBRD spreadsheets drops to $20.02 per ton.
Land opportunity costs are the only possible cost not included in this cost estimate. No reference to
land costs could be found. The land was government-owned before its allocation for landfilling, but
such land has an opportunity cost that should be imputed in the economic evaluation (Boardmen et
al 1993).
For the purpose of this analysis, $20 per ton will be taken as a minimum estimate of the stand-alone
costs of sanitary landfilling – that is, the cost without an attached materials recovery facility – in the
new waste management regime for the Adjara AR and Kakheti region. For lack of information, this
figure is not differentiated between the regions. The estimate can be regarded as a minimum due to
the possibility of excluded land opportunity costs and possible site disamenities – for example,
associated with noise, odor, and dust – depending on the landfill location. Possible disamenities are
not monetized in this analysis.7
It will also be assumed that the benefits of sanitary landfilling – the storage of municipal solid waste
in a safe, healthy, and environmentally benign way -- at least cover the $20 per ton disposal costs;
that is, that the landfill has a benefit-cost ratio of at least 1. Thus, there are two ways of thinking
about the value of displacing a ton of solid waste disposed at the landfill boundary-- for example,
through diversion of recyclable materials or organic wastes: (1) as the value of conserved landfill
capacity, which yields a landfill cost savings in the amount of $20 per ton, or (2) as the benefit of
avoiding improper waste management. The fact that the benefit of avoiding improper waste disposal
could be larger than the costs of sanitary landfilling is another reason why the $20 per ton figure
provides a minimum statement of value.
As a final point, the value of landfill airspace should rise over time as the landfill’s capacity
diminishes, and the time horizon for new landfill construction declines (Ready and Ready 1995).
Thus, the current tipping fee can be taken to represent the current cost of waste disposal, and this
cost should rise over time as landfill capacity declines.
3.2 The Social Cost of Methane Emissions
The objective of this subsection is to estimate the social cost of methane emissions per ton of
landfilled solid waste. The first step is to determine the methane emissions per ton of organic waste,
and then use the waste composition data in Table 2 to estimate the methane emissions per ton of
solid waste landfilled in the Adjara AR and Kakheti region. A fraction of these emissions will be
captured and flared or used to generate electricity; the residual fraction will affect global climate.
Values for the social cost of methane are applied to the residual fraction to generate the social cost
of methane per ton of municipal waste landfilled.
Methane emissions associated with one ton of municipal solid waste were derived from a study by
Matthews and Themelis (2007). The authors found 0.05-0.1 ton of methane (CH4) is emitted per ton
of landfilled municipal solid waste. The data can be used to derive an average figure of 0.1670 tons
of methane per ton of organic waste, which can then be applied to the organic composition of solid
7
The Australian productivity commission value these disamenities at about one Australian dollar (year 2007) per ton as a default case
(Covec 2007). Additionally, environmental control systems at sanitary landfills may not be 100% effective, e.g, there may be some leachate
leakage. The additional costs imposed by these factors are likely to be relatively minor compared to the other costs considered in this
study, and they are difficult to monetize.
10
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
waste data for the waste composition studies conducted for the Adjara AR and the Kakheti region
noted in Table 2.
Methane emissions from modern landfills are being managed through landfill gas (LFG) capture
projects. The new sanitary landfills in Georgia will control methane emissions through these system.
According to the US EPA, landfill gas recovery systems should recover from 50% to 95% of the
methane generated, with an average value of around 75% often assumed (USEPA 2015a). A study by
Amini et al (2012) found collection efficiencies modeled from 35% to 85%, with actual field
measurements of 25% to 80%. In this study, we will consider sensitivity analysis for different landfill
gas (LFG) recovery efficiencies.
Starting in 2008, the social cost of carbon (SCC) has been used by federal agencies in the United
States to estimate the value of reducing carbon emissions, and monetizing the benefits of avoided
carbon emissions using the SCC estimates has become standard practice in regulatory impact
analyses (cost-benefit analyses of federal regulations). The SCC estimates are produced by integrated
assessment models that link general equilibrium models of the economy with global circulation
models. This method has just started to be used to estimate the social cost of methane (SCM)
emissions. For the first time in 2015, and EPA used the social cost of methane (SCM) to value the
reduction of methane emissions in regulatory impact assessments of two regulations, one on
emissions standards for landfills (USEPA 2015a), and the other on emissions standards from the oil
and gas industry (USEPA 2015b). The estimates the EPA used for the social cost of methane emissions
are shown in Table 6. It can be seen there that the social cost per ton of methane emissions ranges
from $509 per ton in 2015 at a 5% discount rate, to $1454 per ton in 2050. The figures are even
higher at lower discount rates, and at the 95th percentile of the distribution for the social cost of
methane (SCM).
Table 7 and 8 shows how these figures translate into costs per ton of solid waste landfilled in the
Adjara AR and Kakheti region under a number of different assumptions about LFG recovery, and
discount rates. For a 5% discount rate and 80% LFG recovery, the social cost of methane per ton of
waste landfilled in the Adjara AR ranges from $7 per ton in 2015 to $19 per ton in 2050. Figures in
the Adjara AR (Table 8) are close to the same (but slightly higher) reflecting the slightly higher organic
content of municipal solid waste in the Kakheti region. For 60% recovery at the same discount rate,
this range goes from $14 per ton to $39 per ton in the Adjara AR, and from $15 to $42 in the Kakheti
region. The tables indicate that differences in assumptions about discount rates and landfill recovery
effectiveness have a significant effect on the social cost of methane per ton of waste landfilled. In
general, it can be seen this cost can be lower than the local environmental cost of solid waste
disposal – again assumed to be $20 per ton – or significantly higher.
3.3 The Cost of Waste Collection and Removal
The costs of waste collection and transport constitute a significant share of total solid waste
management costs in the study region, as they do the world over. The median cost per ton in the
Adjara AR is close to 105 GEL 2015, and ranges to as high as about 178 (See Table 9). Costs in the
Kakheti region are significantly lower, with a median of about 36 GEL 2015, and a maximum of about
61 (Table 10).
For comparative perspective, the GEL figures are converted into U.S dollars using two different
exchange rates. The first is the nominal exchange rate in midyear 2015, which was 2.25 GEL per
dollar. The second is the World Bank’s purchasing power parity (PPP) index for the latest year
11
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
available (2014), which is .85 GEL.8 The PPP exchange rate is used by development agencies for
cross-country income comparisons, and by the World Health Organization to standardize cost
comparisons of global health interventions.9 The purchasing power parity (PPP) index, as the name
implies, takes into account cost of living differences among countries. So for example, a PPP of .85
GEL implies that an expenditure of .85 GEL on a waste management project in Georgia would impose
the same loss in forgone consumption of goods and services in Georgia as the expenditure of one
dollar in the United States would impose in the United States. The PPP exchange rate tends to be
more stable than the nominal exchange rate, which fluctuates frequently. Both rates are used here
to broaden the perspective.
Using the nominal exchange rate for conversion, the median waste collection and transport costs for
the Adjara Autonomous Republic is about $47, with a maximum of about $79. The corresponding
figures using the PPP exchange rates are about $123 and $210 (See Table 9). These ranges place the
economic opportunity costs for waste collection and transport as high in the United States and the
EU.
For the Kakheti region, the median cost using nominal exchange rates is about $16, with a maximum
of about $27; the corresponding figures using the PPP index are about $42 and $72 (Table 10). These
figures are significantly lower than for the Adjara Autonomous Republic, but can still equal or exceed
the landfill tipping fee of $20 per ton.
The costs for waste hauling also differ in the Adjara AR and the Kakheti region, due in part to
differing distances to landfills. The median cost in the Adjara AR to collect and haul one ton of waste
one kilometer is about 3.13 GEL. The comparable figure for the Kakheti region is about 1.75 Gel.
To gain additional insight into the variation of waste collection and transport costs in the study
regions, a regression analysis is conducted using the following flexible functional form:10
T C = a + b1(Q - Q ') + b2 (Q - Q ')2 + b 3 (D - D ') + b 4 éë(Q - Q ')(D - D ') ù
û+ d + e
In this equation, TC is the total annual cost (in GEL 2015) for waste handling incurred by each
municipality; Q is tons per year of waste handled in each municipality; Q’ is the arithmetic mean of
tons of waste handled per year across all municipalities; D is the average waste transport distance for
each municipality; and D’ is the arithmetic mean of the transport distances across all municipalities.
The variable d is a dummy variable that takes the value of “1” for the Adjara AR and “0” for the
Kakheti region. The final term, e , is an error term. Given the variation in the level of waste disposal
capital among municipalities, the indicated equation is interpreted as representing a longer-term
cost function.
Cost data to estimate the equation were taken from the first columns from Tables 9 and 10; while
data on tons per year of waste disposed and distance were taken from Tables 1 and 2. The parameter
estimates are shown in Table 11. Even though there are only 14 observations, the model fits the data
well, and the coefficient estimates are significant by the usual standards.11 The positive estimates
8
Using the World Bank definition, a “purchasing power parity conversion factor is the number of units of a country's currency required to
buy the same amounts of goods and services in the domestic market as a U.S. dollar would buy in the United States.” See
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP.
9
See http://www.who.int/choice/costs/ppp/en/.
10
It is common to represent variables in natural logs for the estimation of waste disposal cost functions (See Kinnaman 2010). The
quadratic form is used here to allow waste collection costs to be separated from transport costs. This separation will be useful for this
analysis.
11
Data for Keda was not used in this estimation, because the cost per ton-km is an extreme outlier, raising questions about the accuracy of
the data for Keda.
12
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
for the
b1
and
b2
parameters suggest that the incremental costs of waste collection increase with
b
b
additional volume, while the positive parameter estimate for 3 and 4 suggest that waste
transportation costs increases in distance and quantity. The estimate for the dummy variable
suggests that, holding all other variables constant, annual waste handling costs are 349,230 GEL
higher in the Adjara AR than in the Kakheti region.
b
b
b
The magnitudes of 1 and 4 coefficients are worthy of discussion. The estimate 1 =74.05 can be
interpreted as the incremental cost in GEL 2015 of collecting an additional ton of waste for a
settlements located close to the mean in the sample for tons of waste handled in a year. The
incremental collection costs will be higher or lower for settlements that are less close to or further
b = 2.13
from this average. Additionally, the coefficient 4
implies that it will cost on average about
$2.13 GEL to transport one ton of waste one kilometer under the current waste management
system, holding other factors constant.
3.4 The Total Cost of Solid Waste Disposal
The three cost categories are combined to provide an estimate of the total incremental cost of
disposing of an extra ton of municipal solid waste in the Adjara AR and Kakheti region. Given the
number of uncertain parameters, such as for methane recovery rates, the figures presented are
meant to be informative rather than conclusive.
Table 12A shows the total costs for the municipalities in the Adjara Autonomous Republic (excluding
Keda) using the nominal exchange rate to generate the dollar values for waste collection and
transport costs.12 Total costs range from about $68 per ton to close to $112 per ton, with a median
value of about $84. About $12.5 of the total cost is for the global externality associated with
methane emissions; the median local cost of waste disposal without the methane emissions value
computed drops to about $72.
The measures of opportunity costs in dollars are significantly higher using purchasing power parity
exchange rates. Costs range from about $126 per ton to $242 per ton, with a median value of about
$169 (Table 12B). The global value of the public good is a smaller fraction of the total costs using PPP
exchange rates given the additional weight accorded to the opportunity costs of local waste
collection and disposal.
Turning the Kakheti region, Table 13A shows the comparison using nominal exchange rates for the
GEL to dollar conversions. The median value for the total cost of solid waste disposal in the Kakheti
region is about $49 per ton with the methane emissions externality, and about $36 without it. The
fraction of the total cost in the Kakheti region owing to local waste collection and transport (about
31%) is significantly lower than in the Adjara AR (about 61%).
Table 13B shows the cost comparison using purchasing power parity exchange rates. In this case, the
median is about $75 per ton, with a range from about $45 to $105. Methane emissions account for
from 13% to 30% of the total value.
12
The waste collection and disposal costs are the average costs computed from data rather than the predictions from the estimated
equation, since the point estimates from the equation may not be very precise in such a small sample. The equation offers the insight that
marginal costs are increasing, however, implying that the incremental waste collection and transport costs of additional waste disposal will
be higher than the average figures discussed, or lower for waste disposal decreases. The figures discussed for landfill disposal cost and
methane generation may be interpreted as long-run marginal costs.
13
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Again with the caveat that there are many uncertain components of the analysis, this information
can be taken as a benchmark for a cost comparison to solid waste management options that will
divert some recyclable or compostable material from the municipal solid waste stream. We turn to
an economic evaluation of these alternatives in the next section.
4. Economic Evaluation of Source Separation and Recycling
Policymakers in industrialized countries have increasingly promoted the diversion of recyclable
material from the solid waste stream, and the recycling and reuse of recoverable materials is now an
integral part of the solid waste management system in the United States, and even more so in the
European Union. Goals for recycling and reuse have grown increasingly ambitious, while the
methods available for waste reduction or processing have become more diversified and costeffective. Within the European Union, there is significant variation in both waste-management
policies and progress toward policy goals, but some objectives are uniform across the region; for
example, the goal to recycle at least 50% of municipal solid waste by 2020 in all member states.
Several countries have already surpassed this goal, while others will be unable to reach it without
increasing their recycling rates significantly (EEA 2013). Diverting biodegradable material from the
waste stream has also become increasingly common in the European Union. By 2010, landfilling of
biodegradable waste in Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Germany was negligible or eliminated
entirely (EEA 2013).
In the United States, waste-management policies vary widely from one jurisdiction to another. In
2011, California’s legislature and governor promulgated the goal of recycling 75% of municipal waste
by 2020, an increase from about 50% from 2013 (CalRecycle 2015). A number of cities in Florida and
California have developed waste diversion goals of 75% or more.
Recycling programs vary in the degree to which materials separation and recovery are conducted
locally, in proximity to the neighborhood of homes and businesses which generate the solid waste
streams, or done more centrally at materials recovery facilities. When separated locally, further
processing and preparation of the materials is often done by recycling companies, although materials
recovery facilities (MRFs) are frequently used to process single-stream or dual-stream sourceseparated recyclables.13 In the United States, there has been a shift away from local sorting to more
centralized sorting, as policies have promoted greater recycling rates, and MRF technology has
advanced in response to mandates to increase recycling volumes (Fickes 2009). In contrast, European
policy continues to promote source separated waste collection and local composting alternatives
(Eunomia 2002).
In the country of Georgia, a mixed-waste recovery facility has been constructed at the Rustavi
landfill, and one is planned for the Tsetskhlauri sanitary landfill in the Adjara AR.14 At present, there
are no municipally-sponsored waste recycling programs based on local source separation and
collection.
Data is available for a preliminary economic evaluation of the centralized materials recovery facility
planned for the Tsetskhlauri landfill, and we start with this analysis. We then consider how the
valuation of life-cycle CO2 emissions reductions associated with materials recovery affects the
13
Single-stream refers to the co-mingling of all recyclable material together for processing, whereas “dual-stream” refers to a variety of
ways in which recyclables can be separated into two groups for processing, such as paper and cardboard versus containers, or glass versus
everything else.
14
A “mixed-waste” MRF accepts municipal solid waste and separates out the recyclables from the “wet waste” component of the waste.
The wet-waste are disposed of in a landfill, or sent to a composting facility, and the residual recyclables are further sorted and processed.
14
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
assessment. We next consider the economic value of local source separation and recycling systems,
also including the valuation of life-cycle CO2 emissions reductions. Lastly, we assess the benefits and
costs of locally diverting organic material from the waste stream for use as a composting material,
incorporating a valuation of the associated methane emissions reductions.
4.1 Separation at Materials Recovery Facilities
Centralized materials recovery facilities (MRFs) are relatively capital intensive and therefore reduce
the labor costs associated with sorting recyclables (KC1 2009a). The downside is sorting inefficiency
and some materials contamination. These issues reduce the recyclables that are recovered in
marketable condition from centralized sorting operations (Eunomia 2011).
To pay off the larger capital costs, the material throughput at MRFs needs to be high and the flow of
the waste relatively stable. As is the case with landfills, it is most economic to size MRFs to serve a
regional area so that input streams can be combined to maximize volumes. Single stream recycling,
in which recyclables are sorted from wet wastes and delivered to MRFs for further sorting, is
particularly suitable for efficient operation.
To date, the MRFs in operation or planned in Georgia are mixed-waste facilities. Evaluating the data
for the planned MRF at the Tsetskhlauri sanitary landfill in the Adjara AR shows that this MRF adds an
incremental cost of about $3.50 per ton above landfill disposal costs.15 This figure is generated by
annualizing the itemized capital costs for the MRF using a 5% discount rate (the same rate as the
EBRD employed in the analysis of the other parts of the landfill project), and then adding this
annualized capital cost to the MRF’s variable costs.16 Information was available on the projected solid
waste stream entering the landfill/MRF. The projected waste stream was discounted at 5%, and then
re-annualized. Dividing the annualized cost stream by the annualized waste stream gives an accurate
measure of the incremental capital and operating costs of the MRF averaged over all of the waste
that enters the landfill.17
Waste diversion goals, as well as MRF operational efficiencies, are often expressed in terms of the
fraction of waste diverted out of the landfill per ton of waste collected. For example, if in a given
period half of the waste that enters a MRF is sorted, this fraction is half recyclables, and half of the
recyclables are recovered, the overall waste diversion fraction would be approximately 12.5%.
Information for the expected recovery efficiency of the MRF at the Tsetskhlauri sanitary landfill is not
available. To get some insight, we considered the operational characterizes of six mixed-waste MRFs
in California and Florida in the United States. The materials recovery fraction per ton of MSW
entering these MRFs ranged between 23% and 34%, with a mean of about 27% (KCI 2009b). Given
the fraction of organics and unrecyclable material that might be expected in a ton of MSW in this
region, doubling these figures would give a rough approximation of the fraction of recyclables
recovered per ton of recyclable material in the waste. However, there are more organics in the waste
stream in Georgia than in the United States, and MRFs in Georgia are both less capital and labor
intensive than those in the United States. For example, the annual throughput at the U.S. MRFs
averaged 1.5 thousand metric tons per worker per year. The equivalent computation for the MRF at
the Tsetskhlauri sanitary is 3.8 in the first year of operation when 42 thousand tons of throughput
are expected to be processed, increasing to 11.3 by the end of the landfill life in year 35 when 125
15
This estimate is derived from spreadsheets from the EBRD that itemize the costs of the landfill.
Some variable cost categories were clearly related to the materials recovery facility, others seemed likely to be allocable between the
materials recovery facility and the operation of the landfill itself. For these categories, a distinction was made between labor costs and
other costs. Labor costs were allocated 80% to the materials recovery facility, and 20% to the landfill, while the other cost categories –
maintenance, energy use, etc – were allocated 80% to the landfill and 20% to the materials recovery facility.
17
Estimating discounted tons disposed over the landfill lifetime is the conceptual equivalent of discounting future lives saved from a
health, safety, or environmental health intervention. The latter procedure is standard in the economics literature. See Krutilla et al (2015).
16
15
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
thousand tons should be processed.18 This is on the assumption that the work force does not expand
over time. The fewer resources deployed at the MRF at the Tsetskhlauri sanitary landfill per unit of
throughput suggests its recovery efficiency will be significantly lower than the MRFs being operated
in the United States.
The values of materials produced per ton of throughput at the MRF for different assumptions about
materials recovery efficiency are illustrated in Tables 14 and 15 for waste compositions characteristic
of the Adjara AR and the Kakheti region, respectively.19 Price estimates are based on materials prices
that obtained in the Euro zone in the middle of 2015.20 The low and high bound estimates are
derived for each of the materials categories shown on the assumption that their composition is
skewed respectively to lower valued constituents and to higher valued constituents.21 For the higher
bound assumptions about prices, Tables 14 and 15 suggest that incremental cost of $3.50 per ton
from using the MRF at the facility will be paid off from the sale of recyclables for any of the recovery
rates. In fact, the midpoints of the ranges shown will be sufficient to pay off these costs. For the low
bound assumptions, the costs will be paid off at recovery rates between 15% and 20%. Because the
value differences among commodities are larger than the range of recovery rates shown, different
assumptions about the waste constituents has a larger impact on value of materials recovery than
assumptions about recovery efficiencies. Indeed, the high bound assumption about commodity
values will pay off the $3.50 cost of the MRF at a recyclable recovery rate in the neighborhood of
2.5%. This variation suggest the need for further study of the composition of waste streams to derive
better estimates of the benefits of operating MRFs in Georgia.
The diversion of recyclables from the waste stream also conserves landfill capacity. However, a
significant degree of recovery is necessary for these savings to be significant, given the size of the
organic component of waste streams. Diverting 5% of the recyclables from the waste stream will
save about 43 cents per ton and 35 cents per ton of waste disposed respectively in the Adjara AR and
the Kakheti region. Diverting 40% of the recyclable stream would save about $3.4 per ton in the
Adjara AR, and $2.75 in the Kakheti region. In short, higher diversion rates are needed for the
avoided landfilling opportunity costs alone to get close to paying off the costs of constructing and
using a MRF. However, in conjunction with value recovered from selling recyclables, avoid landfilling
costs increase the chances that the value of centralized sorting of recyclable material will cover the
costs.
4.2 The Social Value of Reducing CO2 Emissions through Recycling
Life-cycle energy savings and CO2 emissions reductions will accrue from recycling. According to the
U.S. EPA, less energy is used in recycling many materials than would be needed to replace them
through primary production—that is, by extracting and processing raw materials such as ores,
timber, or petroleum (USEPA 2006, 2015).22 In particular, the energy and CO2 emissions savings for
many plastics, metals, and paper products are potentially large enough to result in measurable net
benefits.
18
Derived from spreadsheet data used by EBRD in their economic evaluation of the Tsetskhlauri landfill.
See Appendix for the computational procedure.
20
If recovered recyclables are exported, there may be an economic premium for the foreign exchange generated. We did not have the
information to monetize the economic effects on net foreign exchange reserves of the various program alternatives.
21
The available waste composition study does not breakdown plastics, glass, and paper into their various constituents, and these
constituents have different market value. Low bounds where generated on the assumption that the paper was mixed, the recovered glass
green, and the recovered plastic all colored polyethylene terephthalate (PET). High bounds were generated on the assumption that the
composition of the mixed paper and glass categories was consistent with the EU average, and all the plastic recovered was high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) natural.
22
This is not the case for all materials. Some wood products require more energy to recycle than they do to produce from raw timber, and
the energy savings from recycling some other materials (such as concrete) are small enough that the value of energy savings may be
outweighed by the labor or transport costs of collecting and processing the material (USEPA 2015, p. 3).
19
16
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Among the major categories of recyclable materials, aluminum appears to provide the greatest
benefit, in terms of reduced per-ton energy needs. Recycling of aluminum is often cited as requiring
less than 10% of the energy used in its primary production from bauxite (Hutchinson 2008).
However, the energy usage figures provided in the latest version of the U.S. EPA’s Waste Reduction
Model (WARM) imply a figure closer to 25% (USEPA 2015, pp. 3, 8). This is still a lower fraction of
primary-production energy than has been found for any other material, with the possible exception
of LDPE (plastic category 4). In addition, it is important to remember that recycling aluminum (and
other metals) is logistically simpler than recycling plastics. As shown in Table 16, the value of
reducing CO2 emissions per-ton is highest for recycled aluminum, moderate to high for plastics, low
for glass, and variable for fibers such as paper and cardboard (USEPA 2006, 2015; Hutchinson 2008;
Vlachopoulos 2009; Bühner 2012). Depending on the energy and other resources expended in
collection and sorting, recycling of glass in particular may result in negligible benefits, or even a net
cost—especially if different colors of glass are allowed to mix before or during collection (Hutchinson
2008). Although some estimates are available for other important waste types, such as electronics or
construction materials, there appears to be less information available for them than for
“conventional” recyclables (USEPA 2015).
Energy-usage estimates for several materials were not available in the most recent WARM
documents (USEPA 2015), and were calculated or inferred from other sources. Specifically, energy
savings from recycling low-density polyethylene (LDPE) were cited in a 2006 EPA report (USEPA 2006,
p. 98), but not in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) documents. It is possible that either primary
production or recycling of this plastic may have become more efficient since 2006; these
developments would respectively imply a reduction or increase in the energy savings from recycling,
but in the absence of concrete information, no change was assumed. In addition, the estimated
energy needed to recycle PVC was obtained from Bühner (2012); this estimate assumed usage of the
“Vinyloop” recycling method, which might or might not be feasible at a given facility. Hutchinson
(2008) provided an energy-savings estimate of 88% for polystyrene or “styrofoam” (plastic category
6) and concluded that recycling could yield significant benefits if up-to-date methods for processing
were more widely adopted; however, this claim could not be substantiated from other sources, and
polystyrene was not included in the analysis. Finally, no energy-usage estimates could be found for
polypropylene (plastic category 5).
Once the potential energy savings of recycling relative to landfilling have been found, their economic
impact can be estimated. The averted nominal costs of energy are assumed to be captured in the
price of recovered materials, but the averted costs of the associated greenhouse gas emissions are
not priced in any market. In Georgia, most electricity is produced from hydropower—except during
periods of peak demand in winter—but fossil energy is crucial in meeting the country’s heating and
transportation needs (Gvilava & Garibashvili 2014, p. 11). As of 2012, approximately two thirds of
Georgia’s energy was consumed in the form of fossil fuels, suggesting that any domestic facility
engaged in recycling or primary production would require significant amounts of both renewable and
non-renewable energy.
In 2012, Georgia consumed a total of 3.2 million metric tons of oil-equivalent of energy, or 37.4
million megawatt-hours (Gvilava & Garibashvili 2014, p. 11). That same year, the country’s estimated
greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6.26 million tons of CO2-equivalent (EIA 2016), implying that an
average of 0.167 T CO2e were emitted for each MWh of energy produced. Calculations here will rely
on the assumption that, even as total energy consumption changes in the future, the degree of
Georgia’s reliance on fossil fuels will remain about the same as it has been in recent years. These
calculations also assume that primary production and recycling are both carried out within Georgia,
and thus are both subject to this emissions-to-energy estimate; however, in reality Georgia imports
many finished goods from trading partners such as Turkey and the European Union (European
17
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Commission 2015). The actual emissions associated with those goods’ initial production may deviate
from the estimates given here, based on the energy profiles of Georgia’s trade partners, or the
extent to which they themselves have incorporated recycled materials into their manufacturing
processes.
Per-ton estimates of averted greenhouse emissions for each material can be found once energy
savings and the carbon intensity of energy have been estimated. Landfilling of some conventional
recyclables—particularly paper and cardboard—is likely to result in additional greenhouse emissions
as those materials break down; however, such emissions can depend heavily on factors such as
landfill design and operation, and are difficult to estimate. The possibility of additional emissions
implies that the averted-emissions estimates in this analysis are somewhat conservative. Where
averted-emissions estimates are available from other sources, they are generally comparable to the
estimates derived here (Hutchinson 2008; Bühner 2012).
In order to estimate the economic significance of averted emissions due to recycling, the social cost
of CO2 (SCC) must be incorporated into the calculations. For this analysis, estimates were obtained
from the report of an Interagency Working Group that has provided SCC estimates for use in the
evaluation of federal regulations in the United States (IAWG 2015, p. 3). The estimates given in Table
16 are for a 5% discount rate and the midpoint of the SCC distribution. Estimates at lower discount
rates and at the upper of the distribution are higher than those shown.
The social value of reducing CO2 emissions will depend on the amount of recyclable material
recovered, and its composition. Table 17 indicates low and high bounds as function of recovery rates.
For example, for 30% rate of recovery of recyclables from the solid waste stream, the social value of
carbon emissions reductions at 2015 values would range between $1.5 and $3.41 per ton of waste
disposed using the data for the waste stream composition for the Adjara AR, and $1.35 and $3.29 for
the composition data for the Kakheti region.23 Table 17 also adds the value recovered from the sale
of recyclables into the picture. At the current time, the GHG benefits are smaller than the market
value of recyclable material. The sum of these two plus the avoided landfilling costs mentioned
above – which lie between the low and high bounds for the GHG benefits -- raises the probability
that the value of recovering recyclables will exceed the $3.50 per ton cost.
4.3 Decentralized Source Separation and Recycling
Local source separation and recycling programs can be structured in many ways. The highest degree
of sorting requires waste generators to separate out materials such as metals, glass, plastics, and
paper, and then to deposit them, possibly with additional separation, into different bins at local
collection centers (See Table 18). At the other end of the spectrum, single stream systems remove all
recyclables from municipal waste without any further sorting (Table 19). The co-mingled recyclables
are then sent to a single-stream MRF. Dual-stream permutations include the separation of fiber from
containers, or the separation of glass from all other recyclables. It is also possible to sort recyclables
into groupings for glass, fiber, and all other recyclables. The range of permutations is nearly
unlimited.
Local source separation avoids the capital and operating costs of MRFs, and improves the quality of
the recyclable material delivered to manufacturers compared to materials sorting at MRFs. As noted
before, the benefits of recycling material relative to conventional waste disposal are the value of the
materials produced, the avoided costs of landfilling, and the life-cycle value of CO2 emissions
reductions. Local recycling will also avoid solid waste handling costs, but also imposes collection costs
23
The average greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits for fibers and plastics are conservative, because averted emissions were only
computed for the sub-categories that clearly corresponded to specific types of recyclables with known GHG effects. There
might be other recyclable materials with GHG effects that are not represented in the analysis.
18
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
plus the costs of local sorting. On balance, the costs of source separation and recycling are likely to
exceed the cost savings from avoided waste handling (Covec 2007). Therefore, we treat this category
as a net-cost, and list the other benefit categories in Table 20. The values there are consistent with
previous discussion of the price of materials and the CO2 emissions savings for materials recovery
facilities.
We do not have information about the costs of the source separation and collection of postconsumer waste in Georgia, because these programs do not now operate in the country. But as
noted, experience from other countries suggests that that the local sorting and collection of
recyclable materials is likely to be more costly than conventional waste disposal (Covec 2007). These
extra costs accrue from additional complexity in scheduling collections, and additional trips due to
the differential densities of recyclable materials. Doubling collection costs is within the range of
empirical estimates found in the literature. Under this assumption, current disposal costs can be
taken as the net incremental cost when recycling operations displace conventional waste disposal.
Tables 21A and 21B compare these costs with the total value of recovered materials using nominal
and purchasing power exchange rate conversions respectively for the Adjara AR. Table 21A shows
that the value of all materials but brown glass and green glass (and mixed glass, which has a negative
value, and is therefore not shown) are larger than an incremental cost equal to the current median
waste collection and transportation cost for the region. Using the purchasing power exchange rates
to proxy for opportunity costs, the materials exceeding the median cost are aluminum cans, and
several categories of plastics. More materials are economic to recover, under the stated
assumptions, for the municipalities like Khulo and Kobuleti that have lower collection costs.
Turning to the Kakheti Region in Tables 22, it is evident that the value of all materials is higher than
median net cost of 15.8 using the nominal exchange rate (Table 22A), while all materials with the
exception of green glass have greater value than the median net cost of 41.8 (Table 22B). Again,
there is variation given the cost differences shown among municipalities. Under our assumptions,
source separation and recycling in the city of Telavi provide net economic value for any of the
materials categories.
Some conclusions can be cautiously drawn from these comparisons. First, source separate and
recycling aluminum will yield net economic value under any assumption, given the amount by which
the value of aluminum exceeds any conceivable local handling cost. Second, if the net costs of local
source separation and recycling are in fact proportional to current waste disposal costs, as the above
analysis assumes, recycling will be more economic in the Kakheti region than in the Adjara AR,
because waste handling costs are lower in the Kakheti region. Thirdly, there is a hierarchy of material
values and, on the assumption that it is no more costly to locally separate such high valued materials
as aluminum cans and HDPE plastics as any other kind of material, focusing recycling programs first
on the high valued materials is most likely to be economically beneficial. Since there will be a
learning curve associated with instituting local recycling programs, it would make sense to start up
programs that target recovery of relatively high valued materials during the initial stages when
programmatic costs are likely to be high.
As a caveat, local recycling programs will impose costs for education and outreach, as well as
administrative costs, which are not captured in this assessment. Additionally, any local costs that
might be incurred for the densification of materials, or local processing by recycling companies, are
not explicitly included in the analysis. Finally, commodity prices fluctuate widely, and have declined
in the past six months with slowing economic growth in China (an important export market for all
commodities, including recyclables). This is another reason why focusing on relatively high valued
materials would be the most prudent course for starting up local recycling programs in Georgia.
19
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
4.4 Organic Waste Diversion and Composting
The processing of organic material is a necessary part of an integrated waste management system
when waste diversion goals are above a certain threshold. For example, in response to a municipal
mandate, the city of San Jose California constructed a MRF to divert 75% percent of the municipal
waste from a regional landfill. Both single-stream and mixed-waste sorting lines are used in this
facility. Of the municipal waste entering this MRF, 50% ends up as compost and 25% is separated into
a stream of marketable recyclables (KCI 2009b).
Organic materials can be converted into useful products and/or energy through several technologies,
including anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis and gasification systems, and aerobic composting methods
(Environment Canada 2013). Composting methods biodegrade organic matter through self-heating;
this process can be conducted at relatively low cost compared to the other methods. For this reason,
a composting process is likely to be the most economically efficient method for processing organic
wastes in Georgia. We focus on benefits and costs of processing organic wastes through composting
in the remainder of this subsection.
Turning first to the benefit side, the diversion of organic wastes for the production of compost offers
several advantages. First is the savings in conventional waste disposal costs, including the costs of
landfilling organic wastes. Diverting organic wastes from landfills also reduces methane emissions
and the production of leachates. If the composting is done locally, the costs of hauling organic waste
out of the locality will be avoided. This can be a significant benefit for waste management system
based on regional landfills, or those servicing remoter regions. Additionally, local composting will
reduce the wet-waste component entering mixed-waste MRFs, improving their operational
efficiencies and the quality of recovered materials (KCI 2009a). Lastly, of course, compost itself has
value in a number of applications, for example, upgrade marginal agricultural soils, or to control soil
erosion. If produced in proximity to a landfill, compost can be used as alternative daily cover for
capping the face of an active landfill cell.
The composting processes reduces the volume and mass of organic material, with the amount of
compaction depending on a number of physical parameters. Mass reductions commonly range from
10% to 30% and are smaller than volume reductions (Boa et al 2008; Breitenbeck and Schellinger
2004). This compaction means that a ton of compost will displace more than a ton of solid waste,
multiplying the economic effect. If it takes 1.2 tons of organic waste to generate one ton of compost,
for example, producing a ton of compost will reduce the amount of waste that needs to be collected,
hauled, and landfilled by 1.2 tons. This same multiplier applies to methane emissions at the landfill.
Given that charges on municipal waste disposal are levied per ton, we use the mass reduction figures
in the computations that follow. Since volume reductions are larger than mass reductions, using the
mass reduction to represent the compaction ratio may understate the benefits of composting.
Assuming the composting mass compaction ratio ranges from 1.1 to 1.3, landfill costs avoided per
ton of compost produced will range from $22 to $26 based on the $20 figure stated before for
landfilling costs. Associated methane reductions are shown in Table 23. Depending on the
compaction ratio, the discount rate, and the efficiency of landfill gas (LFG) recovery, methane
benefits in 2015 will range from $19 per ton of compost produced to $203 per ton. Over time, these
benefits will increase as the real social cost of methane (SCM) increases.
Diverting organic material locally for compost will reduce demands for the collection of municipal
solid waste, a clear benefit, but will also impose some costs for separation and collection. Regarding
the latter, a report by the consulting firm Eunomia states the following:
20
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
It is not straightforward to estimate the costs of implementing separate collection
schemes where they do not already exist. The normal presumption is that the costs of
waste collection will increase significantly as a consequence of the introduction of
separate collection systems. However, this need not be the case for compostable wastes
(Eunomia 2002, pdf page 123).
The reasons for this are several. First, home composting will avoid collection costs from municipal
services entirely. Of course, as is the case for sorting dry recyclables, inconvenience costs exist, but
the inconvenience costs for those who choose to recycle or compost are likely to be lower in
economic terms than the costs of municipal waste collection.24 Secondly, organic wet wastes are
dense. As a consequence, they do not need to be compacted, and can be conveyed to local
composting facilities in standard flat bottom trucks rather than more costly compactor trucks. Due
to this density differential, it is also possible that trips required per ton of organic waste collected will
be less than those required for collecting mixed municipal wastes. For these reasons, and lacking
other information, it is assumed that the costs of locally separating and collecting organic material
for composting are no higher than the costs of locally collecting municipal solid waste. Under this
assumption, the benefits of reducing municipal collection costs by diverting organics for composting
are counterbalanced by the costs of collecting the organic wastes for composting, and there is no
net-cost cost difference between the two methods on the collection cost dimension.
However, displacing municipal waste collection through local composting operations will clearly yield
a savings in the costs incurred to transport municipal waste out of the locality. The regression model
estimated in Section 3.3 allows these transportation costs savings to be identified. In particular, the
b
parameter estimate for 4 in Table 11 implies that the marginal transportation costs are constant
at about 2.13 GEL for each ton of municipal waste transported one kilometer. To be conservative, we
take half of this number, and use it to estimate the per ton transportation cost savings for the
different municipalities in the Adjara AR and the Kakheti region given their average distance from
landfills for waste hauling beyond six kilometers. That is, we define “local hauling” as 6 km or less,
and “transport out of the locality” as hauling distances of more than 6 km. Based on this assumption,
the transportation cost savings and other benefits from local composting are shown for the various
municipalities in Tables 24A and 24B for the Adjara AR, with the difference between tables reflecting
the distinction between nominal and PPP exchange rates. For the nominal exchange rate case,
transportation cost savings associated with local composting range from $4.3 in Batumi to $53.9 for
Khulo, and overall benefits range from $60.8 to $110.4 per ton. The median transport and total cost
savings are respectively 15.5 and 72.0 per ton. For distant municipalities in the Adjara AR such as
Khulo and Shuakhevi, transportation cost savings dominate the other benefits shown, and the overall
benefits of a ton of locally produced compost are near or above $100 per ton. These same patterns
hold with PPP exchange rates, but the transportation cost component is larger, and the total
economic value of local composting is higher, ranging from $67.8 per ton to close to $200 per ton.
Although transportation cost savings for remoter municipalities are substantial, the fraction of total
benefits accounted for by reducing methane emissions is also significant, and over 50% for
municipalities like Batumi, where transport distances are relatively short. The relative magnitude of
methane emissions benefits is less when transportation cost savings are measured using purchasing
power exchange rates.
Tables 25A and 25B show the benefits per ton of compost for the Kakheti region. The value of local
composting is Kakheti region is lower than in Adjara, because transportation costs savings are lower.
The average hauling distance is 6 km or less for the City of Telavi and Sagaregjo, so there are no
24
Indeed, in developed countries, there is often a net consumer benefit from recycling. A study of recycling in New Zealand found a
consumer willingness to pay for recycling programs on the order of several hundred dollars per ton (Covec 2007).
21
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
transportation cost savings for these municipalities from local composting under our assumptions.
Benefits of locally-produced compost are around $56.50 per ton, and are comprised entirely of the
value of avoiding landfilling costs (39% of the benefits) and reduced methane emissions (61% of the
benefits), given the benefit categories monetized. The benefits of locally produced composting for
the other municipalities are higher, particularly when PPP exchange rates are used to convert local
transportation cost savings. In this case, the median benefit is $67.8 per ton, with a maximum of
$86.5 per ton in Akmeta.
Against these benefits are the cost of composting. These costs will reflect the scale and capital
intensity of the composting process (Pandyaswargo and Premakumara 2014). Assuming the least
capital intensive approach, the use of windrows, labor and/or mechanical inputs will be required to
aerate the windrows, to maintain temperatures and moisture content (which may require wetting
piles), to control porosity, and to adjust the carbon to nitrogen ratio. If food wastes are windrowed,
they need to be mixed and ground with the woody or vegetative matter. Sufficient land is required
for composting windrows, which may constrain composting in some locations.
Data from the European Union suggest that compost processing costs for low-technology
windrowing can be on the order of $28 per ton (Eunomia 2002). Presumably, costs in Georgia could
be lower than this figure due to lower labor costs. For the Adjara AR, this figure is less than the sum
of the median avoided landfilling and transportation cost savings of $37.5 when transportation cost
savings are converted using nominal exchange rates, and significantly less than the median sum of
$63.1 when transportation cost savings are expressed in dollar terms using PPP exchange rates. Note
also that the benefit in the avoided cost of methane of $34.5 alone more than covers this cost.
In the Kakheti region, transportation cost savings are less than in the Adjara AR, as noted. The
median sum of transportation cost savings converted at nominal exchange rates and avoided
landfilling costs ($26.3) does not quite cover compost processing costs. Using PPP exchange rates,
the median sum of local benefits, $33.3, is greater than the $28 per ton compost processing cost.
Again, the value of avoided methane emissions alone covers the assumed compost processing cost.
Some benefits and costs are left out of this analysis. On the benefit side, we do not know what the
monetary value of the produced compost would be in the region. Local composting will also reduce
CO2 emissions from long range waste hauling, which we have not monetized. On the cost side, there
will be transaction costs to inform local stakeholders about composting design alternatives, to
administer composting programs, and to integrate local composting systems into the rest of the
waste management system. Composting also imposes some negative environmental effects, most
significantly, odors and the release of bioaerosols when material is being aerated, e.g., by turning
windrows. Composting facilities need to be designed, and work practices established, to minimize
these side effects. Finally, if composting operations are conducted at more central locations, the
benefits of avoided transportation costs could be less significant than indicated.
5. Policy Issues
The analysis shows that the benefits of materials recycling and the composting of organic wastes in
Georgia have the potential to cover their costs. In this section, we discuss the policy implications. As
a caveat in advance, conclusions should be drawn cautiously given the parameter uncertainties in key
components of the evaluation, and the relatively generic level at which the analysis is conducted.
The analysis is also based on a static picture: the system that currently exists. Routes for waste
hauling, travel distances, and waste transit costs that emerge in the new regional-landfill based
system will presumably differ significantly from the status quo ante. Costs of alternatives waste
22
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
management options may also change over time from “learning curve” effects as the new system
develops. Finally, an integrated waste management system is interconnected by definition, implying
that evaluations of solid waste management alternatives cannot really be conducted independently.
The costs and benefits of the individual system components will depend on the way they are
integrated into the overall solid waste management framework.
Notwithstanding these qualifications, the analysis gives best estimates from the available
information, and leads to some logical conclusions and policy implications. These can be divided into
two categories: economic evaluation issues, and stakeholder effects.
5.1 Economic Evaluation Issues
The economic evaluation shows that that recycling, reuse, and composting processes have the
potential to increase the net-benefits of the solid waste management system in Georgia. This
conclusion is based on the internalization of waste disposal costs through tipping fees that accurately
represent social costs; the possible value of recyclable materials; the possibility of reducing waste
collection and transportation costs through local composting operations; and the external benefits of
reducing CO2 and methane emissions. Regarding the valuation of methane emissions, the recent
evolution of benefit valuation procedures for the assessment of U.S. federal regulations could be a
game changer for the economic evaluation of alternative waste disposal practices worldwide. The
high social cost of methane (SCM) provides significant benefits for aerobic composting processes that
avoid landfill gas emissions. Although landfill gases are increasingly being captured, recovery systems
are not 100% efficient. Estimates of the social cost of methane are high enough that even relatively
high landfill gas recovery efficiencies allow significant value to be achieved from diverting organic
wastes from landfills.
One key economic issue facing the future waste management policymakers will be the relationship
between local recycling or composting programs and the operation of landfill-based MRFs. The
simultaneous operation of local recycling systems and the MRFs raises the possibility of both
complementarities and inefficiencies in the system. As noted, separating out wet wastes from
recyclables, which effectively is accomplished by single stream recycling systems, will improve the
recovery efficiencies at mixed-waste MRFs (KCI 2009b). Reducing the volume of paper in the waste
stream could also raise MRF operating efficiencies, and improve the quality of marketed fiber
products. Paper and cardboard sustain damage when mixed with municipal waste, lowering their
market value.
However, a high degree of decentralized sorting in which most material is sent to recycling
companies will reduce the supply of recyclables to MRFs, decreasing capacity utilization rates. Lower
capacity utilization rates will raise the costs of materials recovery operations at MRFs (KCI 2009a).
Moreover, reducing recyclables in the waste stream at MRFs will reduce labor productivity, as
workers will have to spend more time to recover the same volume of recyclable material. On the
other hand, if materials recovery efficiencies are constrained by the size of the labor force at the
MRFs, delegating some recycling to local programs might enhance recovery efficiencies in the system
overall.
A potential advantage of landfill-based MRFs is the flexibility to adjust recycling rates to commodity
price fluctuations. Effectively, a landfill-based MRF produces two outputs: waste disposal services,
and recovered materials. The production of these two outputs can be varied as economic conditions
change -- as is the case with private firms which produce joint outputs. Local recycling programs may
not have the same degree of flexibility to adapt to changing economic conditions.
23
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
A related issue is the need to rationalize the waste transportation system. A somewhat unexpected
finding was the high cost of waste collection and transport, particularly in the Adjara AR. The
opportunity costs imposed for waste collection and transport in the Adjara AR are as high or higher
than those in many regions of the United States and Europe. Given that waste service coverage and
hauling distances will both increase in the evolving waste management system, the efficient
rationalization of waste collection and transport will be important for future success. High waste
collection and disposal costs afford an opportunity to integrate local composting into the system,
which would relieve some of the cost burden now falling on municipal waste collection services.
5.2 Stakeholder Effects
Key to the successful implementation of alternative waste management practices in Georgia will be
the financing of the system, and the reconciliation of stakeholder interests. As noted, the
internalization of social costs and the expansion of waste disposal coverage will increase the cost of
solid waste management in the region. The incidence of these costs will therefore be crucial to
achieving policy objectives in the waste management sector. The distribution of waste collection,
hauling costs, and tipping fees among waste generators, municipal tax payers, and the national
government is an important issue that needs to be addressed. As noted above, integrating local
composting into the system could help reduce waste collection burdens, reducing pressure on
municipal budgets for service provision.
How fees might be used to incentivize programmatic objectives is also an issue to consider.
Communities with recycling and composting programs often charge differential waste collection or
tipping fees to encourage separation of materials, or to incentivize composting, or to increase the
operational efficiency of MRFs. Fee structures for alternative services will need to be developed in
the new system with both their incentive and revenue implications in mind.
Reductions in CO2 and methane emissions qualify as global public goods. The benefits of reducing
methane emissions through composting are quite significant in the analysis. Under quite
conservative assumptions, a ton of compost will reduce methane emissions in 2020 with a present
value in 2015 of $34.5 per ton, and this benefit will rise over time as the social cost of methane
increases. As such, the reduction of methane emissions provides an opportunity to mobilize support
from the international community to help finance composting programs in Georgia.
There is significant past experience with the international finance of investments in less developed
countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A December 2015 query of the project database for
the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) showed there were 7685 registered projects, 1002 of
which are explicitly related to waste handling and disposal. These are primarily landfill gas capture
projects. There were three waste handling and disposal projects related to composting, two smallscale projects in Pakistan from 2009 and one large-scale project in India from 2012.
Linking a series of local composting projects into a regional or national program could be fruitful
strategy for mobilizing international support. The goal would be to solicit emissions reductions
credits for the program, which would then be rebated to local actors to help defray costs and to
encourage additional investments.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
24
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
This report has provided an economic assessment of solid waste management alternatives in
Georgia. Over a reasonable range of assumptions about technical and economic parameters, the
analysis shows that recycling and local composting programs have the potential to be economically
efficient relative to conventional solid waste collection and disposal. These results are premised on
the assumption that waste disposal costs are internalized through tipping fees that accurately
represent social costs; that recovered recyclable materials have sufficient market value; and that
local composting operations can be used to reduce municipal waste collection and transportation
costs. The external benefits of reducing CO2 and in particular, methane emissions, will add value to
recycling and composting programs.
The analysis shows that the costs of conventional waste collection, transport, and disposal are quite
high, particularly in the Adjara AR. The median sum of these costs in the Adjara AR is about $72 per
ton of waste disposed when costs expressed in GEL are converted to dollars using nominal exchange
rates, and about $156 per ton when GEL figures are converted using purchasing power exchange
rates. These costs are as high or higher than costs for waste disposal in some regions of the United
States and Europe. The median in the Kakheti region is significantly lower, about $36 per ton using
nominal exchange rates and about $62 using purchasing power exchange rates. The magnitude of
these costs suggest that there is scope for collection and transportation cost efficiency
improvements in the emerging waste management system, and that there are significant benefits to
avoiding these costs through source separation and collection of recyclables and local composting
programs.
Additional benefits to recycling and composting include the value of avoided CO2 and methane
emissions. The value of avoided CO2 emissions range from 5% to 24% of the total value of materials
recovered through recycling programs. These differences reflect both the different market value of
materials and the different amounts of energy required for virgin materials production. The value of
methane emissions reductions as a fraction of the total value of compost ranges from 17% to 61%.
This variation reflects locational differences in the Adjara AR and Kakheti, and which exchange rates
are used for conversion. The value of methane emissions in the overall benefits of composting will
rise significantly over time as the social cost of methane emissions increase.
A key issue facing policymakers is how to optimally integrate the component parts of the waste
management system; for example, the balance to strike among programs for source separation and
recycling, composting, and materials recovery at regional materials recovery facilities. There can be
both complementarities and inefficiencies from the simultaneous operation of multiple components
in an integrated waste management systems. Source separating wet wastes from recyclables will
improve the materials recovery efficiencies at mixed-waste MRFs, and source separating paper will
improve the quality of marketed fiber products. Yet, a high degree of decentralized sorting has the
potential to reduce capacity utilization rates at MRFS to inefficient levels On the other hand, if the
size of the labor force at MRFs is limited, the source separation of recyclables and local composting
programs might enhance recovery efficiencies in the system overall.
Without efficiency improvements and optimization of its component parts, the internalization of the
social costs and the expansion of waste disposal coverage in the new integrated waste management
system will raise waste management costs. Thus, financing the system and distributing the cost
incidence among stakeholders will be key for successful implementation. Mobilizing international
support to help finance the part of the benefits realized that qualify as global public goods could help
attenuate these constraints. Linking a series of local composting projects into a regional or national
program could be used to solicit methane emissions reductions credits, which could then be rebated
to local actors to help defray costs. Given that some of the existing projects under the Clean
Development Mechanism are for landfill gas recovery projects, Georgia might also be able to receive
credits to help finance landfill gas recovery systems at its regional sanitary landfills.
25
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
The conclusions drawn from this study must be offered cautiously in view of the relatively generic
level of the analysis, and parameter uncertainties in key components of the evaluation. The next
step to advancing policymaking would be greater clarity about the local contexts and configurations
for recycling and composting programs that are likely to maximize net value, and their design and
integration into the existing waste management system. To shed light on these issues, site-specific
evaluations could be conducted to clarify the particular contexts where the net-value of alternative
options is likely to be highest. Piloting and carefully monitoring local recycling and composting
alternatives, including the measurement of their performance and economic cost, could generate
data for an informed comparison among the many possible options. In this evaluation it would be
important to include stakeholder impacts. The effects of alternative fee structures on stakeholder
incentives and revenues for program financing would be particularly important to assess.
26
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Tables
Table 1: Data for the Adjara AR
Percent
Service
Coverage
Transportation
Distance
(km)
Tons Per Year Solid
Waste Generated
(TPY)
Annual Waste
Generation Per
Capita (Tons)
Total Waste Budget Per
Person Receiving Waste
Collection Service
(GEL 2015)
Municipality
Population
Population
Density
(Population/Km2)
Batumi
161,200
2,484
100
15
55,000
0.34
41.9
Kobuleti
93,300
131
45
15-30
10,176
0.11
34.0
Keda
20,600
46
15
140
4,866
0.24
28.2
Khulo
36,100
51
5
100-140
1,620
0.04
72.0
Khelvachauri
62,500
175
26
20
1,550
0.02
13.2
Shuakhevi
22,900
39
6
95
500
0.02
91.0
Average
66,100
488
33
69
12,285
0.13
46.7
Median
49,300
91
21
60
3,243
0.08
38.0
Min
20,600
39
5
15
500
0.02
13.2
Max
161,200
2,484
100
140
55,000
0.34
91.0
Source: USAID (2015). Municipal Waste Management Capacity Analysis in the Adjara AR and Kakheti Region in Georgia, Georgia Waste Management Technologies in Regions.
27
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 2: Composition of Solid Waste in the Adjara AR and Kakheti Region
Waste Category
Adjara AR (Summer) %
Kakheti Region%
Paper and
cardboard
17.41
10.41
Glass
5.63
4.76
Scrap metal
1.10
1.99
Polyethylene /
Plastics
20.10
19.28
Cloth
3.30
5.03
Organic
40.00
43.40
Construction
material
2.67
6.39
Material that is
subject of special
supervision
1.28
1.12
Other type of
waste
5.00
7.03
Moisture
3.50
0.56
Source: UNDP (2007).
28
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 3: Data for the Kakheti Region
Municipality
Population
Population
Density
(Population/Km2
Percent
Service
Coverage
Transportation
Distance
(km)
Tons Per Year Solid
Waste Generated
(TPY)
Annual Waste
Generation per
Capita (tons)
Total Waste Budget
Per Person Receiving
Waste Collection
Service
(GEL 2015)
Akmeta
42,300
19
50
30
5,037
0.12
11.8
Gurjaani
69,000
82
100
3-38
13,138
0.19
6.5
Dedoplistskaro
30,400
12
70
5-25
13,800
0.45
24.7
City of Telavi
21,800
1,744
100
6
10,740
0.49
26.3
Telavi
70,900
36
20
6-50
1,920
0.03
25.0
Lagodekhi
52,000
58
50
2-28
3,600
0.07
10.0
Sagarejo
60,300
39
25
6
5,900
0.10
35.7
Signagi
43,200
35
30
30
4,380
0.10
19.6
Kvareli
36,900
37
100
3-25
8,200
0.22
5.6
Average
47,422
229
61
18
7,413
0.20
18.3
Median
43,200
37
50
17
5,900
0.12
18.9
Min
21,800
12
20
3
1,920
0.03
5.6
Max
70,900
1,744
100
50
13,800
0.49
35.7
Source: USAID (2015). Municipal Waste Management Capacity Analysis in the Adjara AR and Kakheti Region in Georgia, Georgia Waste Management Technologies in Regions.
29
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 4: Comparison of Transit and Collection Fees to Average Disposal Charges in the Adjara AR and Kakheti Region
Waste Collection, Street
Average Waste Disposal
Percent
Percent
Cleaning, and Removal
Charges
Total*
Total
(GEL 2015 Per Ton)
(GEL 2015 Per Ton)
Batumi
113.4
99%
1.71
1%
Kobuleti
96.4
96%
4.47
4%
Regional
Average for
36.2
89%
4.7
the Kakheti
Region
* Total is the sum of waste collection, removal, and street cleaning and disposal charges.
11%
Source: USAID (2015). Municipal Waste Management Capacity Analysis in the Adjara AR and Kakheti Region in Georgia, Georgia Waste Management Technologies in Regions.
30
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 5: Structure of Proposed Tipping Fee at the Tsetskhlauri Landfill in the Adjara Autonomous Republic
Cost Category
GEL 2015
$US 2015
Infrastructure
3.8
1.7
Air space
20.1
8.9
Operation
7.2
3.2
Fixation
15.8
7.0
Storage
2.0
0.9
Sum
48.8
21.7
31
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Year
5% Discount Rate
(Average)
3% Discount Rate
(Average)
2.5% Discount Rate
(Average)
3% Discount Rate
(95th Percentile)
2015
509
1,143
1,558
3,116
2020
602
1,350
1,766
3,635
2025
727
1,558
1,974
4,155
2030
852
1,766
2,285
4,674
2035
1,008
1,974
2,597
5,505
2040
1,143
2,285
2,908
6,128
2045
1,350
2,597
3,116
6,855
2050
1,454
2,805
3,428
7,479
Table 6. Social Cost Per Ton of Methane Emissions ($2015)
Source: USEPA (2015). Price changes reflect real price increases in the social cost of methane (SCM) over time.
32
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 7. Social Cost of Methane Per Ton of Solid Waste Landfilled in the Adjara Autonomous Republic
80% LFG Recovery
60% LFG Recovery
40% LFG Recovery
Year
5%
(Average)
2.5%
(Average)
5%
(Average)
2.5%
(Average)
5%
(Average)
2.5%
(Average)
2015
7
21
14
42
20
62
2020
8
24
16
47
24
71
2025
10
26
19
53
29
79
2030
11
31
23
61
34
92
2035
14
35
27
69
40
104
2040
15
39
31
78
46
117
2045
18
42
36
83
54
125
2050
19
46
39
92
58
137
33
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 8. Social Cost of Methane Per Ton of Solid Waste Landfilled in the Kakheti Region
80% LFG Recovery
Year
60% LFG Recovery
40% LFG Recovery
5%
(average)
2.5% (average)
5%
(Average)
2.5%
(Average)
5%
(Average)
2.5%
(Average)
2015
7
22
15
45
22
67
2020
9
25
17
51
26
76
2025
10
28
21
57
31
85
2030
12
33
24
66
37
98
2035
15
37
29
75
43
112
2040
16
42
33
83
49
125
2045
19
45
39
89
58
134
2050
21
49
42
98
63
148
34
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 9. Average Cost of Waste Collection, Removal, and Street Cleaning in the Adjara Autonomous Republic
Waste Collection,
Street Cleaning,
and Removal
(GEL 2015 Per Ton)
Waste Collection,
Removal, and
Street Cleaning
($2015 Per Ton
Using Nominal
Exchange Rage)
Waste Collection,
Removal, and Street
Cleaning
($2015 Per Ton Using
PPP Exchange Rate)
Waste Collection,
Removal, and Street
Cleaning
(GEL 2015 Per Ton-Km)
6,236,800
980,518
25,600
128,994
195,400
89,090
113.4
96.4
5.3
79.6
126.1
178.2
50.4
42.8
2.3
35.4
56.0
79.2
133.4
113.3
6.1
93.7
148.2
209.6
7.56
4.38
0.04
0.66
6.31
1.88
1,276,067
Average
162,197
Median
25,600
Min
6,236,800
Max
Source: Derived from Table 1.
*Does not include street cleaning.
99.8
104.9
5.3
178.2
44.4
46.6
2.3
79.2
117.5
123.4
6.1
209.6
3.47
3.13
0.04
7.56
Municipality
Estimated Annual
Waste Collection,
Removal, and Street
Cleaning Costs in 2015
(GEL 2015)
Batumi
Kobuleti
Keda*
Khulo
Khelvachauri
Shuakhevi
35
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 10. Average Cost of Waste Collection, Removal, and Street Cleaning in the Kakheti Region
Waste Collection,
Estimated Annual Waste
Waste Collection,
Waste Collection,
Removal, and Street
Collection, Removal, and
Removal, and Street
Removal, and Street
Cleaning
Street Cleaning Costs in
Cleaning
Municipality
Cleaning
($ 2015 Per Ton
2015
($ 2015 Per Ton Using PPP
(GEL 2015 Per Ton)
Using Nominal
(GEL 2015)
Exchange Rate)
Exchange Rae)
Akmeta
179,155
35.6
15.8
41.8
Gurjaani
408,249
31.1
13.8
36.5
Dedoplistskaro
415,500
30.1
13.4
35.5
City of Telavi
105,000
9.8
4.3
11.4
Telavi*
74,172
38.6
17.2
45.5
Lagodekhi
220,000
61.1
27.2
72.0
Sagarejo
258,600
43.8
19.5
51.6
Signagi
221,000
50.5
22.4
59.3
Kvareli
207,200
25.3
11.2
29.7
Average
232,097
Median
220,000
Min
74,172
Max
415,500
Source: Derived from Table 2.
*Does not include street cleaning.
36.2
35.6
9.8
61.1
16.1
15.8
4.3
27.2
42.6
41.8
11.4
72.0
Waste Collection,
Removal, and Street
Cleaning
(GEL 2015 Per Ton-km)
1.19
1.52
2.01
1.63
1.38
4.14
7.30
1.68
1.81
2.52
1.75
1.38
7.30
36
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 11. Coefficient Estimates for Total Annual Costs of Waste Collection and Removal (GEL 2015)
Variables
Heteroscedastic-Consistent
P Values (Pr > t)
Parameters
Parameter
Estimates
Heteroscedastic-Consistent
Standard Errors
a
511869
95231
.0007
74.04819
15.17125
.0014
.00190
.00020567
<.0001
14434
4905.57938
.0186
2.12837
.58233
.0064
349230
152681
.0515
Intercept
Q-Q’
b1
(Q-Q’)2
b2
D-D’
b3
(D-D’)*(Q-Q’)
b4
Dummy Variable for Adjara AR
d
R-Squared: .9950
Adjusted R-Squared: .9919
N=14
37
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 12A. Total Social Cost of Collection, Transport, and Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for the Adjara AR
Using Nominal Exchange Rates (Midyear 2015)
Waste Collection and
Landfill Disposal Costs
Social Cost of Methane*
Total
Transport
Adjara AR
$2015 Per
$2015 per Ton Fraction
$2015 per
Fraction
$2015 Per
Fraction of
Ton
of Total
Ton
of Total
Ton
Total
Batumi
50.4
0.61
20.0
0.24
12.5
0.15
82.9
Kobuleti
42.8
0.57
20.0
0.27
12.5
0.17
75.3
Khulo
35.4
0.52
20.0
0.29
12.5
0.18
67.9
Khelvachauri
56.0
0.63
20.0
0.23
12.5
0.14
88.5
Shuakhevi
79.2
0.71
20.0
0.18
12.5
0.11
111.7
Mean
52.8
0.61
20.0
0.24
12.5
0.15
85.3
Median
51.6
0.61
20.0
0.24
12.5
0.15
84.1
Table 12B. Total Social Cost of Collection, Transport, and Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for the Adjara AR
Using Purchasing Power Parity Exchange Rates
Waste Collection and
Landfill Disposal Costs
Social Cost of Methane*
Total
Transport
Adjara AR
$2015 Per
$2015 per Ton Fraction
$2015 per
Fraction
$2015 Per
Fraction of
Ton
of Total
Ton
of Total
Ton
Total
Batumi
133.4
0.80
20.0
0.12
12.5
0.08
165.9
Kobuleti
113.3
0.78
20.0
0.14
12.5
0.09
145.8
Khulo
93.7
0.74
20.0
0.16
12.5
0.10
126.2
Khelvachauri
148.2
0.82
20.0
0.11
12.5
0.07
180.7
Shuakhevi
209.6
0.87
20.0
0.08
12.5
0.05
242.1
Mean
139.8
0.81
20.0
0.12
12.5
0.07
172.3
Median
136.6
0.81
20.0
0.12
12.5
0.07
169.1
* For 2020, discounted at 5% to 2015; 60% LFG Recovery Fraction.
38
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 13A. Total Social Cost of Collection, Transport, and Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for the Kakheti Region
Using Nominal Exchange Rates (Midyear 2015)
Waste Collection and
Landfill Disposal Costs
Social Cost of Methane*
Transport
Total
Kakheti Region
$2015 per Ton Fraction $2015 per Ton Fraction
$2015 Per
Fraction of $2015 Per Ton
of Total
of Total
Ton
Total
Akmeta
15.8
0.32
20.0
0.41
13.3
0.27
49.1
Gurjaani
13.8
0.29
20.0
0.42
13.3
0.28
47.1
Dedoplistskaro
13.4
0.29
20.0
0.43
13.3
0.28
46.7
City of Telavi
4.3
0.11
20.0
0.53
13.3
0.35
37.6
Telavi
17.2
0.34
20.0
0.40
13.3
0.26
50.5
Lagodekhi
27.2
0.45
20.0
0.33
13.3
0.22
60.5
Sagarejo
19.5
0.37
20.0
0.38
13.3
0.25
52.8
Signagi
22.4
0.40
20.0
0.36
13.3
0.24
55.7
Kvareli
11.2
0.25
20.0
0.45
13.3
0.30
44.5
Mean
16.1
0.31
20.0
0.41
13.3
0.27
49.4
Median
15.8
0.32
20.0
0.41
13.3
0.27
49.1
* For 2020 , discounted at 5% to 2015; 60% LFG Recovery Fraction.
39
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 13B. Total Social Cost of Collection, Transport, and Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for the Kakheti Region
Using Purchasing Power Parity Exchange Rates
Waste Collection and
Landfill Disposal Costs
Transport
Kakheti Region
$2015 per Ton Fraction $2015 per Ton Fraction
of Total
of Total
Akmeta
41.8
0.56
20.0
0.27
Gurjaani
36.5
0.52
20.0
0.29
Dedoplistskaro
35.5
0.52
20.0
0.29
City of Telavi
11.4
0.25
20.0
0.45
Telavi
45.5
0.58
20.0
0.25
Lagodekhi
72.0
0.68
20.0
0.19
Sagarejo
51.6
0.61
20.0
0.24
Signagi
59.3
0.64
20.0
0.22
Kvareli
29.7
0.47
20.0
0.32
Mean
42.6
0.56
20.0
0.26
Median
41.8
0.56
20.0
0.27
* For 2020 , discounted at 5% to 2015; 60% LFG Recovery Fraction.
Social Cost of Methane*
$2015 Per
Ton
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
Fraction of
Total
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.30
0.17
0.13
0.16
0.14
0.21
0.18
0.18
Total
$2015 Per Ton
75.1
69.8
68.8
44.7
78.8
105.3
84.9
92.6
63.0
75.9
75.1
40
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Adjara AR
5%
Paper and
cardboard
Glass
Polyethylene
/ Plastics
Total Value
Recovered
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Low
Price
High
Price
Low
Price
High
Price
Low
Price
High
Price
Low
Price
High
Price
Low
Price
High
Price
Low
Price
High
Price
0.20
1.50
0.40
3.00
0.60
4.50
0.8
6.0
1.00
7.50
1.2
9.0
0.02
0.19
0.04
0.38
0.06
0.57
0.08
0.76
0.10
0.95
0.12
1.14
0.86
6.16
1.71
12.31
2.57
18.47
3.42
24.62
4.28
30.78
5.13
36.93
1.08
7.85
2.16
15.70
3.24
23.55
4.32
31.4
5.40
39.25
6.48
47.1
Table 14:
Value
Recovered at
MRFs Per Ton
of Waste
Throughput
For Different
Recyclables
Recovery
Rates, $2015
U.S
41
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 15: Value Recovered at MRFs Per Ton of Waste Throughput For Different Recyclables Recovery Rates, $2015 U.S
Kakheti
Region
Paper and
cardboard
Glass
Polyethylene
/ Plastics
Total Value
Recovered
5%
10%
Low
Price
High
Price
0.12
0.90
0.02
Low
Price
15%
20%
25%
30%
High
Price
Low
Price
High
Price
Low
Price
High
Price
Low
Price
High
Price
Low
Price
High
Price
0.24
1.80
0.36
2.70
0.48
3.60
3.60
0.60
0.73
5.40
0.17
0.04
0.33
0.06
0.50
0.07
0.65
0.65
0.10
0.11
0.98
0.82
5.90
1.64
11.80
2.46
17.70
3.29
23.61
23.61
4.10
4.93
35.41
0.96
6.97
1.92
13.93
2.88
20.90
3.85
27.86
27.86
4.80
5.77
41.79
42
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 16. Social Value of Averted CO2 using the Central Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) Estimates at 5%
Material
Potential averted GHGs
in Georgia (TCO2/T
recycled)
Value of CO2 Emissions Reductions per Ton Recycled ($2015) for Different Materials and Years*
2015
2020
2025
Aluminum
8.28
102.93
112.29
131.00
Iron/steel
1.11
13.76
15.02
17.52
Glass
0.15
1.81
1.98
2.31
Newsprint
0.91
11.35
12.38
14.44
"Office paper"
0.55
6.78
7.40
8.63
"Mixed paper"
1.11
13.83
15.09
17.60
Cardboard
0.83
10.27
11.21
13.07
Plastic 1 (PET)
1.76
21.89
23.88
27.86
Plastic 2 (HDPE)
2.75
34.18
37.28
43.50
Plastic 3 (PVC)
1.41
17.53
19.13
22.32
Plastic 4 (LDPE)
3.05
37.94
41.38
48.28
Copper
4.49
55.80
60.87
71.01
* Price changes reflect real increases in the social cost of carbon (SCC) over time.
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
149.72
20.02
2.64
16.51
9.86
20.12
14.94
31.84
49.71
25.50
55.18
81.16
168.43
22.52
2.97
18.57
11.10
22.63
16.81
35.82
55.92
28.69
62.08
91.30
196.50
26.28
3.46
21.66
12.95
26.41
19.61
41.79
65.24
33.47
72.42
106.52
215.22
28.78
3.79
23.73
14.18
28.92
21.48
45.77
71.46
36.66
79.32
116.66
243.29
32.53
4.28
26.82
16.03
32.69
24.28
51.74
80.78
41.44
89.67
131.88
43
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 17: Social Value of Averted CO2 Emissions and Recyclables Value Per Ton of Mixed-Waste Processed at Different Recovery Efficiencies
Adjara AR
Value of
Reducing CO2
Gas Emissions
(SCC 2015)
Value
Recovered from
the Sale of
Recyclables
Total
Kakheti Region
Value of
Reducing CO2
Gas Emissions
(SCC 2015)
Value Recovered
from the Sale of
Recyclables
Total
Low
0.25
5%
High
0.57
Low
0.50
10%
High
1.14
Low
0.75
High
1.70
Low
1.00
High
2.27
25%
Low
High
1.25
2.84
Low
1.50
High
3.41
1.18
7.65
2.36
15.31
3.54
22.96
4.72
30.61
5.90
38.27
7.08
45.92
1.43
8.22
2.86
16.44
4.29
24.66
5.72
32.89
7.15
41.11
8.58
49.33
Low
0.22
High
0.55
10%
Low
High
0.45
1.10
15%
Low
High
0.67
1.65
20%
Low
High
0.90
2.20
25%
Low
High
1.12
2.74
Low
1.35
High
3.29
1.03
6.76
2.05
13.53
3.08
20.29
4.11
27.06
5.13
33.82
6.16
40.58
1.25
7.31
2.50
14.63
3.75
21.94
5.00
29.25
6.25
36.56
7.51
43.88
5%
15%
20%
30%
30%
44
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 18. Decentralized Source Separation
Local Sorting and Delivery to Collection
Location
steel cans
Metals
aluminum
Local Collection and Transport
Long Range Hauling to End Users
from collection areas to local scrap
dealers
From locality to manufactures or
to brokers/recyclers for further
processing
from collection areas to local dealers
or transfer station
From locality to manufactures or
to brokers/recyclers for further
processing
from collection areas to local dealers
or transfer station
From locality to manufactures or
to brokers/recyclers for further
processing
from collection areas to local dealers
or transfer station
From locality to manufactures or
to brokers/recyclers for further
processing
scrap metal
Clear
Glass
Colored
Plastic
Grades 1-7, Unsorted
or Sorted
newspaper
magazines
Paper
cardboard
mixed papers
45
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 19. More Centralized Sorting
Recycling Process
Single-Stream
Dual-Stream
Delivery to Collection
Location
Mixed-Recyclables
Metals, Glass, Plastic
Paper
Local
Transport
Long-Range
Hauling
Centralized Sorting
End-Use
To transfer
station
From transfer
station to MRF
Sorting and baling at
MRF
From MRF to
manufactures or to
brokers/recyclers for
further processing
To transfer
station
From transfer
station to MRF
Sorting and baling at
MRF
From MRF to
manufacturers or
brokers/recyclers for
further processing
46
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 20. Total Value of Materials Recovery through Source Separation and Recycling ($2015 per Ton)
Materials
Metals
Aluminum Cans
Steel Cans
Glass
Brown
Clear
Green
Mixed Glass
Paper and
Cardboard
Newsprint
"Office paper"
"Mixed paper"
Cardboard
Plastics
Clear and Light Blue
PET
Colored PET
Plastic 2 (HDPE)
HDPE Mixed Color
Mixed Plastic
Value
Recovered
(Average Mid
Year Price
2015)
Value of LifeCycle CO2
Emissions
Reductions
Fraction
of Total
Total Value
per Ton
0.02
0.16
102.9
13.8
0.09
0.11
1153.9
125.1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.46
0.37
0.68
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.04
0.03
0.06
43.7
53.8
29.6
-13.3
0.55
0.73
0.41
0.56
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.28
0.20
0.35
0.29
11.4
6.8
13.8
10.3
0.16
0.07
0.24
0.15
70.4
100.2
57.3
69.3
230.4
0.85
20.0
0.07
21.9
0.08
272.3
85.9
617.0
242.1
156.2
0.67
0.92
0.82
0.77
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.16
0.03
0.07
0.10
21.9
34.4
34.4
27.9
0.17
0.05
0.12
0.14
127.8
671.4
296.5
204.1
Fraction
of Total
Avoided
Landfill
Cost
1031.0
91.4
0.89
0.73
20.0
20.0
21.9
32.0
7.8
-35.1
0.50
0.59
0.26
39.1
73.4
23.4
39.1
Fraction
of Total
47
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 21A. Total Value of Recyclable Materials versus Collection and Transportation Costs in the Adjara AR ($2015 using Nominal Exchange Rates)
Adjara AR
Waste
Collection
and
Transport
Batumi
Kobuleti
Khulo
Khelvachauri
Shuakhevi
Mean
Median
50.4
42.8
35.4
56.0
79.2
52.8
51.6
Aluminum
Cans
Steel
Cans
Brown
Glass
Clear
Glass
Green
Glass
Newsprint
Office
Paper
Mixed
Paper
Cardboard
Clear
and
Light
Blue
PET
Colored
PET
HDPE
HDPE
Mixed
Color
Mixed
Plastic
1153.9
125.1
43.7
53.8
29.6
70.4
100.2
57.3
69.3
272.3
127.8
671.4
296.5
204.1
Table 21B. Total Value of Recyclable Materials versus Collection and Transportation Costs in the Adjara AR ($2015 using PPP Exchange Rates)
Adjara AR
Waste
Collection
and
Transport
Batumi
Kobuleti
Khulo
Khelvachauri
Shuakhevi
Mean
Median
133.4
113.3
93.7
148.2
209.6
139.8
136.6
Aluminum
Cans
Steel
Cans
Brown
Glass
Clear
Glass
Green
Glass
Newsprint
Office
Paper
Mixed
Paper
Cardboard
Clear
and
Light
Blue
PET
Colore
d PET
HDPE
HDPE
Mixed
Color
Mixed
Plastic
1153.9
125.1
43.7
53.8
29.6
70.4
100.2
57.3
69.3
272.3
127.8
671.4
296.5
204.1
48
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 22A. Total Value of Recyclable Materials versus Collection and Transportation Costs in the Kakheti Region ($2015 using Nominal Exchange Rates)
Kakheti Region
Waste
Collection
and
Transport
Akmeta
Gurjaani
Dedoplistskaro
City of Telavi
Telavi
Lagodekhi
Sagarejo
Signagi
Kvareli
Mean
Median
15.8
13.8
13.4
4.3
17.2
27.2
19.5
22.4
11.2
16.1
15.8
Aluminum
Cans
Steel
Cans
Brown
Glass
Clear
Glass
Green
Glass
Newsprint
Office
Paper
Mixed
Paper
Cardboard
Clear
and
Light
Blue
PET
Colored
PET
HDPE
HDPE
Mixed
Color
Mixed
Plastic
1153.9
125.1
43.7
53.8
29.6
70.4
100.2
57.3
69.3
272.3
127.8
671.4
296.5
204.1
49
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 22B. Total Value of Recyclable Materials versus Collection and Transportation Costs in the Kakheti Region ($2015 using PPP Exchange Rates)
Kakheti Region
Waste
Collection
and
Transport
Akmeta
Gurjaani
Dedoplistskaro
City of Telavi
Telavi
Lagodekhi
Sagarejo
Signagi
Kvareli
Mean
Median
41.8
36.5
35.5
11.4
45.5
72.0
51.6
59.3
29.7
42.6
41.8
Aluminum
Cans
Steel
Cans
Brown
Glass
Clear
Glass
Green
Glass
Newsprint
Office
Paper
Mixed
Paper
Cardboard
Clear
and
Light
Blue
PET
Colored
PET
HDPE
HDPE
Mixed
Color
Mixed
Plastic
1153.9
125.1
43.7
53.8
29.6
70.4
100.2
57.3
69.3
272.3
127.8
671.4
296.5
204.1
50
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
80% LFG Recovery
5% (average)
60% LFG Recovery
2.5% (average)
5% (average)
40% LFG Recovery
2.5% (average)
5% (average)
2.5%
Table 23:
Ben
efit
of
(average)
Avoi
ded
Met
30%
hane
Emis
203
sion
s
230
from
Prod
257
ucin
g
298
One
Ton
338
of
Com
379
post
Percent
Mass
Reduction
/Year*
10%
30%
10%
30%
10%
30%
10%
30%
10%
30%
10%
2015
19
22
57
68
37
44
114
135
56
66
172
2020
22
26
65
77
44
52
130
153
66
78
195
2025
27
32
73
86
53
63
145
171
80
95
218
2030
31
37
84
99
63
74
168
198
94
11
252
2035
37
44
95
113
74
88
191
226
111
131
286
2040
42
50
107
126
84
99
214
253
126
149
321
2045
50
59
114
135
99
117
229
271
149
176
343
406
2050
53
63
126
149
107
126
252
298
160
189
378
447
*Incr
easi
ng
price
s reflect rises in the real Social Cost of Methane (SCM) over time.
51
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 24A. Benefits Generated Per Ton of Compost for the Adjara AR Using Nominal Exchange Rates
Adjara AR
Batumi
Kobuleti
Khulo
Khelvahauri
Shuakhevi
Mean
Median
Transport Cost Savings
from Local
Composting*
$2015 per Fraction
Ton
of Total
4.3
0.07
8.0
53.9
6.6
42.1
23.0
15.5
0.12
0.49
0.10
0.43
0.29
0.22
Landfill Disposal Costs
Savings**
Social Cost of Methane***
$2015 per
Ton
22.0
Fraction
of Total
0.36
$2015 Per
Ton
34.5
Fraction
of Total
0.57
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
0.34
0.20
0.35
0.22
0.28
0.31
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
0.53
0.31
0.55
0.35
0.43
0.48
Total
$2015 Per
Ton
60.8
64.5
110.4
63.1
98.6
79.5
72.0
Table 24B: Benefits Generated Per Ton of Compost for the Adjara AR Using Purchasing Power Parity Exchange Rates
Adjara AR
Batumi
Kobuleti
Khulo
Khelvahauri
Shuakhevi
Mean
Median
Transport Cost Savings
from Local
Composting*
$2015 per Fraction
Ton
of Total
11.3
0.17
21.3
142.7
17.5
111.4
60.9
41.1
0.27
0.72
0.24
0.66
0.52
0.42
Landfill Disposal Costs
Savings**
Social Cost of Methane***
$2015 per
Ton
22.0
Fraction
of Total
0.32
$2015 Per
Ton
34.5
Fraction
of Total
0.51
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
0.28
0.11
0.30
0.13
0.19
0.23
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
0.44
0.17
0.47
0.21
0.29
0.35
Total
$2015 Per
Ton
67.8
77.8
199.2
74.0
167.9
117.4
97.6
*Beyond 6 km; **Assuming 10% mass compaction from composting; ***Assuming 10% compaction; for year 2020; discounted at 5% to 2015.
52
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Kakheti Region
Akmeta
Gurjaani
Dedoplistskaro
City of Telavi
Telavi
Lagodekhi
Sagarejo
Signagi
Kvareli
Mean
Median
Transport Cost Savings
from Local
Composting*
$2015 per
Fraction
Ton
of Total
11.4
0.17
6.9
0.11
4.3
0.07
0.0
0.00
10.4
0.16
4.1
0.07
0.0
0.00
11.4
0.17
3.8
0.06
5.8
0.09
4.3
0.07
Landfill Disposal Costs
Savings**
$2015 per
Ton
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
Fraction
of Total
0.32
0.35
0.36
0.39
0.33
0.36
0.39
0.32
0.36
0.35
0.36
Social Cost of Methane***
$2015 Per
Ton
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
Fraction of
Total
0.51
0.54
0.57
0.61
0.52
0.57
0.61
0.51
0.57
0.55
0.57
Total
$2015 Per
Ton
Table 25A: Benefits
Generated Per Ton of
Compost for the
Kakheti Region Using
Nominal Exchange
Rates
67.9
63.4
60.8
56.5
66.9
60.6
56.5
67.9
60.3
62.3
60.8
*Beyond 6 km; **Assuming 10% mass compaction from composting; ***Assuming 10% compaction; for year 2020; discounted at 5% to 2015.
53
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Table 25B. Benefits Generated Per Ton of Compost for the Kakheti Using Purchasing Power Parity Exchange Rates.
Kakheti Region
Akmeta
Gurjaani
Dedoplistskaro
City of Telavi
Telavi
Lagodekhi
Sagarejo
Signagi
Kvareli
Mean
Median
Transport Cost Savings
from Local
Composting*
$2015 per
Fraction
Ton
of Total
30.0
0.35
18.2
0.24
11.3
0.17
0.0
0.00
27.6
0.33
11.0
0.16
0.0
0.00
30.0
0.35
10.0
0.15
15.3
0.21
11.3
0.17
Landfill Disposal Costs
Savings**
$2015 per
Ton
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
Fraction
of Total
0.25
0.29
0.32
0.39
0.26
0.33
0.39
0.25
0.33
0.31
0.32
Social Cost of Methane**
$2015 Per
Ton
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
Fraction of
Total
0.40
0.46
0.51
0.61
0.41
0.51
0.61
0.40
0.52
0.48
0.51
Total
$2015 Per
Ton
86.5
74.7
67.8
56.5
84.1
67.5
56.5
86.5
66.5
71.8
67.8
54
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Appendix: Data For Value And GHG Emissions Savings For Recovered Recyclables
Price estimates for recycled materials
Eurostat (2016). Material Prices for Recyclates. Brussels: EC. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/waste/waste-related-topics/prices-for-recyclates
-
-
-
Average price for glass, July-August 2015: 57 euro/metric ton (approx. 400,000 T
traded/month). From “Price developments and volume trade [sic] of glass waste EU-28.”
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/342366/351919/websheet-glass.pdf
Average price for paper, July-August 2015: 144 euro/T (approx. 3 million T/month). From
“Price developments and volume trade *sic+ of paper waste EU-28.” Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/342366/351919/websheet-paper.pdf
Average price for plastic, July 2015: 373 euro/T (price and volume both varied more than other
materials, but monthly volume typically 500,000 to 700,000 T). From “Price developments and
volume trade [sic] of plastic waste EU-28.” Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/342366/351919/websheet-plastic.pdf
Volume of paper and plastic types traded in EU, July 2015 (values in 2015 euro). Eurostat (2016). EU
trade since 1988 by CN8. International Trade [database]. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/internationaltrade/data/database?p_p_id=NavTreeportletprod_WAR_NavTreeportletprod_INSTANCE_yMiooQ47vf
0e&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_count=1
Material type
Unbleached
paper/cardboard
Bleached, noncolored paper
Newsprint, phone
directories, etc.
Polyethylene
(Plastics 1, 2, 4)
PVC (Plastic 3)
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
Other plastics
Foreign Trade
Statistics code
47071000
Internal
volume (T)
342,130
External
volume (T)
50,317
392,447
12.8%
47072000
65,654
20,914
86,568
2.8%
47073010
202,395
14,915
217,310
7.1%
39151000
87,060
Total fibers:
6,324
3,065,151
93,384
13.5%
39153000
39159011
39152000
39159080
10,489
21,845
6,942
84,757
1,016
1,420
771
22,643
Total plastics:
(Bold headings indicate information taken directly from Eurostat.)
Total volume
11,505
23,265
7,713
107,400
693,185
Percentage
1.7%
Average emissions averted per ton of paper/cardboard recycled: (12.8% * 0.826 T averted/T
cardboard) + (2.8% * 0.545 T averted/T office paper) + (7.1% * 0.912 T averted/T newsprint) = 0.186 T
Value of averted emissions (5%, 2015): 0.186 T * $11 (2007)/T * $1.14 (2015)/$1.00 (2007) = $2.33/T
55
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Average emissions averted per ton of plastic recycled: (13.5% * 1.76 T averted/T polyethylene) + (1.7%
* 1.41 T averted/T PVC) = 0.262 T
Value of averted emissions: 0.262 T * $11/T * $1.14 (2015)/$1.00 (2007) = $3.28/T
Environment Media Group (2015). Let’s Recycle: Prices. Beaconsfield, UK (Bucks.): Environment
Media Group.
-
-
-
-
Glass prices, July 2015: average of £5 per ton for green glass, £20.50 per ton for clear. From
http://www.letsrecycle.com/prices/glass/glass-prices-2015/
Paper/cardboard prices, July 2015: average of £15 per ton for mixed paper, £47 per ton for
white office paper (note: newsprint and cardboard both about £25 per ton). From
http://www.letsrecycle.com/prices/waste-paper/merchant-prices/2015-merchant-prices/
Plastic container prices, July 2015: average of £55 per ton for colored PET (lowest), £395 per
ton for “HDPE natural” (highest). From http://www.letsrecycle.com/prices/plastics/plasticbottles/plastic-bottles-2015/
o This page also notes that the preferred bale size is 180 cm x 120 cm x 100 cm, with a
preferred weight between 200 and 325 kg (may or may not be important).
o Prices for all plastics have decreased steadily since July 2015.
Plastic film prices, July 2015: average of £70 per ton for low-grade export (80% usable), £370
per ton for “clear natural.” From http://www.letsrecycle.com/prices/plastics/plasticfilm/plastic-film-2015/
For July 2015, £1.00 was about equal to $1.55—retrieved from
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GBPUSD:CUR
Lowest- and highest-valued types of paper, glass and plastic, with market prices and averted GHG costs
considered separately:
Price
Paper
Glass
Plastics
(Metals)
Low
Mixed paper
Green
Colored PET
High
EU average
EU average
HDPE natural
Averted GHG Emissions
Low
High
Office paper
Mixed paper
(no difference)
PVC
LDPE
Steel
Aluminum
56
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
References
Amini, Hamid R., Debra R. Reinhart, and Kevin R. Mackie. (2012) Determination of first-order landfill gas
modeling parameters and uncertainties. Waste Management 32(2): 305-316.
Boa, Y., Chen, T-B., Gao, D., Zheng, G-D., Liu, B., Lee, D-J., (2008). Pile settlement and volume reduction
measurement during forced-aeration static composting. Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 7450–7457.
Breitenbeck, G.A; Schellinger, D. (2004). Calculating the reduction in material mass and volume during
composting. Compost Science and Utilization 12 (4): 365.
Beede and Bloom (1995). The economics of municipal solid waste. The World Bank Research Observer
10(2): 113-50.
Boardman, A. A. Vining, W.G. Waters, II, Costs and benefits through bureaucratic lenses: Example of a
highway project, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12 (3): 532-555 (1993).
Bühner, M. (2012). To recycle or not to recycle—PVC cable waste is the question. Know the Flow [web
log]. Hamburg, Germany: Know the Flow. Retrieved from http://www.knowtheflow.com/2012/torecycle-or-not-to-recycle-pvc-cable-waste-is-the-question/
CalRecycle (2015). California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery AB 341 Report to the
Legislature [Publication # DRRR-2015-1538]. Sacramento: CalRecycle. Retrieved from
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/1538/20151538.pdf
Covec (2007). Recycling: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Final Report. Prepared for the Ministry of the
Environment, New Zealand.
Environment Canada (2013). Technical Document on Municipal Solid Waste Organics Processing. ISBN:
978-1-100-21707-9.
EEA (2013). Managing Municipal Solid Waste: A Review of Achievements in 32 European Countries
[report 2/2013]. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. Retrieved from
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste
Eunomia et al (2002). Eunomia Research & Consulting, Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza, HDRA
Consultants, ZREU and LDK ECO on behalf of ECOTEC Research & Consulting. Economic Analysis of
Options for Managing Biodegradable Municipal Waste. Final Report to the European Commission.
Eunomia (2011). Kerbside Collections Options: Wales. Final Report. ISBN: 1-84405-441-1.
European Commission (2015). Georgia: Trade [fact sheet]. Brussels: EC Directorate-General for
Trade. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/georgia/
Fickes, M. (2009). Single-Minded. Waste 360. Retrieved from
http://waste360.com/Recycling_And_Processing/single-stream-recycling-collection-200910.
Gvilava, E., & L. Garibashvili (2014). ENER2I Country Report: Georgia. Tbilisi: Energy Efficiency Centre
(EEC) Georgia. Retrieved from https://ener2i.eu/page/34/attach/0_Georgia_Country_Report.pdf
57
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
Hutchinson, A. (2008, November 12). Recycling by the numbers: The truth about recycling. Popular
Mechanics [online edition]. New York: Hearst Communications, Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a3757/4291576/
Hygenia (2009). Tsetskhlauri Solid Waste Landfill Construction and Exploitation Environmental and
Social Impact Assessment Project.
IWAG (2015). Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Washington, DC: Interagency Working Group
on Social Cost of Carbon IAWG. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf
KCI (Kessler Consulting, Inc) (2009a). Materials Recovery Feasibility Study, Part I. Prepared for Pinellas
County Department of Solid Waste Operations. St. Petersburg, Florida.
KCI (Kessler Consulting, Inc). (2009b). Materials Recovery Feasibility Study, Part 2. Prepared for
Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste Operations. St. Petersburg, Florida.
Kinnaman, T. C. (2010). The costs of municipal curbside recycling and waste collection. Resources,
Conservation, and Recycling, 864.
Krutilla, K. (2005). Using the Kaldor‐Hicks tableau format for cost‐benefit analysis and policy evaluation.
Cost-Benefit Analysis and Public Policy, 235-257.
Krutilla, K., Good, D.H., and Graham, J.D. (2015). Uncertainty in the Cost-Effectiveness of Federal Air
Quality Regulations. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6(01), 66-111.
Matthews, E., & Themelis, N. (2007). Potential for Reducing Global Methane Emissions from Landfills,
2000 - 2030. Eleventh International Waste Mangement and Landfill Symposium. Sardinia: CISA,
Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy
Okereke, V.O; Talich, C., McEwen, M. (2006). Recovering air space from municipal solid waste landfill
cells: The Cedar Hill Regional Landfill example. Presented at the SEANA’s 21st Annual Pacific Northwest
Regional and Canadian Symposium, Richmond, BC. Canada.
Pandyaswargo, A.H., Premakumara, D. G. J. (2014). Financial sustainability of modern composting: the
economically optimal scale for municipal waste composting plant in developing Asia. The International
Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 3:66
Ready, Mark J., and Richard C. Ready. (1995). Optimal pricing of depletable, replaceable resources: the
case of landfill tipping fees. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 ( 3): 307-323.
SAO (2015). Performance Audit of Municipal Solid Waste Management. State Audit Office of Georgia.
UNDP (2007). Report of Waste Inventory on the Territory of Georgia.
USAID (2014a). Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Systems Final Assessment Report. Georgia Waste
Management Technologies in Regions.
USAID (2014b). Component 2 Recycling Sector Capacity Assessment and Project Plan. Georgia Waste
Management Technologies in Regions.
58
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Waste Management Strategies For the Adjara AR and the Kakheti Region of Georgia
USAID (2015). Municipal Waste Management Capacity Analysis in the Adjara AR and Kakheti Region in
Georgia, Georgia Waste Management Technologies in Regions.
USEIA (2016). Total carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption of energy. International Energy
Statistics [database]. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8
USEPA (2006). Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions
and Sinks, 3rd edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati: National Service Center for
Environmental Publications. Retrieved from nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=60000AVO.TXT
USEPA (2015). Energy impacts [Chapter 8]. Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy
Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM), version 13. Arlington, VA: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. Retrieved from
http://www3.epa.gov/warm/pdfs/Energy_Impacts.pdf
USEPA (1997). Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Handbook. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 530-R-95-041.
USEPA (2015a). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Emission Guidelines for
existing sources and supplemental proposed new source performance standards in the municipal solid
waste landfill sector. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-452/R-15-008.
USEPA (2015b). Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Emission Standards for New and Modified
Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-452/R-15-002.
Vlachopoulous, J. (2009). An Assessment of Energy Savings Derived from Mechanical Recycling of
Polyethylene versus New Feedstock. Retrieved from
http://www.polydynamics.com/GREENHOUSE_GASES_INTERNET_VERSION_WORLD_BANK.pdf
Zhorzholiani, Lika (2015). Waste Not; Want Not: A new campaign, initiatives to promote better waste
management for Georgia. Invester.ge, Issue 2, 2015. April-May.
http://www.investor.ge/article_2015_2.php?art=7. Downloaded January 4, 2016.
59