Overview of household solid waste recycling policy status and challenges in Malaysia

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Review

Overview of household solid waste recycling policy status and challenges in Malaysia Yiing Chiee Moh, Latifah Abd Manaf ∗ Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 14 February 2013 Received in revised form 7 November 2013 Accepted 9 November 2013 Keywords: Recycling Household waste Solid waste management Policy implementation Malaysia

a b s t r a c t With the annual increase in waste generation and heavy reliance on landfilling as disposal, method in Malaysia, it is just a matter of time before significant problems of space limitations, health, and environmental issues hit the nation severely. This paper attempts to develop an overview on solid, waste recycling in Malaysia at the most basic level of a community or nation which is the household, unit. Households are the main primary source of municipal solid waste in Malaysia, consisting of, recyclable materials at most 70% to 80% of the total waste composition as found placed in the, landfills. Overview on the existing household solid waste recycling policy and program status in, Malaysia is relevant in enhancing solid waste management measure from recycling perspective. Despite the high potential and opportunities for solid waste recycling, wastes are still simply being, dumped in an open area of ground without any attempt for recovery and recycling. Comparing to, recycling rates of neighboring countries, Malaysia is falling back at merely 5% which proves how, uncommon recycling practice is. The government is committed to significantly improve the national’s, solid waste management services especially in waste minimization. Fortunately the emphasis on, recycling as a sustainable waste management strategy has taken a shift in paradigm as wastes, separation and recycling are part of the major changes in the current policy implementation. With, issues and challenges in recycling practice that were highlighted in this context especially from the, aspects of information availability and other loopholes within solid waste management policies and, related recycling program within the community, the question on whether the goals in 2020 can be, met remains unsure of but there is a possibility for a successful implementation of sustainable solid, waste management particularly in recycling. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opportunities for solid waste recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Status of solid waste management and disposal in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recycling status and policy in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issues and challenges in recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction The quality of the environment is rapidly deteriorating especially when it concerns the issue of solid waste which has becoming a challenging task for many large metropolitan heterogeneous

∗ Tel.: +603 8946 6771. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Abd Manaf). 0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.004

50 51 54 56 57 59 59 60

areas in most of the developing countries (Dawda, 2010). In early times, the disposal of solid waste did not pose a significant problem as the population scale was smaller and the amount of land available for the assimilation for solid waste was larger (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993). With the rapidly growing population rate and urbanization progress, it is inevitable that the amount of land available is becoming scarce even to serve the purpose of providing space for solid waste disposed from the growing population alone.

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61

Under the Malaysia Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672), disposal of any solid waste could be by any means of destruction, incineration and deposit or decomposing (Nagapan et al., 2012). However, landfill dump is still a common method in managing solid wastes in Malaysia (The Ingenieur, 2009) since it is cost-effective and simple, unlike the other common disposal method using the incinerator which is costly and requires technological experts to operate it. Landfill dumps are testament to the fact that wastes problem is out of control and not going anywhere. Solid waste disposal via landfilling is becoming more difficult because most landfills are approaching its threshold or already exceeded its maximum capacity. At the same time, constructing new landfill sites is becoming even more difficult because of land scarcity and the increase of land prices and high demands due to the increase in population (Latifah et al., 2009). Overall waste composition in Malaysia is dominated by municipal solid waste (64%), followed by industrial waste (25%), commercial waste (8%) and 3% consists of construction waste (EUSWMC, 2009).About 80% of municipal solid wastes are recyclables, which are disposed at the landfills (MHLG, 2006) and under the category of municipal solid wastes, the contribution of household waste is the highest among sources consisting of recyclables at most 70–80% of total solid waste composition as found placed in the landfills (Sumiani et al., 2009). Household area is one of the main primary sources of municipal solid waste in Malaysia, besides institutional and commercial waste (Tariq and Mostafizur, 2007). Municipal solid waste generally consist of around 20 different categories which are food waste, paper (mixed), cardboard, plastics (rigid, film and foam), textile, wood waste, metals (ferrous or nonferrous), diapers, newsprint, high grade and fine paper, fruit waste, green waste, batteries, construction waste and glass; these categories can be grouped into organic and inorganic (Amin and Go, 2012). Regardless of its composition or type, wastes are simply dumped in an open area of ground without any attempt for recovering or recycling (Amin and Go, 2012). The emphasis on recycling as a sustainable waste management strategy has represented a shift in paradigm from conventional collection and disposal (Bolaane, 2006). Recycling has been widely accepted as a sustainable solid waste management method because of its potential to reduce disposal costs and waste transport costs and to prolong the life spans of landfill sites (Folz, 1991; Muttamara et al., 1994; Suttibak and Nitivattananon, 2008). The concept of turning materials that would otherwise become waste into valuable resources of financial, environmental and social returns (US EPA, 2012) has gained increasing attention as a means of protecting the environment as it offers one of the most sensible solutions both economically and ecologically for managing waste (Omran et al., 2009). Malaysia targeted 22% of total solid waste could be recycled by the year 2020 but the current recycling rate is about 5% (Agamuthu et al., 2011). Compared to other developed countries, where recycling rate is about 30–47%, Malaysia is falling back (Mahmud and Osman, 2010). At present, recycling has not become a universal way of life in Malaysia (Omran et al., 2009) and only a few are really practicing it religiously (CheMamat and Chong, 2007). The implications of such practice are the loss of these resources and the rapid utilization of the landfill space reducing the length of life span of landfills in this country, not only would create environmental problem but also unsustainable from the economy point of view (Agamuthu et al., 2011). Most studies focus more on a general picture of the status of solid waste management even though there is a need to highlight other issues such as solid waste recycling. With the common 3Rs which are ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle’ in ascending priority order, the term ‘Recycle’ should not be taken lightly even though sustainability in solid waste generation at source, followed by reuse and lastly recycle. This paper attempts to develop an overview

51

on solid waste recycling in Malaysia at the most basic level of a community or nation which is the household unit, considering the high contribution of household solid waste among the solid waste sources in Malaysia. It is almost impossible to require households to directly reduce their consumption rate and waste generation rate. Moreover, the number of available information on solid waste management and recycling in Malaysia is rather limited with no systematic analysis and periodic documentation nationwide from any local authorities, resulting in inaccurate and outdated databases (Nasir et al., 2000). Studies on household solid waste recycling are also found to be vastly conducted in other countries mainly in western counterparts, even to the extent of proposing policy implementations and recycling models. To implement and rely on their suggestive outcomes in Malaysia, it might not be reliable as it is supposed to be due to the significant differences in lifestyle and management. Overview on the existing household solid waste recycling policy and program in Malaysia is relevant in enhancing solid waste management measure from recycling perspective and could be used as references providing basic guiding principles for policy makers, related institutions and other researchers.

2. Opportunities for solid waste recycling Solid waste management is one of the major environmental problems faced by municipalities globally (Omran et al., 2009) and the biggest environmental problem in Malaysia (Osman et al., 2009). Malaysia, with a population of over 25 million in 2007 generates approximately 18,000 tons of domestic waste daily. A total of 22,000 tons of solid waste are being disposed daily throughout the nation, which is about an increase of 10,000 tons from the total solid waste disposed daily in 2011 and would show steady increase to 30,000 tons per day by year 2020 if similar behavior persists among public (BeritaHarian, 2012). It was reported that Malaysians produced 33,000 tons of solid waste daily in 2012, exceeding the projected production of 30,000 tons by 2020 (New Straits Times, 2013). The major consequence of Malaysia’s rapid urbanization is viewed as a social transformation with a greatly increased generation of municipal solid waste (Murad and Siwar, 2007). Table 1 shows the estimated solid waste generation in local authorities in Malaysia from 1991 to 2010. With the increasing population growth throughout the years, waste generation rate shows similar increasing trend with steady increase in total amount of solid waste generated. As the population increases, the amount of solid waste generation also increases in a tremendous amount. The solid waste generated shows steady increase with the increasing trend in population and waste generation rate. The increase in population translates to higher generation of waste (Agamuthu and Fauziah, 2011). Prior to 1993, Malaysia’s waste generation rate varied between 0.34 and 0.85 kg/cap/day depending on the economic and geographical status of an area. By 1997, the total solid waste generated throughout Malaysia totaled 5.6 million tons or 15,000 million kg/day and the rest (about 3,100,000 kg/day) being commercial waste (Agamuthu, 2001). At present per capita household waste generation in the capital city of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur is about 0.80–1.30 kg per day (Abdul Jalil, 2010) and it is continuously rising as we speak due to the uncontrollable consumption (Osman et al., 2009) owing to the increasing population, accelerated urbanization and industrialization process (Hassan et al., 1999). Municipal solid waste generation has gained prominence in this country and it is said to increase more than 91% over the past 10 years (Agamuthu and Fauziah, 2011). Table 2 shows municipal solid waste generation in major urban areas in Peninsular Malaysia from 1970 to 2006 whereas Table 3

52

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61

Table 1 Estimated solid waste generation in local authorities in Malaysia. Year

Population in local authorities (million) (increase at 3% annually)

Waste generation rate (kg/cap/day) (increase at 2% per capita per year)

Total amount of solid waste generated in local authorities (million tons)

1991 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2005a 2010a

13.727 15.450 15.913 16.391 16.882 17.389 17.911 20.598 23.284

0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2

2.5 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.9 5.91 7.0

Sources: Department of Environment (1999), 1 Malaysian Government (2006), Zamali et al. (2009). a Estimated based on 3% population growth and 2% waste generation growth. Table 2 Generation of municipal solid waste in major urban areas in Peninsular Malaysia from 1970 to 2006. Urban center

Solid waste generated (tons/day)

Kuala Lumpur Johor Bahru (Johor) Ipoh (Perak) Georgetown (Pulau Pinang) Klang (Selangor) Kuala Terengganu (Terengganu) Kota Bharu (Kelantan) Kuantan (Pahang) Seremban (Negeri Sembilan) Melaka

1970

1980

1990

2002

2006

98.90 41.10 22.50 53.40 18.00 8.70 9.10 7.10 13.40 14.40

310.50 99.60 82.70 83.00 65.00 61.80 56.50 45.20 45.10 29.10

586.80 174.80 162.20 137.20 122.80 121.00 102.90 85.30 85.20 46.80

2754.00 215.00 208.00 221.00 478.00 137.00 129.50 174.00 165.00 562.00

3100.00 242.00 234.00 249.00 538.00 154.00 146.00 196.00 186.00 632.00

Source: Periathamby et al. (2009).

Table 3 Generation of municipal solid waste in Malaysia according to states from 1996 to 2009. States

Johor Kedah Kelantan Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Perak Perlis Pulau Pinang Selangor Terengganu Kuala Lumpur WP Labuan Sabah Sarawak Total

Solid waste generated (tons/day) 1996

1998

2000

2002

2004a

2006a

2008a

2009a

1613 1114 871 433 637 806 1286 165 916 2380 743 2105 NA NA NA 13,069

1786 1215 950 480 695 879 1402 180 999 2595 811 2305 NA NA NA 14,297

1915 1324 1034 515 757 957 1527 196 1088 2827 883 2520 46 NA NA 15,589

2093 1447 1131 563 828 1046 1669 214 1189 3090 965 2755 70 2490 1905 21,455

2255 1559 1213 605 890 1125 1795 230 1278 3322 1038 3025 74.3 2642 2012 23,063

2430 1680 1302 650 957 1210 1930 247 1375 3573 1116 3323 81.2 2887 2208 24,969

2578 1782 1382 690 1015 1284 2048 262 1458 3790 1184 3525 86.1 3062 2343 26,489

2655 1835 1423 711 1046 1322 2109 270 1502 3904 1219 3631 88.7 3154.3 2413 27,283

NA: not available. Sources: Agamuthu et al. (2009). a Extrapolated figures. Table 4 Waste composition (percentage of wet weight) in Malaysia from 1975 to 2005. Waste composition

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Organic Paper Plastic Glass Metal Textiles Wood Others

63.70 7.00 2.50 2.50 6.40 1.30 6.50 0.90

54.40 8.00 0.40 0.40 2.20 2.20 1.80 0.30

48.30 23.60 9.40 4.00 5.90 NA NA 8.80

48.40 8.90 3.00 3.00 4.60 NA NA 32.10

45.70 9.00 3.90 3.90 5.10 2.10 NA 4.30

43.20 23.70 11.30 3.20 4.20 1.50 0.70 12.30

44.80 16.00 15.00 3.00 3.30 2.80 6.70 8.40

NA: not available. Source: Periathamby et al. (2009).

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61

53

Table 5 Major recyclable items from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Item

Share of waste composition (%)

Remarks

Food waste

49.3

- Composting of food waste is not employed at a large scale

Paper

17.1

- Waste paper for recycling is mostly collected from generation source after separation - Source separation is limited to certain paper categories that have high market value

Plastics

9.7

- Waste plastics actively collected for recycling include PET bottles, HDPE, PE, PP, etc. - Source separation is limited due to comparatively lower price compared to waste paper and metal

Glass

3.7

- Waste glass recycled includes glass bottles, jars and colored or clear glass - Source separation is low - Limited number of glass bottle manufacturers in Malaysia generates low demand - Bottles reuse market exists

Ferrous metal

1.6

- Wide range of ferrous metal recyclables in the local market - Source separation and direct selling is high

Aluminum

0.4

- Source separation and direct selling is high due to high selling price

Estimated recycling rate is 4.5%. Source: MHLG (2006).

depicts the generation of municipal solid waste by individual states in Malaysia from 1996 to 2009. Johor, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor states are the top three ranked in the municipal solid waste generated. With the advancement in living standards, it is not surprising if the amount of solid waste generated continues to rise over the years. Waste generation has since increased with population expansion (Agamuthu and Fauziah, 2011). The production of these wastes increases more than 90% every 10 years (Abdul Jalil, 2010) with most of these wastes dominated by recyclable materials as shown in Table 4. Although the trend decreased slightly from 1990 to 1999 due to economic crisis, but it increased significantly in 2000 with the introduction of more hygienic types of plasticand paper-based packaging materials into the market (Abdul Jalil, 2010). Generally the escalating rate of wastes in Malaysia has manifested from the changes in consumption habits as their per-capita income has increased throughout the years, where they can afford for more consumers than before (Abdul Jalil, 2010) along with the rapid population growth and urbanization as well (Zamali et al., 2009). Information on waste composition helps in accessing possible options for sustainable waste disposals, reuse and recycling. Detailed information on the Malaysian waste composition is rather underdeveloped and doubtful accuracy, partly due to the unknown pathways of waste streams in the environment especially with all the existence of various waste system and management, and limited survey possibilities as well. However from the available resources, waste composition in Malaysia is known to be dominated by putrescible wastes consist of processed kitchen waste and food waste mainly in rural landfills, followed by paper waste and plastic-based waste. The larger amount of wastes is recyclables, in which recyclable items represent about 60% of total waste volume without the retrieval activity (Osman et al., 2009). Malaysian municipal solid waste stream contains approximately 40–60% of retrievable materials (Agamuthu et al., 2009). Table 5 describes major recyclable items in terms of their respective percentage of the waste composition, estimated recycling rates and general conditions of their market demand. Dominance of recyclables in the waste composition generally consists of food waste, paper, plastics, glass, ferrous metal and aluminum. However these recyclable materials are not fully recovered and recycled due to the limited source separation and items like glass are not employed at large scale. Among these items, plastics, paper and glass are among the three types of waste which are more identified as having the greatest potential for recycling (Zamali et al., 2009) compared to other recyclables.

Table 6 Solid waste composition in Malaysia and other Asian countries. Country

Malaysia3 Singapore2 Thailand2 China2 Hong Kong2 Indonesia2 Japan2 Laos2 Myanmar2 South Korea2 Philippines1

Types (%) Organic waste

Paper

Plastic

Glass

Metal

Others

45.0 44.4 48.6 35.8 37.2 70.2 17.0 54.3 80.0 31.0 50.0

7.0 28.3 14.61 3.7 21.6 10.9 40.0 3.3 4.0 27.0 12.0

24.0 11.8 13.9 3.8 15.7 8.7 20.0 7.8 2.0 6.0 25.0

3.0 4.1 5.1 2.0 3.9 1.7 10.0 8.5 0.0 5.0 3.0

6.0 4.8 3.6 0.3 3.9 1.8 6.0 3.8 0.0 7.0 5.0

15.0 6.6 14.2 54.3 17.6 6.2 7.0 22.5 14.0 23.0 5.0

Sources: 1 ADB (2003), 2 Mendes and Imura (2004), 3 9th Malaysian Plan (2005).

Plastics are probably the most common recyclable materials with high potential for recycling in Malaysia as this material is widely used and being disposed indiscriminately to the landfills. It is essential to understand that not only strengthening recycling initiatives extend the life span of landfills; it also supports the economy as recycling provides wide profitable business ventures opportunities. Growth rate in Malaysia plastic industries reaches an average of 15% for the past 11 years, showing a dynamic development due to the robust rate of Malaysian economy. This finding was reported in the study on plastic management in Peninsular Malaysia initiated by National Solid Waste Management Department under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) and conducted by Golden Ecosystem SdnBhd (GESB) in 2011. Findings also included that there is a huge potential of plastics recycling in Malaysia as plastics dominated second highest in the waste composition after organic waste among Asian countries, as shown in Table 6. Source separation for plastics is limited due to comparatively lower price compared to waste paper and metal. Despite the fact that most plastics are recyclable and easy to process, the awareness toward recycling among plastic manufacturers themselves is poor. The recovery rate for paper in Malaysia hovers around 60%, which implies that for every ten sets of newspapers bought, only six are recovered for recycling (MNI, 2007). Malaysian publishers use about 320,000 tons of newsprint a year, of which only 192,000 tons are recovered from the waste stream which means it is like throwing away 2.55 million trees into the landfills and the balance of 128,000 tons of newspapers yet to be recovered

54

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61

Table 7 Methods of waste disposal in Malaysia. Treatment

Recycling Composting Incineration Inert landfill Sanitary landfill Other disposal sites Total

Percentage of waste disposed (%) 2002

2006

2020 (Target)

5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 90.00 100.00

5.50 1.00 0.00 3.20 30.90 59.40 100.00

22.00 8.00 16.80 9.10 44.10 0.00 100.00

Source: Periathamby et al. (2009).

for recycling (MNI, 2007). According to Malaysia Paper Merchants’ Association, as at 2009, Malaysia consumed about 380,000 tons of printing and writing paper annually, of which about 230,000 tons were actually imported. Local paper consumption is estimated to be close to a million ton each year which expand the capacity of paper recycling industries but the supply of paper is still short which results in waste paper importing (Joy, 2012). There are about six main paper mills in Malaysia including Pascorp Paper Industries, Genting Sanyen Industrial Paper and Muda Holdings Berhad which have acquisition targets of international paper producers. The growing population contributes to higher consumption, resulting in higher demand for packaging products despite the intention of reducing the paper usage. Regardless of the type of recyclable materials, the awareness toward waste recycling is poor and most individuals are not able to translate their concerns to act upon the matter. The recycling rate in Malaysia is considered very low, about 5% compared to countries such as Singapore (11%), Thailand (14%), Japan (40%), China (13%) and Germany (52.8%) (MHLG, 2011). As shown in Table 7, landfilling is heavily relied on when it comes to wastes disposal method despite the opportunities for solid waste recycling. Malaysia has great potential to achieve recycling target of 22% by year 2020 but not with the current progress made at present. Recycling in Malaysia has a long way to go with major problems and obstacles to be solved, before a successful recycling program can be in place (Nasir et al., 2000; Zamali et al., 2009). 3. Status of solid waste management and disposal in Malaysia Solid wastes are generally categorized into three major categories, and each category is under the responsibility of a different government (Latifah et al., 2009). Municipal solid waste is under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG), DOE manages schedule or hazardous waste and clinical waste is under the Ministry of Health (MOH). Basically, Malaysia’s National Solid Waste Management Department (NSWMD) formulates and proposes policies, plan and strategies in respect of solid waste management and public cleansing, sets standards, specifications and codes of practice exercising regulatory function and lastly, grants licenses and approval under Act 672. Meanwhile, the Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation (PPSPPA) implements the formulated policies, plans and strategies proposed by NSWMD, monitors compliance with standards, specifications and code of practices set by NSWMD besides implements and enforces the solid waste management and public cleansing laws and recommends reform to such laws. Not all solid waste generated is collected, only about 75% was being collected by the concessionaires, local authorities and their contractors back in 1998 (UNDP, 2008). The wastes generated from the residential and commercial establishments will increase correspondingly with the increase in the total population, improvement

of standards of living and changing lifestyle of the people (Hassan et al., 2001). Urban residents generate two to three times more solid wastes than their fellow rural citizens (World Bank, 1999). The daily waste generation rate in urban areas is about 760,000 tons and is expected to sharply increase to 1.8 million tons per day by the year 2025 (World Bank, 1999). The landfill method is the least preferred method of waste disposal, as wastes should be subjected to physical, chemical and biological treatment and segregation which are both costly and time-consuming (Grodzinska-Jurczak, 2001). Landfills are the physical facilities used for the disposal of residual solid wastes in the surface solids of the earth, and usually considered as the final disposal place for unrecovered wastes (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993). However, landfilling is a main method used for the disposal of solid wastes in Malaysia, and most of the landfill sites are open dumping areas with overloaded capacity, which pose serious environmental and social threats (Yunus and Kadir, 2003; Latifah et al., 2009). Approximately 95% of waste collected is taken to landfill sites for disposal with only a negligible portion of the waste subject to intermediate treatment, the remaining waste is either sent for treatment as small incineration plants, diverted to recyclers or re-processors, or is dumped illegally (NSP, 2005). UNDP (2008) summarizes the solid waste collection in Malaysia are mostly confined to urban and township areas with only limited collection in adjoining rural areas. These areas do not receive solid waste collection service, thus mostly are self-reliant and reply heavily on disposal by burial in proximity of their households. This explains the illegal dumping and widespread of small dumpsites or opens dumping. The classification of a landfill is based on the decomposition processes that occur in a landfill: (1) anaerobic landfill, (2) anaerobic sanitary landfill with daily cover, (3) improved anaerobic sanitary landfill with buried leachate collection pipes, (4) semi-aerobic landfill with natural ventilation and leachate collection facilities, (5) aerobic landfill with forced aeration (Idris et al., 2004). However for operational purposes, a second classification system is used: Level 0, open dumping; Level 1, controlled tipping; Level 2, sanitary landfill with a bund (embankment and daily soil covering; Level 3, sanitary landfill with a leachate recirculation system; Level 4, sanitary landfill with a leachate treatment system (Latifah et al., 2009). The second classification system is used to access and classify landfill sites in Malaysia (Idris et al., 2004). From available resource, survey conducted by MHLG back in 2002 revealed that of 112 disposal landfill sites in use, 43% of these landfills were open dumps and only 6.3% were classified as Level 4 landfills as shown in Fig. 1; in which most of these sites are almost full and 50% have a remaining lifespan of less than five years (NSP, 2005). These landfills are in bad shape and recycling is still at an infant stage in Malaysia (Latifah et al., 2009). As in 2011, the latest report from MHLG summarized the number of landfill sites in the whole Malaysia as shown in Table 8 with two sanitary landfills in Johor, three in Sarawak and another three in Selangor. The government detailed measures to boost the efficiency of solid waste management, which will reduce greenhouse emissions, including building material-recovery facilities and thermal treatment plants, as well as recycling non-organic waste in the current 10th Malaysian Plan (New Straits Times, 2013). In the recent United Nations Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen, Denmark 2009, Malaysia has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% of the country’s gross domestic product by 2020 compared with the 2005 levels (New Straits Times, 2013). Incinerator is considered to be one of the disposal methods in Malaysia as the nation could not depend on landfill. Incineration is another common solid waste disposal method globally after landfill and also one of the most expensive solid waste management options as they require highly skilled personnel and careful maintenance, capital-intensive and high maintenance costs (World Bank, 1999). Incineration was

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61

Fig. 1. Landfill sites in peninsular Malaysia. NSP (2005).

55

56

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61

Table 8 Summary of solid waste disposal sites in Malaysia (January 2011). State

Number of operating disposal sites

Number of non-operating disposal sites

Total

Johor Kedah Kelantan Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Perak Perlis Pulau Pinang Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu WP Kuala Lumpur WP Labuan Total

14 9 13 2 7 16 17 1 2 19 49 8 8 0 1 166

23 6 6 5 11 16 12 1 1 2 14 14 12 7 0 130

37 15 19 7 18 32 29 2 3 21 63 22 20 7 1 296

Source: NSWMD (2011).

developed in Malaysia to dispose of hazardous wastes (Latifah et al., 2009). There are five existing small incinerators with capacity of fewer than 100 tons in Malaysia, located at Pulau Pangkor in Perak, Pulau Langkawi in Kedah, Pulau Tioman and Cameron Highlands in Pahang, Lumut and Labuan. Three large-scale incinerators would be built in Taman Beringin, Kuala Lumpur; Bukit Payung, Johor; and Sungai Udang, Melaka (New Straits Times, 2013). These incinerators targeting cutting-edge technology in waste management especially those that have a minimal impact on the environment and cost-effective would be developed in Malaysia through an international open tender. However, with the concerns of emission of dioxin and other health-threatening gases from incinerators along with other carcinogenic pollutants, the question of relying on this technology remains. As recyclable materials dominate among the waste disposed, the options of recycling other than composting seem to offer more sustainable method of disposal. Existing smaller incinerators do not seem to provide positive results and some are not even in operation upon completion as this technology poses financial burden with its escalating cost of operations.

Vision 2020 was then declared in 1990 for Malaysia in becoming a fully developed nation by the year 2020 besides pursuing environmentally sustainable development. The Third Outline Perspective Plan (OPP3) constitutes the second decade of development under Vision 2020, from 2001 to 2010 focusing on reducing energy, materials, pollution and waste intensity of urban and industrial activities. The Eighth Malaysian Plan (RM-8) covers the initial phase of OPP3 from 2001 to 2005 which introduces the comprehensive waste management policy highlighting issues of waste reduction, reuse and recycling whereas the Ninth Malaysian Plan (RM-9) reassures the continued effort in 3Rs awareness raising campaigns despite ongoing efforts resulting in very low recycling rate of 5%. As for the recently announced Tenth Malaysian Plan (RM-10), operationalizing National Policy on the Environment (2002), the National Green Technology Policy (2009) and the National Climate Change Policy (2009) are implemented as the key to sustainability in conserving and preserving the environmental resources, besides improving solid waste management (Fig. 2). The first National Recycling Program (NRP) showed lack of success as most of the local authorities were not able to sustain the program because it did not improve the existing waste management practice. Recycling rate was still too low as it lacks of response and participation from public. Other program limitations include lack of market for recyclables, diminished public confidence due to poor collection services, lack of public awareness and promotion program, lack of participation by stakeholders, lack of local authority personnel dedicated to the program and lack of policy and master plan focusing on recycling. This resulted in a re-launched program in 2000 with a more reformed objective which is to inculcate habit of the 3Rs with recycling in reducing usage of land for waste disposal, reduce expenditure on solid waste management and to reduce the importation of waste. November 11th was designated as National Recycling Day in 2001 to raise public awareness and since then it has become an annual event, besides a series of other public awareness campaigns with Alam Flora SdnBhd, and Southern Waste Management SdnBhd, distribution of posters, bulletins and leaflets, television advertising and

National Development Plan

4. Recycling status and policy in Malaysia

1988

As part of the Rio Declaration signed in 1992, Malaysia has committed itself to significantly improve the national’s solid waste management services. Before late 1970s, solid waste management was about local district health officers only cleaning up the streets and carried away the household wastes to the assigned municipal disposal sites without any wastes separation and recycling (Abdul Jalil, 2010). The number of available information on solid waste management and recycling in Malaysia is rather limited with no systematic analysis and periodic documentation nationwide from any local authorities, resulting in inaccurate and outdated databases (Nasir et al., 2000). There was no distinct and formal policy to manage solid waste management in Malaysia; what more when it comes to recycling policy strategies. Fig. 2 summarizes the changes of the solid waste management policies in Malaysia throughout the years. The Action Plan for a Beautiful and Clean Malaysia (ABC Plan) was formulated by the MHLG with the assistance of the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in 1988 with the aim to produce a national uniform municipal solid waste system that is productive, environmentally sound and socially acceptable in Malaysia by 2020. However this plan was not officially endorsed or implemented, even with the recycling program were introduced since then such as the first recycling campaign in the year 1993 and the following in 2000.

1993

SWM Plan ABC Plan First recycling campaign National Recycling Programme (NRP)

2000

2005

Waste Minimization Master Plan (WM-MP)

RM-8 Vision 2020

OPP3

NSP

2010

RM-9

2015

RM-10 OPP4

Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management (SWPCM) Act 2007

2020

Fig. 2. National development plans and solid waste management plans in Malaysia. Adapted from MHLG (2006).

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61

newspapers, electronic media, billboards, exhibitions and carnivals with tagline ‘Think before you throw’. However, recycling practice is still not common among Malaysians. The National Policy on Municipal Solid Waste Management or commonly known as the National Strategic Plan (NSP) succeeded the ABC Plan when it was formulated in 2002 and later adopted in 2005. This strategic plan would be considered up to the year 2020 with periodic review during the planning period to ensure its relevance with respect to the prevailing conditions within the time of review. With that, using the ABC Plan as a guide, recommendations of ‘Formulation for the Master Plan for the 3Rs’, ‘Development of legal framework for 3Rs’, ‘Development of solid waste management facilities that support 3Rs’ and ‘Implementation of the Master Plan’ were developed for the implementation of the NSP. Sustainable waste management through reduction, reuse and recycling with the use of appropriate technologies, facilities and equipment to provide a sustainable and comprehensive solid waste management service become the key strategies in NSP. Basically, the waste hierarchy adopted under this strategic plan aims to reduce waste through effective management of resources at levels of raw materials utilization, production, distribution, marketing and consumption; reuse products and materials; recover reusable elements of the waste through source separation and separate waste collection and materials recovery at materials recovery facilities; intermediate treatment of the waste and further recover the value of the waste through composting or waste to energy; and the disposal by sanitary landfill of the residual waste. Local authorities are directly responsible in the waste collection and transport to the disposal sites as well as the operation of some recycling centers or contract them out to private sector service providers. Meanwhile, at the Federal level, the MHLG, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) provide local authorities with technical and financial assistance in wastes management. However, public cleanliness management seems to be the main focus in this plan as NSP aims to improve and ensure high quality services in managing waste besides the use of appropriate technology and disposal method. It is recognized that there is a need to strike a balance between using the available resources wisely and addressing immediate concerns of solid waste management. Accordingly a large amount of investment is required to achieve realistic recycling targets and to decrease the amount of waste required for disposal. Thus financial constraints require initial investments to be focused on expanding collection services, existing disposal sites management and the construction of proper sanitary landfills. Subsequently, the Waste Minimization Master Plan (WM-MP) was launched in 2006 to realize the minimization of the natural resources consumption and the maximum reduction of environmental load in the society, where waste minimization activities are systemized and sufficiently embedded in the behavior of government, private sector and public. The concept of ‘Material Cycle Society’ was part of the Law for Establishing a Sound Material-Cycle Society which was enacted in 2000 in Japan, which is used as a basic framework in minimizing waste through 3Rs. With the adoption of WM-MP in preparing the Master Plan for 3Rs, the MHLG formulated Solid Waste Management Act (SWM Act) 2007 which includes the promotion of waste minimization through 3Rs activities, defining recycling as in collecting and separating solid waste for the purpose of producing products. With the recent effect of Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management (SWPCM) Act 2007 (Act 672) at present, waste separation at source for every household is made mandatory starting from September 1st, 2012 as one of its effective strategies as stated in Clause 74 of SWPCM Act 2007. A fine of RM1000 would be imposed for those who disregard this. The SWPCM Act 2007 (Act 672) was approved by the Parliament of Malaysia on the July 17th, 2007 and

57

is officially enforced starting from September 1st, 2011. Basically this Act is introduced to standardize solid waste management service with its enforcement conducted in stages. The Act was expected to ensure proper household waste management with a promotion of wastes separation and recycling. The SWPCM Act 2007 was reviewed for 10 years before it was finally approved in August 2007 as an Act and was enacted based on similar Acts in other developed countries such as Japan, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany and the United States. It adopts the best management practices in solid waste management from these countries (Abdul Jalil, 2010). The SWPCM Act 2007 regulates solid waste management and public cleansing in ensuring the maintenance of proper sanitation in Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territories of Putrajaya and Labuan. There are at least two clauses in this Act that directly undertake the 3Rs strategy which are Clause 101 Reduction, Reuse and Recycling of Controlled Solid Waste and Clause 102 Take Back System and Deposit Refund System. Under this Act, waste bin with a capacity of 120 l equipped with wheels would be provided to each household for free from the private concessionaires of respective states except Pulau Pinang, Selangor and Perak which have their own legal enforcement approaches regarding this management matter. The distribution of waste bin is conducted in stages from October 2011 to 2014. Every household is expected to manage waste separation at source which would be collected by selected private concessionaires based on the collection system of 2 + 1. Collection of non-recyclable materials disposed by the households utilizing the waste bin are said to be twice per week while the collection of recyclable materials would be once per week. Booklets on solid wastes separation, recovery and recycling were distributed to households with the objective of introducing them on managing their solid wastes correctly according to this implementation of source separation. However source separation is targeted only to the urban areas as targeted in the NSP final report (2005). Still it presents a challenge to develop a solid waste management system with all elements, which it is important to implement in stages strategically. Prior to the implementation of SWPCM Act 2007, Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Corporation was established under Section 2 of the SWPCM Act 2007 effective under Federal government to recommend and implement policies and strategies pertaining to solid waste management services, relevant standards, improvement measures for existing management, law enforcement, establishing institutions to undertake research activities, monitoring of compliance with the Act, besides promoting participation and creating public awareness (Agamuthu et al., 2009). According to their respective schedules, the private licensed concessionaire provides waste collection and disposal service paid by all stakeholders including households. Penalty provisions for those who fail to pay waste collection and disposal fees are also introduced in effect; the Tribunal for Solid Waste Management enforces fine up to RM5000 (US$1316) and RM50 (US$13) for each day of the continuation of the offense. The SWPCM Act 2007 identified and signed an agreement with three major private concessionaires for Peninsular Malaysia which are Environment Idaman covering the north states [Kedah and Perlis], Southern Waste for the southern states [Negeri Sembilan, Melaka and Johor] and Alam Flora SdnBhd for areas of Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Pahang. It involves seven states, 52 local authorities, 113 solid waste collection schemes and 113 public cleansing zones all over Peninsular Malaysia.

5. Issues and challenges in recycling In the final report of The Study on National Waste Minimization in Malaysia (2006), various issues involved in the current

58

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61

waste minimization and recycling activities were briefly identified. Studies on solid waste management have come a long way through over the years which proved a point that wastes have always been an issue, involving a number of issues and trade-offs. In fact only in recent years, waste minimization strategies particularly recycling seems to only being taken noticed as a practical solution to the increasing waste generation rate. The increase in solid waste amount and solid waste management cost issue pose pressing challenges that requires contribution from stakeholders. Unless immediate measures are taken to reduce the amount of disposed waste, the waste generation rate would continue to rise and the disposal cost would be in similar trend with the increasing population and advancement in living standards. When constant material consumption is encouraged and seen as economic growth, the ‘buy-and-discard’ mentality generated results in huge amount of solid waste (Read, 1999). Typical perception toward the abundance of resources in the environment and no significant effects are yet to be observed in details by public have led to the trend of overconsumption producing unnecessary wastes through time, besides the influence of socio-economic factors related to stress, living status, upbringing of life, personal expectations and demands. Solid waste management is only one of the many roles and functions under the responsibility of local authorities. Commonly the function of solid waste management is undertaken together with other related functions such as public area cleansing, streetlight and drainage maintenance as well as landscaping. There is no specific measure in the aspects of waste minimization and recycling. With the affluent lifestyle, planning and management of wastes has become increasingly complex especially with the existing perception of local authorities and public toward wastes. Typical perception toward wastes includes dirty and undesirable. With the lack of required knowledge and technical expertise, effective measures and appropriate approaches to address current issues and challenges are very rigid. As further mentioned in the EU-Perak Solid Waste Management (EU-PSWMP) report, this issue is depicted in the local authorities’ waste planning and management in which waste treatment options on ‘how to remove and dispose unwanted materials’ is highlighted rather than ‘how to utilize the waste materials resources’ (EU-PSWMP, 2009). Existing provisions of the Environmental Quality Act 1974, the Local Government Act 1976 and the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 are not specifically established to manage solid waste management issues including waste recovery and recycling. In fact there is no Federal or State legislation that comprehensively deals with all aspects of solid waste management especially recycling in this matter. Although solid waste management is being managed by Federal, State and local government, there is still lack of capacity and focus in the management of solid waste system at all levels. This too imposed severe constraints on the planning and development of services by the private sector. Waste generators, collection service providers, waste pickers, traders, recycling center operators, NGOs and end-users to mention a few have limited information and linkage with each other. Proper coordination and linkage is necessary to ensure effective processes of separation of reusable and recyclable materials at sources, establishment of collection points, efficient transportation by collectors and manufacture of collected reusable and recyclable materials. Lack of cooperation and different operating basis reduces the opportunities to increase recyclables collection efficiency and potential for recycling would not be operating at its maximum possibility. Noting that incorporated changes in waste disposal and collection which depends on the varied waste generation rates from different sources (Zamali et al., 2009), cooperation among municipalities, other levels of government, private concessionaires and general community should be at practice to complement each other’s loopholes which could be beyond magnitude to control at times.

One of the pre-requisites for a successful recycling program is the accurate data on waste generation and composition. The current situation in Malaysia was no systematic documentation of waste generation and composition. As recycling only exists as private transactions between waste generators and private enterprises, there are no detailed data and information on the volume, composition, waste sources, and characteristics of wastes within municipalities. The first written report on solid waste management by non-government organizations (NGOs) appears in 1978, where the Environmental Protection Society of Malaysia (EPSM), as a local NGO, carried out survey in five municipalities in Klang Valley (Juzhar, 2002; Zamali et al., 2009). Three major inadequacies in solid waste management were identified which are improper disposal manner, insufficient coverage of the collection systems and inefficient collection methods (EPSM, 1979; Zamali et al., 2009). Malaysian government is dependent on relevant concessionaires and local authorities for the solid waste management database especially when it comes to policy making and implementations. As for private concessionaires, industries or any relevant activities, the data and reports are particularly limited and outdated. Data on waste minimization and recycling provided by local authorities is even more widely varied and inconsistent in terms of accuracy and uniformity as surveys are conducted on an ad-hoc basis and not standardized. This leads to lack of policies in promoting waste minimization particularly in household solid waste recycling despite the continuous efforts to raise awareness. Even though the enactment of the SWPCM Act 2007 has provided legislative empowerment to the Malaysian government and framework for the solid waste management, it cannot be enforced and implemented fully due to lack of other supporting regulations. Policy implementation could only be implemented informally and in an ad-hoc manner by stakeholders. Household waste recycling activities are only enforced in a non-regulatory approach in the initial stages. Despite being the main source of wastes generation, household unit is still not the main focus of enforcement when it applies mandatory call onto other stakeholders such as manufacturers, assembler, importer or dealer which were introduced to the take back and deposit refund systems. Existing enforcement only highlighted that solid waste generators are required to reduce the generation of solid waste, to use environmentally friendly products, limit waste generation, import, use, discharge or dispose of specified products, implement recycling coding and labeling, and utilize any method to reduce adverse impact of solid waste toward environment and to reduce, reuse and recycle solid waste as highlighted by Agamuthu (2010). Despite numerous public awareness campaigns throughout the years, public responses and support toward waste recycling are still at a very low stage. Policy implementations and enforcement do not seem to be particularly in effect for this group for generating majority of the wastes in Malaysia. Essentially the focus of public awareness campaigns need to be strategically broadened to provide the general households with a better understanding on recycling and possible consequence of increasing waste generation and disposal that would increase the cost of social overhead capitals and the household living costs as well (MHLG, 2006). Understanding and cooperation from households is the foundation of promoting recycling within the community (MHLG, 2006). Recycling activities could only be sustained provided that households fully comprehend the need and urgency for recycling in minimizing wastes generation and disposal to landfills. Households tend to be more particular on selling recyclables at higher prices. Providing incentives is said to stabilize and further enhances recycling activities in Malaysia as it strengthens the domestic market and domestic recyclers and manufacturers (MHLG, 2006). However, the voluntary efforts of households to practice recycling is essential to achieve higher recycling rates without relying on monetary rewards as not all recyclable materials have enough

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61

monetary value based on the current market mechanism. Households’ attitude and behavior has the least restriction to change compared to other institutional groups in this matter (Kishino et al., 1999). Thus awareness raising activities should focus on the younger generations such as school kids. Besides public campaigns, educating school kids about recycling could raise awareness and participation in the community which are good opportunities to build an environmentally conscious mindset from young age and positively influencing the adults within households as well. Households generally have knowledge about the environment and realize that the environment needs to be taken care of but most of them are not oriented to translate their knowledge into behavior (Daniel et al., 2006; Mahmud and Osman, 2010). As for some, they might have brief understanding of recycling but they are not able to connect the benefits of recycling and consequences of not recycling to the environment in a sophisticated way (Prestin and Pearce, 2010). This also explains why recycling has not become a universal way of life in Malaysia (Omran et al., 2009) even though there is 100% awareness of the importance of recycling based on a survey by the MHLG (2012). Thus more effective efforts toward educating the community about proper household waste recycling etiquette are necessary in order to see the progress in the recycling rate (Ho, 2002) as this lack of knowledge is a major barrier to recycling (McDonald and Oates, 2003). In attempt to actually change their behavior, barriers that prevent them from recycling especially from their very own perspectives have to be addressed. With that proposed strategies addressing those barriers could be implemented effectively to motivate them to turn their intentions and knowledge into actual recycling behavior. Although monetary rewards is still necessary to encourage recycling, majority of households do recycle based on environmental grounds (Evison and Read, 2001). However the role of monetary rewards in encouraging recycling households should not be overplayed by local authorities and the influence of other reasons for recycling should not be underestimated when it comes to implementing recycling policy and program strategies. 6. Recommendations Several recommendations for possible implementations for local municipalities of similar jurisdiction and other potential areas were proposed to extend the potentials in achieving the desired goals of a sustainable recycling community. Concerted efforts must be implemented to achieve meaningful results in both short and long term for the municipalities. A combination of various interventions increases the effectiveness of recycling strategies. Stringent enforcement of the existing waste related legislations particularly the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672) is essential to address the issue of solid waste recycling particularly among households, along with the pressing needs of efficient and proper cooperation and coordination among stakeholders equipped with appropriate knowledge and technical expertise in addressing solid waste management and recycling issues. With efficient linkage among the government, local municipality, collection service providers, traders, recycling center operators, non-governmental organizations and other related stakeholders, this would impose less constraint on the integrated planning and development of solid waste management and recycling services. It ensures effective processes of separation of recyclable materials at source, establishment of collection points, efficient transportation by collectors and manufacture of collected recyclable materials collection efficiency and potential for recycling at its maximum possibility. Capacity building for local authorities and other stakeholders dealing with solid waste management and recycling need to be addressed. Lack of expertise in aspects of knowledge and technical complicates the efforts in addressing the issue within the local municipalities and its area of jurisdiction and

59

any strategies in addressing the issue would be less effective and not improving. There is also a need for regulatory compliance in solid waste management and recycling among households. Strategies such as imposing fees or charges and mandatory household recycling could be given serious consideration for implementation. Extra fee could be charged on the amount of wastes disposed at landfills to make disposal more expensive besides helping to pay for recycling efforts or imposing fees for households that do not recycle. Households may find the strategy of imposing fees or charges taxing but with this, they are pressured to recycle and consider the issue of solid waste management and recycling more seriously. Households, not only need to be aware of the negative consequences of poor waste management, but in fact, they should begin to take up responsibilities in managing their household waste in a more pro-active manner. Reliable recycling services and facilities should be offered to provide convenience as it is an essential pre-requisite to recycling among households. More recycling drop-off centers at public and convenient locations such as the family shopping malls should be provided with effective and efficient recycling collection services. Similarly, recycling bins could be provided in convenient locations in every household area. Recreational site in household areas are common locations for children, elders and families to gather which is why this could be a good place to begin with. In order to ensure disposal of recyclable materials into the recycling bins as a habit among households, recycling practice has to be made as easy as disposing wastes into dustbins. Providing recycling bins at strategic locations within the household areas is a good start. As mentioned earlier, the role of monetary reward should not be overplayed in the recycling policy strategies and program implementation while other reasons for recycling among households should not be underestimated as well. Monetary rewards such as rebates and incentives could be utilized to initiate new recyclers among households and until they are able to sustain the habit of recycling, the role of monetary rewards should be less depended on. There is no clear standard in recycling practice and thus households are generally not convinced to contribute their leisure time and effort for a task which provides no clear results. Positive results of households’ contributions in recycling should be reported in layman terms for them to understand and aware that their contributions actually pays and encourage them to recycle more. When majority starts to notice that recycling is frequently practiced among other households, they would eventually start to recycle themselves. Effective dissemination of recycling information on what, where and how to recycle in layman terms creates platform to sufficiently educate households to be aware of basic recycling etiquette. Media such as television, radio, newspaper, billboards and relevant Internet sources or even door-to-door approach should be implemented effectively to spread the information and knowledge regarding current solid waste management and recycling. Negative message delivery is proved to be effective in delivering the necessary message and awareness. Introducing recycling formally in schools and implement recycling program in school societies or science clubs is also a good approach. Soliciting indigenous role models such as children has proven to have significant impacts on creating the perception of required social behavior to motivate recycling among households.

7. Conclusion This paper attempts to develop an overview on solid waste recycling in Malaysia at the most basic level of a community or

60

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61

nation which is the household unit. It is found that there is a significant underdevelopment in the information and studies on solid waste recovery and recycling. Most studies focus more on a general picture of the status of solid waste management in Malaysia even though there is a need to highlight other smaller issues such as solid waste recycling and minimization before going for the broader aspect of this matter. The contribution of household solid wastes is considerably the highest among the solid waste sources in Malaysia. Recycling provides a sustainable means to the nation’s solid waste management with the increasing waste generation, limited space for wastes disposal and other related issues from social issues to the economy matters. Malaysia provides ample opportunities for solid waste recycling due to their dependence on recyclable materials, which could be observed from the dominance of recyclable items in the wastes disposed particularly at the landfills. There has been substantial progress made by the government and related authorities in developing a more comprehensive solid waste management, recycling policies, awareness campaigns and relevant projects. However the local participation has not been as encouraging as expected; as observed in the previous outcomes of policies and campaigns. The recycling rate is still substantially lower compared to other developed countries in the similar region such as Singapore and Thailand. When it comes to minimization and recycling efforts, promotion of recycling activities in Malaysia is not as effective as other developed Asian countries such as Japan for instance. The main disposal in Malaysia is still landfilling with recycling rate of only 5% when the recycling rate in Japan is about 40%. Malaysia is putting effort in implementing sustainable disposal alternative of recycling. There is still a long way for improvement and development but from the current progress, the waste recycling policy in the future has taken a shift in paradigm as wastes separation and recycling are already part of the major changes in the current policy implementation. With issues and challenges in recycling practice especially from the aspects of information availability and loopholes within solid waste management policies and related recycling program, the question on whether the goals in 2020 can be met remains unsure of. The goals might not be met in 2020 but there is a possibility for a successful implementation of sustainable solid waste management particularly in recycling practice. In attempt to actually change their behavior, barriers that prevent them from recycling especially from their very own perspectives have to be addressed. With that proposed strategies addressing those barriers could be implemented effectively to motivate them to turn their intentions and knowledge into actual recycling behavior. References Abdul Jalil M. Sustainable development in Malaysia: case study on household waste management. Journal of Sustainable Development 2010;3(3):91–102. Agamuthu P. Solid waste: principles and management: with Malaysian case studies. Malaysia: Institute of Biological Sciences, University Malaya; 2001. Agamuthu P. MSW management in Malaysia changes for sustainability. In: Agamuthu P, Masaru T, editors. Municipal solid waste management in Asia and the Pacific Islands. Bandung: Penerbit ITB; 2010. p. 129–91. Agamuthu P, Fauziah SH. Challenges and issues in moving towards sustainable landfilling in a transitory country – Malaysia. Waste Management and Research 2011;29(1):13–9. Agamuthu P, Hamid FS, Khidzir K. Evolution of solid waste management in Malaysia: impacts and implications of the Solid Waste Bill 2007. Journal of Material Cycles Waste Management 2009;11:96–103. Agamuthu P, Santha C, Fauziah SH, Dennis V. 3R related policies for sustainable waste management in Malaysia [Internet]. Available from: umconference.um.edu.my/upload/163-1/Paper%20135.doc [cited 06.12.2011]. Amin K, Go SY. Identification of the municipal solid waste characteristics and potential of plastic recovery at Bakri landfill, Muar, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Development 2012;5(7):11–7. Asian Development Bank – ADB. Waste analysis and characterization survey (WACS) – metro Manila solid waste management project in second meeting of the regional 3R forum in Asia [Internet]. Available from:

http://www.uncrd.or.jp/env/3r 02/presentations/BG2/2-5%20Philippines-2nd3R-Forum.pdf [cited 07.02.2013]. Bolaane B. Constraints to promoting people centered approaches in recycling. Habitat International 2006;30:731–40. CheMamat R, Chong TL. Public’s role in solid waste management: In: IMPAK, quarterly DOE update on environment, development and sustainability, no. 4; 2007. p. 5–7. Daniel EGS, Nadeson T, MhdShafiee AG. Organising for action in environmental education through smart partnerships: a Malaysian experience. Paper presented at the international conference for the environment, Malaysia; April 2006. Dawda B. Solid waste management system in the Kanifing Municipal Council Area, The Gambia. Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia; 2010 [dissertation]. Economic Planning Unit: Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006–2010) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.epu.gov.my/html/themes/epu/html/rm9/html/english.htm [cited 20.01.2013]. EA-Sustainable Waste Management Cycle (EA-SWMC). EU-Perak Solid Waste Management Plan (EU-PSWMP), August 2009. Available from: www.apo-tokyo.org/publications/files/ind-22-swm.pdf EPSM. Rubbish: a report of the solid waste study of the Klang Valley. Petaling Jaya. Environmental Protection Society Malaysia; 1979. Evison T, Read AD. Local authority recycling and waste awareness: a national survey of municipal experience. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2001;32:275–91. Folz DH. Recycling program design, management and participation: a national survey of municipal experience. Public Administration Review 1991;51(3): 222–31. Grodzinska-Jurczak MS. Management of industrial and municipal solid wastes in Poland. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2001;32(2):85–103. Hassan MN, Zakaria Z, Rahaman RA. Managing costs of urban pollution in Malaysia: the case of solid waste. Paper presented at the MPPJ seminar, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia; 1999. Hassan MN, Chong TL, Rahman M, Salleh MN, Zakaria Z, Awang M. Solid waste management in Southeast Asian countries with special attention to Malaysia. In: Paper presented at the 8th international waste management and landfill symposium; 2001. Ho YY. Recycling as a sustainable waste management strategy for Singapore: an investigation to find ways to promote Singaporeans’ household waste recycling behavior. Sweden: Lund University; 2002 [dissertation]. Idris A, Inane B, Hassan MN. Overview of waste disposal and landfills/dumps in Asian countries. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 2004;6(2):104–10. Joy LMY. Two companies earning big bucks from recycling paper. The Star Online. Available from: http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx?file=% 2f2012%2f5%2f28%2fmetrobiz%2f11356922&sec=metrob [28.05.2012]. Juzhar J. Improving municipal solid waste landfills of Peninsular Malaysia: organization and structural adjustments. US: University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2002 [dissertation]. Kishino H, Hanyu K, Yamashita M, Hayashi C. Recycling and consumption in Germany and Japan: a case of toilet paper. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1999;26:189–215. Latifah AM, MohdArmi AS, NurIlyana MZ. Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: practices and challenges. Waste Management 2009;29:2902–6. Mahmud SND, Osman K. The determinants of recycling intention behavior among the Malaysian school students: an application of theory of planned behavior. Procedia Social and Behavior Sciences 2010;9:119–24. Malaysian Newsprint Industries (MNI). Secrets of recycling [Internet]; 2007. Available from: http://www.newsprint.com.my/open.html [cited 08.08.2013]. McDonald S, Oates C. Reasons for non-participation in a kerbside recycling schemes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2003;39:369–85. Mendes MR, Imura H. Eastern Prospect: municipal solid waste management [Internet]. Available from: http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/ 2004/07/eastern-prospect-municipal-solid-waste-management.html [updated 01.07.2004; cited 01.02.2013]. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia: National Solid Waste Department (NSWMD) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.kpkt.gov.my/ jpspn en/main.php [updated 07.10.2012; cited 21.05.2012]. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia: National Solid Waste Department (NWSMD). A study on plastic management in Peninsular Malaysia. Conducted and written by Golden Ecosystem SdnBhd (GESB) December 2011. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia: Annual Report 2011 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.kpkt.gov.my/kpkt/index.php/pages/view/104 [updated 04.12.2012; cited 15.01.2013]. Ministry of Housing and Local Government: The Study of National Waste Minimization in Malaysia Final Report. In cooperation with Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) July 2006. Mohamed Farid N. 22,000 tan sampahsetiaphari. BeritaHarian; pp. 20. Available from: http://aplikasi.kpkt.gov.my/akhbar.nsf/8521d968204e8b 454825697400224ca6/8f51e7fe15186e4d482579e3000d478f?OpenDocument [17.04.2012]. Mokhtar IL. Need to act on rubbish now. In: New Straits Times, August 27; 2013. pp. 4. Murad MW, Siwar C. Waste management and recycling practices at the urban poor: a case study in Kuala Lumpur city, Malaysia. Waste Management and Research 2007;25:3–13. Muttamara S, Visvanathan C, Alwis KU. Solid waste recycling and reuse in Bangkok. Waste Management and Research 1994;12:151–63.

Y.C. Moh, L. Abd Manaf / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 50–61 Nagapan S, Ismail AR, Ade A. Construction waste management: Malaysian perspective. Paper presented at the International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering Sustainability (IConCEES), Malaysia; 2012. p. 229–309. Nasir MH, Rakmi AR, Chong TC, Zulina Z, Muhamad A. Waste recycling in Malaysia: problems and prospects. Waste Management and Research 2000;18: 320–8. NSP. National Strategic Plan for solid waste management. Malaysia: Ministry of Housing and Local Government; 2005. Omran A, Mahmood A, Abdul Aziz H, Robinson GM. Investigating households attitude toward recycling of solid waste in Malaysia: a case study. Journal of Environmental Research 2009;3(2):275–88. Osman MS, Nasir MH, Mujeebu MA. Assessment of municipal solid waste generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Management 2009;29(7):2209–13. Periathamby A, Hamid FS, Khidzir K. Evolution of solid waste management in Malaysia: impacts and implications of the solid waste bill, 2007. Journal of Mater Cycles Wastes Management 2009;11:96–103. Prestin A, Pearce KE. We care a lot: formative research for a social marketing campaign to promote school-based recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2010;35:1–10. Read AD. “A Weekly Doorstep Recycling Collection, I Had No Idea We Could!” Overcoming the local barriers to participation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1999;26:217–49. Sumiani Y, Onn CC, Mohd D, Wan WZ. Strategies for planning of optimum landfill sitting decision making. Journal of Sains Malaysiana 2009:457–62.

61

Suttibak S, Nitivattananon V. Assessment of factors increasing the performance of solid waste recycling programs. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2008:45–56. Tariq Y, Mostafizur R. Monitoring quantity and characteristics of municipal solid waste in Dhaka city. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2007;135: 3–11. Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil S. Integrated solid waste management. In: Engineering principles and management issues. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Inc; 1993. The Ingenieur. Sanitary landfill: a strategic approach towards solid waste management. Boards of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) 2009;42:12–6. United Nations Development Programme – UNDP. Malaysia developing a solid waste management model for Penang; 2008. Retrieved from http://webcache. googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Di7wCVOzZAcJ:www.undp.org.my/ uploads/SWM-2008 final.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk [15.12.2012]. US Environmental Protection Agency. Wastes: resource conservation-reuse, recycle [Internet]. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/rrr/recycle.htm [cited 15.12.2012, assessed: 21.05.2012]. World Bank, Decision makers’ guide to municipal solid waste incineration [Internet]. Available from http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/urbanenvironment/ resources/references/pdfs/DecisionMakers.pdf [cited 16.06.2013]. Yunus MNM, Kadir KA. The development of solid waste treatment technology based on refuse deprived fuel and biogasification integration. Paper presented in international symposium on renewable energy, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 14–17 September 2003. Zamali T, Mohd Lazim A, Abu Osman MT. An overview of municipal solid wastes generation in Malaysia. Jurnal Teknologi 2009;51(F):1–15.