Docstoc

Perak Solid Waste Management

Document Sample
Perak Solid Waste Management Powered By Docstoc
					           3R RELATED POLICIES FOR SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN MALAYSIA

                         1                        2#                            1                   1
         AGAMUTHU P. , SANTHA CHENAYAH , FAUZIAH SHAHUL HAMID , DENNIS VICTOR

1
    Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2
    Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia


                                                  Abstract

This study (funded by Ministry of Environment, Japan) is to examine 3R related policies for solid waste
management (SWM) in Malaysia and to analyze possible development or impact of national level policy in
response to specific challenges in relation to priority policy areas. A review of the main solid waste
management policies in Malaysia namely the National Strategic Plan on Solid Waste Management
(2005), the the National Solid Waste Management Policy (2006), the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing
Management Act (2007) and the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation Act (2007),
was done to determine their significance. These policies are the most relevant solid waste management
policies on the 3R activities in the country which provide 3R data collated at the national level.
Consecutively, data collection and interviews involving collation of existing recycling data and 3R
awareness surveys were conducted. This phase involved many stakeholders in 3R ranging from the local
government to the non-governmental organizations. Compilation of data from the various stakeholders
was achieved via a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and responses through survey. Eventually, 3R gaps
between policy and practice were analyzed. It focused on the potential strengths and weakness in the
Malaysia 3R policy formulation and implementation system, where some actions to reduce the 3R policy
gaps were recommended. As a conclusion, the study indicated that existing 3R policies have gaps which
weaken the implementation of 3R activities, thus resulting with failure in 3R program in the country.
However, it can be amended with appropriate strategy to remove the existing gaps.




Keyword: 3R policy, solid waste management, policy gap, focus group discussion, policy formulation




2# corresponding author: santha@um.edu.my
    1. INTRODUCTION



The objective of the 3Rs program is to reduce the nation’s generation of solid waste by REDUCE,
REUSE and RECYCLE. This objective is in line with the National Recycling Target; 22% of the total solid
waste can be recycled by the year 2020. The current rate is about 5%. Many players are involved in
Malaysian 3Rs programs. They include the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, local authorities,
concessionary companies, collectors and manufacturers, non-governmental organizations, private
residents associations, educational institutions, private waste recyclers and others.

Every year about 60% of the allocation given (so far RM70 million or US$18 million) is used to increase
awareness among the public. Some of the medium used are poster, pamphlets, bulletin, and electronic
medium such as television, radio, websites, school busses, LRT, billboards, exhibition, carnivals and
seminar. Based on a recent survey by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, there is 100%
awareness among the public but only 80% are actually practicing. One important reason for this is
insufficiency of facilities, including collection schedule or inappropriateness in the location of recycling
facilities. Presently, facilities available are recycling bins, recycling centres, mobile collection unit (van),
Siverboxes and recycling lorry.

The 3Rs principle was established to improve waste management system towards a more sustainable
approach and to reduce human ecological footprint. Many studies around the globe have reported that
the implementation of 3Rs managed to boost economic activities, reduce environmental impacts from
waste disposal, prevent the loss of resources and lengthen landfills operating life. Though the
implementation of 3Rs has been successful in many developed countries, the accomplishment among the
developing nation is yet to be seen. Many factors are contributing towards the failure of 3Rs
implementation in most developing countries including Malaysia. Among others is the lack of efficient
institutional mechanisms in waste management and lack of policy to promote 3Rs. Malaysia launched the
first official 3Rs strategies in late 1980s where campaigns focused mainly on the recycling activities. It has
initiated the participation of various NGOs, however, the recycling rate was too low that it did not improve
the existing waste management practice.

In 2001, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) re-launched another 3Rs programme to
improve the recycling rate in the country. As a result, the recycling rate reached 5%. Various surveys
conducted indicated that the majority of Malaysians are aware of the importance of 3Rs, however the
environmental drive alone was ineffective in the country. Public indicated that only policy and political
drives may effectively promote their participation in 3Rs activities. The need to use carrot and cane is
evident. Therefore, with the passing of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management (SWPCM) Bill
2007, it is hoped that 3Rs strategies will change the current waste management system drastically. The
Bill incorporated at least two clauses which directly undertake 3Rs strategy. These include Clause 101
Reduction, Reuse and Recycling of controlled solid waste and Clause 102 Take back system and deposit
refund system.

Some of the objectives of this study include analyzing policy of the National Strategic Plan for Solid
Waste Management (NSP) & The Study on National Waste Minimization in Malaysia (NWM); collecting,
collating and assessing data of 3Rs activities segmented by stakeholders and their perceived
effectiveness; determining the willingness of the public to participate in 3Rs activities with the
implementation of the SWMPC Bill 2007; investigating the issues in achieving targeted goals of 3Rs
programme, and analyzing the policy gap between 3Rs policies and practices (this will evaluate the
existing 3Rs solid waste policy strengths and weaknesses and identify policy gaps for improvement).
This study funded by Ministry of Environment, Japan, is to examine 3R related policies for solid waste
management (SWM) in Malaysia and to analyze possible development or impact of national level policy in
response to specific challenges in relation to priority policy areas.

The paper is organized in the following manner. First, we will briefly explain the 3R and its implementation
in Malaysia. In the next section, we discuss the solid waste management (SWM) and issue pertaining to
SWM in Malaysia. Then, we focus on the 3R related policies in Malaysia and the existing gaps. This is
followed by analysis of our study. We end with some recommendation in closing the 3R gaps in Malaysia.

    2. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (SWM) IN MALAYSIA

Solid waste management particularly municipal solid waste (MSW) has become a national concern due to
the ever increasing rate of MSW. Currently daily generation of MSW has exceeded 28,000 tonnes and
with the existing trend, it is expected to reach more than 38,000 tonnes by 2020. The current generation
indicates 60% increase over the past 10 years. Table 1 depicts the daily generation of waste by states in
Malaysia.

         Table 1: Generation of MSW in Peninsular Malaysia according to states (1996 – 2009)
                                       Solid waste generated (tonnes/ day)
States
                    2000        2002       2004*       2006*       2008*        2009*     2010*
Johor             1915.0     2,093.2     2255.3      2429.9     2577.9       2655.2       2734.9
Kedah             1323.7     1,446.9     1558.9      1679.6     1781.9       1835.3       1890.4
Kelantan          1034.3     1,130.5     1213.4      1302.3     1381.6       1423.1       1465.8
Melaka            514.6      562.5       604.8       650.4      690.0        710.7        732.0
Negeri
                  757.0      827.5       889.8       956.9      1015.2       1045.6
Sembilan                                                                                  1077.0
Pahang            957.1      1,046.2     1125.0      1209.8     1283.5       1322.0       1361.7
Perak             1527.1     1,669.2     1795.0      1930.3     2047.9       2109.3       2172.6
Perlis            195.5      213.7       229.8       247.1      262.1        270.0        278.1
Pulau Pinang      1087.6     1,188.8     1278.4      1374.7     1458.4       1502.2       1547.3
Selangor          2826.5     3,089.5     3322.4      3572.8     3790.4       3904.1       4021.2
Terengganu        882.7      964.8       1037.5      1115.7     1183.6       1219.2       1255.8
Kuala Lumpur      2520       2,754.5     3025.3      3322.7     3525.1       3630.8       3739.7
WP Labuan         46         70          74.3        81.2       86.1         88.7         91.4
Sabah             NA         2490        2641.6      2886.6     3062.4       3154.3       3248.9
Sarawak           NA         1905        2021.0      2208.4     2342.9       2413.2       2485.6
Total             15,586.8   21 452.2    23072.6     24968.8    26489.4      27284.1      28102.6
NA     = Not available
*      = estimated figure

The main component in Malaysian MSW is organic waste which contributes approximately 40% of the
total waste stream. The high organic content is a typical characteristic of waste disposed by developing
countries in the world. This is followed by 15% of paper and 14% plastics. The detail composition of
waste received by landfills in Malaysia is shown in Figure 1.
                                                                         2%
                                                     0%
                                                          1%
                                                               1%
                                                                                                      Food waste
                                             0% 1%
                                            0%
                                           0%
                                      2%                                                              Mixed paper
                                 1%
                            1%
                                                                                                      Newsprint
                       2%
                                                                                                      Phone book
                                                                                                      Magazine
                  6%
                                                                                                      White paper
                                                                                                      Corrugated paper
                                                                                                      Rigid plastic
             1%

                                                                                                      Plastic film
        3%
                                                                                                      polystyrene
                                                                                                41%
                                                                                                      Disposable diapers
   3%                                                                                                 Textile
                                                                                                      Rubber/leather
                                                                                                      Wood
                                                                                                      Garden waste
   5%
                                                                                                      Clear glass
                                                                                                      Colour glass
                                                                                                      Metal
        2%
                                                                                                      Tin
                                                                                                      Non-metal
                                                                                                      Aluminum cans
                                                                                                      Other aluminum
                  8%
                                                                                                      Hazardous waste
                                                                                                      Dust/sand
                                                                                                      Other organic
                                                                                                      Non-organic
                                      6%                                                   3%

                                                                                                      Bulky waste
                                                                                      4%
                                                                    5%        1% 0%




                            Figure 1: Average composition of waste received by landfills in Malaysia


The larger amount of Malaysian MSW is recyclables which include paper, plastic, glass, metal and
aluminum (Fauziah and Agamuthu 2010, Mohamad Osman et al. 2009). Recyclable items represent 60%
of the total waste volume that without retrieval activity, these valuable materials will be disposed off into
landfill. The implications of this practice are the lost of these resources and the rapid utilization of the
landfill space. Thus, it will reduce the length of the life-span of landfills in the country.

The existing waste disposal habit among Malaysians sees a very high potential of diverting waste via
recycling. The only obstacle in material recovery practice comes from the fact that Malaysian MSW is
highly commingled. As a result, the waste contains high moisture content and reduces the value of the
recyclable items.

The generation of various types of waste among the groups with different income level show slight
different. While others show insignificant differences in generation among the different income groups, the
generation of food waste and non-consumed food items was evident. Figure 2 illustrates the percentage
of waste generated by high income, middle income and low income groups in Malaysia.
                                                 100




                                                  10
  Percentage




                                                    1




                                                  0.1
                                                         high income group   middle income group   low income group
               food (consumed)                                36.91                45.63                49.06
               food (not-consumed)                              1.9                 1.58                 0.32
               textile                                         2.18                 2.38                 2.26
               rubber/leather                                  2.17                 0.69                 0.73
               wood                                            1.16                 0.82                 0.45
               garden waste                                   11.26                 8.64                 5.94
               other organic                                   0.59                 0.18                 0.27
               other waste types excluding those              43.83                40.08                40.97
               mentioned above (but including plastic,
               paper etc)
                                                                              Income group

                    Figure 2: Percentage of waste generated by different income groups in Malaysia.

The generation of paper waste in Malaysia showed an interesting finding. The highest percentage of
newsprint disposal was from the high income group followed by the middle income and low income
groups. This indicated the correlation between income level and newsprint disposal into the waste
stream. Since newsprint has some market value in the recycling sector, it is more commonly collected
and sold off by the lower income groups to generate additional side-income. On the other hand, the low
market value discourages this activity among the higher income group to participate as the economic
benefit is not attractive.

Corrugated paper was found the highest in the low income groups’ waste (Figure 3) followed by the
middle income group and high income group. It shows a correlation between income level and generation
of corrugated paper where increase in income level will result in the reduction in corrugated paper
disposal. This probably contributed to the current practice among high-end products’ sales-agents and
distributors to collect corrugated boxes from their customers. Thus, less corrugated boxes need to be
discarded. Figure 3 shows types of paper waste generated by different income groups in Malaysia.
                                           100




                                             10
   Percentage (%)




                                              1




                                            0.1




                                           0.01
                                                   low income           middle income      high income
                    mixed paper                       3.43                    2.85            3.89
                    newsprint                         2.03                    3.19            4.14
                    phone book                        0.2                     0.07            0.07
                    magazine                          0.9                     0.34            0.13
                    white paper                       0.3                     1.68            0.57
                    corrugated paper                  5.72                    4.15            4.01
                    other non paper based wastes     87.42                    87.72          87.19

                                                                      Income group

Figure 3: Waste paper generation by different income groups in Malaysia.

The current trend in waste generation and the composition in Malaysia highlight the urgent need of
improvement to current waste management system. To date, approximately 95% of the waste are
disposed off directly into landfills that it not only will create environmental problem but also unsustainable
from the economy point of view. Thus, implementation of 3Rs practice into Malaysian waste management
practice is deemed necessary.

The main weakness in the existing waste management system in the country is the lack of proper policy
that focuses the various issues in waste management sector particularly 3Rs. Consecutive sections
discuss the policies related to 3Rs in Malaysia and its evolution towards the Solid Waste and Public
Cleansing Management Act (2007).

           3. 3R RELATED POLICIES IN MALAYSIA AND POLICY GAPS

           3.1 3R Related Policies

The main 3R related policies in Malaysia are outlined below:-

           3.1.1       Action Plan for a Beautiful and Clean Malaysia (ABC)

Prior to 1988 and the ABC, there was no concerted and formal policy to guide solid waste management in
Malaysia. Solid waste management in terms of collection and management were mainly handled by the
Local Authorities (LAs) without much involvement from the Federal government. The Ministry of Housing
and Local Government (MHLG) in 1998 with the assistance of the Japanese International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) formulated an Action Plan on Municipal Solid Waste Management or more commonly
known as an Action Plan for A Beautiful and Clean Malaysia (ABC). The proposed national policy by ABC
was formulated with the aim to produce a national uniform municipal solid waste system that was
productive, environmentally sounds and socially acceptable in Malaysia by the year 2010. The ABC policy
was not officially endorsed by the National Council for Local Government as well as implemented
completely although MHLG initiated its first and second recycling programs in 1993 and 2000
respectively. The ABC generally is considered to have been succeeded by the National Strategic Plan on
Solid Waste Management in Malaysia officially adopted in 2005.

    3.1.2   National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management in Malaysia (NSP)

The National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management (NSP) was formulated in 2002 and adopted in
2005 by the Government of Malaysia (GOM) and provides the basis for SWM policies and measures in
Peninsular Malaysia until 2020 The NSP scope covers municipal solid waste in Peninsular Malaysia
including solid waste from household, institutional, commercial and industrial premises, as well as those
generated from construction and public cleansing activities. The key strategy of the NSP is to achieve
“Sustainable waste management through reduction, re-use and recycling and the use of appropriate
technologies, facilities, and equipment to provide a sustainable and comprehensive solid waste
management service”. The NSP proposed six Strategies to guide solid waste legislative, institutional and
infrastructural planning and management in Malaysia including an Action Plan to act as a road map for
the implementation of the NSP. The Action Plan covers the regulatory and technical services framework
for SWM, facilities and services framework for SWM and the supporting infrastructural framework for a
sustainable SWM system.

The NSP established the following service targets to focus plans to improve SWM and the monitor the
efficiency of its implementation (see Table 2).

                                         Table 2 : NSP Targets

Level of Service                        Present        2003-2009          2010-2014         2015-2020
Extend collection service                 75%             80%                85%               90%
Reduction & Recovery                     3-4%             10%                15%              17%*
Closure of dump sites                   112 sites         50%                70%              100%
Source Separation (Urban)                None             20%                80%              100%
The reduction target for 2020 was revised by the GOM to 22%.


The NSP provided the framework for the development of the SWM Legislation, SWM Master Plans,
Waste Minimization Master Plans and the SWM Facilities Master Plans. However, some elements of the
NSP may need to be reviewed and updated due to the gazetment of the Solid Waste and Public
Cleansing Management Bill (SWMB) in 2007 as well as taking into consideration the current SWM
situation and institutional structure where the NSP is expected to be revised in the near future.

    3.1.3   Master Plan on National Waste Minimization (2006)

The Master Plan on Waste Minimization (MWM) was launched in 2006 with the objective to provide
Vision, Strategies and Roles of Stakeholders to minimize the amount of solid waste disposed in Malaysia.
The Vision of the WMP is “To realize a Material Cycle Society, where waste minimization activities are
systemized and sufficiently enrooted in the behavior of government, private sector, and the people
in Malaysia”. The MWM outlined waste minimization strategies, action plans for Federal Government,
action plans for the local authorities and pilot projects including the preparation of guidelines on waste
minimization.
    3.1.4   National Solid Waste Management Policy (2006)

The National Solid Waste Management Policy is aimed at establishing an integrated solid waste
management system that is comprehensive, cost effective, sustainable and accepted by the public,
emphasizes environmental protection, selective of affordable technologies and ensure the public health.
The implementation of the Policy will be through the waste management hierarchy with emphasis on
waste reduction through 3R activities, intermediate treatment and final disposal.

    3.1.5   Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act (2007)

The SWM Act regulates the management of solid waste and public cleansing to ensure the maintenance
of proper sanitation in Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territories of Putrajaya and Labuan. The
SWM Act includes the term controlled solid waste to denote the source of the waste and defines solid
waste as scrap material or other unwanted surplus substance or rejected products arising from the
application of any process but excludes scheduled waste, sewage and radioactive waste. The SWM Act
defines recycling as to collect and separate solid waste for the purpose of producing products.


    3.2 Potential 3R Policy Gaps

Generally, many of the Malaysian SWM policies especially those related to 3R activities have been
implemented in an informal basis due to a lack of legislative empowerment. However, even though the
enactment of the SWM Act in 2007 has provided the legislative framework for SWM it is still powerless
because it has not been enforced where it cannot be implemented due to a lack of supporting regulations.
Furthermore, the initial enforcement of the SWM Act is only expected to be in areas related to SWM
facilities and services as opposed to SWM 3R activities since the DWSM and the SWM Corporation are
expected to adopt a non-regulatory approach in addressing 3R activities in the initial stages.

Consequently one of the potential key policy gaps observed in 3R policies is the delay in the formal
adoption and implementation of 3R policies in Malaysia. This is a significant policy gap analysis between
theory and practice since without the formal adoption or enforcement of the policies; policy
implementation can only be done informally and in an ad-hoc manner by SWM stakeholders. Thus, the
key challenge in the Malaysian 3R policy analysis is gap reduction between SWM policy and its
implementation either due to stakeholder acceptability of 3R policies or policy implementation obstacles
from political interference or policy impracticality due to direct adoption of SWM policy practices from
other countries.

    4. ANALYSIS OF 3R IN MALAYSIA

Our analysis consisted of obtaining the feedback on the 3R policies and their implementation in Malaysia
using interview, questionnaires and focus group discussions. A 3R policy analysis questionnaire was
developed.

This was carried out in two phases. The first is a 3R Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with a total of 25
participants from government agencies, local authorities, non-government organizations (NGOs) and
private sector organizations attending the 3R FGD. Next, the 3R Questionnaire was administered to 107
local authorities (LA) in Malaysia who was known to practice 3R activities within their jurisdiction. A total
of 54 questionnaires was completed and returned.

    4.1 Results based on 3R Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

    4.1.1   Awareness on 3R Policies

     The 3R FGD stakeholder awareness on the Action Plan for a Beautiful & Clean Malaysia (1988)
      was generally low with a total of 52% in the no awareness/low awareness category. The highest
       percentage was for moderate awareness at 44% followed by the no awareness at 28%, low
       awareness at 24% with the lowest percentage for high awareness at 4%.
      The stakeholder awareness on the National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management in
       Malaysia (2005) was generally high with a combined 64% in the moderate/high awareness
       category. The highest percentage was for moderate awareness at 44% followed by both the low
       and high awareness at 20% with the lowest percentage for no awareness at 16%.
      The awareness on the National Waste Minimization Study (2006) was generally low with a
       combined 60% in the no/low awareness category. The highest percentage was for low awareness
       at 36% followed by moderate awareness at 28% and no awareness at 24% with the lowest
       percentage for high awareness at 12%.
      The analysis shows that awareness on the National Solid Waste Management Policy (2006) was
       generally high with a combined 64% in the moderate/high awareness category. The highest
       percentage was for moderate awareness at 52% followed by no awareness at 20% and low
       awareness at 16% with the lowest percentage for high awareness at 12%.
      The 3R FGD stakeholder awareness on the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act
       (2007) was generally high with a combined 64% in the moderate/high awareness category. The
       highest percentage was for both moderate and high awareness at 32% followed by no awareness
       at 28% with the lowest percentage for moderate awareness at 8%.
      On the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation Act (2007), a generally high
       with a combined 64% in the moderate/high awareness category. The highest percentage was for
       both moderate and high awareness at 32% followed by no awareness at 28% with the lowest
       percentage for moderate awareness at 8%.
      Finally, awareness on the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation Strategic
       Plan (2009-2013) was generally high with a combined 52% in the moderate/high awareness
       category. The highest percentage was for moderate awareness at 40% followed by no awareness
       at 32% and low awareness at 16% with the lowest percentage for high awareness at 12%.
       Generally 3R FGD stakeholder awareness on 3R policies was in the moderate and high
       awareness category. Please see Figure 4.




Figure 4: Awareness on 3R Policies
    4.1.2   Perception on 3R Existing Situation

The 3R FGD stakeholder perception on Malaysia achieving a recycling target of 22% by 2020 was
generally in the agree category with a total of 80% in the agree/strongly agree category. The highest
percentage was for the agree category at 60% followed by the strongly agree category at 20%, disagree
category at 16% with the lowest percentage for the strongly disagree category at 4%. They also believe
that the Malaysian public is ready for solid waste source separation. The analysis shows that 52% agree
that the Malaysian is ready for source separation. However, 68% either agree or strongly believe that
recycling is inconvenient

The analysis also shows that 72% either disagree/strongly disagree hat the existing level of recycling in
Malaysia is high. Only 4% agree that the recycling is high. Generally the 3R FGD stakeholder perception
was that Malaysia can achieve a 22% recycling target by 2020 and the public is ready for solid waste
source separation. However, the perception is also that recycling is inconvenient and that the existing
recycling rate is not high (see Figure 5).




Figure 5: FGD Stakeholder Perception on 3R Existing Situation

    4.1.3   Perception on 3R policies & legislation

A total of 68% disagree/strongly disagree that existing political will for recycling is high. 88% perceive that
the existing low consciousness for recycling is due to a lack of government efforts. About 76% said that
residents who refuse to do recycling should be punished severely. However, 100% agree on stipulating
laws to make recycling mandatory in Malaysia. Generally the 3R FGD stakeholder perception was that
existing political will for recycling is not high and that low consciousness for recycling was due to a lack of
government efforts. Furthermore, the perception is that residents who refuse to recycle should be
punished severely where laws should be stipulated to make recycling mandatory. Interestingly 100% of
the stakeholder agreed that recycling should be made mandatory (Figure 6).
            Figure 6: Stakeholder Perception on 3R policies & legislation


    4.1.4   Perception on 3R awareness & information

The 3R FGD stakeholder perception on awareness of recycling facilities location was about 80% in the
agree/strongly agree category. The highest percentage was for both agree and strongly agree category at
40% followed by the disagree category at 20% with none recorded for the strongly disagree category.
92% of the stakeholders feel that staff involved in recycling activities requires technical training. Only 8%
agree that there is recycling awareness among the public. They feel that low public concern (60% agree,
36% strongly agree) is the cause for limited recycling.

The stakeholders who attended the FGD agree that awareness creation is important for the success of
recycling. Therefore, they strongly believe that education plays an important role in making recycling a
success. Generally the 3R FGD stakeholder perception was that people were aware of the location of
recycling facilities in their area and that awareness creation, education and technical training for staff is
important in making recycling a success. However, the perception is also that recycling awareness among
the public is not high and low public concern is the cause for limited recycling. Interestingly 100% of the
stakeholder agreed that awareness creation was important for recycling (Figure 7).




            Figure 7: Stakeholder Perception on 3R awareness & information
    4.1.5   SPerception on 3R infrastructure and facilities

A total of 60% either agree/strongly agree that recycling information is easily accessible. The 3R FGD
stakeholder perception that recycling facilities such as recycling bins are easily available was generally in
the disagree category with a total of 76% in the disagree/strongly disagree category. The highest
percentage was for the disagree category at 64% followed by the strongly disagree category at 12%,
agree category at 20% with the lowest percentage for the strongly agree category at 4%.About 96%
answered that sufficient recycling facilities are important in making recycling a success. Only 4%
disagreed to this. However, when asked on ways to encourage the public to recycle, 96% suggested
providing more user friendly facilities can encourage public participation in recycling. Generally the 3R
FGD stakeholder perception was that recycling information is easily available and that sufficient and user
friendly recycling facilities was important to make recycling a success. However, the perception was also
that recycling infrastructure such as recycling bins was not easily available (Figure 8).




Figure 8: Stakeholder Perception on 3R infrastructure and facilities

    4.1.6   Perception on 3R on economic incentives & support

From the FGD, 60% of the stakeholders perceive that it is appropriate to pay for better recycling services.
A total of 68% of the stakeholders generally disagreed that recycling increases the burden of the local
authorities. 92% of stakeholders generally perceived social factors play an important role in making
recycling a success. Most of the stakeholders felt that cost criterion play an important role in making
recycling a success, a total of 92% either agreed or strongly agreed. About 80% disagreed to the fact that
government funding for recycling was sufficient. However, there’s a general view that recycling can be
increased if government agencies were to use recycled products. About 96% said that financial
incentives are important in making recycling work

About 80% either agreed or strongly agreed that public participation in recycling should be voluntary and
96% said that collectors need to play an important role. 52% voiced out that there is not sufficient support
for recycling from the industries and producers. About 48% said there is sufficient support. However, only
60% generally agreed that support for recycling from the Ministry is high. Generally the 3R FGD
stakeholder perception was that it was appropriate to pay for better recycling services and that social
factors and cost criterion plays an important role in recycling. However the perception was that recycling
did not increase the burden of the local authorities and that government funding was also not sufficient.
Furthermore, stakeholders agreed that recycling required incentives and can be improved if government
agencies used recycled products where public participation should be voluntary. The perception was also
that support from the industries and producers were not high though support from the Ministry was high
(Figure 9).




             Figure 9: Stakeholder Perception on 3R on economic incentives & support

     4.1.7   Feedback on 3R benefits & key issues

Generally the 3R FGD stakeholders had the following feedback on 3R benefits, key issues and potential
solutions:

1.       The SWM Act 2007 should be implemented for the success of 3R including mandatory recycling.
2.       3R awareness is high but requires commitment, infrastructure for the success of 3R including
         implementing 3R in the education system and government agencies.
.
3.       Government should provide more user friendly recycling facilities including recycling bins and buy
         back centres.

4.       3R requires economic incentives such as tax reduction for industries implementing 3R and take
         back systems.

4.2      3R Local Authority (LA) Questionnaire Findings

4.2.1 Awareness on 3R Policies
The LA stakeholder awareness on each 3R plan/policy:

       Action Plan for a Beautiful & Clean Malaysia (1988) was generally high with a combined 50% in
        the moderate awareness/high awareness category.
       National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management in Malaysia (2005) was generally high with
        a combined 50% in the moderate/high awareness category
       National Waste Minimization Study (2006) was generally high with a combined 50% in the
        moderate/high awareness category
       National Solid Waste Management Policy (2006) was generally high with a combined 57% in the
        moderate/high awareness category
       Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act (2007) was generally high with a combined
        74% in the moderate/high awareness category
       Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation Act (2007) was generally high with a
        combined 69% in the moderate/high awareness category
       Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation Strategic Plan (2009-2013) was
        generally high with a combined 57% in the moderate/high awareness category

Generally LA stakeholder awareness on 3R policies was in the moderate and high awareness category
(Figure 10).




                           Figure 10: LA Stakeholder Awareness on 3R Policies
4.2.2   Perception on 3R Existing Situation

About 70% of the LA stakeholder generally agrees that Malaysia can achieve the recycling target of 22%
by 2020. A Total of 54% either agree/strongly agree that the Malaysian public being ready for solid waste
source separation. Only 2% strongly disagree to this perception. 52% of the LA stakeholder
agree/strongly agrees on recycling being inconvenient. Generally, they disagreed that the existing level
of recycling in Malaysia is high. Only 29% agree/strongly agree that the existing level of recycling in
Malaysia is high. Generally the LA stakeholder perception was that Malaysia can achieve a 22% recycling
target by 2020 and the public is ready for solid waste source separation. However, the perception is also
that recycling is inconvenient and that the existing recycling rate is not high (Figure 11).




Figure 11: LA Stakeholder Perception on 3R Existing Situation

4.2.3   Perception on 3R policies & legislation

The LA stakeholder perception that existing political will for recycling is high was generally in the agree
category with a total of 52% in the agree/strongly agree category. About 65% of the LA’s said that the
existing low consciousness for recycling is due to a lack of government efforts. When asked if the
residents should be punished severely if they refuse to recycle, 72% generally agreed that non-
cooperative residents should be punished. A total of 93% of the LA stakeholder agree stipulating laws to
make recycling mandatory in Malaysia. Generally the LA stakeholder perception was that existing political
will for recycling is high and that low consciousness for recycling was due to a lack of government efforts.
Furthermore, the perception is that residents who refuse to recycle should be punished severely where
laws should be stipulated to make recycling mandatory (Figure12).
Figure 12: Stakeholder Perception on 3R policies & legislation

4.2.4   Perception on 3R awareness & information

The LA generally (83%) agrees that public has awareness of recycling facilities location. However, 70%
disagree/strongly disagree that recycling awareness among the public is high. LA stakeholder perceives
that low public concern is the cause for limited recycling. The entire stakeholder who responded to the
survey agrees that awareness creation is important for the success of recycling. About 98% of the LA
stakeholder feels that the staff involved in recycling activities requires technical training. A total of 81% of
the LA stakeholder agree/strongly agree that education plays an important role in making recycling a
success. Generally the LA stakeholder perception was that people were aware of the location of recycling
facilities in their area and that awareness creation, education and technical training for staff is important in
making recycling a success. However, the perception is also that recycling awareness among the public
is not high and low public concern is the cause for limited recycling. Interestingly 100% of the stakeholder
agreed that awareness creation was important for recycling (Figure 13).
Figure 13: Stakeholder Perception on 3R awareness & information

4.2.5   Perception on 3R infrastructure and facilities

A total of 54% of the LA stakeholder responded that recycling information is easily accessible. However,
46% disagreed to this. Only 43% of the respondents said that recycling facilities such as recycling bins
are easily available. However, 93% perceived that sufficient recycling facilities are important in making
recycling a success. The LA stakeholder perception that providing more user friendly facilities can
encourage public participation in recycling was generally in the agree category with a total of 96% in the
agree/strongly agree category. Generally the LA stakeholder perception was that recycling information is
easily available and that sufficient and user friendly recycling facilities was important to make recycling a
success. However, the perception was also that recycling infrastructure such as recycling bins was not
easily available (Figure 14).
Figure 14: Stakeholder Perception on 3R infrastructure and facilities

4.2.6   Perception on 3R on economic incentives & support

A total of 74% agree/strongly agree that it is appropriate to pay for better recycling services. Only 4%
strongly disagree to the charges. Generally, the LA disagree that recycling increases the burden of the
local authorities. Social factors play an important role in making recycling a success. This is based on the
analysis that all respondents agreed to the fact that social factor is an important factor. Other than the
social factor, cost criterion is important as well. 93% of respondents supported this. Here, government
funding is important as most LA receive their funds from the Federal Government to finance their
recycling activities. Some have their own revenue such as from the tax collection.

About 93% of the LA agreed that recycling can be increased if government agencies were to use recycled
products. 87% o the respondent agrees that financial incentives can encourage more recycling activities.
However, 91% of the LA perceived that public participation in recycling should be voluntary.

A total of 67% LA agree/strongly agree that support for recycling from the industries and producers are
high. About 33% generally disagreed to this. The LA stakeholder (about 74%) perceived that support for
recycling from the Ministry is high. A total of 96% agree/strongly agree that was generators play a crucial
role in recycling. Generally the LA stakeholder perception was that it was appropriate to pay for better
recycling services and that social factors and cost criterion plays an important role in recycling. However
the perception was that recycling did not increase the burden of the local authorities and that government
funding was also not sufficient. Furthermore, stakeholders agreed that recycling required incentives and
can be improved if government agencies used recycled products where public participation should be
voluntary. The perception was also that support from the industries and producers and the Ministry was
high (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Stakeholder Perception on 3R on economic incentives & support
4.2.7   Feedback on 3R benefits & key issues

The LA stakeholder perception on the main benefit of 3R activities was the highest for pollution
prevention being at 48%, followed by resource conservation at 37%, business generation at 9% and
economic interest at 6%. The LA stakeholder perception on the key area for the successful
implementation of 3R activities was the highest for policy and legislation at 48% followed by information
and awareness at 35%, economic incentives at 9% and infrastructure and facilities at 7% (see Figure 16).




Figure 16: Stakeholder Feedback on 3R benefits & key issues


5.      CONCLUSIONS


Stakeholder awareness on 3R policies in Malaysia was moderate to high except for the Action Plan for a
Beautiful & Clean Malaysia and the National Waste Minimization Study. Generally, there is a belief that
Malaysia can achieve a 22% recycling target by 2020 and the public is ready for solid waste source
separation. However, the perception is also that recycling is inconvenient and that the existing recycling
rate is not high. They perceive the reason for low consciousness for recycling was due to a lack of
government efforts. Furthermore, the perception is that residents who refuse to recycle should be
punished severely where laws should be stipulated to make recycling mandatory. Interestingly 100% of
the FGD stakeholder agreed that recycling should be made mandatory. However stakeholder perception
between FGD stakeholders and LA stakeholders differed for political will where FGD stakeholders
disagreed to the fact that political will is high while LA stakeholders agreed political will is high

People were aware of the location of recycling facilities in their area and that awareness creation,
education and technical training for staff is important in making recycling a success. However, the
recycling awareness among the public is not high and low public concern is the cause for limited
recycling. Interestingly, 100% of both FGD and LA stakeholder agreed that awareness creation was
important for recycling. Stakeholder perception was that recycling information is easily available and that
sufficient and user friendly recycling facilities was important to make recycling a success. However, the
perception was also that recycling infrastructure such as recycling bins was not easily available.

The analysis show that it was appropriate to pay for better recycling services and that social factors and
cost criterion plays an important role in recycling. Interestingly 100% of LA stakeholder agreed that social
factors were important for recycling. However the perception was that recycling did not increase the
burden of the local authorities and that government funding was also not sufficient. Furthermore,
stakeholders agreed that recycling required incentives and can be improved if government agencies used
recycled products where public participation should be voluntary. Interestingly 100% of FGD stakeholder
agreed that recycling can be increased if government agencies used recycled products. The perception
was also that support from the Ministry for recycling is high. However stakeholder perception between
FGD stakeholders and LA stakeholders differed for support from the industries and producers for
recycling activities where FGD stakeholders disagreed that industries and producers support for recycling
is high while LA stakeholders agreed that the support is high. Stakeholder perception was that the main
benefit of 3R activities is for pollution prevention and resource conservation and that the key area for the
successful implementation of 3R activities is in 3R policy/legislation as well as 3R information and
awareness.

REFERENCES

Agamuthu (2010), MSW Management in Malaysia : Changes for Sustainability”, Municipal Solid Waste
Management in Asia and the Pacific Islands, Penerbit ITB, Indonesia, pp 138-144

Chenayah, S., Agamuthu, P. and Takeda, E. (2007). Multicriteria Modelling on Recycling of Municipal
Solid Waste in Subang Jaya, Malaysian Journal of Science, Vol 26 (1), pp 1-16

Dennis (2001), “Policy for an Integrated Solid Waste Management in Malaysia”, Thesis, University
Malaya.

Fauziah S.H. & Agamuthu, P. 2010. Trends in sustainable landfilling in a developing country. Waste
Management & Research. (paper submitted: WMR-10-0404)

GOM (2007), “Solid Waste & Public Cleansing Corporation Act”, Government of Malaysia.

GOM (2007), “Solid Waste & Public Cleansing Management Act”, Government of Malaysia.

MHLG (2005), “National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste Management in Malaysia”, Ministry of Housing &
Local Government Malaysia.

MHLG (2006), “The National Solid Waste Management Policy” Ministry of Housing and Local
Government.

MHLG (2006), “The Study of National Waste Minimization in Malaysia”, Ministry of Housing and Local
Government and the Japanese International Cooperation Agency.

MHLH (1998), “Action Plan for a Beautiful and Clean Malaysia”, Unpublished Document, Ministry of
Housing & Local Government Malaysia.

Mohamed Osman, S., Mohd Nasir, H., Abdul Mujeebu, M., 2009. Assessment of municipal solid waste
generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Management 29(7),
2209-2213.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:64
posted:7/29/2011
language:English
pages:21
Description: Perak Solid Waste Management document sample