CCAP_Net-Zero-August2014

Dialogue. Insight. Solutions.
policy report:
Promoting Net-zero
emmissions from the waste
sec tor in latin america
through namas
Written by:
Michael LaGiglia, Pablo López Legarreta, Anmol Vanamoli and Laura Wang
August 2014

Promoting Net-Zero Emissions from the Waste Sector in Latin America Through NAMAs
August 2014 1
Acknowledgements
This paper was written by Michael LaGiglia, Pablo Lopez Legarreta, Anmol Vanamali, and Laura Wang,
with contributions from Paolo Cozzi and Leila Yim Surratt.
This paper is a product of the Mitigation Action Implementation Network (MAIN). This project is part of
the International Climate Initiative (IKI). The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) supports this initiative on the basis of a decision
adopted by the German Bundestag.
The views expressed in this paper represent those of CCAP and not necessarily those of any of the other
institutions mentioned above. For further information, please contact Michael LaGiglia at
(mLaGiglia@ccap.org).

August 2014 2
Acronyms
BAU - Business-as-Usual
CCAP - Center for Clean Air Policy
CER - Certified Emission Reduction
CDM - Clean Development Mechanism
EPR - Extended Product Responsibility
EU - European Union
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISWM - Integrated Solid Waste Management
MAIN - Mitigation Action Implementation Network
MBT - Mechanical Biological Treatment
MRV - Measurement, Reporting and Verification
MSW - Municipal Solid Waste
NAMA - Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action
OECD - Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
RDF - Refuse Derived Fuel
SLCP - Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
SWM - Solid Waste Management
WTE - Waste to Energy

August 2014 3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................4
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................6
Mitigation Actions in the Waste Sector....................................................................................................9
NAMAs in Waste Sector......................................................................................................................10
Policy Paper Scope..................................................................................................................................11
Potential of ISWM in Waste Sector GHG Mitigation ..................................................................................12
Non-GHG Co-Benefits .............................................................................................................................14
Economic Co-Benefits .........................................................................................................................15
Environmental Co-Benefits.................................................................................................................16
Social Co-Benefits................................................................................................................................17
Barriers to implementing ISWM to achieve GHG and non-GHG Goals ..................................................17
Policy/Institutional Barriers ................................................................................................................17
Financial Barriers.................................................................................................................................18
Market Barriers...................................................................................................................................18
Social Barriers......................................................................................................................................19
Colombia Waste NAMA ..........................................................................................................................19
Strengthening the Solid Waste Sector while Reducing Emissions......................................................19
Overcoming Barriers and Promoting Alternative Treatment Technologies .......................................20
Equity Fund as a Financial Mechanism ...............................................................................................21
Latin American Solid Waste NAMA.........................................................................................................22
Role of NAMAs............................................................................................................................................25
Policy Changes ........................................................................................................................................26
Financial Mechanisms.............................................................................................................................27
Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV).....................................................................................29
Support Needed..........................................................................................................................................30
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................31
Appendix 1: Assumptions in CCAP’s GHG mitigation model ......................................................................33
Appendix 2: Solid Waste Statistics in Select LAC countries ........................................................................37

August 2014 4
Promoting Net-Zero Emissions from the
Waste Sector in Latin America through
NAMAs
Executive Summary
The waste sector contributes over 5% of total Latin American greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Considering the 10 countries under study in this paper, 60% of waste sector emissions consist of
methane (CH4) emissions resulting from decomposing waste in sanitary landfills and open dumps.
Methane is a strong GHG, 86 times stronger than carbon dioxide (CO2) in a twenty year period.
Therefore, policies that divert waste, specifically organic waste, from land disposal sites should be
prioritized in climate change mitigation efforts.
As Latin America continues its rapid population growth, economic development, and urbanization, the
region is at risk of multiplying its waste sector emissions by several times if land disposal is chosen as the
principal treatment option. Existing and proven global solid waste management alternatives to land
disposal could be applicable to Latin America, and incentives for their implementation should start
immediately.
This paper evaluates the various measures countries can take to “leapfrog” the use of high-emitting
waste management methods, such as landfilling, and switch to methods that can potentially lead Latin
America’s waste sector to reach net-zero emissions from waste land disposal. One modern waste
management practice is Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM), which combines different
processes and technologies to provide a more holistic approach aimed at reducing reliance on landfills.
Countries who implement the concepts of ISWM will not only reduce GHG emissions but also achieve
other economic, environmental, and social co-benefits. These co-benefits, including extension of landfill
life, reduction of toxic leachate contamination, and better quality of life for waste pickers, are the main
driving factors to rally action and political will in developing countries.
This paper also discusses means of overcoming barriers to alternative waste management practices
through cost-effective solutions and options for mobilizing capital through different financial
mechanisms. These barriers include low tipping fees, tariff issues, and lack of markets for sub-products
of waste, as well as other institutional and social barriers. Regulatory changes or financial incentives can
provide solutions, including bans on organic waste disposal in landfills, pay as you throw policies, tax

August 2014 5
exemptions, loan guarantees, and other solutions. CCAP used waste emissions calculations from 10 Latin
American countries – Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Mexico,
Panama, Peru, and Uruguay – and drew on our experience on-the-ground in the region to inform our
analysis.
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, or NAMAs, may be employed to overcome political, financial,
and technical barriers identified in each country for the waste sector, through regulatory changes or use
of financial incentives. This paper draws upon CCAP’s work in designing the Colombia Waste NAMA,
which can serve as an example for other countries to follow in implementing new waste management
strategies.
Finally, this paper outlines the potential that Latin America has to reduce GHG emissions from its solid
waste sector by using the NAMA framework to channel international support for both design and
implementation. Though it provides many benefits, ISWM is more costly than disposing of waste in
sanitary landfills. Developing countries will need to allocate additional resources to gain the significant
co-benefits that accompany alternative waste treatment technologies. There are various measures that
may assist in covering these higher costs, including higher collection fees, selling waste commodities
(such as recyclables or refuse-derived fuel), and utilizing international donor support. Estimates of the
scale and type of support needed to accomplish these reductions are given.
It is hoped that the examples provided below serve as a call to action for both donor and developing
countries in taking action to meeting country reduction targets and improve the overall management of
the solid waste sector.

August 2014 6
Introduction
The waste sector is a significant driver of global warming. 1,452 MtCO2e was produced from the waste
sector globally in 2009 (World Resources Institute 2013). This represents 3.3% of global emissions of
44,542 MtCO2e. However, the waste sector represents a larger share of emissions in some countries
than in others. Waste represents a particularly large share of the emissions in Latin America (over 5%) in
part due to the region’s low emissions factors for electricity generation, resulting from the region’s
abundance of non-emitting hydroelectric power.
Waste sector emissions principally consist of methane, which has a global warming potential up to 35
times the potency of carbon dioxide on a 100 year scale, and 86 times as potent on a twenty year scale,
according to recent revisions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).. Methane is a
short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP), meaning a reduction of emissions from waste carries the potential
for significant near-term gains in the fight against global climate change.
Waste was Latin America’s third largest source of emissions in 2009, following energy and agriculture.
These emissions vary tremendously between countries, depending on waste management practices,
level of development, climate, and other factors. By a percentage of total emissions, Chile is lowest with
3% of its emissions coming from the waste sector, while Mexico is highest with 16%, due to the
country’s large emissions from wastewater treatment. However, it is more useful to analyze waste
emissions in both absolute and per capita terms as opposed to a percentage of total emissions in a
particular country, considering that these countries have different emissions factors for electricity
generation.
To understand waste sector emissions, focusing on waste subsectors is necessary to better pinpoint
where emissions come from in each country. Waste sector emissions can be divided into 3 subsectors:
land disposal, wastewater treatment, and human waste. The countries under study vary widely with
regards to this division, although land disposal of waste, either from open dumps or landfills, comprise a
majority of emissions. Waste disposed in these sites is called “solid waste”, which will be the focus of
this paper, as opposed to wastewater treatment or human sewage.
This paper further focuses on municipal solid waste (from households and businesses within the city
sphere) rather than industrial solid waste, which is sometimes also disposed in land disposal sites but is
oftentimes inert, and therefore does not produce methane. Figure 1 below shows that solid waste
disposed in landfills and dumps comprises a large portion of total GHG emissions, averaging 60% of total
waste sector emissions for the 10 Latin American countries included in this study.

August 2014 7
Figure 1. Waste Sector Emissions divided into Wastewater, Human Sewage, and Land Disposal (including % of
total emissions from land disposal)
Source: CCAP based on US EPA data
As Figure 1 shows, most countries have a large majority of waste sector emissions coming from land
disposal sites, either from open dumps or landfills, with Mexico somewhat skewing the regional
calculation of 60% of total waste sector emissions .
Comparing this data to OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) data will also
serve as a rough forecast for future Latin American emissions from solid waste disposal. Specifically for
land disposal, per capita emissions amount to 83 MTCO2e/year in the 10 Latin American countries under
consideration. If these countries were to reach a per capita waste sector emissions factor similar to the
OECD average, the total sector emissions would be 133 MTCO2e/year, an increase of 60%. As Figure 2
below demonstrates, emissions would go up further by 135% if waste sector emission rates from land
disposal were similar to that of the USA.
Under a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, future economic development and urbanization using current
waste management practices in these Latin American countries will cause them to lock-in to a high GHG
emitting waste sector like many industrialized countries. The intention of this policy paper is to evaluate
approaches for countries to “leapfrog” high emitting waste management infrastructure and to aspire to
-
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
MTCO2e
Waste Sector Emissions (2010)
Wastewater
Human Sewage
Land Disposal
54%
69%
79%
88%
86% 90%
53%
32%
40%
75%

August 2014 8
emulate model countries with low levels of per capita land disposal emissions, such as Japan and select
European countries1
.
Figure 2. Per Capita Emissions from Land Disposal (MTCO2e)
Source: CCAP based on US EPA data
In addition to reduced emissions from land disposal sites, solid waste management also has the capacity
to create carbon sinks in other areas. Recycled products equate to significant GHG emission reductions
from saved energy in the production of new virgin materials and in their manufacture2
. Compost
produced from organic waste can also signify an emissions reduction, especially if commercial fertilizers
were substituted. With these 3 elements combined (ie, land disposal reductions, increased recycled
materials, increased use of compost), effective solid waste management can result in net- neutral or
net-negative emissions3
. Thus, solid waste management is similar to the forestry sector due to its
capability of reaching carbon neutrality or even becoming a carbon sink. Global solid waste
management practitioners are increasingly viewing waste as a resource to be recovered in innovative
ways, with added climate benefits and other co-benefits only enhancing the sector’s attractiveness.
1
Note: Emissions from incineration of waste in these countries is not considered in the figure presented.
2
Note: Emission reductions from recycled materials are not included in country GHG emission data.
3
The section “Colombian Waste NAMA” in this paper highlights Colombia’s potential to reduce emissions from the
waste sector 7.3 MT CO2e by 2030.
-
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
MTCO2e
Comparing Per Capita Rates of Emissions from
Land Disposal
2010
OECD
USA

August 2014 9
Mitigation Actions in the Waste Sector
Within land disposal sites a variety of microorganisms break down biodegradable materials and produce
methane, as well as carbon dioxide (biogas is usually 50-75% methane and 25-50% carbon dioxide in
sanitary landfills). With growing urbanization and increases in per capita waste generation, Latin
America will need to create policies that treat solid waste in a sanitary manner that does not increase
the sector’s emissions or pose a burden to national and local budgets.
In order for the region’s waste sector per capita emissions to decrease, countries will need to promote
new policies and technologies. Some countries in the region still are working towards adequate
collection and disposal of waste. For these countries, mitigation actions should include an integrated
package of policies that include basic sanitation goals in conjunction with those that will focus on GHG
reductions.
Because the majority of waste sector emissions result from land disposal in many countries, waste
NAMAs should focus on diverting waste from dumps and landfills. Both globally and in many Latin
American countries, policymakers are now trying to transition towards Integrated Solid Waste
Management, which considers waste disposal as a last option, and puts preference on policies such as
waste minimization, recycling, and energy recovery..
By focusing on disposal rather than upstream processes, developing countries risk “locking-in” to high
emissions infrastructure which then require additional investment like flaring equipment or conversion
to electricity or energy. Furthermore, land disposal poses other hazardous impacts on the environment
like the production of toxic leachate, which is often not properly treated after disposal due to its
significant cost, and can lead to contamination of water aquifers.
While developed countries are currently focusing more and more on upstream processes rather than
just disposal, these countries first invested heavily in landfills, and over time transitioned to more
sustainable practices aided by increased public opposition and awareness of negative environmental
externalities and the loss of economic opportunities. Rather than undergoing the same trajectory of
waste sector development, developing countries can learn from the experience of developed countries
and, to some significant degree, leap-frog sanitary landfill technology to next-generation waste
management technology and processes.
Previous attempts at directing developed country investment towards the developing world have only
reinforced old paradigms of waste management in Latin America. The Clean Development Mechanism’s
(CDM) most successful project model was the installation of landfill gas collection and flaring technology
on the region’s biggest landfills. While this technology is important to include in integrated solid waste
management, sole focus on this technology only promotes the building of future landfills. Further, this
technology presents a higher cost of operation, when compared with other options. Looking past the
CDM, future climate finance mechanisms need to allow more incentives to be channeled towards the

August 2014 10
“3Rs” (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle). This will create more momentum to treat waste as a resource to be
recovered
In addition, the support funneled through the CDM through carbon credits or certified emission
reductions (CERs) was not significant due to a lack of waste projects with the proper scale to justify the
high transaction costs of each project. Further, revenue from CERs was often not adequate enough to
break down major barriers and relied on a minimum CER price to get projects off the ground. CER prices
are now at a level too low to even promote gas flaring projects in Latin America, forcing many projects
to halt operations.
NAMAs in Waste Sector
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), first introduced under the Bali Action Plan, are a
promising alternative climate financing mechanism to CDM. Many developing countries have made
significant progress over the last few years in developing NAMAs. The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP)
has worked with developed and developing countries to create a shared vision for NAMAs and define
the role they can play in achieving climate mitigation and sustainable development.
NAMAs can lead to transformational change by combining government policies with fiscal measures to
catalyze a pipeline of mitigation projects and mobilize private sector investment. Policies and
regulations can drive private sector investment in low-carbon technology through mandates and by
influencing the relative risks and returns of investment choices. Financial mechanisms can be coupled
with these government policies to overcome investment barriers.
By leveraging the international support available from donor governments and institutions, NAMAs can
achieve the desired scale of activity. Rather than using the limited funds to pay the full incremental cost
for one low-carbon project, a well-designed NAMA will couple government policies with financial
support that together target the barriers to low-carbon investment and create a pipeline of commercial
investment opportunities for development banks and the private sector.
This represents a new paradigm for development assistance in that government policy changes are
directly linked to financing mechanisms aimed at increasing the economic attractiveness of the
investments to the private sector. Moreover, aligning the NAMA with core sustainable development,
poverty reduction and health protection objectives will build host country political support and ensure
that such policies are sustained after the international assistance has ended. The NAMA reflects a
commitment from the government and a tangible plan that can attract private investors.
Considering a variety of conditions across the region (see Appendix 2 for generation, collection, and
composition statistics), waste NAMAs can be designed to identify which policy and technology options
are appropriate. In general, waste NAMAs should focus on moving from traditional land disposal to
Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM), with a focus on the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle). Waste

August 2014 11
NAMAs designed in this fashion will not only result in significant GHG mitigation, but will also generate
other economic, environmental, and social co-benefits.
In addition to this “triple bottom line” accounting of economic, environmental, and social co-benefits,
NAMAs can produce “win-win” opportunities for both the public sector and private sector investors.
Investment from the latter group is paramount to fighting climate change, and based on CCAP’s NAMA
design work we are confident that such opportunities exist in the Latin American waste sector4
.
Policy Paper Scope
Drawing on CCAP’s experience designing waste NAMAs in the region, this paper outlines relevant
technical mitigation options, highlights common barriers to implementation, and discusses cost-
effective solutions to overcome these barriers. We also will introduce financial mechanism options to
mobilize the required amounts of national (from the developing country itself), development bank, and
private sources of capital. Additionally, we address the development of systems for Measurement,
Reporting, and Verification (MRV), which aims to achieve sustainable development benefits alongside
GHG reductions. Finally, we provide estimates of the manner and scale of international support needed
to accomplish ambitious climate mitigation action in the Latin American waste sector.
CCAP has worked with various Latin American countries through CCAP’s Mitigation Action
Implementation Network (MAIN) initiative to reduce emissions from the waste sector. We have worked
extensively in Colombia, assisting the Colombian ministries of Environment and of Housing on the design
of a solid waste NAMA. We have helped the Chilean government to develop a NAMA in agricultural and
industrial waste, as well as a tourism industry-focused NAMA in the Dominican Republic. Currently
CCAP is designing a waste NAMA in Peru, in association with the Peru Ministry of Environment, which is
scheduled to be completed in 2015.
In this paper we will focus on the eight countries participating in CCAP’s MAIN program, Argentina,
Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay – as well as Mexico
and Brazil, the two largest economies in the LAC region and major emitters of waste emissions. The
paper is meant to be a guide for those wishing to get involved directly in the effort to implement waste
NAMAs or indirectly through the modernization of solid waste management across Latin America. CCAP
has used various assumptions to arrive at the conclusions below (see Appendix 1 for the assumptions
employed).
4
CCAP’s recently funded Transport Oriented Development (TOD) NAMA by the UK/German NAMA facility and the
Colombian Waste NAMA shown in this report are examples of such win-win opportunities.

August 2014 12
Potential of ISWM in Waste Sector GHG Mitigation
By their nature, most solid waste management processes are a source of GHG emissions (i.e., methane
emissions from landfills); this report will outline the potential for the solid waste sector to be carbon
neutral. Solid Waste Management (SWM) can be divided into three categories (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Three categories of solid waste management
SWM Processes
Upstream Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (the “3Rs”)
Midstream Collection, transport, and any mechanized or manual separation
Downstream Waste disposal and any related energy recovery activities
Source: CCAP
The most effective way to reduce the solid waste sector’s carbon footprint is by focusing on upstream
processes, especially if those processes entail diverting organic waste away from land disposal sites.
It is also useful to outline a number of conventional solid waste management approaches and technical
configurations, as well as various alternative treatment methods (see Figure 4 below). The applicability
of the approach selected will depend on an in-depth analysis of local conditions, the cost of each
treatment method, and the political will for any necessary policy changes.
Any true “integrated solid waste management” (ISWM) practice will be a combination of upstream,
midstream, and downstream processes and will utilize the below standard technologies and processes.
ISWM is the most effective way to reduce GHG emissions in the solid waste sector and simultaneously
obtain many other economic, environmental, and social co-benefits.
Figure 4. Solid waste treatment and collection methods
5
Method Description Pros Cons
Traditional Disposal Methods
Sanitary
Landfills
Burial of waste in a
sealed underground
depository
Cheap and effective
way to treat solid
waste
Does not extract economic value of
waste, promotes disposal over
waste reduction, decomposing
trash emits large amounts of CH4
Open Dumps Uncontrolled disposal
of garbage in a place
that may or may not be
sanctioned by
authorities
Extremely cheap Same as those of sanitary landfills.
There is also risk of contamination
of environment and water, and
additional health risks
5
This list of treatment methods is not exhaustive.

August 2014 13
Alternative Treatment Methods
Landfill gas
collection and
treatment
Production of
electricity or simple
flaring of biogas in
closed and active
landfills
Converts methane to
less potent CO2,
production of
electricity or fuel
Dependent on high electricity
prices or on carbon credit prices
Waste to
Energy (WTE)
Incineration of waste
for energy recovery
Sale of electricity Dependent on high electricity
prices, promotes downstream
instead of upstream processes, high
organic content of regional waste
stream would make costly
preconditioning necessary, high
capital and operating costs (air
pollution control systems)
Materials
Recovery
Facility (MRF)
(with refuse
derived fuel
production)
Materials recovery
including recyclables
and/or the production
of refuse derived fuel
(RDF) for industrial
boilers, cement kilns,
etc. Cities or regions
that have robust
cement industries that
rely on fossil fuels
would be suited for
RDF production.
Recyclables can
equate to large GHG
reductions but can
become
contaminated in
mixed stream and
receive lower prices.
A long term contract
with a good price for
RDF per ton can
greatly aid the
viability of an MRF
facility
Recyclables dependent on volatile
markets and prices. RDF
dependent on prices of fossil fuels.
RDF production will increase capital
and operating costs
Mechanical
Biological
Treatment
(MBT) facility
MBT is a generic term for a variety of technologies that can be combined to
mechanically separate/sort municipal solid waste and then treat it biologically
through composting or anaerobic digestion. MBT facilities can produce
simultaneously recyclables, compost, RDF/electricity/fuel depending on configuration.
Anaerobic
digestion
Treatment of waste in
anaerobic biodigestors
as the core biological
process to treat the
organic fraction
Produces methane in
biodigestor instead
of in landfill (to be
used as fuel or to
produce electricity)
Dependent on high electricity
prices due to high capital costs
Windrowed
compost
Windrowed compost
(making long piles of
waste and turning it
periodically) as the
core biological process
to treat the organic
fraction
Lower capital cost
resulting in low cost
per ton of CO2e
Dependent on the value and
marketability of the compost
produced, markets are highly
fragmented and prices are volatile
(mixed waste compost will likely
not be suitable for agricultural
purposes)

August 2014 14
In-Vessel
compost
Utilizing In-Vessel
compost (waste is
placed in containers) as
the core biological
process to treat the
organic fraction
Requires less space,
have lower
processing times (3-
28 days) and better
controlled odor and
leachate issues than
windrowed
composting
Higher capital costs compared to
windrowed composting
Incineration Using combustion
systems to incinerate
solid waste, producing
ash
Significantly reduces
volume of solid
waste, can be
installed close to
source of waste
generation
High capital and operating costs,
poses significantly air quality and
environmental concerns if not
operated properly
Alternative Collection Processes
Source
separation of
recyclable
materials
Separate collection of
both high-volume
commercial/industrial
generators and from
residential sources
Will lead to better
quality materials and
increased prices paid
by industry
Dependent on volatile market and
prices. Informal waste pickers will
likely need to be formalized to
some degree. Formal mechanized
collection will increase service costs
Source
separation of
organic waste
Separate collection
from residences (yard
waste, food scraps,
non-recyclable paper,
etc.) or specific large-
scale generators such
as markets,
restaurants, etc.
Will lead to better
quality compost,
expand market, and
increased prices
Dependent on the value and
marketability of the compost
produced, markets are highly
fragmented and prices are volatile.
Can increase service costs
*Open dumps have more oxygen circulation than sanitary landfills. Therefore, GHG emissions from these sites may be
lower.
Source: CCAP
Non-GHG Co-Benefits
In addition to transforming the sector through the reduction of GHG emissions, there are many
economic, social and environmental co-benefits to be gained from developing waste NAMAs in Latin
America by using the concept of ISWM. All of the below co-benefits will do more to attract the
attention of stakeholders (public sector, private, NGOs, etc.) compared to a sole focus on GHG
reductions. Therefore, we encourage a strong focus on these ancillary co-benefits, some of which can
be included into a flexible MRV framework.

August 2014 15
Designed to maximize the economic value in waste that currently goes to landfills and minimize the
environmental and social negative externalities that result in landfill disposal, an ideal waste NAMA
should benefit a wide range of stakeholders such as informal waste pickers, households, businesses,
municipalities, industry (including cement companies), solid waste operators, residents living around
landfills, etc.
Economic Co-Benefits
Economic co-benefits are the backbone of any waste NAMA design process in a developing country
context. NAMAs must offer either a cost reduction or a revenue stream in order to prevent significant
subsidy requirements from local or national government, which is usually not feasible in developing
countries due to other pressing needs such as the provision of basic sanitation services and potable
water.
Cost reductions from waste NAMAs:
1. Extension of life of costly landfills – Sanitary landfills can cost 1 million USD per acre (0.4
hectares) for construction, maintenance, and closure. Extension of landfill life can save millions
of taxpayer dollars.
2. Cost savings of leachate treatment – Although numerous factors determine the amount of
leachate from a landfill (such as climate, rainfall, waste composition, etc.), diverting waste from
landfills (in particular, organic waste) can avoid millions of dollars worth of investment and
treatment costs for leachate.
3. Reduction in transport costs of waste – Particularly in developing countries, collection and
transport of waste is the majority of the budget for SWM. If alternative treatment facilities can
be sited closer to the city, significant cost savings can be gained from landfill diversion. Cost
savings will vary depending on distance to landfills. In CCAP’s work with Cali, Colombia, large
savings were identified because Cali’s landfill is 62 km outside of the city center.
4. Savings from using sub-products of alternative treatment technologies - Using refuse derived
fuel (RDF), compost, and recyclables in productive processes can lead to cost reductions when
compared to using fossil fuels, commercial fertilizers, and virgin materials.
Revenue streams from waste NAMAs:
1. Revenue from waste tipping fees – The economics are greatly improved if operators of
alternative treatment technologies are allowed to receive an equal tipping fee compared to
landfill disposal. In the Colombia Waste NAMA, 59% of all pilot project revenue projected was
from tipping fees charged (assuming passage of an ongoing tariff reform that was also part of
the NAMA effort).
2. Revenue from sale of sub-products - Alternative treatment technologies can produce
marketable commodities such as:

August 2014 16
a. Refuse Derived Fuel – Once the waste is separated and the humidity is reduced, waste
with high caloric value can be transformed to pellets or a “fluff” that can be burnt in
industrial boilers and cement kilns. If an industrial buyer is present and willing to set up
a long term contract, the sale of RDF can be an important source of income.
b. Recycling – Although exposed to price volatility and seasonal demand variations,
recycled materials can be sold to help cover the costs of operation.
c. Compost – Compost markets are fragmented and uncertain in many cities, but in some
cases, compost (especially high quality compost made from source-separated waste)
can be sold.
d. Electricity – In cities with high electricity prices, electricity can be produced with
incinerators, landfill gas-to-energy projects, anaerobic digestion, etc. and sold to the
grid.
3. Revenue from value added products – Production of products from recycled materials can be an
additional source of economic growth. For example, micro and small enterprises can sprout up
based on the availability of cheap recycled material.
The above cost savings and revenue will result in resources that can be reinvested into the community
by the public or private sector and contribute to local economic growth. These impacts may even be
heightened if the NAMA adds additional funds from international donors to the economy.
Moreover, several international studies suggest that integrated solid waste management can create up
to 6 - 10 times the number of jobs than those focused solely on land disposal. Many indirect jobs are
created through the production, transport, and use of recyclables, compost, and refuse derived fuel.
Environmental Co-Benefits
Waste NAMAs, particularly those focusing on alternatives to landfill disposal, can provide an array of
other environmental benefits besides GHG mitigation. These include:
1. Reduction of contamination from leachate – Most of the region’s disposal sites are in fact not
sanitary landfills. Therefore, contamination into aquifers of toxic leachate emanating from
dumps or “controlled” landfills is a threat to human drinking water and to nearby ecosystems.
Alternatives to land disposal will decrease this contamination.
2. Decreased use of virgin materials – Increased recycling will reduce the use of virgin raw
materials (metals, paper, fossil fuels to process and transport them, etc). In addition to the
resulting GHG emissions reductions, this also assists in the conservation of ecosystems wherever
those materials are mined, harvested, etc.
3. Displacement of chemical fertilizers – The use of compost produced from solid waste can have
an impact on the use of chemical fertilizers. This will more likely be possible when substituting
compost made from source separated organic waste.

August 2014 17
4. Displacement of coal – Burning refuse-derived fuel (RDF) in cement kilns and industrial boilers
can displace the use of coal, leading to similar benefits as those resulting from the displacement
of chemical fertilizers.
Social Co-Benefits
Social co-benefits from waste NAMAs mirror those resulting from proper solid waste management,
including:
1. Decreased health impacts – For populations living around land disposal sites (especially poorly
managed dumps and controlled landfills), contaminated groundwater and soil have been linked
to different types of cancer, low birth weight, birth defects, etc. Diverting waste away from
these disposal sites towards alternative treatment technologies will result in health
improvements.
2. Better quality of life for vulnerable informal waste pickers – Part of the design of an integrated
waste NAMA in the context of Latin America should focus on including waste pickers in future
waste management activities. Promoting formalized, sustainable livelihoods for these
vulnerable workers can bring benefits such as increased prices, pension, healthcare, etc.
All of the above co-benefits are needed to attract the attention of all relevant stakeholders (public
sector, private sector, NGOs, etc.). A sole focus on GHG mitigation will not be sufficient.
Barriers to implementing ISWM to achieve GHG and non-GHG Goals
The Latin American waste sector presents many common barriers to implementing ISWM, including
policy/institutional, financial, market, and social barriers. All of these together can easily overwhelm
local policymakers. As outlined in the section “the Role of NAMAs”, NAMAs can help address the largest
barriers in each country. The following list is not meant to be exhaustive but reflects the most common
barriers among countries in the region.
Policy/Institutional Barriers
Alternatives to landfills are not supported in regulatory frameworks – In some countries such as
Colombia, the definition of public services for waste management is limited to the core activities of
street sweeping, collection, transport, and disposal, thus limiting the role of alternative treatment
technologies. This often does not allow operators of alternative technologies to receive compensation
via tariffs for waste diverted from the landfill, which incentivizes continued land disposal of waste, as
operators prefer to receive the per ton disposal tariff instead of diverting waste to alternative
treatment.
Strict or unclear regulation for using solid waste as fuel for industrial boilers or to generate electricity
– Nonhazardous municipal solid waste is oftentimes not considered as potential fuel under a country’s

August 2014 18
regulation. Colombia, for example, has strict emission limits for nonhazardous waste that are much
higher than even the limits for hazardous waste.
Lack of capacity in government – Although well trained in the core activities of waste management,
local technical level government officials are not familiar with alternative treatment technologies and
processes. This reinforces traditional methods of land disposal.
Ability to modify national and regional waste laws to require a 3R strategy may be limited –
Experiences from other countries have shown that a national law requiring cities to develop 3R
strategies is necessary to shift costs from national and municipal governments, via subsidies, to waste
generators, i.e. “polluter pays” schemes.
Financial Barriers
Private sector shows reluctance to invest equity in new business models - Medium-to-high risk equity
capital is often required to implement many alternative treatment technologies because such projects,
though globally successful, lack a track record overall among Latin American countries. Such equity
capital is scarce or available at high return requirements (>20%). These rates can immediately render
new technologies infeasible.
Past investments in landfill infrastructure – In all of the countries reviewed, solid waste operators have
invested heavily in landfills and controlled dumps based on the current regulatory frameworks in each
country. Any changes to the framework could threaten the current business model and investments of
many large solid waste companies (both public and private) and could result in resistance to change.
Low payment rates for collection of solid waste – It is not uncommon that only 50% of SWM costs are
covered by those producing the waste, with the rest being covered by the municipal budget. This can
result in low service levels and does not provide operators the incentive to invest in alternative
treatment technologies.
Low tipping fees for land disposal – Tipping fees in the regions’ landfills are generally around 10
USD/ton for larger landfills, while controlled dumps can receive 3-5 USD/ton. Some municipal dumps
are virtually free. These fees are significantly less compared to developed country tipping fees ( where
they can exceed 100 USD/ton in many European countries) and are not sufficient to promote waste
diversion from landfills in the region.
Market Barriers
Lack of market for waste based commodities
 Dry recyclables – The market for recyclables is volatile and exposed to international market
fluctuations. Various operators in the region have failed at building profitable businesses in
selling recyclables back to industry as raw materials, causing some operators to walk away from

August 2014 19
the business and reinforcing their focus on core activities of SWM (primarily disposal in landfills
or dumps).
 Compost - Markets for both high and low quality compost are fragmented and need to be
developed if composting is to be adopted as an option for treating organic solid waste. This is
particularly important considering the strong mitigation potential of diverting organic waste
from landfills.
 Refuse Derived Fuel - RDF markets are strong in many developed countries but have yet to
spread widely to developing countries. Cement companies are prime targets to consume RDF
and many international companies are present or have strong ties to Latin American cement
manufacturers.
Low electricity prices – The region is rich with hydroelectric resources that often equate to low electric
prices. This can quickly eliminate the feasibility of landfill gas projects, anaerobic digestion, and waste-
to-energy plants, forcing a focus on alternatives treatment technology that produce other commodities
or benefits rather than competing with grid connected electricity generation.
Social Barriers
Informal waste pickers – In Colombia, as in many countries, informal waste pickers collect over half of
all recycled materials while working and living in poor conditions. If not included in future ISWM
processes, this stakeholder group can become a barrier for change.
Lack of public awareness about benefits of recycling and source separation – Without citizen education
campaigns, source separation policies are not realistic. This can prevent the proper collection of non-
contaminated recyclables and high quality compost.
Colombia Waste NAMA
To maximize GHG emissions reductions and improve the overall performance of Colombia’s solid waste
sector (summarized in Figure 5 below), CCAP applied the above concepts on ISWM to the design of the
Waste NAMA.
Strengthening the Solid Waste Sector while Reducing Emissions
Colombia has achieved a high standard of solid waste disposal with about 94 percent of urban solid
waste being disposed of in sanitary landfills. Despite this success, Colombia faces challenges in the
future due to an increase in waste generation resulting from high economic growth and increased
urbanization. In addition to generating more waste, Colombia must work to improve the working and
living conditions of its vast network of informal recyclers, who currently collect 50 percent of recycled
waste, working in difficult conditions. In the coming years, Colombia seeks to move into the next
generation of waste management which incorporates the goals of waste reduction, reuse and recycling
ahead of disposal. In doing so, Colombia can achieve multiple objectives of reducing GHG emissions,

August 2014 20
achieving sustainable economic growth, ensuring environmental protection, improving urban life, and
uplifting socially and economically vulnerable citizens.
Colombia could achieve a reduction of 7.3 MT CO2e from the waste sector by 2030, reducing emissions
to below 2010 levels, by undertaking integrated solid waste management programs and creating
incentives for the private sector that could catalyze actions to divert organics from landfills (reducing
methane emissions as part of landfill gas), increase recycling (reducing indirect emissions by avoided
production of virgin materials), generate refuse-derived fuel (displacing conventional fossil fuel use), and
promote alternative uses of landfill gas.
Overcoming Barriers and Promoting Alternative Treatment Technologies
A Waste NAMA will support the Colombian government in reducing the carbon footprint of its solid
waste sector by overcoming existing policy, financial, market and social barriers. The cornerstones of the
NAMA are regulatory changes, the promotion of new technologies, creation of appropriate financial
mechanisms, and the integration of informal recyclers into the formal sector.
The Colombian government (through the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Environment and
Sustainable Development) is in the process of reforming solid waste management regulation that
currently favors landfill disposal over treatment alternatives such as recycling, composting and RDF. The
most important of these changes concerns the method by which the solid waste tariff is calculated. The
tariff sets the price that waste companies can charge to collect, transport and dispose of waste in
landfills. Under the current tariff structure, it is much more profitable for waste companies to dispose of
waste in landfills rather than diverting waste to recycling or composting plants. CCAP is assisting the
national regulatory agency with determining the true economic cost of alternative waste treatment
methods in order to devise a new tariff structure.
As part of the NAMA, Colombia is also proposing the promotion of new technologies that divert waste
away from landfills to produce commodities such as recyclables, compost and RDF, which can be
reincorporated back into the economy and/or generate energy. For example, a combination of material
recovery and mechanical-biological treatment facilities can receive mixed waste to sort out recyclables
and produce compost and/or RDF. Compost made from mixed waste can be used in public parks or for
land reclamation while RDF can be sold to cement kilns or other industrial consumers to replace fossil
fuels. The above technology can be adapted to receive source-separated waste which produces compost
and RDF of higher quality which can be sold for a better price. In this way, the NAMA could provide
incentives for better upstream waste management practices like source separation and selective routes.
Another important element of the Waste NAMA is the creation of appropriate financial mechanisms
that leverage internal public resources of Colombia and NAMA finance from donor countries to
maximize private sector investment in order to achieve the goals of the NAMA.

August 2014 21
As the final aspect of the Waste NAMA, policies and business models are being designed in order to
include informal workers in the modernization of the sector, allowing them opportunities to work in the
formal economy and increase the standard of their working and living conditions.
Equity Fund as a Financial Mechanism
An important element of the NAMA is the creation of a financial mechanism designed to leverage
limited public resources and encourage private sector investment to achieve the goals of the NAMA.
Colombia has a well-developed commercial banking and capital market sector, both of which are
accessed successfully by the private sector for its funding needs. However, commercial banks,
investment banks, credit rating agencies and multilateral financial institutions in Colombia have
indicated that there is a shortage of affordable equity capital funding to fund new technologies and
business models such as MBT facilities. Although these technologies are globally well-known, the private
sector is hesitant to invest at affordable rates because such facilities have not been built in Colombia.
The NAMA Equity Fund is designed to address this barrier by providing concessional equity capital for
waste treatment facilities. Colombia is seeking international funding to capitalize the NAMA Equity
Fund, which would provide concessional equity financing to private sector operators to implement
municipal waste management projects as part of the NAMA. NAMA projects would leverage this equity
support to attract additional private sector equity investments and affordable debt financing. The
NAMA would also mobilize funding support from the Colombia Department of National Planning under
their existing Public-Private-Partnership framework, which would provide revenue support up to 20% of
the operating costs of the project.
In addition to equity financing, national and sub-national contributions could provide other support to
increase the feasibility of the various projects including in-kind contributions (such as land), project
development support, and public awareness programs to encourage the source separation of waste.

August 2014 22
Figure 5. Proposed integrated solid waste management NAMA model in Colombia
Source: CCAP
Latin American Solid Waste NAMA
While all countries and regions must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, the approach used to design
the Colombia Waste NAMA could lead to a 7.3 MT CO2e reduction in emissions from the solid waste
sector from the business-as-usual scenario.
In Colombia, the NAMA design recommended the encouragement of technologies like Mechanical
Biological Treatment (MBT) plants that can convert waste streams into various commodities such as
recyclables (through a combination of human and “mechanical” separation) as well as biological
treatment for converting organic waste into compost. What is not sold as recyclables or converted to
compost can be made into RDF and used in place of fossil fuels in industrial processes.
Conditions in Colombia and the rest of the region are somewhat similar. While every case must be
examined separately, it is useful to calculate the potential of scaling up the Colombian example to a
regional Latin American level. With data available from 10 countries of the region (see Appendix 2) and
a set of assumptions described in Appendix 1, the impact in GHG emissions of current practices is

August 2014 23
compared with a scenario where 50% of the waste generated is diverted from land disposal and
processed at MBT facilities to generating compost, recyclable products, and RDF. The results of this
modeling exercise showed that the waste sector can indeed become carbon neutral, as seen in Figure 6
below.
The GHG emissions of the collection and disposal activities can be offset by the emission reductions due
to recycling, composting and fuel substitution. The total emission reduction from the 10 countries could
amount to over 1,900 MT CO2eq in a 20 year period, an average of 96 MT of CO2eq per year.
These emission reductions would be achieved through (see Figure below):
 Reduction of emissions from landfills and dump sites – a 50% diversion of waste from landfills
will result in a 50% reduction of emissions from landfills. These emission reductions from
landfills would be immediate (see Figure 7 below) and comprise mostly methane, a strong short-
lived climate pollutant (SLCP)
 Increased recycling – avoiding the production of paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, metals, etc.
from virgin materials
 Increased use of compost – avoiding methane emissions of decomposed organics, and possibly
displacing chemical fertilizers
 RDF use - displacing fossil fuels in cement kilns and other industrial applications
 Decrease in transport of waste – reducing the number of trips necessary from urban areas to
landfills

August 2014 24
Figure 6. Average (avoided) emissions per year in 10 Latin American countries under study
Source: CCAP model
BAU BAU Net
NAMA
Scenario
NAMA
Scenario Net
Transport 2.96 2.93
Landfill 103.53 56.15
RDF 0.00 -5.48
Compost -0.03 -11.68
Recycling -9.56 -41.01
Net emissions 96.91 0.91
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
GHGEmissions[MtCO2e]
Average (avoided) emissions per year
Transport
Landfill
RDF
Compost
Recycling
Net emissions

August 2014 25
Figure 7. Potential improvement in GHG emissions from total waste sector in 10 Latin American countries under
study
Source: CCAP model
Role of NAMAs
Ambitious and transformative NAMAs can be used as a solution to reach the potential trajectory
outlined above. At their core, NAMAs are essentially policy changes combined with a financial
mechanism to leverage international funds and involve the private sector to the maximum degree
possible. In fact, the role of private sector involvement is central to the implementation of any NAMA,
as donor funds are not sufficient to completely stem the tide of oncoming climate impacts. Figure 6
below demonstrates the relative role of public financing compared to private-sector investment.
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
BAU Emissions
Emissions from
Landfill with NAMA
Net Emissions from
NAMA

August 2014 26
Figure 6. The role of public sector funds to leverage private sector investment
Source: CCAP
Policy Changes
Countries may choose one or more policies to include in their NAMA. It should be directed to amend
gaps in regulation that unduly affect the viability of ISWM activities. Below are some examples of policy
options in the waste sector.
Implementation of a 3R strategy within national waste laws – This shifts cost burdens from regulators
to polluters.
Tariff issues – The manner in which the collection and disposal of waste is designed is of utmost
importance. Private and public waste operators will mold their behavior according to the tariff
structure. For example, if the tariff paid for treatment of recovered materials (recyclables, compost,
RDF, etc.) is less than that paid for treatment in landfills, operators will choose to dispose of material in
a landfill instead of paying the costs of sorting waste and negotiating volatile markets for recyclables.
Therefore, policymakers interested in promoting ISWM will need to closely evaluate the tariff structure
to ensure a level playing field between landfill disposal and alternative treatment technologies.

August 2014 27
No recognition of alternative treatment technologies – Another common issue in the region is the lack
of recognition and/or proper definition of alternative treatment technologies. This is natural given the
lack of experience in the region of these technologies, is a daunting barrier for anyone attempting to
implement new technologies. Emphasis should be put on ensuring that alternative treatment options
are recognized as valid treatment technologies alongside sanitary landfills.
Uncertain regulation for RDF – RDF needs clear regulatory treatment compared to any other fuels such
as coal or natural gas. This should include RDF derived from both non-hazardous and hazardous waste.
Double taxation for recycled material – Oftentimes recycled materials receive burdensome tax
treatment that reduces demand for recycled material compared to virgin material. Some materials are
taxed first when sold back to industry as raw materials and again once when sold as new products. Tax
exemptions on sales or value-added taxes can promote recycled materials over virgin materials. Tax
credits on the purchase of equipment or machinery used in recycling or composting are another way to
incentivize alternative treatment over simple disposal.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) – These are policies that put the responsibility on the producer
(and, to a large degree, on the consumer) to ensure their products are disposed of properly. Many
countries in the region have examples of EPR for hazardous materials such as car batteries. Policy
makers are now starting to consider EPR policies for recyclable materials and electronic waste.
No charge for disposal service – Some municipalities do not charge for waste disposal. This is usually
linked to low standard open dumps. Whenever possible, a per-ton fee should be charged for disposal of
waste. This will provide funds for higher standards at the disposal site and begin incentivizing
alternative methods of land disposal while reemphasizing the fact that waste disposal should not be
free.
Source separation policies – Some cities in middle income countries are devising policies for source
separation of recyclable materials. Taking the example of Cali, Colombia, city officials are designing a
policy to formalize waste pickers as city contractors to continue their current collection activities.
Policies in such cities can be used as examples across the country and can be incorporated into the
NAMA design.
Financial Mechanisms
While the policy changes above address institutional and social barriers, financial mechanisms can tackle
financial barriers with the accompanying goal of maximizing private sector involvement. NAMA
mechanisms must be designed through extensive consultations among donors, lenders, borrowers and
local governments. Figure describes some examples of risks inherent in waste projects and Figure lists
some of the financial barriers to investment and potential financial mechanisms to overcome those
barriers.

August 2014 28
Figure 9. Operational waste treatment project risks
Waste supply Project level Off-taker
Long term supply risk –
competition with other
projects
Technology risk – uncertainty of
unproven technology
Lack of long term purchase agreement
for refuse-derived fuel
Seasonality of waste
production
Performance Risk Volatility of prices for recycled material
(global markets)
Changes of composition of
waste over time
Unknown markets for compost
Source: CCAP
These operational risks compound the financial barrier of attaining a long term loan at reasonable
terms.
Figure 10. Financial mechanisms to overcome barriers to investment in waste projects
Risks/Barriers Financial Mechanism
Perceived credit quality of
borrower or entering a new sector
Partial Credit Risk Guarantee – but not helpful in high interest rate
environments
High transaction costs of smaller-
scale projects
Creation of Special Purpose Entity (SPE) for project implementation
Lack of familiarity with technology Performance Guarantee
High interest rate environments
and/or lack of project revenues to
cover market- terms of financing
Extension of lending maturities
Soft loans
Co-financing with local banks
Lack of capacity in local banks Special Funds
Undercapitalized project sponsor Equity Fund
Source: CCAP

August 2014 29
In developing the Colombia Waste NAMA, after speaking with various commercial banks, investment
banks, credit rating agencies and multilateral financial institutions, it was evident that there was a
shortage of affordable equity capital funding for funding new technologies and business models. CCAP
therefore proposed an Equity Fund to fund projects aimed at proving the concept of alternative
treatment technologies, which will reduce the risk perception for private sector investors. The Fund is
designed to receive contributions from both climate finance donors and the Colombian national and/or
sub-national governments.
Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV)
Many climate finance donors countries are interested in both GHG emission reductions and non-GHG
co-benefits. Therefore, an MRV system should be designed to include a variety of metrics based on the
targeted interests of the donor country.
Many countries have centralized information systems to track waste data such as collection and
disposal. This can be used as a foundation for the MRV system. Below are examples of metrics to be
included in a waste NAMA MRV system.
Environmental (including GHGs)
- Tons of waste diverted from landfills/dumps to alternative treatment
- Amount of recycled material reintegrated into the economy
- Amount of compost and/or RDF produced and coal/fertilizer displaced by their use
- Amount of leachate produced in landfills/dumps
Economic
- Savings from using RDF, compost, and recyclables in productive processes
- Revenue from sale of RDF, compost, and recyclables
- Reduction in transportation costs of waste to distant landfills
- Extension of landfill life
- Savings resulting from reduced leachate treatment
- Value of products sold based on recycled materials
- Number of jobs created by the new treatment facilities or other indirect jobs from handling the
three commodities produced (recyclables, compost, RDF)
- Private and local funds leveraged with NAMA funds
Social
- Number of informal pickers hired in the alternative treatment facilities or formalized in other
alternative treatment programs
- Decreased health effects to population living near landfills or dump sites (measured over time)

August 2014 30
Support Needed
International support may assist in overcoming the policy, financial, market, and social barriers outlined
above. The following types of support may be provided by international donors.
NAMA design stage - Before action can even be taken, technical assistance is needed to design the
NAMA. This often results in the creation of a NAMA proposal.
 Scoping exercises in the country’s waste sector - Analysis of regulatory context, policy and
technology options for mitigation, prefeasibility studies, market studies for sub-products
(recyclables, compost, RDF, electricity, etc.).
 Support for regulatory reform – Support a regulatory change that would positively impact the
proposed NAMA or the sector as a whole. For example, in the Colombia Waste NAMA, CCAP
supported studies for the National Commission of Sanitation, Water, and Sewage (the entity in
charge of setting the tariff structure across the country) that evaluated ways to limit the
preferred status enjoyed by landfills in Colombia.
 Coordination with stakeholders – Periodic workshops to gather stakeholders, formation of
steering committee with relevant national ministries/agencies, coordination with both national
and sub-national governments. In this stage, it is ideal to form close relationships with model
cities that show political will to implement the NAMA. Although NAMAs are a national program,
the nature of solid waste is such that all action must be started at the municipal level.
NAMA implementation stage – Once the NAMA is provided funding, a variety of activities are needed.
 Project pipeline support – Build on the work done in the design stage to identify multiple cities
where the NAMA can be implemented (studying the solid waste conditions and gauging political
will of mayors and staff).
 Detailed feasibility studies – In each city, more in-depth studies will be needed such as
engineering studies, market studies, estimations of waste composition, GHG baseline and
mitigation scenarios.
 Negotiating with existing contractors – Each city will need to negotiate a new modus operandi in
the sector and present new models for private sector involvement.
 Capacity building – Support will be necessary both at the municipal level and at the national
level to train policymakers how to implement new policies and regulate a new set of
technologies in the country.
 Conducting Request for Proposal (RFP) – support for the process of selection and contracting
with the private sector operator/owner of any new technology.
 Direct support to key national ministries - Consultants to support national government in policy
& regulatory design, technical standards for alternative technologies and processes and MRV
systems.

August 2014 31
 Direct support to municipal governments - Consultants to support municipalities through studies
on plans for source separation & selective routes, markets for recyclables, compost and RDF and
integration of informal workers.
 National and city-level awareness and education programs - Support to promote separation at
source that will allow production of high quality recyclables, compost and RDF, which can
receive higher prices and increase the financial viability of alternatives to land disposal of waste.
Although the design of any supported NAMA is predicated on international donor support to partially
finance a financial mechanism and provide capacity building and design support, a host of national and
sub national contributions makes NAMA design a joint effort. Thus, well designed NAMAs will include a
role for national and subnational governments to provide financial and in-kind support (such as
regulatory change) for the items above in addition to political support. This combination of unilateral
contributions and actions along with climate finance support will create the ideal enabling environment
for NAMA success.
Conclusion
Latin America produces 16% of the world’s waste, the majority of which consists of organic waste that,
once disposed of in a landfill or dump, produces a large amount of methane, a potent GHG. Due to the
region’s robust economic growth and urbanization, Latin America is at risk for being locked in to higher
rates of GHG emissions from the waste sector as the number of methane-emitting landfills grows. Many
middle income countries on the cusp of installing next-generation treatment technology and landfill
alternatives will require technical assistance and, in many cases, financial support to implement new
policies and technologies in the short-medium term. Thus, an opportunity exists for the international
community to provide support and assist Latin America in leapfrogging to less carbon intensive solid
waste treatment technology.
The involvement of the private sector is paramount to leverage any capital provided by contributing
countries. Opportunities exist for the private sector to build, operate and/or own facilities across the
region. In order for this leveraging to take place, an appropriate financial mechanism must be selected.
In the case of the Colombia Waste NAMA, total investment in Colombia is projected to be over 11 times
as much as the initial contribution from international climate donor finance.
In addition to ensuring sustainable economic growth, waste NAMAs can additionally promote
environmental protection, reduce health risks, improve urban life and improve the welfare of socially
and economically vulnerable citizens. Many developing country governments additionally see high value
in the added economic co-benefits, such as the creation of new jobs and industries within the region.

August 2014 32
The waste policies outlined in this paper can lead to dramatic reductions of GHG emissions. If the
policies and program proposed in the Colombia Waste NAMA are implemented across the region,
countries could reach carbon neutrality in their waste sector, which would contribute greatly to reaching
their GHG reduction targets. This is equivalent to an average of 96 MtCO2e per year, approximately the
size of total annual emissions from Greece.
In all cases, policies and technologies will need to be matched wisely to local conditions in a thorough
NAMA design process. Nevertheless, our experience in various countries has shown that countries in
Latin America take a similar approach in designing a NAMA in the waste sector, and in many cases the
experience can be disseminated across borders to both city-level and national-level governments.
Properly designed waste NAMAs could serve as the backbone for this interchange of experience, policies
and relevant technologies as these countries continue to modernize their solid waste management
sectors.

August 2014 33
Appendix 1: Assumptions in CCAP’s GHG mitigation model
Waste Generation
Annual increase in waste generation: 2%
Waste Disposal
Methane recovery systems in place: No
Methodology used for methane production: CDM “Tool to Determine Methane Emissions Avoided
from Disposal of Waste at a Solid Waste Disposal Site”
*see below for equations and specific factors used
Recycling Factors
Material Net Recycling Emissions
(tCO2e/t material)
Net Composting Emissions
(tCO2e/t material)
Paper Newsprint (2.81) -
Fine Paper (3.33) -
Cardboard (3.34) -
Other Paper (3.36) -
Average (3.21)
Aluminum Aluminum (6.49) -
Ferrous Steel (1.15) -
Non Ferrous Copper (4.10) -
Glass Glass (0.10) -
Plastics HDPE (2.27) -
PET (3.63) -
Other Plastics (1.80) -
Average (2.57)
Organic Food - (0.24)
Yard trimmings - (0.24)
Textiles Cotton/polyester (2.82) -
RDF Materials Heat Content
Material Heat content (MBTU/t) Emission factor (tCO2/t)
Paper and cardboard (0)
Newsprint (16)
Paper (6.7)
Packaging (16.5)

August 2014 34
Plastics (3.08)
PET (20.45)
HDPE (19)
PVC (16.5)
LPDE/LLDPE (24.1)
PP (38)
PS (35.6)
Other (20.5)
Rubber and leather (2.05)
Rubber (26.86)
Leather (14.4)
Textiles (13.8) (1.84)
Yard trimmings (6) 0
Food (5.2) 0
Wood (9.96) 0
Glass (18.1) -
Metals - -
Other - -
Model Equation and Main Parameters
*

August 2014 35
Parameter Value Unit Description Source
φ 0.9 - Model correction
factor to account for
model uncertainties
Default: Tool to determine methane emissions
avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste
disposal site IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories
f 0 - Fraction of methane
captured at the SWDS
and flared, combusted
or used in another
manner
As per the calculation of the adjustment factor
(AF) has been done according to equation (2) of
ACM001 version 11, this value was set to 0.
GWPCH4 21 tCO2
/tCH
4
Global Warming
Potential (GWP) of
methane, valid for the
relevant commitment
period
disposal site --> IPCC 2006 Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
OX 0.1 - Oxidation factor
(reflecting the amount
of methane from
SWDS that is oxidised
in the soil or other
material covering the
waste)
disposal site - IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National
F 0.5 - Fraction of methane in
the SWDS gas
disposal site --> IPCC 2006 Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
DOCf 0.5 - Fraction of degradable
organic carbon (DOC)
that can decompose
MCF 1 - Methane correction
factor
Wj,x t Amount of organic
waste type j prevented
from disposal in the
SWDS in the year x
See data per country
DOCj see
below
- Fraction of degradable
organic carbon (by
weight) in the waste
type j

August 2014 36
kj see
below
- Decay rate for the
waste type j
avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste
Greenhouse Gas Inventories (adapted from
Volume 5, Table 3.3). The applied values are set
for tropical climate with over 20 degrees and
over 1,000 mm precipitation.
j - Waste type category
(index)
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The waste is
characterized into 11 categories at the project
site by the landfill operator. However, these
could be aggregated to seven waste types to
meet the list set in the tool.
x 1 years Year during the
crediting period: x runs
from the first year of
the first crediting
period (x = 1) to the
year y for which
avoided emissions are
calculated (x = y)
y 1 years Year for which
methane emissions are
calculated
Food Wood Paper Green
Waste
Textile Plastics Inert
DOCj 0.15 0.43 0.40 0.20 0.24 0.00 0.00
Kj (best case) 0.400 0.035 0.070 0.170 0.070 0.000 0.000

August 2014 37
Appendix 2: Solid Waste Statistics in Select LAC countries
Generation Composition Years of data
Country Gen Per
Capita
Gen
(t/day)
Collection
-% of
coverage
Organic Paper Plastic Glass Metal Other Gen Collection Comp.
Argentina 0.85 36,000 90 40 24 14 5 2 15 2010 2006 2001
Brazil 1.03 149,096 87 57 13 16 2 2 10 2001 2008 2006
Chile 2.09 14,493 NA 55 16 8 NA NA (21) 2009 NA 2010
Colombia 0.95 24,600 98 66 5 14 4 NA 11 2013 2001 2013
Costa Rica 1.36 3,260 74 50 21 18 2 2 7 2001 2001 2005
Dominican
Republic
1.18 6,658 69 39 14 36 1 1 10 2001 2001 2000
Mexico 1.24 99,014 90 51 15 6 6 3 18 2006 2006 2005
Panama 1.21 2,438 64 44 25 11 8 5 7 2001 2009 2000
Peru 0.8 17,200 74 55 7 4 3 2 28 2009 2001 2000
Uruguay 1.03 3,617 86 54 20 11 3 5 8 2010 2001 2003
Sources: (Globaltrade.net 2011) (CAPRA 2013) (Bianchini and Silva Filho 2010) (Hamatschek and Faulstich 2010)
(Statistics 2011) (Velosa 2013) (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012) (Tello Espinoza, et al. 2010)

750 First Street, NE, Suite 940 Washington, DC 20002
p +1.202.408.9260 f +1.202.408.8896
www.ccap.org
Supported by:

CCAP_Net-Zero-August2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CCAP_Net-Zero-August2014

Similar to CCAP_Net-Zero-August2014 (20)

CCAP_Net-Zero-August2014