Clean and Inclusive Cities in Argentina November 2016 Clean and Inclusive Cities in Argentina November 2016 “Clean and Inclusive Cities in Argentina” was produced as part of a technical assistance on urban policies in support of the program of the World Bank on Agglomeration Econo- mies and Resilience in Argentina and through financing from the Korean Green Growth Trust Fund. The diagnostic served as is an input to the report ‘Leveraging the potential of Argentine cities: A framework for policy action’ (World Bank, 2016) and the ‘Argentina: Country Environmental Analysis’ (World Bank, 2016). The document was elaborated by Karina Campos (Environmental Specialist Consultant, World Bank), John Morton (Senior Urban Environment Specialist, World Bank) and Bernardo Deregibus (Urban Specialist Consultant, World Bank). The document received important review comments and inputs from Miguel Suarez (Solid Waste Management Specialist Consultant) and Silpa Kaza (Ur- ban Development Specialist, World Bank). The team would like to thank Augustin Ma- ria, World Bank Team Leader of the technical assistance on Agglomeration Economies and Resilience in Argentina for his support and inputs as well as Ming Zhang (World Bank Practice Manager, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice) and Jesko S. Hentschel (World Bank Country Director, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay). In addition, we thank the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development of Argentina for their feedback on early drafts of the document and cooperation collecting data for this diagnostic. © 2016 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development–World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Standard Disclaimer This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accu- racy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Copyright Statement The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Dan- vers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, http://www.copyri- ght.com/. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover Image Copyright Anibal Trejo © 123RF.com 3 . TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary 7 Methodology 10 1.Waste Collection Services 14 2.Street Sweeping and Urban Cleaning Services 29 3.Waste Transfer Services 32 4.Waste Treatment Services 37 5.Waste Disposal Services 49 6.People Living Near Open Dumpsites 60 7.Municipal Performance in Solid Waste Management 72 8.Employment in the Solid Waste Management Sector 77 9.Costs of Solid Waste Management Services 91 . TABLES Table 1. Waste Collection Service At Least Twice a 17 Table 14. Treatment Facilities and Capacity, 2015, by 40 Week, 2001 and 2010, by Province and the City of Bue- Province and the City of Buenos Aires nos Aires Table 15. Waste Recycling Companies, 2014, by Pro- 45 Table 2. Waste Collection Service At Least Twice a 18 vince and the City of Buenos Aires Week, 2010, by Urban Agglomeration Table 16. Capacity of Waste Treatment Facilities, 46 Table 3. Waste Collection Service At Least Twice a 21 2014-2015, by Urban Agglomeration Week, 2001, by Type of Housing Table 17. Waste Disposal Service Coverage, 2001 and 50 Table 4. Waste Collection Service Coverage, 2010, by 23 2010 Municipality Size and Region Table 18. Sanitary Landfills, 2015, by Province and the 52 Table 5. Urban Households without Waste Collection 25 City of Buenos Aires Service Coverage at least Every Other Day, 2010-2015 Table 19. Sanitary Landfills, 2015, by Urban Agglome- 55 Table 6. Urban Households without Waste Collection 25 ration Service Coverage At Least Every Other Day, 2015, by Type of Urban Agglomeration, Social Stratum, and Re- Table 20. Urban Households that Consider Open 62 sidential Condition Dumpsites a Problem in Their Neighborhood, 2010- 2015 Table 7. Urban Households without Waste Collection 26 Service Coverage At Least Every Other Day, 2015, by Table 21. Urban Households that Consider Open 62 Economic-Occupational Stratum and Characteristics Dumpsites a Problem in their Neighborhood, 2015, by of Head of Household Urban agglomeration, Social Stratum and Residential Condition Table 8. Urban Households With and Without Waste 26 Collection Service, 2010-2015, Comparison of Results Table 22. Urban Households that Consider Open 62 Dumpsites a Problem in Their Neighborhood, 2015, by Table 9. Street Sweeping and Cleaning Services, 2001 31 Economic-Occupational Stratum and Characteristics and 2010 of Head of Household Table 10. Percentage of Inhabitants with Waste Trans- 33 Table 23. Proportion of Urban Households within 64 fer Service for Collected Waste, 2010, by Municipality Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2010-2014 Size Table 24. Children Living within Three Blocks of an 64 Table 11. Waste Transfer Stations in Argentina, 2015, 34 Open Dumpsite, 2014 by Province and the City of Buenos Aires Table 25. Percentage of Households Located within 65 Table 12. Waste transfer Stations in Argentina, 2015, 35 Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2013-2014, by Ur- by Urban Agglomeration ban Agglomeration Table 13. Solid Waste Treatment Capacity of Plants in 39 Table 26. Percentage of Households Located Within 70 Operation in Argentina, 2014-2015 Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2010-2013 4 Table 27. Urban Households Living Near Open Dump- 71 sites, 2013, Comparison between Surveys Table 28. Performance of Municipalities in Solid Was- 73 te Management and Cleaning Services, 2014, Level of Compliance with Performance Criteria Table 29. Formal Municipal Employment in Solid Waste 79 Management, 2010, by Service (Employees per 10,000 inhabitants) Table 30. Formal Municipal Employment in Solid Was- 79 te Management (Employees per 10,000 inhabitants), 2010, by Terms of Employment (Municipal versus Con- tractual), and Service Table 31. Average Number of Formal Employees in So- 80 lid Waste Management (Employees per 10,000 inhabi- tants), 2010-2014, by Municipality Size Table 32. Informal Waste Workers per 10,000 Inhabi- 83 tants, 2010, by Region and Place of Work Table 33. Child Labor among Informal Waste Workers, 84 2004 Table 34. Formal and Informal Workers in the Muni- 85 cipal Solid Waste Management Sector, 2001-2015, by Municipality Table 35. Formal and Informal Workers in the Solid 89 Waste Management Sector, 2001-2015, in Selected Municipalities, all Municipalities and within the 31 Main Urban Agglomerations Table 36. Waste Collection Cost, 2012-2014, by Muni- 92 cipality Size Table 37. Waste Disposal Cost, 2012-2014, by Municipa- 93 lity Size Table 38. Economic and Financial Indicators, 2012- 93 2014 . FIGURES Figure 1. Analytical Framework Used 10 Figure 7. Percentage of Waste Treatment Plants, 40 2014-2015, by Region Figure 2. Main Sources of Information, by Level of 11 Analysis Figure 8. Waste Treatment Capacity versus Municipa- 44 lity Size for Solid Waste Treatment Plants, 2014-2015 Figure 3. Percentage of Households with Solid Waste 19 Collection Service At Least Twice a Week, 2010, by Ur- Figure 9. Waste Treatment Capacity versus Municipa- 44 ban Agglomeration lity Size for Solid Waste Treatment Plants with a Ca- pacity of Less than 200 tons per day, 2014-2015 Figure 4. Number of Households (in Thousands) with 20 Solid Waste Collection Service At Least Twice a Week, Figure 10. Distribution of Waste Treatment Capacity 45 2010, by Urban Agglomeration in the 31 Main Urban Agglomerations, 2014-2015 Figure 5. Quality of Public Services and Level of Satis- 28 Figure 11. Installed Waste Treatment Capacity, 2014- 45 faction with Waste Collection in Selected Urban Agglo- 2015 merations, 2014 Figure 12. Percentage of Households with Sanitary 56 Figure 6. Number of Solid Waste Treatment Plants, 39 Landfill Waste Disposal Service, 2015, by Urban Ag- 2014-2015, by Province and the City of Buenos Aires glomeration 5 Figure 13. Quantity (in Thousands) of Households Wi- 57 Figure 19. Formal Employees Working on Waste Ma- 81 thout Sanitary Landfill Waste Disposal Service, 2015, nagement versus Municipality Size, 2012-2014 by Urban Agglomeration Figure 20. Formal Employees Working on Waste Ma- 81 Figure 14. Selected Regional Waste Management Fa- 58 nagement versus Municipality Size for cilities in the 31 Main Urban Agglomerations Municipalities with up to 15,000 Inhabitants, 2012- 2014 Figure 15. Percentage of Households Located within 67 Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2013-2014, by Ur- Figure 21. Distribution of Formal Employees by Task, 82 ban Agglomeration 2012-2014 Figure 16. Quantity (in Thousands) of Households 68 Figure 22. Formal and Informal Workers in the Solid 89 Located within Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, Waste Management Sector per 10,000 Inhabitants for 2013-2014, by Urban Agglomeration Selected Cities, 2001-2015 Figure 17. Percentage of households Located within 69 Figure 23. Estimated Total Number of Formal and In- 90 Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2013-2014, by Ur- formal Workers in the Solid Waste Management Sec- ban Agglomeration, for All Households and Those in tor in the 31 Main Urban Agglomerations, 2001-2015 Informal Urban Settlements Figure 18. Performance of Municipalities in Solid 75 Waste Management and Cleaning Services, 2014, Le- vel of Compliance with Criteria . ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AIDIS Inter-American Association of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering CEAMSE Ecological Coordination Metropolitan Area State Society (‘Coordinación Ecológica Área Metropolita- na Sociedad del Estado’) CORMECOR Intercommunal Corporation for the Sustainable Management of Urban Solid Waste of the Metropo- litan Area of Cordoba (‘La Corporación Intercomunal para la Gestión Sustentable de los Residuos Sólidos Urbanos del Área Metropolitana de Córdoba’) EAHU Annual Survey of Urban Households (‘Encuesta Anual de Hogares Urbanos’) EDSA Survey of Argentina´s Social Debt (‘Encuesta de la Deuda Social Argentina’) EPH Permanent Survey of Households (‘Encuesta Permanente de Hogares’) EVAL Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Latin America and the Caribbean IADB Inter-American Development Bank INDEC The National Institute of Statistics and Census (‘Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Censos’) IOM International Organization for Migration PAHO Pan American Health Organization MAyDS Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development (‘Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable’) formerly SAyDS (‘Secretaria de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable’) UCA Argentine Catholic University (‘Universidad Católica Argentina’) UNICEF United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund 6 Summary Cities and their agglomeration economies are an important engine for growth in Ar- gentina. Argentina is a country of cities, with over 90 percent of its population living in urban areas. Although highly diverse, Argentine cities have a common denominator: they all play a key role in fostering Argentina’s sustainable economic growth and the improving living standards of its population, especially the most vulnerable. Not only do the country’s urban agglomerations benefit economically from the spatial concen- tration of people and firms, but they also generate economy by concentrating ideas, talent, and knowledge. However, to fully leverage the potential benefits of these agglo- merations, the “congestion effects” caused by urbanization, including the associated impacts on aesthetics, insecurity, air pollution, and failures in land and labor markets, among others, need to be managed and contained.1 The cleanliness of a city is the backdrop for urban agglomeration economies. One of the common “congestion effects” of urban agglomerations worldwide has been the sight of city streets, buildings, public spaces, residential and commercial areas strewn with lit- ter, graffiti, uncollected waste and other signs of poor maintenance. As the backdrop to most all economic and residential activities in the city, ineffective services and the per- ception of a uncleanly, disordered environment can have a subtle but systemic impact on the functioning of the city and its individual neighborhoods affecting their livability, property values, and attractiveness for businesses and tourism. It also can reduce a population’s sense of security and confidence in their neighbors and local government and contribute to a process of community decline in the medium and long term2. This can be particularly impactful in the context of the multitude of challenges faced by mar- ginalized and informal neighborhoods. Urban growth has also created an unacceptable informal waste economy for the most marginalized. Urban agglomerations and the resulting proximity of industries to resi- dential and commercial sources of waste have also created a market for recycling that, because of a lack of a modernized waste sector, has developed into a large informal economy. It is estimated that currently over 4,000,000 people in Latin America work in the informal waste sector collecting recyclable materials from the streets and from open dumpsites, often times living and working under difficult conditions and with low incomes. In many cases because of the combination of easy entry into the livelihood and poor working conditions, informal recycling functions as an unacceptable social safety net for the most marginalized people including the unemployed, addicts and commonly children. 1 Adapted from “Leveraging the Potential of Argentine Cities, A Framework for Policy Action”, World Bank (2016) which was undertaken in conjunction with this diagnostic. The study identified three main challen- ges to take full advantage of the benefits of agglomeration economies: (1) moving toward a more balanced regional development; (2) transitioning from local to global cities; and (3) transitioning from urban sprawl to articulated densities. 2 Litter, lack of cleanliness and other physical disorder creates a perception of lawlessness and that there is a lack of guardianship which in the case of opportunistic crime can affect the perception of opportunity of the offender and sense of security felt by the suitable victim.(Cullen 2010; Wilcox et al. 2003; Cohen and Felson). The impact of physical disorder such as litter on community decline is based on the Broken Window theory (J. Q. Wilson, G. L. Kelling, 1982) which suggests that signs of disorderly and petty criminal behavior trigger more disorderly and petty criminal behavior, thus causing the behavior to spread. This may cause a development sequence in a neighborhood leading in the medium and long term to decay and deterioration of the quality of life of its inhabitants. 7 Municipalities bear the responsibility for clean urban areas. Solid waste management services, cleaning and beautification are the responsibility of municipalities in much of the world and Argentina is no exception. It is one of the most important urban services provided at the municipal level, affecting citizen’s daily lives and for many is representa- tive of the ability of their municipal government to manage the urban area. However, the service is often times the least modernized of municipal services and the most costly; and municipalities are challenged to provide these services to the entire population while building the citizen participation necessary to sustain a clean community. Clean and Inclusive Cities in Argentina This document reviews the existing information on solid waste management and city cleanliness to understand how the country’s municipalities are responding to this im- portant challenge and how these services are supporting the growing urban agglome- rations in the country. The review provides data by urban agglomeration but also inclu- des data at the provincial and national level. It considers not only the service coverage and infrastructure but the role they play in a range of issues including the proximity of waste to people’s homes, inequality of access to services, and the impact on municipal budgets. Informality, both in terms of informal employment in the waste sector and the ability of municipal services to reach informal and precarious urban settlements, is also considered. The review is intended as a compilation of data for use by local and national governments, international organizations, academics and non-governmental organizations in their ongoing efforts to improve cities. The data presented highlights the current service gaps and opportunities that can be explored to avoid the costs of congestion in order maximize Argentina’s cities’ role as an engine for inclusive growth. Some of the important conclusions are: Solid waste management and city cleaning services have among the lowest service coverage relative to other basic services. Nationally, over 4 million people (10.1 per- cent) do not have regular waste collection service, 7.3 million (18.4 percent) do not have street sweeping service and 19.8 million people (46.5 percent) do not have disposal service in sanitary landfills. This is a significantly larger deficit than other basic services in Argentina3. The service gap is acute in informal and precarious settlements. Low income popula- tions living in informal and precarious urban settlements are suffering the most from deficiencies in waste management service. 58.6 percent of households in informal or precarious urban settlements consider open dumpsites a problem in their neighbor- hood and 17.9 percent do not have waste collection service. There is a high level of informal employment. Nationally, an estimated 323,354 people work in services related to solid waste and city cleaning and 117,698, or 36 percent, are people working informally, predominantly collecting, sorting and selling recyclable materials. Municipalities spend a significant amount on solid waste and cleaning services. Muni- cipalities, on average, spend 13 percent of their budget on solid waste and city cleaning services. Tariffs have been established in some municipalities which, on average, cover 3 Estimated service deficits in Argentina based on available information are: Water supply: 829,000 people without access (2%); Sanitation: 1,658,000 people with access (4%); Electricity: 580,000 people without access (1%) 8 30 percent of the budget for these services. These tariffs, on average, can be collected from only 50 percent of the people benefitting from the service. Service coverage is higher in urban agglomerations. Urban agglomerations have been able to provide solid waste management and city cleaning services to a large proportion of the population, with 95.7 percent of the population benefitting from regular collection service (verses 89.1 percent nationally) and 77 percent of the population benefitting from sanitary landfill disposal service (verses 53.5 percent nationally). The urban agglomerations in the northern part of the country more commonly have gaps in service provision. On average waste collection service is lower in the urban agglomerations in the Northeast (90.9 percent versus 95.7 in all urban agglomerations nationally) with Formosa having the lowest, servicing 77.1 percent of the population. Similarly, five urban agglomerations in the northern part of the country (Jujuy-Palpala, Greater Resistencia, Santiago del Estero-La Banda, Greater Catamarca, and Corrientes) do not have a sanitary landfill. Greater Buenos Aires contains the highest absolute number of people affected by poor solid waste management. One third of the population in the country without regular waste collection service (633,622 people) live in Greater Buenos Aires. In addition, the- re are 1,453,749 people in Greater Buenos Aires living within three blocks of an open dumpsite. There are higher levels of informal employment in urban agglomerations. Within the 31 main urban agglomerations in the country, an estimated 60 percent (61,977 people) of those working in solid waste and city cleaning related services are working informally. Outside of urban agglomerations it is estimated that 25 percent of the employment re- lated to these services is informal. Regionalized services are being established to take advantage of the economies of scale provided in urban agglomerations. Regional landfills and waste transfer stations, which aggregate the waste from multiple municipalities to take advantage of the economies of scale of these services, have been developed in several urban agglomerations. There are waste transfer stations in 6 of the 31 main urban agglomerations and an estimated 31.4 percent of the waste generated in the 31 main agglomerations is being processed through a waste transfer station. Regional sanitary landfills have been setup in some urban agglomerations using various management arrangements including in Greater Salta; Greater Tucuman, Rawson-Trelew, Greater Cordoba, Greater Buenos Aires, Misio- nes and Greater Rosario. 9 Methodology In the following chapters, a diagnostic of municipal solid waste management and cleansing services in Argentina is presented. As summarized in Figure 1, solid waste management was analyzed in an integrated manner, evaluating waste collection, sweeping, waste transfer, waste treatment, and final disposal services. For each of these elements, whenever informa- tion was available, indicators of service coverage and efficiency were analyzed. In addition, the report includes an analysis of: (a) data on the quantity of households living near open dumpsites; (b) a measurement of performance for solid waste management implemented in a sample of municipalities; (c) costs of services; and (d) data on the number of formal and informal jobs created by the solid waste sector. Points (a) and (b) help evaluate the efficiency of the service, and points (c) and (d) shed light on the finance and economics of the services and their relationship to informal employment. Figure 1. Analytical Framework Used The report includes data from publicly available sources of information on solid waste management in Argentina, and also provides new or updated indicators based on avai- lable information. Additional data was also collected specifically for this report when no updated and consolidated source of information was available. The report includes national, regional, provincial, and municipal level data and makes comparisons to ave- rages of the Latin America and the Caribbean Region. Figure 2 summarizes the main sources of information used for each of these different levels of analysis. 10 Figure 2. Main Sources of Information, by Level of Analysis National National Censuses 2001 and 2010, EVAL 2002 and 2010, and information compiled for this report. Regional EVAL 2002 and 2010, and information compiled for this report Provincial National Censuses 2001 and 2010, National Urban Solid Waste Management Project under the Mi- nistry of the Environment and Sustainable Development (MAyDS), and other information compiled for this report. 31 main urban agglomerations Permanent Survey of Households (EPH), Annual Survey of Urban Households (EAHU), Survey of Argentina´s Social Debt (EDSA), National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS), United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), private companies, municipal representatives, offi- cial websites, and other information compiled for this report. National Census: The National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INDEC) conducted the National Census of Population, Households, and Housing in both 2001 and 2010.The scope of the census is the whole country, including every urban and rural household. It measures the service by “segment” which is a unit that represents the geographic area that was assigned to a census worker and aggregates the data by region within Argen- tina, province, department (the political subdivision below the province) or ‘partido’ (the political subdivision in the Province of Buenos Aires). Data on waste collection from the National Census in 2001 and 2010 are used in this report. Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Latin America and the Caribbean (EVAL): In 2010, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), in association with the Inter-American Association of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering (AIDIS), carried out a Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management (EVAL) based on surveys of municipal representatives from a sample of municipalities, providing ave- rage results for the Latin America and Caribbean Region and also provided results by country including information by region and size of municipality. In 2002, the IADB and the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) published a similar evaluation with data collected in 2001. In 2013, the IADB also published a technical note on waste mana- gement in Argentina with more specific information for the country based on the data collected in the previous reports. The chosen regions in these reports were different than those used by INDEC: 11 Region I: North (Provinces of Catamarca, Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero, and Tucumán); Region II: Cuyo and Mesopotamia (Provinces of Corrientes, Entre Ríos, Mendoza, Misiones, San Juan, and San Luis); Region III: Central and Patagonia (Provinces of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Chubut, La Pampa, Neuquén, Río Negro, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe, Tierra del Fuego, and the City of Buenos Aires) Data on waste collection, street sweeping and urban cleaning, waste transfer, waste disposal, and jobs generated by the solid waste management sector from these sour- ces are used in this report. Permanent Survey of Households (Encuesta Permanente de Hogares, EPH): The Per- manent Survey of Households (EPH) is undertaken every quarter by INDEC. It includes data from the 31 main urban agglomerations comprising the provincial capitals and urban agglomerations with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Data from between 2010 and 2014 on waste collection, overall population, and population living near dumpsites from the Permanent Survey of Households are used in this report. Annual Survey of Households (Encuesta Anual de Hogares Urbanos, EAHU): In addition to the Permanent Survey of Households (EPH), INDEC carries out an Annual Survey of Urban Households (EAHU) which covers households in all urban municipalities with more than 2,000 inhabitants. Data from between 2010 and 2013 on population living near dumpsites from the Annual Survey of Urban Households are used in this report. Survey of Argentina’s Social Debt (Encuesta de la Deuda Social Argentina, EDSA): This is a survey undertaken by the Argentine Catholic University (UCA) that focuses on ur- ban households. The latest survey covered the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires and 16 other urban agglomerations with a sample size of 5,700 households. Data from be- tween 2010 and 2015 on waste collection and population living near dumpsites from the Survey of Argentina’s Social Debt are used in this report. National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS): The National Urban Solid Waste Management Project of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Develo- pment (MAyDS) was a World Bank financed project executed between 2006 and 2015 that provided support to the solid waste planning and investment program in Argenti- na. As part of the Project, data was collected nationally and in targeted municipalities. The data collection efforts included, most significantly, the implementation of a detailed methodology to assess the costs of waste management services at the municipal level; a detailed socioeconomic evaluation; and a comprehensive performance evaluation of municipalities. Data on waste collection, waste transfer, waste treatment, waste dis- posal, municipal performance in solid waste management, jobs generated by the solid waste management sector and costs of solid waste management services from the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project are used in this report. The data co- llected originated from between 2012 and 2015. 12 Municipalities, Private Companies, Official Websites and Publically Available Sources. To supplement, confirm and update the data available through secondary sources, information was obtained directly through municipalities and private companies and through a variety of publically available resources on the internet. Data on waste collec- tion, waste transfer, waste treatment and waste disposal from these sources are used in this report.The information was collected in 2015. Solid Waste Studies and Plans: Many provinces and municipalities undertake solid waste planning studies or project design studies as part of the process of establishing and improving their solid waste system. In addition, a National Plan was developed in 2005 and updated in 2012. Data on waste treatment and jobs generated by the solid waste management sector from these sources are used in this report. The majority of plans were published between 2010 and 2014. Child Labor in the Recovery and Recycling of Solid Waste: In 2006, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) published a report on child labor in the recovery and recycling of solid was- te. The report provides data on the City of Buenos Aires, the Department (‘partido’) of Moreno (Buenos Aires Province), and Posadas (Misiones Province) in the year 2004. The number of children and teenage workers includes those that could counted during the time period of the survey. Data on jobs generated by the solid waste management sector and separation plants from this source are used in this report. 13 1. Waste collection services 14 1. Waste collection services 1. Waste collection services The country has high levels of waste collection service coverage in urban areas. 94.8 percent of households in urban areas and 95.7 percent of those in the 31 main urban agglomerations have waste collection service at least twice a week. In terms of absolu- te numbers, however the deficit in service is significant.1,868,411 people in urban areas do not have this service, and 33 percent of this unserved population is located in Greater Buenos Aires. 89.9 percent of the population in urban and rural areas have waste collection service at least twice a week. A total of 4,004,221 people do not have this service including 2,135,810 people in rural areas. Between 2001 and 2010, the expansion of waste collection service kept pace with po- pulation growth. An additional 3.9 million people were provided waste collection service at least twice a week during this time period. As this increase was comparable to the overall population growth, there was not a substantial increase in the proportion of the population provided with this service (it was 89.7 percent in 2001 and 89.9 percent in 2010). Waste collection service coverage in urban areas is significantly lower in informal or precarious urban settlements. Among urban households located in informal or preca- rious urban settlements, 17.9 percent of households did not have waste collection ser- vice at least every other day. This service deficit is four times higher than that for the general urban population. The percentage of urban households without waste collection service increases signi- ficantly in low income populations. A higher proportion of urban households that are marginal working class (8.7 percent do not have service) and in houses where the head of household is unemployed or underemployed (7.8 percent) do not have waste collec- tion service at least every other day.The deficit for this service for both households in the medium-high socioeconomic strat and with a professional head of household is 1.2 percent. There are inequalities in waste collection service in urban areas. The proportion of hou- seholds with waste collection service at least twice a week in urban areas is lower in the Northeast provinces (90.9 percent on average), with the lowest service coverage found in Formosa (77.1 percent). Among the 31 main urban agglomerations, Santa Rosa-Toay has the highest proportion of households with waste collection service at least twice a week (98.9 percent) and Greater Resistencia has the lowest (88.7 percent). Provinces in the Northeast achieved the most significant improvements in overall waste collection service between 2001 and 2010. In 2001, the provinces of Chaco, Corrientes, Formosa and Misiones had the lowest overall (including urban and rural) proportion of households with waste collection service at least twice a week. By 2010, the service coverage in these provinces increased, covering an additional 5.1 to 7.3 percent of the population. Deficiencies in equipment are worse in the Northern Region and in smaller municipali- ties. Nationally 45 percent of the collection vehicles are more than 10 years old, and in small municipalities (<15,000 people) this number increases to 85 percent. In addition, waste generated by 29.5 percent of population is collected with vehicles without a com- pactor, a number which increases to 45.8 percent in the Northern region. Greater Buenos Aires is host to the largest population without waste collection service. One third of the population without collection service at least twice a week (633,622 people) live in Greater Buenos Aires. 76 percent of the surveyed population from six urban agglomerations are satisfied or very satisfied with their waste collection service. 15 1. Waste collection services 1.1 National Census 2001 and 2010 The National Census evaluated waste collection service coverage considering that a household has service when there is a presence of regular service in a “segment” at least twice a week. A “segment” is a unit which represents the geographic area that was assigned to a census worker. The presence of waste collection service is determined by the census worker based in the predominant situation in a given segment as recorded in the survey. The National Census reports data on solid waste collection service coverage nationwide, by province and department and in the case of Buenos Aires Province by ‘partido’ (a political subdivision of Buenos Aires Province). In addition to the total number of hou- seholds and inhabitants with waste collection service, the National Census provides disaggregated figures for waste collection service coverage for both urban and rural households and inhabitants. As the National Census does not report data by munici- pality (the administrative jurisdiction of a town or city within a department) or urban agglomeration (urban areas as defined by the Permanent Survey of Households), for the purpose of this study, figures disaggregated by urban agglomerations were developed. This was done by determining the departments that comprise each urban agglomera- tion and then adding the number of urban households and inhabitants provided with the service. The National Census also analyzes the characteristics of the households. In the 2001 National Census it was possible to analyze waste collection service coverage for different types of housing. 16 1. Waste collection services Table 1. Waste Collection Service Coverage at least Twice a Week, 2001 and 2010, by Province and the City of Buenos Aires National Census National Census 2010 2001 Province Total Total Urban Areas Households Households Number of Households Number of with Service with Service (%) people with Service (%) people without service without service Countrywide 89.7 89.9 4,004,221 94.8 1,868,411 Pampeana/Central Region City of Buenos Aires 99.3 97.7 64,565 97.7 64,565 24 Departments in Greater Buenos Aires 94.7 94.2 569,117 94.3 564,144 Interior of Buenos Aires Province 1 90.9 92.9 400,377 96.2 198,918 Córdoba 91.7 93.0 227,380 97.4 76,356 La Pampa 92.1 93.7 19,957 98.5 4,064 Santa Fe 91.2 92.5 238,471 96.1 112,108 Entre Ríos 84.3 87.1 157,396 95.5 47,242 Northwest Jujuy 86.6 89.4 70,556 95.4 26,903 Salta 83.1 86.1 167,234 93.9 64,036 La Rioja 85.1 87.2 42,242 92.2 22,214 Catamarca 79.4 82.9 62,154 92.9 20,017 Santiago del Estero 58.8 62.5 325,823 85.9 84,164 Tucumán 78.5 80.3 284,256 91.8 94,823 Northeast Chaco 71.7 76.7 243,816 87.6 109,536 Corrientes 71.6 78.9 208,276 91.5 69,783 Misiones 67.1 74.3 280,104 93.6 51,806 Formosa 57.2 64.0 189,513 77.1 97,593 Cuyo Mendoza 86.2 88.8 193,646 96.8 44,190 San Juan 85.5 90.0 67,551 95.3 27,423 San Luis 89.4 92.1 33,966 97.0 11,413 Patagonia Neuquén 91.5 91.5 46,002 95.7 21,481 Río Negro 88.2 90.3 61,079 95.9 22,257 Chubut 93.8 93.4 32,883 96.0 18,363 Santa Cruz 97.8 95.7 11,514 96.5 8,929 Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and Islands 98.4 94.9 6,343 95.1 6,083 Source: Own elaboration based on National Census, 2001 and 2010. 1 Not including the 24 departments in Greater Buenos Aires 17 1. Waste collection services Table 2. Collection Service Coverage at least Twice a Week, 2010, by Urban Agglomeration Households with Departments Population Collection Population without Urban Agglomeration Population Considered in with Collection Service (%) Collection Service Calculation Service Greater Buenos Aires City of Buenos Aires and 24 Greater Buenos Aires 13,778,196 95.6 ‘partidos’ of Greater Buenos Aires 13,169,700 633,682 Cuyo Mendoza Capital, Guaymallén, Las Heras, Greater Mendoza 1,070,944 97.2 Luján de Cuyo, Godoy Cruz and Maipú 1,041,372 29,572 Greater San Juan 511,625 96.5 San Juan Capital, Rawson, Rivadavia, 493,558 18,067 Chimbas, and Santa Lucía. San Luis - El Chorrillo 215,487 97.9 San Luis Capital 211,043 4,444 Northeast Corrientes Capital Corrientes 379,696 92.6 351,632 28,064 Formosa Formosa 254,702 89.0 226,707 27,995 San Fernando Greater Resistencia 407,001 88.7 360,994 46,007 Posadas Capital Posadas 350,913 95.4 334,832 16,081 Northwest Catamarca Capital, Valle Viajo and Fray Greater Catamarca 209,072 94.3 Mamerto Esquiú 197,222 11,850 Greater Tucumán - Tafí Viejo 863,943 92.4 Tucumán Capital, Cruz Alta, Yerba 798,139 65,804 Buena, Lules, Tafí Viejo Jujuy – Palpalá 335,406 95.5 Dr. Manuel Begrano and Palpalá 320,435 14,971 La Rioja 200,933 91.8 La Rioja Capital 184,477 16,456 Salta 617,418 96.8 Salta Capital, Cerrillos and La Caldera 597,680 19,738 Santiago del Estero - La Banda 401,924 88.8 Santiago del Estero Capital and Banda 356,798 45,126 Pampeana/Central Region Bahía Blanca – Cerrito 305,962 97.8 Partido de Bahia Blanca 299,107 6,855 Concordia 159,631 95.4 Concordia 152,281 7,350 Greater Córdoba 1,512,823 97.4 Córdoba Capital and Colón 1,473,802 39,021 Greater La Plata 828,860 95.0 La Plata, Berisso and Ensenada 787,490 41,370 Greater Rosario 1,415,628 96.1 Rosario and San Lorenzo 1,359,660 55,968 Greater Paraná 273,300 96.0 Paraná 262,443 10,857 Greater Santa Fe 526,366 96.2 Santa Fe capital 506,337 20,029 Mar del Plata – Batán 631,322 97.8 Gral. Puayrredón 617,355 13,967 Río Cuarto 171,332 98.1 Río Cuarto 168,023 3,309 Santa Rosa – Toay 124,545 98.9 Santa Rosa Capital and Toay 123,176 1,369 San Nicolás - Villa Constitución 187,981 96.7 San Nicolás y Constitución 181,799 6,182 Patagonia Comodoro Rivadavia - Rada Tilly 210,875 94.0 Escalante 198,148 12,727 Neuquén – Plottier 304,572 95.4 Confluencia 290,510 14,062 Río Gallegos 108,693 97.0 Güer Aike 105,395 3,298 Ushuaia - Río Grande 143,471 94.9 Ushuaia and Río Grande 136,169 7,302 Rawson – Trelew 137,057 97.8 Rawson 133,993 3,064 Viedma - Carmen de Patagones 85,442 98.2 Patagones 83,876 1,566 TOTAL 26,725,120 95.7 25,524,153 1,226,153 Source: Own elaboration based population and department-level data on waste collection service coverage from the National Census 2010, aggregated by urban agglo- meration. 18 1. Waste collection services Figure 3. Percentage of Households with Solid Waste Collection Service at least Twice a Week, 2010, by Urban Agglomeration 95.5% Jujuy - Palpala 96.8% Salta 92.3% Greater Tucumán Formosa 89.0% 88.7% Tafí Viejo Greater Resistencia Posadas 94.3% Greater Catamarca Sgo. del Estero Corrientes 95.4% 88.7% 92.6% 91.8% La Rioja 97.4% 96.1% Greater San Juan Greater Santa Fe Greater Córdoba Concordia 95.4% 96.4% 98.0% Greater Paraná 96.0% Greater Mendoza Río Cuarto 97.2% Greater Rosario 96.0% 97.9% San Luis - El Chorrillo Greater Buenos Aires 95.6% Greater La Plata 95.0% 98.9% Santa Rosa - Toay 97.7% Mar del Plata - Batán Bahía Blanca - Cerri Neuquén - Plottier 95.3% 97.7% 98.1% Viedma 97.7% Rawson 93.9% Comodoro Rivadavia - Rada Tilly > 95% 90 - 95% < 90% 96.9% Río Gallegos 94.9% Ushuaia - Río Grande AGGLOMERATION SIZE: Greater Buenos Aires Five Largest Large Intermediate Small Source: National Census, 2010 Urban Agglomeration Categories: Greater Buenos Aires, five largest agglomerations (700,000–1.5 million), large agglomerations (300,000–700,000), intermediate ag- glomerations (100,000–300,000), and small agglomerations (50,000–100,000). 19 1. Waste collection services Figure 4. Number of Households (in Thousands) with Solid Waste Collection Service at least Twice a Week, 2010, by Urban Agglomeration 3.6 Jujuy - Palpala 4.6 Salta 18.2 Greater Tucumán Formosa 6.6 12.3 Tafí Viejo Greater Resistencia Posadas 2.9 Greater Catamarca Sgo. del Estero Corrientes 4.2 10.7 7.2 4.0 La Rioja 6.2 12.1 Greater San Juan Greater Santa Fe Greater Córdoba 4.2 Concordia 2.0 1.4 Greater Paraná 3.9 Greater Mendoza Río Cuarto 7.9 Greater Rosario 17.2 1.2 San Luis - El Chorrillo Greater City of Buenos Aires 22.2 Buenos Aires 149.6 Greater La Plata 13.1 0.4 Santa Rosa - Toay 4.6 Mar del Plata - Batán Bahía Blanca - Cerri Neuquén - Plottier 5.1 2.3 0.5 Viedma 0.9 Rawson 3.4 Comodoro Rivadavia - Rada Tilly < 5 (thousand) 5 - 10 > 10 1.0 Río Gallegos 2.0 Ushuaia - Río Grande AGGLOMERATION SIZE: Greater Buenos Aires Five Largest Large Intermediate Small Source: National Census, 2010 Urban Agglomeration Categories: Greater Buenos Aires, five largest agglomerations (700,000–1.5 million), large agglomerations (300,000–700,000), intermediate ag- glomerations (100,000–300,000), and small agglomerations (50,000–100,000). 20 1. Waste collection services Table 3. Waste Collection Service at least Twice a week, 2001, by Type of Housing Rented Rented Location House House Precarious room in Mobile In the Indicator Ranch2 Apartment Room in not Built as Type A1 Type B1 house3 Hotel or House street Recidence a Room Hostel Number of households 356,144 409,485 141,670 57,427 11,263 3,945 405 2,761 1,777 582 without service % of households with waste 94.0 72.2 34.6 78.3 99.1 94.4 98.1 86.0 53.5 72.4 collection service Source: Own elaboration based on National Census, 2001. 1 A Type B house is a house with at least one of the following conditions: has a dirt or loose brick floor (no ceramic flooring, tile, mosaic, marble, wood, carpet, concrete, or brick fixed), has no provision of piped water inside the house, or does not water discharge. A type A house do not have any of these characteristics and is not a ranch or Precarious house. 2 A ranch generally has an adobe wall, dirt floor, and a sheet or straw roof. It is considered typical of rural areas. 3 A precarious house is usually made out of low quality materials or waste, it is found in urban areas. Data analysis - The country has a high level of waste collection service coverage in urban areas, with 94.8 percent of households in urban areas having collection service at least twice a week. In the 31 main urban agglomerations it is slightly higher, reaching 95.7 percent. - Considering not only urban, but also rural households, 89.9 percent of households in the country have waste collection service at least twice week. - There are significant populations without service. Nationwide, 4,004,221 persons do not have waste collection service at least twice a week. When only taking into account urban households, 1,868,411 persons do not have this service and 33 percent of this unserved population lives in Greater Buenos Aires. - Table 1 shows significant differences in waste collection service coverage among provinces. The proportion of households with waste collection service at least twice a week in urban areas is lower in the Northeast provinces, with Formosa being the lowest (77.1 percent). Similarly, service coverage is lower in these provinces when considering both urban and rural households. Chaco, Corrientes, Formosa, and Santiago del Este- ro, have a significantly lower proportion of households with waste collection service at least twice a week, ranging from 62.5 percent (Santiago del Estero) to 78.9 percent (Corrientes). - There is no significant increase in the percentage of households with waste collection service at least twice a week (0.2 percent increase) over the period of the two National Census (2001 and 2010). However, it should be noted that the country’s population grew 10.6 percent over this period. Therefore, the expansion of this waste collection service managed to keep pace with population growth. In 2001, waste collection at least 21 1. Waste collection services twice a week was provided to 31,695,832 people, while in 2010, 35,668,299 people were provided this service. - Between 2001 and 2010, Misiones, Formosa, Corrientes, and Chaco, all Northeast pro- vinces, achieved the most significant improvements (greater than 5 percent improve- ment) in the proportion of households with waste collection service at least twice a week. Those provinces also had the lowest proportion of households with waste collec- tion service in 2001. - Three Patagonian provinces (Chubut, Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego), the City of Buenos Aires and the 24 ‘partidos’ of Buenos Aires Province did not manage to keep pace with the inter-census population growth. Considering both urban and rural areas, between 2001 and 2010 there was a reduction in the proportion of households with waste collection service at least twice a week. - There are differences in the proportion of the population with access to waste collec- tion service at least twice a week among the 31 main urban agglomerations, with Santa Rosa-Toay having the highest service coverage (98.9 percent) and Greater Re- sistencia having a service coverage that is more than 10 percent lower (88.7 percent). Deficiencies are concentrated in the Northeast and Northwest urban agglomerations including Formosa, Greater Resistencia, and Santiago del Estero-La Banda. These ur- ban agglomerations also contain the provinces with highest deficit in service coverage when waste collection service coverage is analyzed by province. - There are differences in access to waste collection service at least twice a week de- pending on the type of house. While 94.0 percent of “type A” houses have waste collec- tion service at least twice a week, this number decreases to 79.0 percent for “precarious houses”, 72.2 percent for “type B’” houses, and 34.6 percent for “ranches”. This indica- tes that in precarious urban settlements, and in rural areas, where ranches are common, there is a higher percentage of households without this service. - In the 31 main urban agglomerations over 25.5 million inhabitants have waste collec- tion service at least twice a week. 22 1. Waste collection services 1.2 Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Latin America and the Caribbean (EVAL) The Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management (EVAL), 2010 provides information on solid waste collection services from a sample of municipalities. Results are based on surveys of municipal representatives who provide information on the per- centage of inhabitants with waste collection, the average frequency, equipment types and amount and information on special services (debris collection and waste collection from markets). The data is reported nationally and by sub-region and disaggregated by size of municipality. As the survey was undertaken for the entire Latin America and the Caribbean Region it allows comparisons with averages for the Region. Table 4. Waste Collection Service Coverage, 2010, by Municipality Size and Region Region Municipality Size Latin Ame- rica and the Indicator Overall Caribbean I II III Micro Small Medium Large Average Overall waste collection 99.7 100 99.8 97.2 100 100 99.8 99.8 93.4 service (% of population) Daily waste collection 56.6 59 78.5 — — — — 71.9 45.4 service2 Waste collection service 2 to 5 times a week 43.4 39.6 21.5 — — — — 27.9 52.7 (% of population) Waste collection service once a week 0 1.4 0 — — — — 0.2 1.8 (% of population) Waste collection vehicles per 10,000 1.0 1.0 1.5 4.0 1.7 1.3 0.9 1.3 1.3 inhabitants Waste collection service using vehicles less 34 55 60 15 40 52 73 55 66 than 10 years old (% of collection vehicles) Waste collection service using vehicles equipped with compactors (% of 54.2 65.8 75.4 — — — — 70.5 57.8 collection vehicles) Municipalities with debris collection service 79.6 67.6 78.5 — — — — 76.7 — (% of municipalities) Municipalities with collection service in 79.6 45.1 56.8 — — — — 61 — markets (% of munici- palities) Source: Own elaboration based on EVAL, 2010 and IDB Technical Note, 2013. Region I: Provinces of Catamarca, Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero, and Tucumán. Region II: Provinces of Corrientes, Entre Ríos, Mendoza, Misiones, San Juan, and San Luis. Region III: Provinces of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Chubut, La Pampa, Neuquén, Río Negro, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe, Tierra del Fuego, and the City of Buenos Aires. Municipality size: Large: 300,001 to 5,000,000 inhabitants; medium: 50,001 to 300,000 inhabitants; small: 15,001 to 50,000 inhabitants; and micro: municipalities with less than 15,000 inhabitants. 23 1. Waste collection services Data analysis - Both the EVAL (2010) report and the 2010 National Census assessed the waste collec- tion service coverage in the same year, but the numbers found by EVAL are significantly higher. They use different methodologies. The numbers presented in the 2010 National Census are based in the assessment of the census workers, who used survey results to determine the predominant situation in given census area or segment, while EVAL is ba- sed on information provided by municipal representatives for a sample of municipalities. - Argentina has more frequent waste collection than the Latin America and Caribbean Regional average. The percentage of the population with daily waste collection service nationally (71.9 percent) is much higher than the Latin America and the Caribbean Re- gional average (45.4 percent). - EVAL estimated that the country has 1.3 vehicles per 10,000 inhabitants, which is the same as the Latin America and the Caribbean Regional average. - There are differences in waste collection service provision between regions in Argen- tina. Region I, has the worst indicators related to equipment and are below the averages for the Latin America and the Caribbean Region. Region III, which includes the Greater Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area, has a higher number of vehicles per 10,000 inhabitants (1.5), a newer fleet of vehicles (60 percent are less than 10 years old), and a higher number of vehicles with compactors (75.4 percent) than the other regions. - Table 4 also shows differences among different sized municipalities. According to EVAL, the smaller the size of the municipality, the higher the number of vehicles per 10,000 inhabitants. Smaller municipalities are also less likely to have vehicles with a compactor and more likely to have old trucks. - With 45 percent of vehicles being more than 10 years old, Argentina has an older ve- hicle fleet than the Latin America and the Caribbean regional average. This indicator is even worse in Region I (66 percent), and in municipalities with less than 15,000 inhabi- tants (85 percent). - 29.5 percent of the population has waste collection service that does not utilize com- pactor trucks. Region I has the lowest numbers in this category, with almost 45.8 per- cent of the population being served by waste collection without compactors. - In the country, some municipalities provide special collection services such as cons- truction and demolition waste collection or collection services for markets. In this case, Region II has the lowest service coverage for these special services. 24 1. Waste collection services 1.3 Survey of Argentina’s Social Debt (EDSA) The Survey of Argentina’s Social Debt (EDSA) is performed by the ‘Observatory of Ar- gentina’s Social Debt’, an institutional research department in the Catholic University of Argentina (UCA). The observatory has been carrying out surveys in urban agglome- rations since 2004. The survey includes Buenos Aires metropolitan area and 16 other urban agglomerations with a sample size of 5,700 households. The section of the survey that analyzes public services takes into account waste co- llection. Specifically, the survey asks,“In the block where your house is situated, is there waste collection at least every other day?”. Unlike the National Census, where the cen- sus worker evaluates if there is service coverage for a census area (‘segment’) based on survey results, or EVAL, where the municipal representative assesses total service coverage, EDSA provides direct information using individual household survey respon- ses. The survey assesses access to the service for different socioeconomic levels and for different urban agglomerations and specifically provides service coverage levels for households located in informal or precarious urban settlements (the survey specifically mentions “villas”, or slums, and precarious settlements). Table 5. Urban Households without Waste Collection Service Coverage at least Every Other Day, 2010-2015 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total urban households Without waste collection service (%) 3.6 4.6 4.3 3.2 4.0 4.3 With waste collection service (%) 96.4 95.4 95.7 96.8 96.0 95.7 Urban households in informal and precarious urban settlements1 Without waste collection service (%) 19.9 32.9 26.2 16.5 22.4 17.9 With waste collection service (%) 80.1 67.1 73.8 83.5 77.6 82.1 Source: EDSA-Bicentenario, 2010-2016 (data up to 2015); Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina, UCA. 1 Includes both “villas” (slums) and precarious settlements. Table 6. Urban Households without Waste Collection Service Coverage at least Every Other Day, 2015, by Type of Urban Agglomeration, Social Stratum, and Residential Condition Urban Agglomeration Social Stratum Residential Condition All City of Greater Other Other Very Low Medium Medium Informal or With urban With urban urban Buenos Buenos metropoli- urban low low high precarious layout; low layout; areas Aires Aires tan areas areas urban social strata medium-high settlements1 social strata Without was- 4.3 0.6 5.0 5.9 4.6 9.1 4.6 2.5 1.2 17.9 7.1 1.0 te collection service (%) With waste collection 95.7 98.6 94.9 94.1 95.4 90.9 95.4 97.5 98.8 82.1 92.9 99.0 service (%) Source: EDSA-Bicentenario, 2010-2016 (data up to 2015); Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina, UCA. 1 Includes both “villas” (slums) and precarious settlements. 25 1. Waste collection services Table 7. Urban Households without Waste Collection Service Coverage at least Every Other Day, 2015, by Econo- mic-Occupational Stratum and Characteristics of Head of Household Economic – Occupational Head of Household Gender Education Employment status Marginal Working Middle Middle class working class professional With class Male Female secondary Without Regular Precarious Under - or Un- Inactive class secondary employed education education Without was- te collection 8.7 4.9 2.7 1.2 4.5 3.9 2.3 6.5 2.7 6.3 7.8 7.3 service (%) With waste collection 91.3 95.1 97.3 98.8 95.5 96.1 97.7 93.5 97.3 93.7 92.2 92.7 service (%) Source: EDSA-Bicentenario, 2010-2016 (data up to 2015); Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina, UCA Table 8. Urban Households With and Without Waste Collection Service, 2010-2015, Comparison of Results Survey Survey coverage Criteria With waste collection Without waste collection service (%) service (%) Selected urban EDSA, 2010-2015 Collection every 95.4-96.8 3.2-4.6 agglomerations other day National Census, 2010 All urban areas 94.8 5.2 National Census, 2010 31 main urban Collection at least 95.7 4.3 agglomerations twice a week EVAL, 2010 Urban areas 99.8 0.2 Source: Own elaboration based on EDSA-Bicentenario, 2010-2016 (data up to 2015); National Census, 2010 and EVAL, 2010. 26 1. Waste collection services Data analysis - The proportion of households with waste collection service coverage at least every other day in selected urban agglomerations reported in EDSA between 2010 and 2015 (95.4-96.8 percent) is similar to the proportion of households with waste collection ser- vice at least once a week from the National Census in 2010 for the 31 main urban agglo- merations (95.7) and for urban areas nationwide (94.8). - For households located in informal or precarious urban settlements, the percentage of households without service at least every other day (17.9 percent) is four times higher than the average for the urban population (4.3 percent) and more than twice as high as that for households in the low socioeconomic stratum but with an urban layout (7.1 percent). - The percentage of households without waste collection service at least every other day is higher for households that have an unemployed or underemployed head of hou- sehold (7.8 percent) and in households belonging to the ‘marginal working class’ (8.7 percent). The percentage of households without waste collection service at least every other day is the lowest for households in the medium-high socioeconomic stratum and in houses with a professional head of household (both are 1.2 percent). - Between 2010 and 2015, there was no improvement in the proportion of households with waste collection service coverage at least once a week for urban households or for households in informal or precarious urban settlements. 1.4 National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) Socioeconomic Evaluation Under the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project of the Ministry of Environ- ment and Sustainable Development (MAyDS), a socioeconomic survey with 3,600 res- pondents from six Argentine urban agglomerations was undertaken in 2014. The survey included questions about the level of satisfaction with waste collection service in par- ticular as well as with public services in general. The selected urban agglomerations were Greater Mendoza, the ‘partidos’ of La Matanza and Berazategui (Greater Buenos Aires), and Rosario, where waste is collected six times a week, on average; Resistencia where waste is collected four times a week; and San Salvador de Jujuy where waste is collected three times a week. 27 1. Waste collection services Figure 5. Quality of Public Services and Level of Satisfaction with Waste Collection in Selected Urban Agglomerations, 2014 Assessed quality of public services Level of satisfaction with collection service 7% 4% 3% 10% 17% 58% 55% 25% 21% Very good Satisfied Good Very satisfied Poor Unsatisified Very poor Moderately unsatisfied Highly unsatified Source: National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS), Socioeconomic Evaluation Final Report, 2014 Data analysis - 68 percent of the respondents described the quality of public services as ‘good’ or ‘very good’, while for waste collection in particular, the results show that 76 percent of those surveyed are ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the service. - 93 percent of those surveyed said that they properly dispose waste in front of their door or in the nearby container, as applicable. In addition, 68 percent said they would store waste in their house if the waste is not collected for one week. This number is higher (83 percent) in San Salvador de Jujuy and lower (49 percent) in Villa Gobernador Galvez. 28 2. Street sweeping and urban cleaning services 29 2. Street sweeping and urban cleaning services 2. Street sweeping and urban cleaning services The country has high levels of street sweeping service coverage. 81.6 percent of the population benefits from street sweeping services which is close to the average for the Latin America and the Caribbean Region (82.3 percent). This corresponds to 7.3 million people without street sweeping service in 2010. Street sweeping service coverage is particularly low in Region II (Provinces of Corrien- tes, Entre Ríos, Mendoza, Misiones, San Juan, and San Luis). This region has the lowest service coverage (64.3 percent versus 81.6 nationwide) while the other regions have street sweeping service coverages that are closer to the national average (83.9 percent for Region I and 84.9 percent for Region III). Mechanized street sweeping services are also high. The proportion of the population with mechanized street sweeping service is 18.9 percent in the country, which is signifi- cantly higher than the average for the Latin America and the Caribbean Region (7.1 per- cent). This service exists in municipalities of all sizes with an average service coverage of 12.9 percent in thevery small municipalities; 9.3 percent in the small municipalities; 22.6 percentin the medium-sized municipalities; and 18.1 percent in the large munici- palities. The number of mechanized sweeping vehicles is high. Municipalities have an average of 0.4 mechanized vehicles per 10,000 inhabitants nationwide which is higher than the average for the Latina America and the Caribbean Region (0.2 per 10,000 inhabitants) and the percentage of vehicles that are in good working condition (87 percent) is also higher than the average for the Latin America and the Caribbean Region (81 percent). The number of mechanized sweeping vehicles also varies significantly between regions and among different sizes of municipalities.The highest values are found for municipa- lities with less than 15,000 inhabitants (1.0 vehicles per 10,000 habitants) and for the Northern region (0.9 vehicles per 10,000 inhabitants). 2.1 Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Latin America and the Caribbean (EVAL) The Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management (EVAL) obtained data from 2001 and 2010 on street sweeping, and special urban cleaning services (parks and garden maintenance and cleaning up after fairs and exhibitions) from a sample of municipalities. Results are based on surveys of municipal representatives who provide information on the percentage of inhabitants with the service and other information. The data is reported nationally and by sub-region and disaggregated by size of muni- cipality. As the survey is done for the entire Latin America and the Caribbean Region, it allows comparisons of data from Argentina with averages for the Region. 30 2. Street sweeping and urban cleaning services Table 9. Street Sweeping and Cleaning Services, 2001 and 2010 Region in Argentina Size of Municipality (2010) Latin America and Service Indicator (2010) National the Caribbean Average Region Region Region Micro Small Medium Large (2010) Average Average I II III 2010 2001 Service with manual 76.9 49.8 62.2 67.6 67 62.9 60.2 62.7 75.2 74.3 sweeping (% of popu- lation) Service with mecha- nized sweeping (% of 6.9 14.5 22.7 12.9 9.3 22.6 18.1 18.9 7.1 17.4 population) Street Sweeping Total service coverage 83.9 64.3 84.9 80.6 76.3 85.4 78.3 81.6 82.3 91.7 (% of population) Number of sweeping 0.9 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 vehicles per 10,000 in- habitants with service Vehicles in good wor- 100 100 84 100 100 87 85 87 81 — king order (% of street sweeping vehicles) Municipalities with 78.6 100 91.5 — — — — 89.5 — — maintenance of parks and gardens service Special (% of municipalities) Services Municipalities with 79.6 45.1 58.4 — — — — 61.8 — — cleaning of fairs and exhibitions service (% of municipalities) Source: Own elaboration based on EVAL, 2002; EVAL, 2010; and IDB Technical Note, 2013. Region I: Provinces of Catamarca, Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero, and Tucumán. Region II: Provinces of Corrientes, Entre Ríos, Mendoza, Misiones, San Juan, and San Luis. Region III: Provinces of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Chubut, La Pampa, Neuquén, Río Negro, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe, Tierra del Fuego, and the City of Buenos Aires. Municipality size: Large: 300,001 to 5,000,000 inhabitants; medium: 50,001 to 300,000 inhabitants; small: 15,001 to 50,000 inhabitants; and micro: municipalities with less than 15,000 inhabitants. 31 3. Waste transfer services 32 3. Waste transfer services 3. Waste transfer services There are waste transfer stations in the City of Buenos of Aires and 8 out of the 23 provinces. An estimated 20.5 percent of the solid waste generated in the country goes through waste transfer stations. There are waste transfer stations in 6 of the 31 main urban agglomerations. 31.4 per- cent of the solid waste generated in the 31 main urban agglomerations goes through transfer stations. Waste transfer stations located in Greater Buenos Aires are responsible for 76.3 percent of the total solid waste transferred in the country. This amounts to 7,300 tons of waste per day. The use of waste transfer stations is more significant in large municipalities.The per- centage of the population that have waste transfer service is 42 percent among large municipalities (300,001- 5 million inhabitants) and zero percent in municipalities with less than 15,000 inhabitants. There are three common circumstances where waste transfer stations are found in Ar- gentina. Waste transfer stations are found in several very large urban agglomerations; in municipalities with significant tourism; and in cases where regional disposal systems were encouraged by a particular policy or financing source. 3.1 Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Latin America and the Caribbean (EVAL) The Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management (EVAL), 2010 provides information on solid waste transfer services from a sample of municipalities. Results are based on surveys of municipal representatives who provide information on the per- centage of inhabitants with waste transfer service for collected waste. The data is re- ported nationally and disaggregated by size of municipality. As the survey is done re- gionally it allows comparisons with the entire Latin America and the Caribbean Region. Table 10. Percentage of Inhabitants with Waste Transfer Service for Collected Waste, 2010, by Municipality Size Micro Small Medium Large Overall Latin America and the Caribbean Average 0% 7.6% 2.8% 42.0% 16.9% 28.2% Source: Own elaboration based on EVAL, 2010. Municipality size: Large: 300,001 to 5,000,000 inhabitants; medium: 50,001 to 300,000 inhabitants; small: 15,001 to 50,000 inhabitants; and micro: municipalities with less than 15,000 inhabitants. Data analysis - EVAL indicates the use of waste transfer stations is not common in the country (16.9 percent of the population have this service), with levels lower than the average for the Latin America and the Caribbean Region (28.2 percent). 33 3. Waste transfer services - EVAL indicates there are differences in waste transfer service coverage depending on the size of the municipality. Municipalities with less than 300,000 inhabitants have sig- nificantly lower levels of waste transfer service coverage, indicating that waste transfer stations are mainly used in larger municipalities. - No municipality with less than 15,000 inhabitants has waste transfer service. 3.2 National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) and publi- cally available information. For the purposes of this report, a compilation of existing waste transfer stations and an estimation of the tons of solid waste that go through waste transfer stations was carried out. The data was based on available information from the National Urban So- lid Waste Management Project (MAyDS), consultations with municipal representatives, and information available in official Internet webpages. The data is different than that of EVAL is based on the tons of waste being transferred rather than the population covered by transfer service. Table 11. Existing Transfer Stations in Argentina, 2015, by Province and the City of Buenos Aires. Province Location of Waste Transfer Station Municipalities using waste Transferred Tons transfer station per Day Colegiales City of Buenos Aires and some 1,750 Pompeya departments (‘partidos’) in 2,100 City of Buenos Aires Flores Greater Buenos Aires, 2,000 Zavaleta (only receives debris and pruning waste) operated by CEAMSE2 500 Some departments in Greater Buenos Aires Almirante Brown Buenos Aires, operated by CEAMSE 950 Misiones The province has 25 waste transfer stations. Whole province 475 Puerto Madryn Puerto Madryn 50 Trelew Trelew and Rawson 65 Chubut Los Cipreses Lago Rosario Trevellin 5 Santa Fe Bella Vista Rosario 680 Tucumán San Felipe Greater San Miguel de Tucumán 900 La Rioja Guadacol-Pagancillo Guadacol and Pagancillo 2.5 Córdoba Villa Carlos Paz Villa Carlos Paz 50 Unquillo Unquillo 10 La Falda La Falda 10 Neuquén San Martín de los Andes San Martín de los Andes 20 Total solid waste transferred (tons) 9,568 Solid waste transferred as a proportion of total solid waste generation in the country1 20.5% The proportion of the total solid waste transferred that goes through in CEAMSE transfer stations 76.3% Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) data and publically available information, 2015. 1 The total generation of solid waste countrywide is 46,706 tons/day. Based on average of 1.09 kg of waste per person per day (the average generation of waste for the population from which waste was collected and disposed in sanitary landfills as derived from this report) and a total population of 42,669,500 inhabitants (National Census 2010, 2014 projection). 2 CEAMSE (‘Coordinación ecológica area metropolitana Sociedad del Estado’) is a public service company that provides waste services for much of Greater Buenos Aires. 34 3. Waste transfer services Table 12. Waste transfer Stations in Argentina, 2015, by Urban Agglomeration Urban Waste Transfer Station Municipalities Transferred Waste agglomeration (Tons per Day) Greater Buenos Aires Colegiales The City of Buenos Aires and some 1,750 Pompeya departments (‘partidos’) from Greater 2,100 Buenos Aires Flores Buenos Aires that are covered by 2,000 Province and the Zavaleta (only receives debris and CEAMSE. 500 City of Buenos Aires pruning waste) 950 Almirante Brown Northeast Posadas Posadas Posadas and others (the whole provin- 160 ce is regionalized and counts with 25 waste transfer stations). Northwest Greater San Miguel San Felipe Greater San Miguel de Tucumán 900 de Tucumán Pampeana Greater Rosario Bella Vista Rosario and other municipalities from 680 Greater Rosario Greater Cordoba Unquillo Unquillo 10 Patagonia Rawson-Trelew Trelew Trelew and Rawson 65 Rawson Rawson (transports waste to Trelew´s waste transfer station) Solid waste transferred 9,115 Solid waste transferred in Greater Buenos Aires 7,300 Solid waste transferred as a proportion of total solid waste generated in 31 main urban agglomerations1 31.4% Proportion of solid waste transferred in the 31 main urban agglomerations that goes through in CEAMSE 80.1% waste transfer stations Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) and publically available information, 2015. 1 The waste generation the 31 main urban agglomerations is 28,997 tons/day. Based on average of 1.085 kg of waste per person per day (the average generation of waste for the population from which waste was collected and disposed in sanitary landfills in the 31 main urban agglomerations derived from this report) and a total population of 26,725,120 inhabitants (National Census 2010, 2014 projection). 35 3. Waste transfer services Data analysis - Waste transfer service exists in the City of Buenos Aires and in 8 out of 23 provinces (37.5 percent of these jurisdictions). The province with the highest number of waste transfer stations is Misiones (25 transfer stations). - Waste transfer stations exist in 6 out of the 31 main urban agglomerations: Grea- ter Buenos Aires; Greater San Miguel; Greater Rosario; Greater Cordoba; Posadas; and Rawson-Trelew. - The waste transfer stations located in Greater Buenos Aires account for the majority total solid waste transferred in the country and in the 31 main agglomerations. - Table 11 indicates there are three main areas where waste transfer stations are lo- cated: (i) the large urban agglomerations (Greater Buenos Aires, Greater San Miguel de Tucumán, and Rosario);(ii) small and medium-sized tourist municipalities (Pagancillo, Trevelin, San Martín de los Andes, and Puerto Madryn); and (iii) those where provin- cial authorities encouraged the establishment of regional disposal systems that involve waste transfer stations (Misiones and Cordoba) or where international financing ins- titutions had programs to encourage this (the waste transfer stations in Tucumán, La Rioja, Chubut, and Neuquén were developed as part of regional disposal systems that were encouraged by IADB and World Bank – financed programs). 36 4. Waste treatment services 37 4. Waste treatment services 4. Waste treatment services There are 147 solid waste treatment plants in the country. The City of Buenos Aires and 19 out of the 23 provinces have at least one waste treatment plant. The provinces of Entre Ríos, Buenos Aires, and Santa Fe have the most, with more than 20 plants each. The waste treatment plants in the country have a combined designed treatment capa- city of 8,675 tons per day, enough to treat 18.6 percent of total solid waste generated in the country. Most treatment plants, however, operate below their designed treatment capacity and, in some cases, the plants are not operating. Most of the plants have a small to medium waste treatment capacity. 137 of the 147 waste treatment plants in the country have a capacity of less than 100 of tons of waste per day. Larger treatment plants are found in the main urban agglomerations. 1/3 of Argentina’s waste treatment plants (49 plants), accounting for 78 percent of the waste treatment capacity (6,735 tons/day) in the country, is installed in the 31 main urban agglomera- tions. The City of Buenos Aires has the largest plants. Considering all the City’s waste treat- ment plants together, they account for 44.5 percent of total waste treatment capacity in the country and 57.3 percent of the capacity in the 31 main urban agglomerations. 4.1 Data from the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) and publically available information. The information presented in this chapter is based on public information provided by municipal representatives and treatment plant suppliers compiled in 2015 as well as diagnostics carried out by the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MA- yDS) in Formosa, Catamarca, Río Negro, and Entre Ríos provinces in 2014. Information on existing solid waste treatment plants, the municipality or municipalities using the plant, the population, and the estimated treatment capacity of the plant was compiled along with data on solid waste recycling companies. The data includes constructed me- chanized separation plants and uses the design treatment capacity but does not provide in- formation on the capacity in operation and therefore the actual amount being treated. It also does not include other forms of recycling such as ‘green points’, and formal and informal manual segregation activities undertaken outside of a treatment plant. 38 4. Waste treatment services Table 13. Solid Waste Treatment Capacity of Plants in Operation in Argentina, 2014-2015 Waste Treatment Capacity Number of waste treatment plants Installed Capacity % of waste generated % of waste treatment (Tons of waste/day) in Argentina1 capacity in Argentina City of Buenos Aires waste 12 3,860 8.3% 44.5% treatment plants2 Other waste treatment plants 135 4,815 10.3% 55.5% in Argentina All waste treatment plants in 147 8,675 18.6% 100% Argentina2 Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) data and publically available information, 2014-2015. 1 The total solid waste generation in the country is 46,706 tons/day. Based on average of 1.09 kg of waste per person per day (the average generation of waste for the population from which waste was collected and disposed in sanitary landfills derived from this report) and a total population of 42,669,500 inhabitants (National Census 2010, 2014 projection). 2 Plants under procurement or construction are not included. Figure 6. Number of Solid Waste Treatment Plants, 2014-2015, by Province and the City of Buenos Aires Buenos Aires 31 Entre Rios 29 Santa Fe 20 Buenos Aires City 12 Cordoba 8 Santa Cruz 8 San Luis 6 Mendoza 4 Chaco 4 Chubut 4 San Juan 3 Corrientes 3 Sgo. del Estero 3 Neuquen 3 Rio Negro 3 Misiones 2 La Pampa 1 Formosa 1 Catamarca 1 Salta 1 Tierra del Fuego 0 La Rioja 0 Tucuman 0 Jujuy 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) data and publically available information, 2014-2015. 39 4. Waste treatment services Figure 7. Percentage of Waste Treatment Plants, 2014-2015, by Region 7% Region I 32% 61% Region II Region III Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) data and publically available information, 2014-2015. Region I: The provinces of Catamarca, Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero and Tucumán. Region II: The provinces of Corrientes, Entre Ríos, Mendoza, Misiones, San Juan and San Luis. Region III: The provinces of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Chubut, La Pampa, Neuquén, Río Negro, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe, Tierra del Fuego and the City of Buenos Aires. Table 14. Treatment Facilities and Capacity, 2015, by Province and the City of Buenos Aires Province Municipality Inhabitants Treatment Capacity (tons per day) Construction and demolition waste plant (2,400 tons per day capacity, 90 percent recovery rate, and 70 jobs 2,400 generated). Mechanical-biological treatment plant Norte III (1,000 tons per day capacity, 50 percent recovery rate, and 1,000 120 jobs generated). Mechanical-biological treatment for the north of the 1,000 city (1,000 tons per day capacity, and 60 percent re- (under procurement) covery rate). Mechanical-biological treatment for the south of the 1,000 City of Buenos Aires 2,965,000 city (1,000 tons per day capacity, 60 percent recovery (under procurement) rate). 8 recycling centers (4,200 informal waste workers were 350 formalized and now work in the streets and the cen- (in 8 plants) ters). Compost plant for food waste from restaurants and supermarkets combined with green waste (10 tons per 10 day) 20 Plastic recycling plant (20 tons/day). (under construction) Plant for treatment of wood and other green waste (100 100 tons per day, 17 jobs). 40 4. Waste treatment services Province Municipality Inhabitants Treatment Capacity (tons per day) Malvinas Argentinas 321,833 Separation plant. 25 Morón 321,109 Separation plant. 25 Berazategui 167,498 Separation plant. 50 Moreno 434,572 Separation plant. 50 Almirante Brown 552,902 Separation plant. 25 Avellaneda 342,677 Separation plant. 25 Ezeiza 163,722 Separation plant and composting plant. 80 Campana (Tenaris) 86,860 Separation plant and composting plant. 25 San Andrés de Giles 16,243 Separation plant. 15 Azul 55,728 Separation plant. 50 Buenos Rojas 19,766 Separation plant. 15 Aires Bahia-Blanca 301,531 Composting plant. 140 Bahia-Blanca/Cerri 301,531 Separation plant. 60 Mar del Plata 593,337 Separation plant. 120 San Nicolás 133,602 Separation plant. 50 Rauch 13,316 Separation plant and composting plant. 15 Bragado 33,222 Separation plant. 11 Laprida 8,840 Separation plant. 10 25 de Mayo 23,408 Separation plant. 20 Roque Perez 10,358 Separation plant. 10 Lincoln 40,355 Separation plant. 40 Coronel Pringles 20,263 Separation plant. 20 Greater Buenos Aires 10,796,415 CEAMSE-Social plants for informal recyclers (9 plants). 650 (in 9 plants) Rosario 948,312 Bella Vista - Separation plant and composting plant. 220 948,312 Bella Vista - Construction and demolition waste plant. 350 Rafaela 92,945 Separation, composting, and construction and demolition waste plants. 100 Santa Fe 526,366 Separation plant and composting plant. 50 San Jorge 18,056 Separation plant and composting plant. 18 San Justo 21,078 Separation plant. 20 Esperanza 42,082 Separation plant. 20 Franck 5,505 Separation plant. 5 Fighiera 5,028 Separation plant. 5 Santa Fe San Genaro 8,731 Separation plant. 8 Sastre 5,717 Separation plant. 5 Pilar 4,959 Separation plant. 5 San Carlos Centro 13,157 Separation plant. 10 Casilda 35,058 Separation plant. 20 Recreo 14,205 Separation plant. 15 Greateradero Baigorria 37,333 Separation plant. 25 Venado Tuerto 83,263 Separation plant. 50 El Trébol 11,523 Separation plant. 10 Ceres 14,499 Separation plant. 15 Avellaneda 25,995 Separation plant. 25 Río Primero 46,675 Separation plant. 40 Córdoba Villa María 98,169 Separation plant. 20 Cruz del Eje 30,680 Separation plant. 25 41 4. Waste treatment services Province Municipality Inhabitants Treatment Capacity (tons per day) Jesús María 31,602 Separation plant. 25 Santa Rosa de Calamuchita 12,395 Separation plant. 10 Córdoba Villa Dolores (burned) 31,853 Separation plant. 25 Obispo Trejo 1,919 Separation plant. 10 Las Higueras 6,038 Separation plant. 5 La Santa Rosa 124,545 Separation plant. 50 Pampa Maipú 172,861 Separation plant and composting plant. 80 San Carlos 32,683 Separation plant. 15 Mendoza Malargue 2,887 Separation and composting plant. 10 General Alvear 49,499 Separation and composting plant. 20 50,000 50 Carpintería (regional plant ) Separation and composting plant. Tilisarao (regional plant for Chacabuco department) 20,744 Separation plant. 20 San Luis La Toma (regional plant for 13,157 Separation plant. 12 Coronel Pringles department) San Luis capital city 209,414 Separation plant. 25 Junín department 28,933 Separation plant. 20 Ayacucho department 15 18,927 Separation plant. San Juan capital 471,389 Separation and composting plant. 100 San Juan Iglesias 9,099 Separation plant. 10 Jachal 14,749 Separation plant. 12 Gualeguaychú 97,839 Separation plant. 50 Paraná 247,000 Separation plant. 400 Concordia 152,282 Separation plant. 50 Gualeguay 43,009 Separation and composting plant. 50 Urdinarrain 8,956 Separation plant. 10 Colón 24,835 Separation plant. 25 Federal 18,015 Separation plant. 20 Seguí 4,800 Separation plant. 5 Diamante 19,930 Separation plant. 20 Entre Concepción del Uruguay 73,729 Separation plant. 50 Ríos Villaguay 34,637 Separation plant. 20 General Galarza 4,896 Separation plant. 5 Bovril 8,790 Separation plant. 10 Chajarí 34,848 Separation plant. 35 Victoria 31,848 Separation plant. 30 La paz 25,808 Separation plant. 25 Crespo 20,203 Separation plant. 20 San josé 18,178 Separation plant. 20 Federación 17,547 Separation plant. 20 Rosario del tala 13,723 Separation plant. 15 San Salvador 13,228 Separation plant. 15 San José Feliciano 12,084 Separation plant. 10 Villa Elisa 11,117 Separation plant. 10 Basavilbaso 9,742 Separation plant. 10 42 4. Waste treatment services Province Municipality Inhabitants Treatment Capacity (tons per day) Viale 9,641 Separation plant. 10 Entre Oro Verde 4,333 Separation plant. 5 Ríos Villa Paranacito 4,215 Separation plant. 5 Ceibas 1,405 Separation plant. 2 Villa del Rosario 3,973 Separation plant. 5 Curuzú Cuatiá 34,470 Separation plant. 20 Corrientes Bella Vista 29,071 Separation plant. 25 Paso de la Patria 5,598 Separation plant. 5 Puerto Iguazú 42,849 Separation plant. 42 Misiones Montecarlo 24,338 Separation plant. 25 Termas de Río Hondo 32,166 Separation plant. 13 Santiago Ojo de agua 14,008 Separation plant. 15 del Estero La Banda (burned) 360,923 Separation plant. 25 Makalle 3,812 Separation plant. 5 Fontana - Fiduciaria del Norte 32,027 Separation plant. 25 Chaco Isla de Cerrito 1,624 Separation plant. 2 Presidencia Roque Saenz Peña 96,944 Separation plant. 25 Formosa Laguna Blanca 7,411 Separation plant. 10 San Fernando del Valle de 195,055 Separation plant. 15 Catamarca Catamarca Salta (Fundación capacitar del 554,125 Separation plant. 25 Salta NOA) Villa la Angostura 11,063 Separation plant. 10 Neuquén San Martín de los Andes 27,956 Separation plant. 10 Junin de los Andes 14,220 Separation plant. 10 Bariloche 112,887 Separation plant. 50 Río Negro El Bolsón 19,009 Separation plant. 10 Choele Choel 10,146 Separation and composting plant. 10 Puerto Madryn 93,995 Separation plant. 80 Trelew 99,430 Separation plant. 80 Chubut Comodoro Rivadavia 124,104 Separation plant. 50 Esquel 32,343 Separation and composting plant. 20 Luis Piedrabuena 6,405 Separation and composting plant. 5 Puerto San Julián 7,894 Separation and composting plant. 10 Caleta Olivia (YPF) 67,493 Separation and composting plant. 50 Santa Las Heras 17,821 Separation and composting plant. 15 Cruz Pico Truncado 20,889 Separation and composting plant. 20 Río Turbio 8,847 Separation plant. 10 Puerto Deseado 14,587 Separation and composting plant. 15 Calafate 21,132 Separation and composting plant. 25 Total Treatment capacity for constructed plants (tons per day) 8,675 Total Installed waste treatment capacity over total waste generation1 18.6% Total treatment capacity for plants under construction (tons per day) 20 Total treatment capacity for plants under procurement (tons per day) 2,000 Total treatment capacity including those under construction and procurement (tons per day) 10,695 Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) data and publically available information, 2014-2015. 1 The total generation of solid waste countrywise is 46,706 tons/day. Based on average of 1.09 kg of waste per person per day (the average generation of waste for those from which waste was collected and disposed in sanitary landfills derived from this report) and a total population of 42,669,500 inhabitants (National Census 2010, 2014 projection). 43 4. Waste treatment services Figure 8. Waste Treatment Capacity versus Municipality Size for Solid Waste Treatment Plants, 2014-2015 3.000 TREATMENT CAPACITY OF THE INSTALLED PLANTS 2.500 IN THE MUNICIPALITY (TONS PER DAY) 2.000 1.500 1.000 500 0 0 500.000 1.000.000 1.500.000 2.000.000 2.500.000 3.000.000 POPULATION Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) data and publically available information, 2014-2015. Figure 9. Waste Treatment Capacity versus Municipality Size for Solid Waste Treatment Plants with a Capacity of Less than 200 tons per day, 2014-2015 180 TREATMENT CAPACITY OF THE INSTALLED PLANTS 160 IN THE MUNICIPALITY (TONS PER DAY) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 100.000 200.000 300.000 400.000 500.000 600.000 POPULATION Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) data and publically available information, 2014-2015. 44 4. Waste treatment services Table 15. Waste Recycling Companies, 2014, by Province and the City of Buenos Aires Indicator Buenos Aires City of Buenos Aires Santa Fe Entre Ríos Other provinces Total Number of 110 30 50 6 47 243 companies % of total number 45.3 12.3 20.6 2.5 19.3 100.0 of companies Source: Own elaboration based on information from Entre Ríos Provincial Solid Waste Management Plan, 2014. Figure 10. Distribution of Waste Treatment Capacity in the 31 Main Urban Agglomerations, 2014-2015 11% Greater Buenos Aires 9% Greater Rosario 9% Greater Parana 71% Other agglomerations Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) data and publically available information, 2014-2015. Figure 11. Installed Waste Treatment Capacity, 2014-2015 22% 31 main urban agglomerations 78% Other municipalities Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) data and publically available information, 2014-2015. 45 4. Waste treatment services Table 16. Capacity of Waste Treatment Facilities, 2014-2015, by Urban Agglomeration Capacity Urban Agglomeration Province Locality Inhabitants Treatment (tons per day) Construction and demolition waste treatment plant (2,400 tons per day capacity, 90% reco- 2,400 very rate, and 70 jobs generated). Mechanical-biological treatment plant Norte III (1,000 tons per day capacity, 50% recovery 1,000 rate, and 120 jobs generated). 8 recycling centers (600 tons per day capa- city, 4,200 informal waste workers were for- 350 City of Buenos Aires 2,965,000 malized and now work in the streets and the centers). Compost plant for food waste from restau- rants and supermarkets combined with green 10 waste (10 tons per day) Greater Buenos Aires Plant for treatment of wood and other green waste (100 tons per day, 17 jobs). 100 Malvinas 321,833 Separation plant. 25 Argentinas Morón 321,109 Separation plant. 25 Berazategui 167,498 Separation plant. 50 Moreno 434,572 Separation plant. 50 Almirante Brown 552,902 Separation plant. 25 Avellaneda 342,677 Separation plant. 25 Ezeiza 163,722 Separation plant and composting plant. 80 Greater CEAMSE-Social plants (manual operation by Buenos Buenos Aires 10,796,415 informal recyclers, 9 plants, and 8% recovery 650 Aires rate). Bahia-Blanca 301,531 Composting plant. 140 Bahia Blanca/Cerrito Bahia-Blanca/ Cerrito 301,531 Separation plant ‘Daniel Cerri’. 60 Mar del Plata 593,337 Separation plant. Mar del Plata-Batan 120 San Nicolas-Villa San Nicolás 133,602 Separation plant. 50 Constitucion Rosario 948,312 Bella Vista - separation and composting plant. 220 948,312 Bella Vista - construction and demolition waste plant. 350 Greater Rosario Santa Fe Granadero 37,333 Separation plant. Baigorria 25 Greater Santa Fe Santa Fe 526,366 Separation plant and composting plant. 50 Santa Rosa- Toay La Pampa Santa Rosa 124,545 50 Separation plant. Maipú (Greater Greater Mendoza Mendoza Mendoza) 172,861 Separation plant and composting plant. 80 San Luis San Luis San Luis city 209,414 25 Separation plant. Greater San 471,389 Separation plant and composting plant. 100 Greater San Juan San Juan Juan 46 4. Waste treatment services Capacity Urban Agglomeration Province Locality Inhabitants Treatment (tons per day) Concordia 152,282 Separation plant. 50 Concordia Oro Verde 4,333 Separation plant. 5 Entre Ríos 247,000 Separation plant. 400 Greater Parana Paraná Santiago del Estero/ Santiago La Banda Separation plant. 25 360,923 La Banda del Estero Fontana / Fiduciaria 32,027 Separation plant. 25 Greater Resistencia Chaco del Norte San Fernando del 195,055 Separation plant. 15 Greater Catamarca Catamarca Valle de Catamarca Salta Salta 554,125 Separation plant. 25 Greater Salta Neuquén-Plottieer Neuquén Neuquén/Plottier 304,572 Separation and composting plant. 50 Rawson-Trelew Chubut Trelew 99,430 Separation plant. 80 Total installed waste treatment capacity for constructed plants in the 31 main urban agglomerations (tons per day)1 6,735 Total Installed waste treatment capacity over total waste generation2 in the 31 main urban agglomerations 23.2% Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) data and publically available information, 2014-2015. 1 The City of Buenos Aires north and south mechanical biological treatment plants that are under procurement and the plastic recycling plant under construction are not included in this estimate. 2 The total generation countrywide is 28,997 tons/day. Based on average of 1.085 kg of waste per person per day (the average generation of waste for those from which waste was collected and disposed in sanitary landfills derived from this report) and a total population of 26,725,120 inhabitants (National Census 2010, 2014 projection). 47 4. Waste treatment services Data analysis - There are 147 solid waste treatment plants constructed in the country with a combi- ned installed treatment capacity of 8,675 tons per day. - The City of Buenos Aires and 19 out of the 23 provinces have at least one plant. The provinces of Entre Ríos, Buenos Aires, Santa Fe have the most, with more than 20 plants each. - 18 of the 31 main urban agglomerations have waste treatment plants. - The largest quantity of waste treatment plants are located in Region III (61 percent of the plants in the country), followed by Region II (32 percent). Region I has the smallest number (7 percent). - 78 percent of the waste treatment capacity (6,735 tons per day) but only 1/3 of the waste treatment plants (49 plants) in the country are located in the 31 main urban ag- glomerations of the country. - The City of Buenos Aires has a waste treatment capacity of 3,860 tons per day which accounts for 44.5 percent of total waste treatment capacity in the country and 57.3 percent of the waste treatment capacity in the 31 main urban agglomerations. There are also 3 plants under procurement or construction in the City of Buenos Aires that together would provide an additional 2,020 tons per day of installed waste treatment capacity. - An estimated 18.6 percent of the total solid waste generated in the country and 23.2 percent of the solid waste generated in the 31 main urban agglomerations could be treated if the capacity of constructed waste treatment plants is fully utilized. - With a combined capacity of 2,750 tons per day, the construction and demolition was- te treatment plants in the City of Buenos Aires and Rosario account for 31.7 percent of the country’s installed waste treatment capacity and 40.8 percent of the installed treat- ment capacity in the 31 main urban agglomerations. - Most installed waste treatment plants are small or medium sized (only 10 out of 147 waste treatment plants have a capacity greater than or equal to 100 tons per day). Apart from the waste treatment plants in the City of Buenos Aires, the largest facilities are found in Rosario (2 plants, 350 and 220 tons per day), Paraná (400 tons per day), Bahia-Blanca (140 tons per day), and Mar del Plata (120 tons per day). - Table 14 shows that the waste recycling companies are concentrated in the provinces of Buenos Aires and Santa Fe, and the City of Buenos Aires. 48 5. Waste disposal services 49 5. Waste disposal services 5. Waste disposal services An estimated 53.5 percentof the population dispose of their waste in sanitary landfills. An estimated 19.8 million people do not have this service and 24,101 tons of waste per day is not properly disposed. The City of Buenos Aires and 17 out of 23 provinces have at least one sanitary landfill in operation. Notable exceptions are the provinces of Santa Cruz, Corrientes, Catamarca, Jujuy, Chaco, and Formosa. 89 percent of the landfill capacity in the country is located in the 31 main urban agglo- merations where 77 percent of the population have sanitary landfill disposal service. However, 13 out of the 31 main urban agglomerations do not have a sanitary landfill including five in the northern part of the country (Jujuy-Palpala, Greater Resistencia, Santiago del Estero-La Banda, Greater Catamarca, and Corrientes). Regional disposal service provision is common but takes different forms. In several urban agglomerations there are disposal services shared among different municipali- ties. A variety of institutional arrangements have been pursued including the formation of public companies, consortiums of municipalities and having a single municipality provide the service for others. 5.1 Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Latin America and the Caribbean (EVAL) The Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management (EVAL), 2002 and 2010 provides data on solid waste disposal practices (sanitary landfill, dumpsites and bur- ning practices) and equipment for disposal from a sample of municipalities. Results are based on surveys of municipal representatives who provide information on the percen- tage of inhabitants with waste disposal service for collected waste. The data is reported nationally, by region and disaggregated by size of municipality. As the survey is done re- gionally it allowed comparisons with the entire Latin America and the Caribbean Region. Table 17. Waste Disposal Service Coverage, 2001 and 2010 By Region By population of municipality (2010) Latin Ame- rica and the Indicator 15,000- 50,000- National National Caribbean 2010 2001 Average I II III < 15,000 50,000 300,000 > 300,000 (2010) Population disposing waste 50.1 15.2 79.4 9.4 24.5 62.7 89.4 64.7 60.7 54.4 in a sanitary landfill (%) Population disposing waste 21.4 38.9 0.6 — — — — 9.9 5.6 18.5 in a controlled dumpsite (%) Population disposing waste 25.5 44.9 19.7 75.4 57.8 25 5.2 24.6 — 23.3 in an open dumpsite (%) 50 5. Waste disposal services By Region By population of municipality (2010) Latin Ame- Indicator rica and the 15,000- 50,000- National National Caribbean 2010 2001 Average I II III < 15,000 50,000 300,000 > 300,000 (2010) Population burning waste (%) 3 1 0.3 — — — — 0.80 — 2.0 Pieces of equipment for compacting per 10,000 0.37 0.14 0.24 — — — — 0.25 0.05 — inhabitants with service Pieces of equipment for placing daily waste cover material per 10,000 0.51 0.19 0.45 — — — — 0.42 0.06 — inhabitants with service Pieces of equipment for other disposal activities per 10,000 0.23 0.25 0.46 — — — — 0.40 0.09 — inhabitants with service Source: Own elaboration based on: EVAL, 2010; EVAL, 2001; and IADB Technical Note, 2013. Region I: Provinces of Catamarca, Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero, and Tucumán. Region II: Provinces of Corrientes, Entre Ríos, Mendoza, Misiones, San Juan, and San Luis. Region III: Provinces of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Chubut, La Pampa, Neuquén, Río Negro, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe, Tierra del Fuego, and the City of Buenos Aires. Data analysis - According to EVAL, in 2010, the country has a higher sanitary landfill waste disposal service coverage (64.7 percent) than the average for the Latin America and the Carib- bean Region (54.4 percent). - According to EVAL, in 2001, 60.7 percent of the population in Argentina disposed of their waste in sanitary landfills, indicating there was not a significant improvement be- tween 2001 and 2010. - There are significant differences in the proportion of the population that disposes their waste in sanitary landfills between regions. For example, 79.4 of the population of Re- gion III, which includes the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area, disposes their waste in sanitary landfills where as in Region II 15.2 percent of the population disposes their waste in sanitary landfills. - In addition, there are differences in waste disposal service coverage depending on population of the municipality. In municipalities with less than 15,000 inhabitants only 9.4 percent of populationon average disposes their waste in sanitary landfills while for municipalities with populations greater than 300,000, 89.4 percent of the population disposes their waste in sanitary landfills. 51 5. Waste disposal services - For every 10,000 inhabitants with waste disposal service there are: (i) 0.25 pieces of equipment for compacting, (ii) 0.42 pieces of equipment for placing daily waste cover material, and (iii) 0.40 pieces of equipment for other activities related to waste disposal. - Figures from EVAL, indicate that in 2001 the number of pieces of equipment for opera- tion of a waste disposal site per 10,000 inhabitants are: (i) for compacting of the waste in the disposal site, 0.05, (ii) for placing cover material, 0.06, and (iii) for other activities in the disposal site, 0.09. This indicates that there was a substantial increase the num- ber of pieces of equipment at waste disposal sites between 2002 and 2010. 5.2 National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS), informa- tion available from local authorities and operators and publically availa- ble information. As the data provided by EVAL in 2010 is slightly outdated in terms of sanitary landfi- ll service coverage, for the purposes of this study, a compilation of existing sanitary landfills in the country and an estimation of the total tons of waste disposed in these landfills was carried out. The data was based on available information from the National Urban Solid Waste Ma- nagement Project (MAyDS), consultations with municipal representatives or operators, and information available in official Internet web pages and other public documents. To arrive at an updated value of sanitary landfill waste disposal service coverage and the amount of waste disposed in sanitary landfills, a list of all the existing sanitary landfills in the country was compiled. Quantities of waste (tons per day) disposed in each landfill was gathered. Population served by these landfills was determined by the population of the municipalities served by the landfill that have collection service using National Census data and collection rates from the EVAL 2010 report by region. Total waste generation was determined using the average per capita waste generation for those serviced by these landfills and the total population using National Census data. Table 18. Sanitary Landfills, 2015, by Province and the City of Buenos Aires Province Landfill Municipalities Landfilled Estimated Tons per Day1 population served CEAMSE - Norte III The City of Buenos Aires, La Plata, and the 34 urban centers 13,942 13,169,699 CEAMSE – Gonzalez Catan (‘partidos’) from Greater Buenos Aires Buenos Aires and the CEAMSE - Ensenada 628 787,490 City of Buenos Bahia Blanca Bahía Blanca 230 299,107 Mar del Plata Gral Pueyrredón 1,100 617,657 52 5. Waste disposal services Province Landfill Municipalities Landfilled Estimated Tons per Day population served Olavarría Olavarría 100 84,517 Tandil Tandil 100 94,790 Buenos Aires Laprida Laprida 2.5 7,704 San Nicolás San Nicolás 120 181,995 Santa Fe Ricardone 10 municipalities from Greater 1,500 1,262,641 Rosario Rafaela Rafaela 120 95,922 Santa Fe and small munici- palities (San José del Rincón, 500 507,071 Santa Fe Arroyo Leyes, and Santa Rosa de Calchines) Including Greater Córdoba (Cor- Cordoba 6 landfills doba city and 17 other munici- 2,100 1,641,887 palities), Villa Dolores and Cruz del eje landfills La Pampa Santa Rosa Santa Rosa 140 123,190 Entre Ríos Gualeguaychú Gualeguaychú 104 89,209 Malargue Malargue 22 24,562 Mendoza Alvear Alvear 42 25,357 Zona Este Rivadavia, San Martín, Santa 180 216,992 Rosa, and Junin Donovan Capital City Metro- Donovan politan Area and small muni- cipalities located in the nearby 32 32,653 (Juana Koslay, Potrero, La Punta, San Gerónimo, Balde, El Volcán, Estancia Greaterde, Trapiche, Nogolí, Villa de la Quebrada). Villa Mercedes Villa Mercedes, Justo Darac, 120 113,149 San Luis Juan Jorba, and Fraga Villa de Merlo, Carpintería, Los Molles, Cortaderas, Villa Larca, Carpintería Villa del Carmen, Papagayos, 50 47,053 Concarán, Naschel, San Pablo, Santa Rosa de la Conlara, Renca, and La Punilla La Toma La Toma, Juana Llerena, Paso 9 7,772 Grande, el Morro, Saladillo, San Juan San Juan Capital, Rawson, Rivadavia, Chimbas, Santa 550 493,558 San Juan Lucia, Pocito, Ullum, Zonda, and Albardón, Jachal San José de Jáchal, Niquivil, 12 21,984 San Roque, Villa Mercedes, and Pampa Vieja 53 5. Waste disposal services Province Landfill Municipalities Landfilled Estimated Tons per Day population served The metropolitan public con- Tucumán San Felipe sortium is composed by the following municipalities: San Miguel de Tucumán, Alderetes, Salí River Band, Las Talitas, 900 637,845 Tafí Viejo, Yerba Buena; and the communes of San Pablo, El Manantial, Cevil Redondo, Lules, Bella Vista, Raco and San Javier. Salta San Javier Salta Capital City 750 597,680 Manual sanitary landfills Tolar Grande, la Puna, Valles 10 11,111 Calchaquíes, Iruya, and Coronel Moldes La Rioja Villa Unión Villa Unión 15 4,230 Santiago del Estero Río Hondo Río Hondo 33 34,292 The whole province is Misiones regionalized and counts on 25 waste transfer stations Whole province 800 873,025 and 2 landfills operated by a private company, Neuquén Neuquén Neuquén 300 268,392 Junin de los andes Junin de los andes y San Martín 58 35,594 de los Andes El Bolsón El Bolsón 25 17,165 Río Negro General Roca General Roca 80 77,552 Chubut Ex Torre Omega Puerto Madryn, Trelew, Dolavon, 120 133,993 Gaiman, and Rawson Esquel-Trevellin Esquel and Trevellin 55 38,627 Tierra del Fuego Ushuaia Ushuaia 120 136,168 Total 24,970 22,811,705 Percentage of total Countrywide1 53.5 53.5 Source: Own elaboration based on information provided through publically available information, by the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) and by municipal representatives, 2015. Population from which waste is collected and disposed by a particular landfill is based on National Census, 2010 data using the regional waste collection rates of EVAL, 2010. 1 The total solid waste generation countrywide is 46,706 tons/day. Based on average of 1.09 kg of waste per person per day (the average generation of waste for those from which waste was collected and disposed in sanitary landfills derived from this report) and a total population of 42,669,500 inhabitants (National Census, 2010 projection for 2014). 54 5. Waste disposal services Table 19. Sanitary Landfills, 2015, by Urban Agglomeration Agglomeration Landfill Municipalities Waste Landfilled Estimated po- (tons per day) pulation served CEAMSE - Norte III The City of Buenos Aires, Greater Buenos Aires CEAMSE – Gonzalez La Plata, and the 34 urban 13,942 13,169,699 Catan centers (‘partidos’) from Greater Buenos Aires Greater La Plata CEAMSE - Ensenada 628 787,490 Bahia Blanca - Cerrito Bahia Blanca Bahía Blanca 230 299,107 Mar del Plata- Batan Mar del Plata Gral Pueyrredón 1,100 617,657 San Nicolas-Villa San Nicolás San Nicolás 120 181,995 Greater Resistencia Ricardone 10 municipalities from Greater 1,500 1,262,641 Rosario Greater Santa Fe Santa Fe Santa Fe and small munici- palities (San José del Rincón, 500 507,071 Arroyo Leyes, and Santa Rosa de Calchines) Greater Cordoba Greater Cordoba City of Cordoba and 17 munici- 1,960 1,473,801 palities Greater Cordoba Rio Cuarto Rio Cuarto 180 168,086 Santa Rosa-Toay Santa Rosa Santa Rosa 140 123,190 San Luis- El Chorillo Capital San Luis City 20 13,333 Greater San Juan San Juan San Juan Capital, Rawson, Riva- davia, Chimbas, Santa Lucia, Po- 550 493,558 cito, Ullum, Zonda, and Albardón, Greater Salta San Javier Salta Capital City and cities of the Greater Salta Metropolitan 750 597,680 Area La Rioja Villa Unión Villa Unión 15 16,667 Posadas Posadas Posadas 160 334,832 Neuquén-Plottier Neuquén Neuquén 300 268,392 Rawson-Trelew Ex Torre Omega Puerto Madryn, Trelew, Dolavon, 120 133,993 Gaiman, and Rawson Ushuaia-Rio Grande Ushuaia Ushuaia 120 136,168 Total 22,335 20,585,360 Percentage of total in the 31 main urban agglomerations1 77.0 77.0 Source: Own elaboration based on information provided through publically available information, by the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) and by municipal representatives, 2015. Population from which waste is collected and disposed by a particular landfill is based on National Census, 2010 data using the regional waste collection rates of EVAL, 2010. 1 The total solid waste generated in the 31 main urban agglomerations is 28,997 tons/day. The total waste and population in the 31 main urban agglomerations was estimated based on average of 1.085 kg of waste per person per day (the average generation of waste for the population from which waste was collected and disposed in sanitary landfills in the 31 main urban agglomerations derived from this report) and a total population of 26,725,120 inhabitants (National Census 2010, projection for 2014). 55 5. Waste disposal services Figure 12. Percentage of Households with Sanitary Landfill Waste Disposal Service, 2015, by Urban Agglomeration 0% Jujuy - Palpala 96.8% Salta 92.3% Greater Tucumán Formosa 0% 0% Tafí Viejo Greater Resistencia Posadas 0% Greater Catamarca Sgo. del Estero Corrientes 95.4% 0% 0% 0% La Rioja 96.3% 97.4% Greater San Juan Greater Santa Fe Greater Córdoba Concordia 0% 96.4% 98.1% Greater Paraná 0% Greater Mendoza Río Cuarto 12% Greater Rosario 89.1% 97.9% San Luis - El Chorrillo Greater City of Buenos Aires 98.0% Buenos Aires 94.9% Greater La Plata 95.0% 98.9% Santa Rosa - Toay 97.8% Mar del Plata - Batán Bahía Blanca - Cerri Neuquén - Plottier 88.1% 97.7% 0% Viedma 97.7% Rawson 0% Comodoro Rivadavia - Rada Tilly > 90% 80 - 90% < 80% 0% Río Gallegos 94.9% Ushuaia - Río Grande AGGLOMERATION SIZE: Greater Buenos Aires Five Largest Large Intermediate Small Source: National Census 2010. Urban Agglomeration Categories: Greater Buenos Aires, five largest agglomerations (700,000–1.5 million), large agglomerations (300,000–700,000), intermediate agglo- merations (100,000–300,000), and small agglomerations (50,000–100,000). 56 5. Waste disposal services Figure 13. Quantity (in thousands) of Households Without Sanitary Landfill Waste Disposal Service, 2015, by Urban Agglomeration 81.6 Jujuy - Palpala 4.6 Salta 18.2 Greater Tucumán Formosa 60.2 108.7 Tafí Viejo Greater Resistencia Posadas 50.9 Greater Catamarca Sgo. del Estero Corrientes 4.2 95.5 97.0 48.2 La Rioja 6.2 12.1 Greater Santa Fe Greater San Juan Gran Córdoba Concordia 43.6 4.2 1.4 Greater Paraná 98.7 Greater Mendoza Río Cuarto 253 Greater Rosario 50.5 1.2 San Luis - El Chorrillo Greater City of Buenos Aires 22.2 Buenos Aires 149.6 Greater La Plata 13.1 0.4 Santa Rosa - Toay 4.6 Mar del Plata - Batán Bahía Blanca - Cerri Neuquén - Plottier 13 2.3 25 Viedma 0.9 Rawson 56.1 Comodoro Rivadavia - Rada Tilly < 10 (thousand) 10 - 25 > 25 33.1 Río Gallegos 2.0 Ushuaia - Río Grande AGGLOMERATION SIZE: Greater Buenos Aires Five Largest Large Intermediate Small Source: National Census 2010.. Urban Agglomeration Categories: Greater Buenos Aires, five largest agglomerations (700,000–1.5 million), large agglomerations (300,000–700,000), intermediate agglo- merations (100,000–300,000), and small agglomerations (50,000–100,000). 57 5. Waste disposal services Figure 14. Selected Regional Waste Management Facilities in the 31 Main Urban Agglomerations GREATER SALTA - The sanitary landfill of the City of Salta (San Javier) is operated by a private company and Jujuy - Palpala MISIONES administered by the municipality. - Other municipalities also dispose their waste - Much of the province has regional solid there but neither pay nor have a contract. waste transfer and disposal services Salta (coordinated by the province). - A private company operates different transfer stations and sanitary landfills. GREATER TUCUMAN Greater Tucumán Formosa - A transfer station (San Felipe) and a Tafí Viejo Greater Resistencia sanitary landfill (Overo Pozo) are operated Posadas by a private company and administered by the intermunicipal consortium. Greater Catamarca Sgo. del Estero Corrientes GREATER SAN FERNANDO La Rioja GREATER ROSARIO - The controlled dump “El Pantanillo” is Greater Santa Fe - A private company receives waste from operated by the city of San Fernando. different municipalities. - Almost all municipalities of the urban Greater San Juan Concordia Greater Córdoba agglomeration dispose their waste Greater Paraná there but neither pay nor have a formal agreement. Río Cuarto Greater Rosario Greater Mendoza San Luis - El Chorrillo Greater Buenos Aires GREATER BUENOS AIRES - LA PLATA Greater La Plata - There is a public enterprece (CEAMSE), which is owned in equal parts by the Santa Rosa - Toay province and the City of Buenos Aires. Mar del Plata - Batán - CEAMSE operates transfer stations and sanitary landfills subcontracting private companies. Neuquén - Plottier Bahía Blanca - Cerri GREATER CORDOBA - There is an intercomunal corporation Viedma (CORMECOR) comprised of the Municipality of Cordoba, nearby municipalities and the union of recyclers. CORMECOR is responsible RAWSON - TRELEW for treatment and disposal services in the Rawson region. - There is an intermunicipal consortium (Virch-Valdez) that administers transfer, treatment and disposal services. - Transfer stations, treatment plants and sanitary landfills are operated by a private Comodoro Rivadavia company. Rada Tilly Río Gallegos Ushuaia - Río Grande AGGLOMERATION SIZE: Greater Buenos Aires Five Largest Large Intermediate Small Source: Own elaboration based on public information and information from operators and municipalities. Urban Agglomeration Categories: Greater Buenos Aires, five largest agglomerations (700,000–1.5 million), large agglomerations (300,000–700,000), intermediate agglo- merations (100,000–300,000), and small agglomerations (50,000–100,000). 58 5. Waste disposal services Data analysis - An estimated 53.5 percent of the country’s population has sanitary landfill waste dis- posal service. In EVAL 2010, the proportion of the population with this service was es- timated to be 64.7 percent. Possible reasons for this discrepancy include: (a) between 2010 and 2015, there was an important reduction in amount of waste sent to landfills by the City of Buenos Aires due to the development of recycling strategies; (b) there was population growth so the same capacity now covers a lower percentage of population; and/or (c) there are differences in the methodologies used. - 89 percent of the landfill capacity in the country is located in the 31 main urban agglomerations and this capacity is able to service 77 percent of the population of the- se urban agglomerations. - The City of Buenos Aires and 17 out of the 23 provinces have at least one sanitary landfill in operation. Notable exceptions are the provinces of Santa Cruz, Corrientes, Catamarca, Jujuy, Chaco, and Formosa. - 18 of the 31 main urban agglomerations have at least one sanitary landfill. Five urban agglomerations in the northern part of the country (Jujuy-Palpala, Greater Resistencia, Santiago del Estero-La Banda, Greater Catamarca, and Corrientes) do not have a sani- tary landfill. - Some provinces have been successful in promoting regional landfills. For example, Misiones has developed a system based on 25 waste transfer stations and two sanitary landfills that services a large portion of the province. - Large landfills are commonly operated by private companies (e.g., Mar del Plata, Grea- ter Tucumán, Greater Cordoba, and Rosario) and small landfills are commonly operated mainly by municipalities (e.g., Malargue, Alvear, El Bolson). - Regional landfills also have private operators. In Virch-Valdez, Chubut; the Eastern Zone of Mendoza (under construction in 2016); and Greater Tucumán a consortium is in charge of supervising the operation of the system by a private company. In the case of Greater Buenos Aires, a public company is in charge of the operation and they sub- contract private companies. - Manual sanitary landfills are not common. 59 6. People living near open dumpsites 60 6. People living near open dumpsites 6. People living near open dumpsites 8.7 percent of urban households in the country are located within three blocks of an open dumpsite. Similarly, 8.8 percent of households in the 31 main urban agglomera- tions are located within three blocks of an open dumpsite. 19.4 percent of urban households consider open dumpsites a problem in their neigh- borhood. This number is 58.6 percent for households located in informal settlements or precarious urban settlements. A person living in an informal settlement or precarious urban settlement is much more likely to live within three blocks of an open dumpsite. 39.5 percent of households in an informal urban settlement are located within three blocks of an open dumpsite. There are differences in proximity to open dumpsites among socio-economic levels. 5.9 percent of households from the medium-high socioeconomic strata consider open dumpsites a problem in their neighborhood while this number increases to 34.7 percent for the very low socioeconomic strata. Between 2010 and 2015, there was no significant change in people living near open dumpsites. For the country overall, both the percentage of total urban households that considered open dumpsites a problem in their neighborhood and percentage of urban households within three blocks of an open dumpsite did not change significantly in any of the surveys. 335,462 children in Greater Buenos Aires live within three blocks of an open dumpsite. 6.1 The Survey of Argentina’s Social Debt (EDSA) Survey of Argentina’s Social Debt (EDSA) is performed by the ‘Observatory of Argenti- na’s Social Debt’, a research department in the Catholic University of Argentina (UCA). The observatory has been carrying out surveys in urban agglomerations since 2004. The last survey included the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires and 16 other urban ag- glomerations, with a sample size of 5,700. The section of the survey that analyzes quality of life takes into account the proximity of a household to open dumpsites by including the question “In your neighborhood, do you have problems with open dumpsites?”. It is worth highlighting that the results are based on the respondent’s perception. The survey allows disaggregation of this statis- tic for households located in informal or precarious urban settlements (includes “villas” or slums, and precarious settlements) and evaluates proximity of households to open dumpsites for different socioeconomic groups, based on their education levels, housing conditions, structure of the family, and urban agglomerations. 61 6. People living near open dumpsites Table 20. Urban Households that Consider Open Dumpsites a Problem in Their Neighborhood, 2010-2015 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 All urban households (%) 19.2 20.0 20.6 18.1 18.5 19.4 Urban households located in informal or precarious 58.8 59.0 62.1 65.4 57.6 58.6 urban settlements1(%) Source: EDSA-Bicentenario, 2010-2016 (data up to 2015), Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina, UCA. 1 Includes “villas” (slums) and precarious settlements. Table 21. Urban Households that Consider Open Dumpsites a Problem in their Neighborhood, 2015, by Urban Agglo- meration, Social Stratum and Residential Condition Urban Agglomeration Social Stratum Residential Condition All Urban City of Greater Other Other Very Low Medium Medium Informal or With urban With urban Areas Buenos Buenos Metro- Urban Low Low High Precarious layout; low layout; Aires Aires politan Areas Urban Settle- social strata medium-high Areas ments1 social strata 19.4 7.1 20.5 23.7 23.9 34.7 22.6 14.1 5.9 58.6 30.2 4.9 Source: EDSA-Bicentenario, 2010-2016 (data up to 2015), Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina, UCA 1 Includes “villas” (slums) and precarious settlements. Table 22. Urban Households that Consider Open Dumpsites a Problem in Their Neighborhood, 2015, by Economic-occu- pational Stratum and Characteristics of Head of Household Economic – Occupational Head of Household Gender Education Employment status Marginal Working Middle Class Middle Class Male Female With Without Regular Preca- Under/ Inactive Working Class Non- Professional Secondary Secondary rious Unemplo- Class professional Education Education yed 28.0 24.2 14.9 3.9 20.1 17.5 12.4 27.0 14.5 22.9 29.1 29.7 Source: EDSA-Bicentenario, 2010-2016 (data up to 2015), Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina, UCA 62 6. People living near open dumpsites Data analysis - The proximity of households to open dumpsites is a common problem in urban areas in Argentina, and this problem is significantly worse in informal or precarious urban settlements. In 2015, 19.4 percent of respondents from urban households replied that open dumpsites were a problem in their neighborhood, and this number increased to 58.6 percent when only considering the responses of those living in informal or preca- rious urban settlements. - Between 2010 and 2015, there was not a significant change in the percentage of hou- seholds that consider open dumpsites a problem in their neighborhood. - Between 2010 and 2015 there was, similarly, no significant change in the households located in informal or precarious urban settlements that consider open dumpsites a problem in their neighborhood. - The percentage of households located in low economic strata neighborhoods but with an urban layout (areas with well-defined plots, roads and blocks and therefore not con- sidered informal or precarious urban settlements) that consider dumpsites a problem in their neighborhood is higher than the overall average (30.2 percent versus the national average of 19.4 percent in 2015), but much lower than for households located in infor- mal or precarious urban settlements (58.6 percent). - The City of Buenos Aires has a significantly lower proportion of households that con- sider open dumpsites a problem in their neighborhood. - People with lower educational attainment and from lower socioeconomic strata are more likely to consider open dumpsites a problem in their neighborhood. In 2015, 27.0 percent of households with a head of household without secondary school education consider open dumpsites a problem in their neighborhood, while this number decreases to 12.4 percent when the head of household has at least a secondary education. Simi- larly, 5.9 percent of households from the medium-high socioeconomic strata consider open dumpsites a problem in their neighborhood while this number increases to 34.7 percent for the very low socioeconomic strata. - Households from a lower socioeconomic strata more commonly consider open dump- sites a problem in their neighborhood than those from a higher socioeconomic strata even when the neighborhood has a formal urban layout. 30.2 percent of households with an urban layout from the low socioeconomic strata consider open dumpsites a problem in their neighborhood. 63 6. People living near open dumpsites 6.2 Permanent Survey of Households (EPH) INDEC undertakes surveys in the 31 main urban agglomerations every quarter. The sur- vey takes into account all provincial capitals and urban agglomerations with more than 100,000 inhabitants, which comprise more than 70 percent of Argentina’s urban po- pulation. The EPH evaluates if there is an open dumpsite three blocks or less from the household and allows for comparison across years and type of household. The survey provides specific information for households located in informal settlements (the sur- vey refers to “villas de emergencia”, or slums). Table 23. Proportion of Urban Households within Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 All urban households (%) 8.0 7.8 6.8 7.2 8.7 Urban households located in informal urban 25.4 38.2 40.6 37.2 39.5 settlements1 (%) Source: Own elaboration based on data from EPH for the second quarter, 2010-2014. 1 The survey refers to “villas de emergencia” (slums). Table 24. Children Living within Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2014 Age Total % of Total 0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 Children In the 31 main urban agglomerations 209,108 237,366 201,616 648,090 9.9 In Greater Buenos Aires 111,460 128,815 95,187 335,462 11.9 Source: Own elaboration based on EPH, fourth quarter 2014. 64 6. People living near open dumpsites Table 25. Percentage of Households Located within Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2013-2014, by Urban Agglomeration Percentage of Percentage of Households Number of Number of Percentage of Households Households Within Three Households Persons Households Located in not located in Urban Agglomeration Population Blocks of an Within Three Within Three Located in In- Informal Urban Informal Urban Open Dump- Blocks of an Blocks of an formal Urban Settlements Settlements site (%)1 Open Dump- Open Dump- Settlements3 Within Three Within Three site1 site1 Blocks of an Blocks of an Open Dumpsite3 Open Dump- site3 Greater Buenos Aires City of Buenos Aires 2,981,781 4.1 48,693 122,551 0.5 52.2 8.2 Other areas of Greater Buenos Aires 10,796,415 12.3 379,946 1,331,198 1.0 22.8 12.2 Cuyo Greater Mendoza 1,070,944 3.4 10,705 36,626 0.9 77.1 2.7 Greater San Juan 511,625 4.7 6,243 23,791 1.3 100.0 5.0 San Luis - El Chorrillo 215,487 0.08 49 172 0.08 100.0 0.0 Northeast Corrientes 379,696 42.3 47,414 160,763 0.9 100.0 41.8 Formosa 254,702 9.1 5,787 23,178 0.9 75.8 8.5 Greater Resistencia 407,001 0.6 619 2,279 3.1 0.0 0.6 Posadas 350,913 0.09 93 316 2.4 0.0 0.1 Northwest Greater Catamarca 209,072 19.1 10,979 39,975 0.2 100.0 11.8 Greater Tucumán - Tafí Viejo 863,943 8.0 18,737 69,375 0.6 61.7 10.2 Jujuy – Palpalá 335,406 12.0 9,866 40,148 0.3 100.0 11.7 La Rioja 200,933 15.4 8,553 30,843 0.6 100.0 19.0 Salta 617,418 29.2 45,965 180,286 1.6 56.2 27.4 Santiago del Estero - La Banda 401,924 7.1 7,578 28,697 0.3 100.0 26.4 Pampeana/Central Region Bahía Blanca – Cerrito 305,962 0.0 0 0 0.2 100.0 1.4 Concordia 159,631 0.3 138 447 0.7 0.0 4.0 Greater Córdoba 1,512,823 8.7 41,260 131,162 1.3 50.2 8.1 Greater La Plata 828,860 9.9 28,731 82,140 0.4 100.0 9.6 Greater Rosario 1,415,628 3.9 18,466 54,643 2.8 73.8 1.9 Greater Paraná 273,300 15.0 13,361 41,104 0.8 100.0 14.3 Greater Santa Fe 526,366 0.4 611 2,000 0.3 0.0 0.4 Mar del Plata – Batán 631,322 1.3 2,943 8,081 0.0 0.0 1.3 Río Cuarto 171,332 6.0 3,616 10,246 3.6 74.3 3.5 Santa Rosa – Toay 124,545 2.5 1,156 3,139 0 0.0 2.6 San Nicolás - Villa Constitución 187,981 0.5 262 846 1.1 21.5 0.2 65 6. People living near open dumpsites Percentage of Percentage of Households Number of Number of Percentage of Households Households Within Three Households Persons Households Located in not located in Urban Agglomeration Population Blocks of an Within Three Within Three Located in In- Informal Urban Informal Urban Open Dump- Blocks of an Blocks of an formal Urban Settlements Settlements site (%)1 Open Dump- Open Dump- Settlements3 Within Three Within Three site1 site1 Blocks of an Blocks of an Open Dumpsite3 Open Dump- site3 Patagonia C. Rivadavia - Rada Tilly 210,875 4.2 2,756 8,815 0.3 0.0 4.2 Neuquén – Plottier 304,572 1.1 1,074 3,411 0.4 0.0 1.1 Río Gallegos 108,693 3.1 1,021 3,391 0.6 100.0 0.7 Ushuaia - Río Grande 143,471 1.7 744 2,396 1.2 100.0 0.4 Rawson – Trelew 137,057 5.7 2,553 7,757 0.0 0.0 5.7 Viedma - C. de Patagones 85,442 1.6 475 1,401 0.0 0.0 1.6 Total for the 31 main urban 26,725,120 8.844 720,394 2,451,178 1.2 39.544 8.5 agglomerations Source: Own elaboration based on Permanent Survey of Households information. 1 Data from EPH, second quarter 2014. 2 Data from EPH, fourth quarter 2014. 3 Includes “villas de emergencia” (slums). For some urban agglomerations the percentage of households in informal urban settlements was zero. In those cases, instead of using information from second quarter2014, available data from other quarters in 2013 and 2014 were used. 4 Information from EPH second quarter, 2014. 66 6. People living near open dumpsites Figure 15. Percentage of Households Located within Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2013-2014, by Urban Agglomeration 11.9% Jujuy - Palpala 29.2% Salta 8.0% Greater Tucumán Formosa 9.1% 0.5% Tafí Viejo Greater Resistencia Posadas 19.1% Greater Catamarca Sgo. del Estero Corrientes 0.0% 7.1% 42.3% 15.3% La Rioja 8.6% 0.3% Greater San Juan Greater Santa Fe Greater Córdoba Concordia 0.2% 4.6% 5.9% Greater Paraná 15.0% Greater Mendoza Río Cuarto 3.4% Greater Rosario 3.8% 0.0% San Luis - El Chorrillo Greater City of Buenos Aires 4.1% Buenos Aires 12.3% Greater La Plata 9.9% 2.5% Santa Rosa - Toay 1.2% Mar del Plata - Batán Bahía Blanca - Cerri Neuquén - Plottier 1.1% 0% 1.6% Viedma 5.6% Rawson 4.1% Comodoro Rivadavia - Rada Tilly < 5% 5 - 10% > 10% 3.1% Río Gallegos 1.6% Ushuaia - Río Grande AGGLOMERATION SIZE: Greater Buenos Aires Five Largest Large Intermediate Small Source: Own elaboration based on Permanent Survey of Households, 2013-2014. Urban Agglomeration Categories: Greater Buenos Aires, five largest agglomerations (700,000–1.5 million), large agglomerations (300,000–700,000), intermediate agglo- merations (100,000–300,000), and small agglomerations (50,000–100,000). 67 6. People living near open dumpsites Figure 16. Quantity (in Thousands) of Households Located within Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2013-2014, by Urban Agglomeration 9.9 Jujuy - Palpala 46 Salta 18.8 Greater Tucumán Formosa 5.8 0.6 Tafí Viejo Greater Resistencia Posadas 11 Greater Catamarca Sgo. del Estero Corrientes 0.1 7.6 47.4 8.6 La Rioja 0.6 41.3 Greater Santa Fe Greater San Juan Greater Córdoba Concordia 0.1 6,2 3.6 Greater Paraná 13.3 Greater Mendoza Río Cuarto 10.7 Greater Rosario 18.5 0.1 San Luis - El Chorrillo Greater City of Buenos Aires 48.7 Buenos Aires 379.9 Greater La Plata 28.7 1.2 Santa Rosa - Toay 2.9 Mar del Plata - Batán Bahía Blanca - Cerri Neuquén - Plottier 1.1 1.7 0.5 Viedma 2.5 Rawson 2.8 Comodoro Rivadavia - Rada Tilly < 5 (thousand) 5 - 10 > 10 1.0 Río Gallegos 0.7 Ushuaia - Río Grande AGGLOMERATION SIZE: Greater Buenos Aires Five Largest Large Intermediate Small Source: Own elaboration based on Permanent Survey of Households, 2013-2014. Urban Agglomeration Categories: Metropolitan Buenos Aires, top five agglomerations (700,000–1.5 million), large agglomerations (300,000–700,000), intermediate agglomerations (100,000–300,000), and small agglomerations (50,000–100,000). 68 6. People living near open dumpsites Figure 17. Percentage of Households Located within Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2013-2014, by Urban Agglomeration, for All Households and Those in Precarious Urban Settlements Households in precarious urban settlements near open dumpsites Households near open dumpsites 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Mar del Plata - Batán Buenos Aires City 24 partidos from GBA Greater Mendoza Greater San Juan San Luis - El Chorrillo Corrientes Formosa Posadas Greater Catamarca G. Tucumán - Tafí Viejo Jujuy - Palpalá La Rioja Sgo. del Estero- La Banda Greater La Plata Santa Rosa - Toay C. Rivadavia - Rada Tilly Salta Bahía Blanca - Cerri Greater Resistencia Concordia Greater Paraná Greater Santa Fé Rawson - Trelew Greater Cordoba Greater Rosario Río Cuarto S. Nicolás - V. Constitución Neuquén - Plottier Río Gallegos Ushuaia- Río Grande Viedma - C. de Patagones Source: Own elaboration based on, EPH-INDEC, 2013-2014.Precarious urban settlements include “villas de emergencia” (slums). Data analysis - 8.7 percent of urban households are located within three blocks of an open dumpsite. - There was not a significant change in the percentage of urban households living wi- thin three blocks of an open dumpsite between 2010 and 2014. For households located in informal urban settlements, there were fluctuations, with the lowest numbers in 2010 and more consistent numbers between 2011 and 2014. - In the 31 main urban agglomerations, 9.9 percent of children (ages 0 to 14 years) live within three blocks of an open dumpsite and 51.8 percent of these children live in Grea- ter Buenos Aires, where a total of 335,462 of children are estimated to live within three blocks of an open dumpsite. 69 6. People living near open dumpsites - There are important differences between urban agglomerations in terms of the per- centage of households located within three blocks of an open dumpsite, with the hi- ghest percentages found in provinces in the Northern region: Corrientes (42.3 percent), Greater Catamarca (19.1 percent), La Rioja (15.4 percent), and Salta (29.2 percent). - In Greater Buenos Aires, the percentage of households located within three blocks of an open dumpsite (12.3 percent) is slightly above the national average (8.7 percent). This represents the 1,331,198 people which is the highest absolute number of people that live within three blocks of an open dumpsite of any of the 31 main urban agglome- rations. 6.3 Annual Survey of Urban Households (EAHU) In addition to the EPH, INDEC carries out an Annual Survey of Urban Households (EAHU) every year in those urban municipalities with more than 2,000 inhabitants. The ques- tionnaire is very similar to the one used in the EPH. The interviewer, based on the survey results, evaluates whether the household is within three blocks of an open dumpsite and the survey includes more and a larger proportion of the smaller municipalities than the EPH. Table 26. Percentage of Households Located Within Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2010-2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 Urban Households (%) 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.4 30.4 33.5 33.7 34.9 Households in Informal Urban Settlements1 (%) Source: Own Elaboration based on information from EAHU, 2010-2013. 1 Informal urban settlements includes ‘villas de emergencia’ (slums) Data analysis - The percentage of households living within three blocks of an open dumpsite has re- mained almost constant between 2010 and 2013. 70 6. People living near open dumpsites 6.4 Comparison between EPH, EAHU, and EDSA Results Table 27. Percentage of Households Located Within Three Blocks of an Open Dumpsite, 2013 Urban Households Located in Informal or Survey (2013) Indicator Urban Households near Precarious Urban Sett- Open Dumpsites lements that are Near (%) Open Dumpsites1(%) EDSA The respondent is asked whether “in their neighborhood 18.1 65.4 there is a problem with open dumpsites?” EPH 7.2 37.2 Within three blocks of an open dumpsites EAHU 6.4 34.9 Source: Own elaboration based on information from EAHU, 2013; EPH, 2013; and EDSA, 2013. 1 EAHU and EPH includes informal settlements or “villas de emergencia” (slums). EDSA includes informal settlements (“villas”) and precarious settlements. Data analysis - The EDSA reports higher values than the EPH and the EAHU. This is consistent with the methodological differences of the surveys, as the EPH and EAHU indicate when the household is within three blocks of an open dumpsite, where as the EDSA asks the respondent, more generally, if in the neighborhood where he/she lives open dumpsites are a problem. - The EDSA and EPH both indicate that the percentage of households near open dump- sites dramatically increases among households located in informal or precarious urban settlements. - The percentage of households located in informal settlements that are within three blocks of an open dumpsite is higher in the EAHU than in the EPH implying that in sma- ller municipalities there is higher prevalence of precarious urban settlement households that are within three blocks if an open dumpsite. 71 7. Municipal performance in solid waste management 72 7. Municipal performance in solid waste managment 7. Municipal performance in solid waste management Municipal performance in solid waste and city cleaning services is relatively low. When applying a set of systematic performance criteria covering institutional-legal, technical, social, environmental, and economic-financial aspects to 73 municipalities in 3 pro- vinces in Argentina, on average municipalities complied with 35 percent of the criteria. The surveyed municipalities have better performance for the social and institutional-le- gal aspects of solid waste management and city cleaning services.The lowest perfor- mance was found for the economic-financial and environmental criteria. Environmental problems with waste disposal sites are common.74 percent of the sur- veyed municipalities experience burning in the disposal site; 82 percent of the analyzed municipalities have domestic animals in the waste disposal site; 81 percent have waste outside the disposal site; and only 4 percent practice vector control. A large proportion of the surveyed municipalities have informal waste workers working in the streets (41 percent of the municipalities) and at the waste disposal site (73 per- cent). Larger municipalities on average perform better than smaller municipalities in solid waste and city cleaning services. This is particularly true for many of the institutio- nal-legal criteria. The National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) undertook a diagnostic in three Argentine provinces. A database on performance in solid waste management in these three provinces was developed in 2014 and includes information on the so- lid waste management systems of 73 municipalities from these three Argentine pro- vinces. The goal was to quantify the performance of each municipality including the institutional-legal, technical, social, environmental, and economic-financial aspects of their solid waste management system using a range of criteria. The data was gathered through consultants that undertook field visits and is based on data provided by the municipalities and visual inspection undertaken by the consultants whenever possible. The municipalities included the capital city of the province and all the municipalities with more than 10,000 inhabitants. At least 70 percent of the municipalities with less than 10,000 inhabitants had to be visited. Table 28. Performance of Municipalities in Solid Waste Management and Cleaning Services, 2014, Level of Compliance with Performance Criteria Municipality Size Category Criteria > 50,000 10,000- < 10,000 Overall (%) 50,000 (%) (%) (%) Bylaw on solid waste management 80 48 26 42 Government department for solid waste management 90 52 6 35 Government department able to receive complaints 70 7 11 18 Institutional Legal Land use plan approved 40 31 11 23 Ownership of the property used for final disposal 100 93 77 86 Institutional Legal Performance 76 46 27 50 73 7. Municipal performance in solid waste managment Municipality Size Category Criteria > 50,000 10,000- < 10,000 Overall (%) 50,000 (%) (%) (%) Studies on generation and/or characterization of solid 40 10 0 9 waste Source separation 50 31 6 22 Collection system with universal service coverage 80 83 91 86 Differentiated collection systems 50 24 6 19 Street sweeping service 100 100 77 89 Operational Sorting plant 30 52 9 28 Sanitary landfill 10 7 0 4 Access control at disposal site 70 52 14 36 Record of solid wastedisposed 30 7 3 8 Absence of illegal dumpsites 0 34 23 24 Recycling programs 80 59 20 43 Operational Performance 49 42 23 38 Delivery of personal protective elements to the staff 50 31 40 38 Absence of informal waste workers at the disposal site 10 24 34 27 Absence of informal waste workers’ houses at the 80 90 89 88 disposal site Social Absence of informal waste workers in the street 60 69 51 59 Absence of housing adjoining the disposal site 80 90 71 80 Awareness programs forsolid waste management 70 66 20 45 Social Performance 58 61 52 57 Solid waste management costs are included in budget 50 14 0 12 planning Specific tariffs for solid waste 20 3 11 9 Economic Differential rates for large generators 70 10 17 22 Financial Collected taxes are enough to cover 50% of expenditure 50 14 3 14 on solid waste management Economic Financial Performance 48 12 8 22 Approved environmental impact assessment 20 3 0 4 Monitoring of soil quality 20 3 3 5 Environmental Monitoring of water quality 20 7 3 7 Monitoring of air quality 20 3 3 5 74 7. Municipal performance in solid waste managment Municipality Size Category Criteria > 50,000 10,000- < 10,000 Overall (%) 50,000 (%) (%) (%) Vector control 0 10 0 4 Collection and leachate treatment system 0 3 0 1 Distance from disposal site to water courses or bodies > 30 52 29 38 2 km Distance from disposal site to national protected areas > 80 83 77 80 10 km Distance from disposal site to tourist areas > 2 km 90 79 74 78 Environmental Distance from disposal site to airports/aerodromes operating 100 100 97 99 aircraft turbine engine > 3 km or piston/turboprop > 1.5 km No burning of solid waste is carried out 40 34 14 26 Absence of solid waste outside the disposal site 10 38 6 19 Absence of domestic and native fauna at the disposal site 10 34 6 18 Environmental Performance 34 35 25 31 Overall performance 53 39 27 35 Overall performance for municipalities that have a bylaw and a government / / / 52 department for solid waste management Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project, 2014, as cited in Campos and Pierrestegui, ISWA World Congress, 2014. Figure 18. Performance of Municipalities in Solid Waste Management and Cleaning Services, 2014, Level of Compliance with Criteria Very good Good Regular Poor 100% 90% 80% 84% 70% 60% 62% 50% 52% 47% 48% 40% 38% 30% 26% 20% 19% 19% 19% 18% 18% 16% 10% 12% 10% 7% 1% 0% 4% 0% 0% INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONAL SOCIAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL Source: National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) as cited in Campos and Pierrestegui, ISWA World Congress, 2014. 75 7. Municipal performance in solid waste managment Data analysis - On average, municipalities comply with 35 percent of the performance criteria. - On average, municipalities have better performance for the social (57 percent of the social performance criteria are complied with) and institutional-legal (50 percent) crite- ria, and the lowest performance was found for the economic-financial (22 percent) and environmental (31 percent) criteria. - Some of the indicators in the environment category have averages as low as one per- cent including, for example, having: an approved environmental impact assessment; a monitoring system for soil, water and air, vector control, collection and leachate treat- ment systems; and anabsence of animals at the disposal site. - 74 percent of the municipalities experience burning in the disposal site; 82 percent have domestic animals in the site; 81 percent have waste outside the disposal site; and only 4 percent practice vector control. - The social performance indicators demonstrate that a large proportion of municipa- lities have informal waste workers in the streets (41 percent of the municipalities) or at the disposal site (73 percent). The use of personal protection equipment among the staff is low (38 percent) and only 45 percent of municipalities have public awareness programs forsolid waste. - Only 9 percent municipalities have specific tariffs or fees for solid waste management and only 22 percent use different rates for large generators. - The overall performance increases with the size of the municipality. Large municipa- lities, on average, comply with 53 percent of the performance criteria; medium-sized municipalities comply with 35 percent and small municipalities comply with 25 percent. - For the institutional and financial-economic criteria in particular, the municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants have much higher compliance with the criteria. For example, 18 percent of all municipalities have an institutional department dealing with complaints, while for large municipalities this number is 70 percent, and for medium sized and small municipalities this number is 7 percent, and 11 percent respectively. 76 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector 77 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector The solid waste management sector is an important source of both formal and informal employment providing an estimated 323,354 jobs in Argentina. There is, on average, 21.2 municipal employees dedicated to solid waste management per 10,000 inhabitants which is similar to the average for the Latin America and the Caribbean Region (21.7 percent). Smaller municipalities have proportionally larger quantities of municipal employees in solid waste management. There is an average of 105.7 employees per 10,000 inhabi- tants in municipalities of less than 15,000 people; an average of 34.0 for municipalities with populations between 15,000 and 50,000 inhabitants and an average of 22.6 for municipalities with populations between 50,000 and 300,000 inhabitants. The number of informal workers in solid waste is also significant. Overall it is estimated there are 117,698 informal workers in the solid waste sector in the country and based on data from more than 60 municipalities, there is an average of 15.7 informal workers per 10,000 people. Informal workers are more prevalent in the 31 main urban agglomerations. In the muni- cipalities of the 31 main urban agglomerations, 60 percent of the workers in the sector are informal and for the municipalities outside of these urban agglomerations only 25 percent of the workers in the sector are informal. 8.1 Formal Jobs Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Latin Ame- rica and the Caribbean (EVAL) In 2010 the IADB carried out a regional evaluation of the solid waste management sector in the Latin America and the Caribbean Region based on the information provided by a re- presentative sample of municipalities. The data was further elaborated in a technical note in 2013 also published by the IADB. The assessment included an analysis of the number of formal employees in the sector. The figures in this section present information disa- ggregated by region and service and also provide, separately, the average numbers of municipal workers and workers contracted by the municipality. As the evaluation was undertaken in the whole Latin America and the Caribbean Region, EVAL allows compa- rison to averages for the Region. 78 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector Table 29. Formal Municipal Employment in Solid Waste Management, 2010, by Service (Employees per 10,000 inhabitants) Region I Region II Region III Total Argentina Latin America and the Caribbean Average Manual street sweeping 10.2 5.6 4.8 5.8 5.6 Mechanized street sweeping 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 Wastecollection 5.4 7.6 5.6 5.9 4.7 Waste Transfer — 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.5 Waste Treatment — 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.7 Final disposal 3.8 2.3 1.6 1.9 1.5 Maintenance — 16.7 0.5 0.8 1.0 Special services 1.8 7.3 1.4 2.4 3.1 Administrative staff 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.3 Total 22.0 43.7 18.3 21.2 21.7 Source: Own elaboration based on EVAL, 2010 and IADB Technical Note, 2013. Region I: Provinces of Catamarca, Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero, and Tucumán. Region II: Provinces of Corrientes, Entre Ríos, Mendoza, Misiones, San Juan, and San Luis. Region III: Provinces of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Chubut, La Pampa, Neuquén, Río Negro, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe, Tierra del Fuego, and the City of Buenos Aires. Table 30. Formal Municipal Employment in Solid Waste Management (Employees per 10,000 inhabitants), 2010, by Terms of Employment (Municipal versus Contractual), and Service Municipal Contractual Total Manual street sweeping 3.0 2.8 5.8 Mechanized street sweeping 0.5 0.1 0.6 Waste collection 3.3 2.5 5.9 Waste transfer 0.3 0.3 0.6 Waste treatment 1.7 0.8 2.5 Final disposal 1.4 0.6 1.9 Maintenance 0.5 0.4 0.8 Special services 1.9 0.5 2.4 Administrative staff 0.5 0.1 0.7 Total 13.1 8.1 21.2 Source: Own elaboration based on EVAL, 2010 and IADB Technical Note, 2013. 79 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector Data analysis - In Argentina, there is an average of 21.2 formal workers dedicated to solid waste ma- nagement per 10,000 inhabitants, a similar number as the average for the Latin America and the Caribbean Region (21.7). - Argentina has 14.2 formal workers per 10,000 inhabitants for sweeping, collection, and final disposal services which is a slightly higher number than the Latin America and the Caribbean regional average (12.2). Argentina uses a lower number of administrative and maintenance staff per 10,000 inhabitants (1.5) than the regional average (2.3). - For almost all services, except for waste transfer stations, the number of municipal employees is higher than the average for contractual personnel. Overall, of the 21.2 em- ployees per 10,000 inhabitants involved in solid waste management, 13.1 are municipal employees and 8.1 are contractual employees. - The results show there are regional differences within the country. The number of employees per 10,000 inhabitants is twice as high in Region II as the other two regions in the analysis. This is due to the high reported number of staff for maintenance in this region. National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) Database The National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) developed a tool to help municipalities estimate their solid waste management costs. Three-day workshops were carried out in different provinces between 2012 and 2014 to work with the muni- cipalities to collect the data from over 85 Argentine municipalities in 11 different pro- vinces including the number of formal employees working on solid waste management. The database not only estimates the number of employees, but also includes informa- tion on the time worked, as in small and medium municipalities it is a common practice to use this measure. Table 31. Average number of Formal Employees in Solid Waste Management (Employees per 10,000 inhabitants), 2010- 2014, by Municipality Size Municipality size Average number of employees per 10,000 inhabitants 0 - 15,000 105.7 15,001 - 50,000 34.0 50,001 - 300,000 22.6 Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) database, 2012–2014. 80 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector Figure 19. Formal Employees Working on Waste Management versus Municipality Size, 2012-2014 600 FORMAL EMPLOYEES / 10,000 INHABITANTS 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 MUNICIPAL POPULATION (IN THOUSANDS) Source: Own elaboration based on National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) database, 2012–2014. Figure 20. Formal Employees Working on Waste Management versus Municipality Size for Municipalities with up to 15,000 Inhabitants, 2012-2014 600 FORMAL EMPLOYEES / 10,000 INHABITANTS 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 MUNICIPAL POPULATION (IN THOUSANDS) Source: Own elaboration based on the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) database, 2012–2014. 81 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector Figure 21. Distribution of Formal Employees by Task, 2012-2014 3% 2% 9% Sweeping and collection 10% Education, awareness and social inclusion Legal and Administration 76% Planning and technical aspects Others Source: Own elaboration based on the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) database, 2012–2014. Data analysis - The larger the municipality, the lower number of formal employees working on solid waste management relative to the municipal inhabitants. This number is particularly high in municipalities with less than 15,000 inhabitants (105.7 employees per 10,000 inhabitants). - The number of employees per 10,000 inhabitants increases significantly (up to 500 formal workers per 10,000 inhabitants in some cases) and has more variability for mu- nicipalities with a population of less than 2,000 inhabitants while for municipalities with more than 3,000 inhabitants the number is smaller and more consistent, averaging approximately 100 formal workersper 10,000 inhabitants. - Figure 21 shows that most employees (76 percent) are working on sweeping or co- llection of solid waste while tasks such as planning and education only employ a very small amount of workers. 82 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector 8.2 Informal Jobs Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Latin Ame- rica and the Caribbean (EVAL) In 2010 the IADB carried out a regional evaluation of the solid waste management sec- tor in the Latin America and the Caribbean Region based on the information provided by a representative sample of municipalities. The assessment included an analysis of the number of informal workers in the sector by place of work (for example, in segrega- tion plants; in the street; and in final disposal sites). The figures in this section present information disaggregated by region and service and also provide, separately, the ave- rage numbers of municipal workers and workers contracted by the municipality. As the evaluation was undertaken in the whole Latin America and the Caribbean Region, EVAL allows comparison to averages for the Region. Table 32. Informal Waste Workers per 10,000 Inhabitants, 2010, by Region and Place of Work Informal waste workers per Total Number of Informal 10,000 Inhabitants Waste Workers Region I Region II Region III Argentina Latin America Argentina Latin America and the and the Caribbean Caribbean In segregation plants 0.07 7.1 1.8 1.9 1.5 7,176 68,907 In the street 0.5 1.9 22.8 14.7 2.7 55,156 128,439 In final disposal sites 5.7 4.6 1.7 3.2 1.8 11,985 85,314 Other places 0 0.6 1.9 0.7 2.5 2,668 119,064 Total 6.2 14.2 28.3 20.5 8.6 76,985 401,724 Source: Own elaboration based on EVAL, 2010 and IADB Technical Note, 2013. Region I: Provinces of Catamarca, Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero, and Tucumán. Region II: Provinces of Corrientes, Entre Ríos, Mendoza, Misiones, San Juan, and San Luis. Region III: Provinces of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Chubut, La Pampa, Neuquén, Río Negro, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe, Tierra del Fuego, and the City of Buenos Aires. Data analysis - In 2010, there was an estimated 76,985 informal waste workers in the country. - The average number of informal waste workers per 10,000 inhabitants found by EVAL in 2010 for Argentina (20.5) is significantly higher than the average for the Latin Ameri- ca and the Caribbean Region (8.6). - The number of informal waste workers per 10,000 inhabitants working on the streets is more than five times higher in Argentina relative to the average of the Latin America and the Caribbean Region (14.7 in Argentina versus 2.7 average in Latin America and the Caribbean). 83 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector - There are significant differences in informal solid waste workers per 10,000 inhabi- tants between regions with the lowest number found in Region I (6.2) and the highest in Region III (28.3). - Regarding the places where informal waste workers recover material, the results show that most of them work in the streets. Child Labor in Recovery and Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste, IOM-UNICEF In 2006, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations Chil- dren’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) published a report on child labor in the recovery and recycling of solid waste. The report is based on an empirical work undertaken in the City of Buenos Aires, the Department (‘partido’) of Moreno (Province of Buenos Aires), and Posadas (Misiones Province) in the year 2004. The number of children and teenage workers that they obtained represent an estimated minimum, because they only consi- der the number of cases that could be counted through observation during the survey period. Table 33. Child Labor among Informal Waste Workers, 2004 Population Total Number of Infor- Number of Informal Percentage of Informal waste Municipality (National Census mal Waste Workers Waste Workers Youn- Children and workers per 10,000 2010) ger than 18 Years Teenagers (%) Inhabitants City of 2,981,781 8,762 4,223 48 29.4 Buenos Aires Moreno (Greater 462,242 950 412 43 20.6 Buenos Aires) Posadas 323,739 1,570 1,061 68 48.5 Source: Own elaboration based on IOM-UNICEF, 2006. Data analysis - In 2004, in the City of Buenos Aires there were 8,762 informal waste workers with 4,223 of them being children and teenagers. - The City of Buenos Aires and Moreno in 2004 have similar numbers of informal wor- kers as those found nationally by EVAL in 2010. - Posadas has a significantly higher number of informal waste workers per 10,000 inha- bitants in 2004 as those found nationally by EVAL in 2010. - The absolute number of children and teenagers working informally on solid waste sector and the proportion of the informal waste workers they represent is high in these three municipalities. 84 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector Data on informal jobs in the solid waste sector from sector, project, municipal and provincial studies and plans. To estimate the importance of solid waste as a source of informal jobs in a more com- prehensive manner, information has been compiled from a variety of sources. The num- bers were generated by inventories of informal workers carried out during the execution of the IADB and World Bank projects (MAyDS); those carried out by municipalities; mu- nicipal estimates; or based on provincial diagnostic studies. In 2012, a study (Review and Update of the National Solid Waste Management Plan -MAyDS) also undertook a compilation of information on the number of informal waste pickers and is used as another source of information. It is important to highlight that compiling different sour- ces of information implies that there was not uniform methodologies; dates for data collection; or definition of the type of informal activity or job. The majority of the data sources are studies from 2010-2014, with a few dating back earlier (for example, 2001 and 2006). Table 34. Formal and Informal Workers in the Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector, 2001-2015, by Municipality Inhabitants Number of Number of Informal Formal Ratio of Source and Year of Province Municipality (National Cen- Informal formal Workers Workers Informal Data Collection sus 2010) Workers Workers per 10,000 per 10,000 to Formal Inhabitants Inhabitants Workers 2015 Data from City of Buenos Aires 2,981,781 9,456 5,750 31.7 19.3 1.6 Municipal represen- tatives Moreno 462,242 368 — 8.0 — — IOM-UNICEF, 2006 (Greater Buenos Aires) José C, Paz Suárez, 2001 cited (Greater Buenos 263,094 522 — 19.8 — — in the Review and Aires) updating of the Na- tional Solid Waste Malvinas Argen- Management Plan Update (2012) tinas (Greater 321,833 552 — 17.2 — — Buenos Aires) Álvarez, 2010, cited in San Martín the Review and Update (Greater Buenos 422,830 1,100 — 26.0 — — of the National Solid Buenos Aires) Waste Management Plan (2012) Aires ENOSUR, 2015. Formal workers include 110 Mar del Plata 614,350 1,835 830 29.9 13.5 2.2 municipal employees. withsome of them wor- king part time on solid waste management. Solid Waste Manage- Zárate 185,382 120 419 6.5 22.6 0.3 mentProject Design Campana* (2010). Municipal representa- Luján* 106,899 400 242 37.4 22.6 1.7 tives, 2012 as cited in National Solid Waste Management Plan Update 85 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector Inhabitants Number of Number of Informal Formal Ratio of Source and Year of Province Municipality (National Cen- Informal formal Workers Workers Informal per 10,000 to Formal Data Collection sus 2010) Workers Workers per 10,000 Inhabitants Inhabitants Workers Paraná* 247,863 1.454 0 58.7 — — 2014 data from the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS). Based on observa- tions during field Concordia 152,282 800 116 52.5 7.6 6.9 work in the municipalities and information provided by municipal repre- sentatives. 2014 Data from The National Urban Solid Waste Management Gualeguaychú 97,839 95 189 9.7 19.3 0.5 Project (MAyDS) Census undertaken by provin- cial representatives Gualeguay 43,009 280 35 65.1 8.1 8.0 Chajarí 34,848 0 75 0.00 21.5 0.0 Villaguay 34,637 2 107 0.58 30.9 0.02 Entre Victoria 31,842 5 90 1.6 28.3 0.06 Ríos 25,808 50 84 19.4 La Paz* 32.4 0.6 Nogoyá* 23,702 40 77 16.9 32.4 0.5 Crespo 20,203 0 53 0.0 26.2 0.0 Diamante 19,930 12 65 6.0 32.6 0.2 San José* 18,178 8 62 4.4 34.0 0.1 Federal 18,015 0 52 0.0 28.9 0.0 2014 data from the Santa Elena 17,883 35 6 19.6 3.4 5.8 Provincial Solid Waste Federación* 17,547 30 60 17.1 34.0 0.5 Management Plan. Based on observa- Rosario Del Tala 13,723 31 58 22.6 42.3 0.5 tions during field work San Salvador 13,228 10 21 7.6 15.9 0.5 in the municipalities 12,084 25 33 20.7 27.3 and information provi- San José De Feliciano 0.8 ded by municipal Villa Elisa 11,117 10 7 9.0 6.3 1.4 representatives. Basavilbaso 9,742 20 19 20.5 19.5 1.1 Viale 9,641 11 55 11.4 57.1 0.2 San Benito 9,324 25 16 26.8 17.2 1.6 General Ramírez 9,222 40 30 43.4 32.5 1.3 Ibicuy 4,900 10 12 20.4 24.5 0.8 Oro Verde 4,333 0 18 0.0 41.5 0.0 Villa Paranacito 4,215 5 7 11.9 16.6 0.7 Ubajay 3,507 0 13 0.0 37.1 0.0 General Campos 3,149 0 15 0.0 47.6 0.0 Colonia Avellaneda 3,084 34 16 110.3 51.9 2.1 Ceibas 1,773 0 3 0.0 16.9 0.0 Villa del Rosario 3,973 0 18 0.0 45.3 0.0 Average Entre Ríos 18.6 28.0 0.7 Average Entre Ríos not considering Concordia and Paraná 16.0 28.6 0.6 Rosario 948.312 2,000 1,700 21.1 17.9 1.2 2015 data from Municipal Repre- sentatives (Rosario); 2012 data (Santa Fe) as cited in the 415,000 — National Solid Waste Santa Fe City of Santa Fe 1,500 36.1 — — Management Plan Update (2012). San Jerónimo* 66,702 131 151 19.6 22.6 0.9 2011 data, as cited in National Solid Waste Humbolt 4,783 3 — 6.3 — — Management Plan Update (2012) Firmat* 19,917 20 68 10.0 34.0 0.3 86 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector Inhabitants Number of Number of Informal Formal Ratio of Source and Year Province Municipality (National Informal Formal Workers Workers Informal per 10,000 per 10,000 of Data Collection Census Workers Workers to Formal Inhabitants Inhabitants 2010) Workers Municipal represen- tatives, 2014 data Tucumán San Miguel de 470,809 2,500 - 53.1 - - from municipal repre- sentatives, as cited Tucumán by the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) City of Salta 535,303 166 580 3.1 10.8 0.3 (capital) Salta 2015 data from Cafayate 3,583 20 - 55.8 - - municipal representatives Orán* 34,465 30 117 8.7 34.0 0.3 Tartagal* 79,900 35 272 4.4 34.0 0.13 2014 data from the San Fernando del 109,882 66 0 6.1 - - Provincial Solid Valle de Catamarca* Waste Plan Aconquija 3,045 0 25 0.00 82.1 0.0 Andalgalá* 15,087 120 51 79.5 34.0 2.3 Belén 13,524 8 42 5.9 31.1 0.2 Capayán 6,760 0 18 0.00 26.6 0.0 2014 data from the Fiambalá 7,994 0 40 0.00 50.0 0.0 Provincial Solid Was- te Plan. Based on Huillapima 9,325 0 22 0.00 23.6 0.0 observations Catamarca during field work in Icaño 7,043 0 23 0.00 32.7 0.0 the municipalities, Las Juntas 412 0 23 0.00 558.3 0.0 information provided by municipal Londres 2,909 0 14 0.00 48.1 0.0 representatives and locals. Los Altos 7,878 8 5 10.2 6.4 1.6 Los Varela 1,985 0 6 0,00 30.2 0.0 Recreo 15,595 6 63 3.9 40.4 0.1 San José 5,518 3 6 5.4 10.9 0.5 Santa María 17,030 7 69 4.1 40.5 0.1 Saujil 5,572 0 15 0.00 26.9 0.0 Tinogasta 14,366 0 24 0.00 16.7 0.0 Valle Viejo 27,242 2 74 0.73 27.2 0.03 Average Catamarca 6.5 63.8 0.1 13.3 39.2 0.3 Average municipalities outside the 31 main urban agglomerations (EPH) Average all evaluated municipalities 15.7 37.0 0.4 2011 data from the Provincial Under- Chaco Resistencia 386,000 300 — 7.8 — — secretary of the Environment, as cited in the National Solid Waste Management Plan Update (2012). IOM-UNICEF, Misiones Posadas 323,739 1,570 — 48.5 — — 2006. 87 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector Inhabitants Number of Number of Informal Formal Ratio of Source and Year Province Municipality (National Informal Formal Workers Workers Informal per 10,000 per 10,000 of Data Collection Census Workers Workers to Formal Inhabitants Inhabitants 2010) Workers 2010 data, as cited in Mendoza 1,086,066 750 — 6.9 — — National Solid Waste Metropolitan Area Management Plan Update (2012). Mendoza Rivadavia (East Zone 31,038 57 106 18.4 34.0 0.5 2014 data from the of Mendoza) National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS). Census undertaken San Martin (East Zone 79,662 82 180 10.3 22.6 0.5 by provincial repre- of Mendoza) sentatives. 2012 data from the Trelew 99,430 22 0 2.2 — — National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS). Census undertaken by provincial represen­ Rawson 31,787 17 0 5.4 — — tatives. 2011 data, as cited in 173,266 116 392 6.7 22.6 0.3 National Solid Waste Comodoro Management Plan Chubut Rivadavia Update (2012). 2012 data from the National Urban Solid Puerto Madryn 3.3 Waste Management 81,995 27 185 22.6 0.2 Project (MAyDS). Census undertaken by provincial represen- tatives. Source: Own elaboration based on sector, project, municipal and provincial studies and plans, 2001-2015. For the municipalities with more than 15,000 inhabitants and less than 300,000 and no specific data on formal workers, the averages found with the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) database were used.Waste pickers are, in general, informal workers. However, this category includes both informal workers and those have been formalized, for example hired by the municipality and/or are part of a cooperative. 88 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector Table 35. Formal and Informal Workers in the Solid Waste Management Sector, 2001-2015, in Selected Municipalities, all Municipalities and within the 31 Main Urban Agglomerations Municipality Informal Workers per Formal Workers per Ratio of Informal to 10,000 Inhabitants 10,000 Inhabitants Formal workers City of Buenos Aires 31.7 19.3 1.6 Mar del Plata 29.9 13.5 2.2 Concordia 52.5 7.6 6.9 Rosario 21.1 17.9 1.2 Salta 3.1 10.8 0.3 Average for the 31 main 23.2 15.3 1.5 urban agglomerations Average Entre Ríos 18.6 28.0 0.7 Average Catamarca 6.5 63.8 0.1 Average other municipalities 13.3 39.2 0.3 Average all municipalities 15.7 37.0 0.4 Source: Own elaboration based on sector, project, municipal and provincial studies and plans, 2001-2015. Figure 22. Formal and Informal Workers in the Solid Waste Management Sector per 10,000 Inhabitants for Selected Cities, 2001-2015 Formal workers per 10,000 Inhabitants Informal workers per 10,000 Inhabitants 7,6 19,3 52,5 39,2 13,5 17,9 15,3 31,7 29,9 23,2 21,1 10,8 13,3 3,1 Buenos Aires Concordia Rosario Salta Capital Mar del Plata 31 main urban Outside the 31 agglomerations main urban agglomerations Source: Own elaboration based on sector, project, municipal and provincial studies and plans, 2001-2015. 89 8. Employment in the solid waste management sector Figure 23. Estimated Total Number of Formal and Informal Workers in the Solid Waste Management Sector in the 31 Main Urban Agglomerations, 2001-2015 220.488 102,866 164.768 Number of formal workers 61,977 Number of informal workers Total 40,889 55.721 31 main urban Outside the main agglomerations 31 urban agglomerations Source: Own elaboration based on sector, project, municipal and provincial studies and plans, 2001-2015. Data analysis - On average, the number of informal workers in the solid waste sector per 10,000 inha- bitants is 23.2 for the 31 main urban agglomerations which is similar than that found by EVAL (2010). - There is significant variability among provinces, for example, Catamarca has a much lower number of informal workers in the solid waste sector per 10,000 inhabitants than Entre Ríos. - There is a proportionally higher amount of informal workers than formal workers in the 31 main urban agglomerations, where 60 percent of the workers are informal. Outside of the 31 main urban agglomerations 25 percent of the workers are informal. - An estimated 323,354 people work in the solid waste sector, 117,698 of them being informal and 205,657 being formal. 90 9. Costs of solid waste management services 91 9. Costs of solid waste management services 9. Costs of solid waste management services The surveyed municipalities spend, on average, USD 118.2 per ton on all solid waste services. The surveyed municipalities spend, on average, 13 percent of their budget on solid was- te services. Collection and street sweeping account for, on average, 60 percent of the total costs of solid waste services in the surveyed municipalities. Tariffs cover less than 30 percent of the costs of solid waste services and tariff collec- tion rates are on average 50 percent. 9.1 National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) Matrix of costs The National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) developed an Excel tool for municipalities to calculate the costs of the different phases of solid waste mana- gement systems. Between 2012 and 2014 a series of three day long workshops in 14 Argentine provinces was undertaken to provide training on the tool and collect informa- tion. At the end of the workshop, the municipal representatives were able to estimate their solid waste management costs. It should be noted that most municipalities do not know accurately how much they spend on solid waste management services and many municipal representatives were calculating their solid waste mangement costs for the first time. In addition, the costs presented do not control for the quality of service, so while they represent expenditures on solid waste collection, the costs do not represent the relative efficiency of different municipalities in delivering a waste collection service of a given quality. Table 36. Waste Collection Cost, 2012-2014, by Municipality Size Size of Municipality Average Collection Cost per Collected ton (inhabitants) (US$ per ton) Less than 9,999 61.7 10,000–49,999 39.4 50,000–99,999 41.1 100,000–199,999 79.6 200,000–499,999 51.6 500,000–999,999 58.9 More than 1,000,000 42.1 Source: Workshops carried out by the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) between March 2012 and October 2014 based on annual information provided by municipalities. The Exchange rate used was the date of the individual workshops. 92 9. Costs of solid waste management services Table 37. Waste Disposal Cost, 2012-2014, by Municipality Size Municipality Size Disposal Cost per Dispo- Total Cost of all Solid Was- Disposal cost as a % of (inhabitants) sed Ton (US$ per ton) te Services per Ton Cost of all Solid Waste (US$ per ton) Services Less than 9,999 14.8 136.0 10.9 10,000–49,999 8.8 107.2 8.2 100,000–199,999 7.4 128.4 5.8 200,000–499,999 8.0 118.5 6.8 50,000–99,999 15.1 86.9 17.4 500,000–999,999 14.9 133.3 11.2 More than 1,000,000 13.7 128.1 10.7 Average per municipality 10.9 118.2 9.2 Average per municipality 20.3 136.3 14.9 with sanitary landfill Source: Own elaboration based on information developed in matrix cost workshops carried out by the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) be- tween March 2012 and October 2014. The currency exchange rate corresponds to the official rate on the day of the workshop. Table 38. Economic and Financial Indicators, 2012-2014 Indicator Average (%) Costs of all solid waste services (% municipal expenditures) 13 Cost recovery Income from solid waste tariffs (% of total municipal income) 20 Income from solid waste tariffs (% of total solid waste costs) 30 49 Collection rates of fees from households (% of fees that are collected) Contribution of costs by service (% of total costs of all solid waste services) Collection 34 Street sweeping 26 12 Final disposal 71 All of the above mentioned items Source: Own elaboration based on information developed in matrix cost workshops carried out by the National Urban Solid Waste Management Project (MAyDS) be- tween March 2012 and October 2014. The presented income does not necessarily originate from a specific solid waste tariff but from a fee or tariff that is used to cover the costs of solid waste management. 93 9. Costs of solid waste management services Data analysis - The surveyed municipalities spend significantly more budget on waste collection and street sweeping services than on waste disposal service. 60 percent of the costs of solid waste management can be attributed to waste collection and sweeping services. - The surveyed municipalities with sanitary landfills have waste disposal service costs that are nearly twice as high as the overall average. - Table 21 shows that in the surveyed municipalities solid waste expenditures, on ave- rage, account for 13 percent of total municipal spending. - The surveyed municipalities are not able to fully recover their costs through tariffs. Tariffs cover less than 30 percent of costs and the average tariff collection rates is less than 50 percent. 94 95