Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

A Mathematical Model on Municipal Solid Waste


Betty Nannyonga
MSc.(Bio-Mathematics), BSc.(Hons)
Makerere University Kampala

A Research Proposal for the Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics of

Makerere University

Supervisors: Dr. Vincent A. SSembatya

Makerere University
P.O. Box 7062
Dr. John M. Mango
Makerere University
P.O. Box 7062

March , 2007

1 Introduction


Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Literature Review


Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Resource Recovery(Recycling) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Methodology


Model for Minimizing the Total Cost of the System . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Structure of the Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Constraint Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Recycling System Model Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14


Definition of Constants and Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14


Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


The Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


Constraint Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4 References


5 Budget estimates



Municipal solid waste management involves the collection, transportation, processing and
disposal of waste. In this model, we will consider the aspects of composting and recycling.
Effective planning of solid-waste recycling programs is a substantial challenge to the current solid-waste management systems in Uganda. Due to the rapid depletion of landfill
space and the continuing delay in construction programs of municipal incinerators, solidwaste management strategies have to be reorganized in light of the success of recycling,
recovery, and reuse of secondary materials.

Many communities have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, programs to

divert solid waste from landfills and incinerators. Such programs involve source reduction
or reuse, or, more commonly, recycling or composting. The project methodology will include promoting recycling and composting and raising public awareness. This is valuable
in that it simultaneously reduces the environmental impacts of solid waste disposal as
well as generate municipal income.

A dynamic model will be developed to investigate the effectiveness of various strategies for
increasing the recycling rate. These strategies include reducing the transportation cost of
recyclables, supporting the market price of selected secondary materials,and landfill bans
on selected materials.


Statement of the Problem

There is currently no known program in Uganda for reducing, reusing and recycling waste.
There is a question of whether is it economical to reuse or recycle than to dispose of the
waste. There is a lot of organic waste generated in various cities around the country;
separating and composting this waste will reduce landfill waste, prevent the misuse of
household generated compost and generate new resources. We need to develop a strategy

to reduce, separate, reuse, recycle and compost waste in the country.


Objectives of the Study

(i) To express the need for resource recovery such as obtaining some economic benefit
from material that someone else has regarded as waste.
(ii) To outline the key factors that affect the potential for resource recovery.
(iii) To identify reuse and recycling possibilities and needs including the requirements
for waste separation, storage and processing.
(iv) To evaluate from economic and environmental points of view, the need for
composting waste.



The public outreach campaign to be developed will strengthen the capacity for
expanding voluntary public participation in recycling and composting efforts, since broad
public participation in waste separation is critical to the success of recycling and
composting programs. The waste management program for reusing and recycling efforts
will reduce waste that ends up in the landfill and allow resources to be used more efficiently.
Economically, through reuse and recycling, income from waste will be generated from
disposal services.


Literature Review

Waste is not a uniform material in terms of its constituents. However, the main
distinguishing feature relative to the products from which it derives is that it is

perceived as valueless and therefore unwanted. Up to the 1970s, the perception of waste
as unwanted and useless material with no intrinsic value continued to influence societys
approach to waste management(UNIDO, 2003). Despite this fact, the past two decades
have witnessed a change in altitudes towards waste as a result of the enormous health,
environmental sanitation and protection problems that continued to bug the minds of
both waste generators and policy-makers, particularly in their efforts to prevent and/or
minimize waste production. At the same time also, the characteristics of waste have exhibited a pronounced change in Africa resulting from changes in consumption patterns.
The composition of waste has changed from basically biodegradable to non-degradable
materials or substances. This exacerbates further, the existing problems of waste disposal.

A trend observed in the last decade involves a capacity building transition towards greater
national and municipal self-reliance with a priority to accelerate development and
promote the use of local knowledge, technology and expertise. Over the past years, many
governments have passed legislation to address environmental and human health threats.
Regulations aimed at controlling some of the major and most obvious risks have been
made public. However, a number of limitations have become clear:
(i) Limits of impact management;
(ii) Limited civil society involvement;
(iii) Inadequate integration of environmental media;
(iv) Inadequate integration across government departments;
(v) Lack of capacity to implement; and
(vi) Inadequate consideration of global environmental issues.
With increasing scarcity of refuse dumping sites and increasing effects of pollution caused
by waste, Chambal et al, Cosmi, et al, Costi, et al, Fiorucci, et al, Minciardi, et al and
Re Velle, there is an urgent need for reducing waste by reuse, recycling or composting.


Resource Recovery(Recycling)

Resource recovery means the obtaining of some economic benefit from material that someone has regarded as waste. Recycling is a series of activities that includes collecting
recyclable materials that would otherwise be considered waste, sorting and processing
recyclables into raw materials such as fibers, and manufacturing raw materials into new
products. It includes
(I) Collection and Processing
Collecting recyclables varies from community to community, but there are four
primary methods: curbside, drop-off centers, buy-back centers, and deposit/refund
programs. Recyclables are then sent to a materials recovery facility to be sorted and
prepared into marketable commodities for manufacturing. Recyclables are bought
and sold just like any other commodity, and prices for the materials change and
fluctuate with the market.
(II) Manufacturing
Once cleaned and separated, the recyclables are ready to undergo the second part of
the recycling loop. More and more of todays products are being manufactured with
total or partial recycled content. Common household items that contain recycled
materials include newspapers and paper towels; aluminum, plastic, and glass soft
drink containers; steel cans; and plastic laundry detergent bottles. Recycled
materials also are used in innovative applications such as recovered plastic in
carpeting, park benches, and pedestrian bridges.
(III) Purchasing Recycled Products
Purchasing recycled products completes the recycling loop. By buying recycled,
governments, as well as businesses and individual consumers, each play an
important role in making the recycling process a success. As consumers demand
more environmentally sound products, manufacturers will continue to meet that
demand by producing high-quality recycled products.

For recycling to work, everyone has to participate in each phase of the loop. From
government and industry, to organizations, small businesses, and people at home, every
Ugandan can make recycling a part of their daily routine. Some key factors that affect
the potential for resource recovery are the cost of the separated material, its purity, its
quantity and its location. The costs of storage and transport are major factors that
decide the economic potential for resource recovery. In many low-income countries, the
fraction of material that is won for resource recovery is very high, because this work is
done in a very labour-intensive way, and for very low incomes. In such situations the
creation of employment is the main economic benefit of resource recovery. The situation
in industrialized countries is very different, since resource recovery is undertaken by the
formal sector, driven by law and a general public concern for the environment, and often
at considerable expense.

Composting is an excellent method of recycling biodegradable waste from an ecological

point of view. However, many large and small composting schemes have failed because
composting is regarded as a disposal process, and not a production process. It is essential
- as in any production process - to pay careful attention to the marketing and the quality
of the product.

It is important to train municipality officers to identify the national policies and upcoming legislations related to waste reduction/ elimination and generally orient them to
environmental protection. There is a need to elaborate on national capacities on waste
characterization, handling, transport, recoverable material, composting, incineration with
energy recovery and land filling.


Data will be collected primarily from the following sources:

(i) interviews with sweepers;

(ii) interviews with sanitary supervisors;
(iii) case studies of local initiatives;
(iv) local workshops with groups involved; and
(v) sharing of interim findings with local and international communities through any
available means.


Model for Minimizing the Total Cost of the System

(I) Assumption
We will assume that all wastes are processed or disposed of harmlessly over a three
year planning period.
(II) Variables
The variables of the model will be the costs which will be divided into three
categories:(i) transportation costs,
(ii) facility and running costs,
(iii) revenues,
where Z is the total present cost of system.
(III) Constants
The Constants of the model will be defined as:(i) r = discount rate;
(ii) a= waste source, including various cities, processing facilities in the controlling

(iii) p=recycling facility;

(vi) i= incinerator;
(v) c = compost facility;
(vi) l = landfill;
(vii) t = the year of concern(a);
(viii) f = representing facilities;
(ix) Ct = cost of transporting waste to facilities per kilometer per t in year t
(x) Daf t = distance transported from source a to facility f in year t (km);
(xi) Waf t = amount of municipal solid waste processed or disposed of from source
a at facility f in year t (t/a);
(xii) W Ppt = unit cost of waste processing at recycling facility p in year t, including
facility costs, run costs, and revenues of recyclables(shs/t);
(xiii) W Iit = unit cost of waste incinerating at incinerator i in year t, including
facility cost, run cost, and revenue of energy (shs/t);
(xiv) W Cct = unit cost of waste composting at composting facility c in year t, including facility cost, run cost, and revenue of compost(shs/t); and
(xv) W Llt = unit cost of waste landfilling at landfill l in year t, including facility
cost and run cost(shs/t).


Structure of the Objective Function

Min Z =transportation costs + landfill costs + composting costs + incinerating costs +

recycling costs - revenue of recyclables - revenues of compost - revenues of energy, giving
the objective function
M inZ =

X X X (Ct Dapt + W Ppt ) Wapt


(1 + r)t


X X X (Ct Dait + W Iit ) Wait


X X X (Ct Dact + W Cct ) Wact


(1 + r)t

X X X (Ct Dalt + W Llt ) Walt



(1 + r)t

(1 + r)t

Constraint Equations

(A) Mass Balance Constraints

There are always some residues generated after municipal solid waste is processed
various processing facilities, including recycling facilities, incinerators, or compost
facilities. These residues need to be processed or disposed of further by other facilities. In the recycling process, the residues generated may be shipped to incinerators
or landfills for further processing or disposal in light of their characteristics. Similarly, the residues generated after composting or incinerating also need to be shipped
to landfills for final disposal. Consequently, the total amount of wastes disposed of or
processed by a certain landfill or incinerator includes not only municipal solid waste
from various cities directly, but also the residues generated from other processing

Based on the above analysis and on the assumption that all wastes are processed
or disposed of in the controlling region, the following mass balance equations are


Wsit +


Wsct +

Wspt +

Wslt = t

s, t


Wilt = Wit

i, t




Wclt = Wct

c, t


Wpit = Wpt

p, t


Wplt +


(i) s = original waste source(i.e., various cities in the controlling region);
(ii) t = the total amount of municipal solid waste generated in the controlling
region in year t (t/a);
(iii) = generation rate of residues at an incinerator (%);
(iv) = generation rate of residues at an compost facility (%); and
(v) =generation rate of residues at a recycling facility( %).
(B) Facilities Capacity Constraints
The capacity of any facility represents a physical limitation that must be considered.
Thus, the accumulated waste inflow should be less than or equal to the maximum
allowable operating capacity of each type of facilities in year t.

Wait Kit

i, t


Wact Kct

c, t


Wapt Kpt

p, t


l, t




Walt Klt

Since landfill is the final disposal facility for municipal solid waste, the amount of
waste deposited in a landfill is limited by the total disposal capacity in the planning
period. This implies that

Walt Ll



where Kf t = capacity of facility f in year t(t/a); and Ll is the total disposal ability
of landfill l(t).
(C) Minimum Landfill Capacity Constraints
In the composition of municipal solid waste, some components must be shipped to a
landfill for disposal, such as dust, tiles, along with metals, glass, and wares that do
not get recycled and combustible components that cannot be separated from others.

Walt Eat

a, t


where Eat is the amount of waste needed to be deposited in a landfill from source a
in year t(t)
(D) Availability Rate Constraints
Because of the limitations of technology and for other reasons, facilities other than
landfills can only process some components of municipal solid waste. Here, the
availability rate parameter is put forward.
(E) Definition
Availability rate- The availability rate is the proportion of a certain componential
waste separated probably from mixed municipal solid waste under general conditions.
(F) Assumptions

(i) The available amount of municipal solid waste processed by each processing
technique depends on the total quantity of various components that can be
processed by this facility in the controlling region.
(ii) At the same time, in practical operation, the rate of every kind of component
separated from mixed municipal solid waste is related to the collection method.


(iii) Consequently, the maximum amount of municipal solid waste probably processed
by each processing technique (except landfill) is equal to the product of the total amount of waste that may be processed by this technique in the controlling
region and the corresponding availability rate.
From the above definition and assumptions, we derive the following equations:XX

Wait i Xt


Wact c Yt


Wapt p Xt




(i) i is the availability rate of combustible components;
(ii) c is the availability rate of components composted;
(iii) p is the availability rate of recyclable components;
(iv) Xt is the total amount of combustible wastes in year t (t/a);
(v) Yt is the total amount of available wastes composted in year t (t/a); and
(vi) Zt is the total amount of recyclable wastes in year t (t/a).
We are assuming that all the above decision variables are positive, that is:Waf t 0

a, f, t




Recycling System Model Formulation

In this section, we discuss the nonlinear dynamic optimization model for the planning
of municipal solid waste recycling system infrastructure and for the design of recycling
strategies. The objective function and constraint sets are also described.


Definition of Constants and Variables

(i) i is waste generator

(ii) j =material recycling facility (MRF)
(iii) l =landfill site
(iv) m= type of secondary material (paper, glass, steel aluminum, plastics)
(v) t = time period, quarter
(vi) Aj = annualized warehouse capital cost
(vii) BANm = 0 or 1 parameter for banning material m
(viii) COM Pm = waste stream composition for materia l m
(ix) CAP W =landfill capacity in tons per quarter
(x) D = distance
(xi) g =solid waste generation growth rate per quarter
(xii) Gi0 = solid waste generation per quarter at generator i at quarter 0
(xiii) Git = solid waste generation at site i and time t
(xiv) IN Vmjt = inventory of material m at j and time t
(xv) =a positive constant


(xvi) LFmjlt = material m recycled at j then sent to l at time t

(xvii) M IN T RR =minimum total recycling rate required
(xviii) M IN M RR= minimum recycling rate for material m
(xix) M Pmt =market price for secondary material m in time t
(xx) M RRmt = material m recycling rate at time t
(xxi) N ON P AP ERjt = recyclable exclude paper received at j at time t
(xxii) N Rit =not-recycled material generated at i
(xxiii) N Rilt =nonrecyclable waste flow between i and l at timet
(xxiv) P AP ERjt =recyclable paper received at j at time t
(xxv) P ROG =recycling program
(xvi) r =discount rate
(xxvii) Rit = recycled material generated at i at time t
(xviii) R1ilt = recyclable but not recycled flow between i and l at time t
(xxix) R2ijt =recyclable flow between i and j at time t
(xxx) RECY CLEmjt = material m recycled at j stored at warehouse at time t
(xxxi) SC =Municipal recycling facility sorting cost in dollars per ton
(xxxii) SEmjt = material m sold at time t
(xxxiii) SORTjt = recyclable material sorted at j at time t
(xxxiv) SORT Ct =total municipal recycling facility sorting cost at time t
(xxxv) SORT CAP =processing capacity in tons per quarter at municipal recycling facility

(xxxvi) T C1=municipal solid waste transportation cost per ton per mile
(xxxvii) T C2 =recyclable transportation cost per ton per mile
(xxxviii) T F EE= tipping fee per ton
(xxxix) T F EEm = tipping fee for specific recyclable m
(xl) T Rt =total revenue from selling secondary material at time t
(xli) T RAN 1t =total municipal solid waste transportation cost at time t
(xlii) T RAN 2t =total recyclable transportation cost at time t
(xliii) T RRt =total recycling rate for time t
(xliv) U N SORTjlt = recycled material, before sorting, sent to LF from j to l at time t

Objective Function

The objective function of this recycling model is to minimize the discounted cash flow of
all system costs and revenues over a planning period. The costs are:(i) Municipal solid waste transportation from generators and municipal recycling facilities to landfill sites;

T RAN S1t =


l (N Rilt + R1ilt ) Dil +



LFmjlt Djl


U N SORTjlt Djl

T C1

(ii) recycled materials transportation cost from municipal solid waste generators to municipal recycling facilities;
T RAN S2t =


R2ijt Dij T C2




(iii) recycled materials sorting and processing costs;

M RF Ct =





(iv) tipping fee at all landfill sites;

T F EEt =



(LFmjlt T F EEm )


R1ilt ) (


(COM Pm T F EEm ) + (1


U N SORTjlt )


(N Rilt T F EE)

COM Pm ) T F EE)

m,m6=P AP ER COM Pm


(v) and capital from all secondary materials obtained from all the municipal recycling
facilities in the system at their market prices, given by:T Rt =



SEmjt M Pmt


The Objective Function

The objective function is to minimize the discounted cash flow of all systems costs minus
revenue over time. A planning period of three years will be used to illustrate the model.
Defining r as the discount rate, the objective function is expressed as:Z=

X T RAN 1t + T RAN 2t + M RF Ct + T F EEt T Rt


(1 + r)t




Constraint Set

The constraint sets consist of waste generation, waste allocation, the mass balances at
each facility and recycling process within the municipal solid waste system, warehouse
capacity, recycling program, recycling rate, and landfill ban.
(1) Waste Generation
We make the following assumptions:(i) the composition of recyclables in the municipal solid waste stream is fixed over
the entire planning horizon,
(ii) municipal solid waste stream includes nonrecyclable materials along with five
types of recyclable materials: paper, glass, steel, aluminum, and plastics, and
(iii) the generation of municipal solid waste increases at a fixed growth rate g, given
Git = Gi0 (1 + g)0


These assumptions can be easily relaxed depending on data availability for specific
(2) Mass Balance at Generator
In this municipal solid waste system configuration, all waste generated at sources is
shipped to either landfill sites or municipal recycling facilities. The municipal solid
waste generated at each municipality i includes three different categories: nonrecyclable (N R) materials, recyclable materials that are not recycled (R1) due to
economic or other reasons, and actually recycled materials (R2). The first and the
second waste categories are sent to landfills. The third waste category is sent to
municipal recycling facilities. The mass balance at generator i for specific time t is
given by:Git =


N Rilt +

R1ilt +




i, t


The flow of nonrecyclables sent from municipality i to all landfill sites l must be
equal to all nonrecyclables generated from i. That is:X

N Rilt = Git (1

COM Pm )

1, t


Also, recyclable but not recycled plus actually recycled materials should be equal
to all recyclable materials generated from i, that is:X

R1ilt +

R2ijt = Git


i, t


(3) Recycling Program Constraint

The constraint for the recycling program is given by:XX

R2ijt P ROG


P ROG is a 0 to 1 parameter. If P ROG is set to 0, it means there is no recycling

program for the entire system. If P ROG is equal to 1, it means that recycling is
allowed. is a parameter with a very large value. If P ROG is equal to 0, then
the righthand side of the constraint will be equal to 0. Since all variables are nonnegative, the constraint will force all variables R2 to be zero. This means there will
be no recyclable material flows from generator i to any municipal recycling facility
j. It is a way to say there is no recycling program for the entire system. On the
other hand, if 1 is assigned to P ROG, then right hand side of the inequality is a very
large number. In that case R2 does not have any upper bound and the constraint
becomes redundant.
(4) Paper Received
We will assume that paper is separated from the waste stream immediately upon
arrival at the municipal recycling facility. Since it does not go through the sorting
facility with the other recyclable materials, we track the paper flow separately. The
paper for recycling is either stored, sold, or sent to a landfill. Since we assume

the composition of recyclable materials from all generators is the same, the total
amount of paper received at a specific municipal recycling facility j and time period
t is expressed as:P AP ERjt =


R2ijt P
m COM Pm

j, t


The inventory of paper at a specific municipal recycling facility j, at time period

t, is equal to the previous inventory plus the paper received for the current time
period minus the paper sold and sent to the landfill. That is:IN VP AP ERjt = IN VP AP ERjt1 + P AP ERjt


j, t(28)

The amount of paper recycled at a municipal recycling facility j, during time period
t is defined as paper received at j minus paper sent to landfill sites during this time
period t. This recycled paper can be either stored, thereby increasing the inventory
in the warehouse, or it can be sold on the secondary material market.
= P AP ERjt


j, t


(5) Nonpaper Recyclable Material Received

The quantity of the nonpaper recyclable waste stream, which includes glass, steel,
aluminum, and plastics received at municipal recycling facility j is given by
N ON P AP ERjt =

R2ijt P AP ERjt

j, t


(6) Mass Balance at Sorting Facility

If the nonpaper recyclable material received is greater than the capacity of the
sorting facility, then only part of the waste stream will be sorted. Unsorted waste
is sent to a landfill. The nonpaper recyclable material flow is the sum of the sorted
and unsorted flows, which are sent to sorting facilities and landfill sites, respectively.
N ON P AP ERjt =

U N SORTjlt + SORTjt


j, t


The amount of waste that gets sorted is bounded above by the sorting capacity at
each municipal recycling facility j.

j, t


(7) Recycling Constraint

The municipal recycling facility mass balance equation for recyclable materials other
than paper is given by:(SORTjt COM Pm )
m,m6=P AP ER COM Pm
l LFmjlt
= IN Vmjt IN Vmjt1 + SEmjt



m/(P AP ER), j, t
(8) Capacity Constraint
For each landfill site l, the waste received from all waste generators i and municipal
recycling facility j during any time period t should not exceed its capacity. That is

LFmjlt + U N SORTjlt ) +

N Rilt + R1ilt CAP Wl

l, t


(9) Recycling Rate

The recycling rate for a specific time period is defined as material(s) recycled at all
municipal recycling facility divided by total municipal solid waste generated during
that time period. Therefore the entire systems recycling rate for the quarterly time
period t for all materials is given by:P P

T RRt =

i Git


m, t


For a single material m,


M RRmt =

i Git

The minimum recycling rate constraint of the entire systems for all materials is
given by:T RRt M IN T RR


The minimum recycling rate constraint of the entire systems for individual materials
is given by:M RRmt M IN M RRm

m, t


(10) Landfill Ban

To account for landfill bans, this model can simulate the effect of restricting specific
recyclable materials from all landfills within the municipal solid waste system. This
is done by adding the following constraint for each individual recyclable.

R1ilt COM Pm +



m,m6=P AP ER COM Pm


LFjmlt (1 BANm )

m, t


The left hand side of this constraint accounts for the total material flow of material
m from all sources that is received at all landfills in the municipal solid waste system.
BANm on the right hand side of the constraint is a 0 or 1 parameter. When BANm
is equal to 1, it means that material m is banned from all landfills in the system;
when BANm equal to 0, it means otherwise. BANm equal to 1 makes the right
hand side of the constraint equal to 0 and forces the material flow to be zero at
all landfills. This simulates a total ban on the material m at all landfills in the
system. When BANm is equal to 0, the constraint is redundant and there is no ban
on material m at landfills. One alternative to a landfill ban is to set M IN M RRm
equal to the composition of material m, in the waste stream. This means recycling
all of material m is equivalent to a landfill ban on material m. One can also increase
the landfill tipping fee for any specific material m, in order to reduce the amount
of material m sent to the landfills. The policy is only feasible in the unlikely cases
where the materials are sent to the landfill after sorting, since it would be difficult
to assess the composition of the unsorted waste stream when it is tipped for disposal
at the landfill. Some enforcement effort is required to make a landfill ban effective.
We will use a non linear programming solver to solve this model.


(1) Chambal, S., Shoviak, M., Thal, A.E., 2003. Decision analysis methodology to
evaluate integrated solid waste management alternatives. Environmental Modeling
and Assessment 8, 25-34.
(2) Cosmi, C., Cuomo, V., Macchiato, M., Mangiamele, L., Masi, S., Salvia, M., 2000.
Waste management by MARKAL model: A case study for basilicata Region. Environmental Modeling and Assessment.
(3) Costi, P., Minciard, R., Robba, M., Sacile, R., 2003. An environmentally sustainable
decision model for urban soild waste management(article in press)
(4) Fiorucci, P., Mincardi, R., Robba, M., Sacile, R., 2003. Solid waste management
in urban areas development and application of decision support system. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 37, 310-328.
(5) Minciardi, R., Paolucci, M., Robba, M., Sacile, R., 2003. A multiobjective Approach
for Solid Waste Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
(6) Re Velle, C., 2000. Research challenges in environmental management. European
Journal of Operational Research 121, 218-231.
(7) UNIDO, 2003. Waste Management Programme.


Budget estimates


Unit cost








books,journals, pre-prints



Travel abroad



Travel upcountry







Living allowances




Library fees
Equipment &