Transitioning to a Circular Economy An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support for Municipal Solid Waste Management (2010–20) © 2022 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org ATTRIBUTION Please cite the report as: World Bank. 2022. Transitioning to a Circular Economy: An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support for Municipal Solid Waste Management (2010–20). Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. COVER PHOTO Stockbyte via Getty Images EDITING AND PRODUCTION Amanda O’Brien GRAPHIC DESIGN Luísa Ulhoa This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The bound- aries, 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. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissem- ination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Transitioning to a Circular Economy An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support for Municipal Solid Waste Management (2010–20) March 17, 2022 Contents Abbreviations v Acknowledgments vi Overview vii Management Response xvi Report to the Board from the Committee on Development Effectiveness xxv Background and Context������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1 1.  Definition and Dimensions 3 Current and Emerging Approaches 8 Evaluation Scope and Organizing Framework 11 Evaluation Aim, Questions, and Methods 12 Relevance and Coherence�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������15 2.  Portfolio 16 Relevance 17 Coherence 27 The World Bank Group’s Role among Multilateral Development Banks and Private Investment 29 3. Effectiveness�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������31 Pillar 1: Policies, Institutions, Capacity Building, and Planning 32 Pillar 2: Infrastructure, Access, and Service Delivery 36 Environmental, Health, Social, and Economic Impacts 41 4. Factors of Effectiveness������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������48 Nature of World Bank Engagement 50 Commitment and Ability of Governments to Ensure Financial Sustainability 55 Accountability for Providing Adequate and Sustainable Services 55 Land Availability 59 5. Conclusions and Recommendations��������������������������������������������������������������������60 Recommendations 64 ii Bibliography��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 66 Boxes Box 2.1. Supporting Solid Waste Management in Sub-Saharan Africa 21 Outstanding Issues to Enable Private Sector Participation in Box 2.2.  Municipal Solid Waste Management 22 A Best Practice Example of Operationalizing Waste Hierarchy Principles 23 Box 2.3.  World Bank Support for Landfill Gas Collection Box 3.1.  to Address Climate Change 42 Positive Municipal Solid Waste Management Outcomes Box 4.1.  from Sustained Engagement 51 Box 4.2. Developing Integrated Waste Value Chains: Azerbaijan 52 Municipal Solid Waste Management in Conflict-Affected Economies: Box 4.3.  Lessons from World Bank Engagements in Liberia and West Bank and Gaza 56 Figures Figure 1.1. Municipal Solid Waste Management Process: Typical Stages 4 Figure 1.2. Estimated Waste Generation by Country Income Classification 5 Select Municipal Solid Waste Parameters by Country Income Category 6 Figure 1.3.  Figure 1.4. The Waste Hierarchy and the Circular Economy 10 Evaluation Framework for Improved Municipal Figure 1.5.  Solid Waste Management 12 Municipal Solid Waste Management in SCDs and CPFs by Figure 2.1.  Country Income Group (Approved and Ongoing, FY10–20) 19 Tables World Bank Group Municipal Solid Waste Management Activities Table 2.1.  (Approved and Ongoing, FY10–20) 17 World Bank Group Municipal Solid Waste Management Operations Table 2.2.  by Country Income Group (Approved and Ongoing, FY10–20) 20 Municipal Solid Waste Management Support Needs versus Relevant Table 2.3.  Support Provided, Policies and Institutions 25 iii Municipal Solid Waste Management Support Needs versus Relevant Table 2.4.  Support Provided, Infrastructure, Access, and Service Delivery 26 Effectiveness of Pillar 1 Determinants: Policies, Institutions, Capacity Table 3.1.  Building, and Planning 33 Effectiveness of Pillar 2 Determinants: Infrastructure, Table 3.2.  Access, and Service Delivery 36 Environmental, Social, and Economic Impacts of Improved Table 3.3.  Municipal Solid Waste Management Activities 41 Outcome Achievement in Core MSWM Projects Table 4.1.  versus Part-MSWM Projects 53 Appendixes Appendix A. Sustainable Development Goals 76 Appendix B. World Bank Group Operations, Fiscal Years 2010–20 79 Appendix C. Evaluation Methodology 91 Appendix D. Plastics: Background Paper 101 Appendix E. Carbon Offset Projects 105 Appendix F. Role of Donors and Development Partners 111 iv Abbreviations ASA advisory services and analytics CPF Country Partnership Framework CPSD Country Private Sector Diagnostic DPL development policy loan FY fiscal year HIC high-income country IEG Independent Evaluation Group IFC International Finance Corporation LIC low-income country LMIC lower-middle-income country MIGA Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency MSWM municipal solid waste management NIMBY not in my backyard PPP public-private partnership SCD Systematic Country Diagnostic SDG Sustainable Development Goal UMIC upper-middle-income country All dollar amounts are US dollars unless otherwise indicated. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    v Acknowledgments This report was prepared by a team led by Victor Vergara (co-task team leader) and Ramachandra Jammi (co-task team leader) including Victoria Alexeeva, Linda Godfrey, Vijay Jagannathan, Ebru Karamete, Kavita Mathur, Chikako Miwa, Ozlem Onerci, Gouthami Padam, Mari-Noelle Roquiz, Ichiro Toda, and Hiroyuki Yokoi. Aarre Laakso assisted with structural editing and line editing. Emelda Cudilla and Romayne Pereira provided administrative assistance. Lauren Kelly provided valuable input and guidance during the preparation of the report’s final draft. The evaluation was conducted under the guidance and supervision of José Cándido Carbajo Martínez and Marialisa Motta, under the overall direction of Alison Evans. The evaluation drew on background papers on plastics pollution (by Steve Fletcher) and informal waste pickers (by Sonia Dias). The team is grateful to various man- agers and staff of several of the World Bank Group’s Global Practices (the Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy Global Practice; the Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience, and Land Global Practice; and the Water Global Practice); the International Finance Corporation through the Global Infrastructure team (Municipal and Environmental Infrastruc- ture); the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (Infrastructure); the Transitioning to a Circular Economy   Acknowledgments World Bank Country Management Units and staff; and government and implementing agency officials of Azerbaijan, China, Colombia, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, and West Bank and Gaza for their input and time. The report was peer reviewed by Antonis Mavropoulos (founder and chief executive officer of D-Waste and former president of the International Solid Waste Association); Dr. Suneel Pandey (senior fellow and director, Environ- ment and Waste Management Division, The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi, India); and Masato Ohno (chair and director, EX Research Insti- tute, Tokyo, Japan, and director of the Japan Waste Research Foundation). vi Overview Municipal solid waste—waste generated mainly from residential and com- mercial sources—has emerged as one of the most pressing challenges across the world, with growing public health, environmental, social, and economic costs. By 2050, fast-growing large- and medium-size cities will nearly double the waste generation in lower-middle-income countries and upper-middle- income countries. Low-income countries (LICs), where most waste is dis- posed of in open dumps, are on a trajectory to triple their municipal solid waste generation by 2050. Historically, the causes and effects of municipal solid waste were considered local or regional. However, with increasing vol- umes and changing waste composition, municipal solid waste has become a global challenge. Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is at the core of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 for sustainable cities and SDG 12 for reducing waste (among other SDGs) and of efforts to achieve green, resilient, and inclusive development. SDG 11 for sustainable cities addresses it directly by targeting service delivery for waste management, and SDG 12 for reducing waste generation addresses it through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse. Other SDGs address waste to energy, informal workers’ welfare and employment, climate action, and marine plastic pollution. The waste hierarchy and the circular economy are sustainable alternatives to Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    vii the traditional linear (take-make-dispose) economic model. The traditional economic model approaches the waste value chain as a linear sequence in which resources are extracted from the environment (take), manufactured into goods (make), and discarded when they are no longer needed or wanted (dispose). The waste hierarchy approach lays out a more nuanced but still linear set of disposal options and establishes a ranking among them from most to least preferable. Waste prevention and reuse are the most preferred options, followed by recycling, then recovery (for example, composting and waste to energy); waste disposal through landfills should be the very last re- sort. The circular economy approach closes the loop in relation to extraction, manufacturing, and disposal by advocating for designing products to reduce waste, using products and materials for as long as possible, and recycling materials from end-of-life products back into the economy. An integrated approach is required to help clients move in the direction of the waste hierarchy and a circular economy. An integrated approach avoids focus- ing only on disposal. Instead, it includes attention to all stages of the waste hierarchy and circular economy: designing for reusability, minimizing con- sumption, increasing reuse, repurposing end-of-life products, encouraging re- cycling, maximizing recovery, and practicing sanitary disposal. It also includes consideration of the interlinked areas of policies, institutions, capacity, and planning in central, provincial, and local governments; improved infrastruc- ture, access, and service delivery; cost recovery for ensuring financial sustain- ability; awareness and behavior change; the integration of the private sector and informal actors, including waste pickers; and gender considerations. The costs of inaction to improve solid waste management are unsustainable. At the local level, inadequate MSWM reduces quality of life through envi- ronmental, social, and health consequences that affect impoverished people disproportionately. Globally, it contributes to climate change and growing plastic pollution. Solid waste management generated an estimated 1.6 bil- lion metric tons of carbon dioxide–equivalent greenhouse gas emissions in 2016, about 5 percent of global emissions (Kaza et al. 2018). Damages caused by plastics to the marine environment are estimated at $13 billion per year, and more than $75 billion when considering the total natural capital cost of plastics used in consumer goods. Local effects are harder to quantify, but Transitioning to a Circluar Economy  Overview one study estimated that the environmental costs of MSWM in a single city (Shanghai, China) amounted to $171 million in 2018 alone (Liu et al. 2021). Integrated and improved MSWM would lead to global and local environmen- tal, health, social, and economic benefits. Globally, integrated and improved MSWM would reduce marine plastic pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Locally, it would reduce soil and water contamination and improve air quali- ty, improving public health. It would also enhance the welfare and livelihood security of informal waste pickers—the millions of people worldwide who make a living by collecting, recycling, and selling reusable waste. Further- more, it would create jobs in the sector, improve land values, and have an enabling effect on other industries (such as tourism). viii This evaluation assesses how well the World Bank Group has supported cli- ent countries to manage municipal solid waste using an integrated approach to advance development and sustainability goals. It covers all World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC) MSWM-related activities during fiscal years (FY)10–20. It answers three main evaluation questions: » How relevant is the Bank Group’s approach and engagement in meeting client country needs, considering the latest evidence and thinking on MSWM practices and country context and readiness? » How effective have Bank Group engagements been in delivering improved MSWM for clients? » How coherent has Bank Group engagement been in collaboration among the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA, and collaboration and partnerships with other actors to support better outcomes for client needs in MSWM? Relevance and Coherence The Bank Group has increasingly recognized and advocated for waste hi- erarchy and circular economy approaches for MSWM. The newly launched World Bank Group Climate Change Action Plan 2021–2025, for example, sets out a goal of pursuing integrated waste management and circular economy approaches to help countries and cities advance climate, development, and broader sustainability goals. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    ix Although the Bank Group lends less for MSWM than for any other urban service, it is by far the leader among multilateral development banks in pro- viding finance and knowledge on solid waste management. During FY10–20, the Bank Group provided about $3 billion to client countries for MSWM, one-tenth the amount it provided for water supply and sanitation. The Inter-American Development Bank is the next leading multilateral develop- ment bank in this area, with $708 million lent between 2005 and 2020. More recent data (from the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank) show that other multilateral banks’ lending for MSWM during 2010–20 varied between 0.5 percent and 6.1 per- cent of their overall lending for all urban services. Regarding knowledge, the Bank Group produced two flagship reports on MSWM (What a Waste and What a Waste 2.0) and conducts technical certification courses on solid waste management for policy makers and MSWM professionals. Bank Group support for MSWM does not consistently cover several elements that are essential for moving toward integrated waste management. Ele- ments that are essential to integrated waste management include revising policies, planning for cost recovery, involving the private sector, incorpo- rating behavioral factors, and considering waste pickers. The Bank Group often supports the provision of infrastructure and services that are expected to increase MSWM coverage and improve service delivery. However, more is needed to achieve an integrated approach. Sixty-five percent of relevant Country Partnership Frameworks discussed the need to update MSWM policy and regulations, but World Bank projects included these elements in only 22 percent of the countries. Although insufficient attention to cost recovery often undermines the delivery of MSWM services, just over one- third of country strategies and lending addressed this issue. More than half of Country Partnership Frameworks referred to the need for private sector participation in MSWM, but only 27 percent of countries include operations to incentivize it. Efforts to raise awareness and effect behavior change are critical for achieving inclusive and sustainable solid waste management, but there is a lack of analytical work addressing these issues, and they are addressed in less than half of the relevant country programs. Finally, even Transitioning to a Circluar Economy  Overview though informal waste pickers are critical to the MSWM sector’s functioning, very few Bank Group projects engaged with them beyond complying with do- no-harm safeguard provisions. The Bank Group is doing little to address the growing waste management problem in LICs. Less than half of Systematic Country Diagnostics for LICs diagnose MSWM issues, despite the fast-growing municipal solid waste problem in these countries that the World Bank’s analytical work has high- lighted. With two exceptions (Haiti and Rwanda), there is no reference to MSWM in IFC strategies or diagnostics in LICs. Between FY10 and FY20, LICs received less than 2 percent of World Bank lending for MSWM and no invest- ments from IFC. Of the 122 instances of relevant World Bank analytical work, only 6 covered LICs. The key challenges limiting support in LICs include x governments’ lack of awareness of the major problems caused by solid waste; lack of a clear strategy for the sector; and lack of appropriate policies, regu- lations, and institutional capacity. These conditions lead to widespread open dumping and people’s low willingness to pay for solid waste services, which further limits sustainable MSWM initiatives. There has been limited Bank Group collaboration in support of MSWM. References to the complementary roles that the World Bank and IFC can play in a coherent approach for improved MSWM are absent from most Coun- try Partnership Frameworks, IFC Country Private Sector Diagnostics, and IFC country strategies. MIGA has found it very difficult to enter the MSWM sector because of several constraints, mainly the lack of clear government counterparts, municipalities’ low creditworthiness, and municipal borrowing generally restricted to local currency, which MIGA is not suited to support. The Bank Group could convene other developmental institutions to raise MSWM’s profile in client countries, given its leading global financial and knowledge role. Discussions with Asian Development Bank staff suggest that there is strong interest in observing the Bank Group’s course toward MSWM. International MSWM experts advising the evaluation see scope for the World Bank to expand its convening role, given its reach, experience, and solid waste management portfolio, which is the most diversified among any of the multilateral lending institutions. Presently, the Bank Group is playing a convening role in addressing marine plastic pollution through the PROBLUE Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xi initiative—an umbrella trust–funded program that supports the sustain- able and integrated development of marine and coastal resources in healthy oceans—and advocates for improved MSWM under the World Bank Group Climate Change Action Plan 2021–2025. Effectiveness World Bank support for basic municipal solid waste infrastructure and ser- vice delivery—the main Bank Group activity on municipal solid waste—has been generally effective. The leading activities in the World Bank’s MSWM lending support focus on infrastructure and service delivery. Within infra- structure, the emphasis has been on closing uncontrolled dumpsites and building large sanitary landfills, with less consideration for transfer stations and waste collection and separation. The Bank Group has carried out infra- structure activities as planned in most MSWM-related projects. In the evalu- ated portfolio, clients closed about 137 dumpsites, built 40 sanitary landfills, and constructed 112 transfer stations. Targets for access and service delivery have mostly been met. One example is Mozambique’s municipal support program, which extended waste collection services to 43 suburban neighbor- hoods covering about 900,000 residents, exceeding the target. However, financial unsustainability limits the effectiveness of infrastruc- ture and services projects. The effectiveness of the World Bank’s work on MSWM is undermined by relatively less attention to and low achievement of measures to recover costs and ensure the overall financial sustainability of MSWM operations. The World Bank addressed the issue of cost recovery and improved financial sustainability in 25 closed and evaluated projects, which yielded positive results in just 14 cases. Lessons can be learned from some LICs and lower-middle-income countries and economies (such as Mozambique, Vietnam, and West Bank and Gaza) that had positive experi- ences in which 70–90 percent or more of solid waste providers’ costs were recovered from user fees. However, several other countries had less success in meeting cost recovery targets, even at project completion. Very few projects tracked the environmental, health, social, or economic out- comes of MSWM activities. Only 6–15 percent of projects in the portfolio set out to capture environmental, health, social, or economic outcomes linked to MSWM activities. Of those projects, many either did not report on outcomes Transitioning to a Circluar Economy  Overview or reported that the intended outcomes were not achieved because of delays or implementation challenges with the MSWM activities. Local governments and regulatory agencies are ultimately responsible for measuring these im- pact areas, and this measurement may require more specialized and expen- sive interventions than are provided currently. MSWM can make significant contributions to countries’ environmental, social, and economic goals. Doing so depends on articulating and capturing higher-order impacts. Good practice examples in the MSWM portfolio show how investments in MSWM can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. For example, a project in Tunisia helped the client equip seven landfills with gas treatment systems, earning about $3.5 mil- xii lion from selling certified emission reduction. In China, one project provid- ed new solid waste disposal capacity of about 2,000 tons per day, including the treatment of highly contaminating leachate at the landfill sites. Other examples show how focusing attention on job creation can enhance the economic security and working conditions for lower-income urban popula- tions, including youth, and for those living in fragile and conflict-affected situations. In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, the Emergency Urban Infrastruc- ture Emergency Recovery Loan (2008–14) provided 7,000 people with per- manent jobs as waste collectors. Factors of Effectiveness Four factors have strong, often limiting, influences on the effectiveness of the Bank Group’s MSWM support. The four factors are (i) the nature of World Bank support in terms of continuity, coverage, and coherence; (ii) govern- ment commitment to ensuring the financial sustainability of municipal solid waste services; (iii) local governments’ accountability for providing adequate and sustainable services; and (iv) land availability and the phenomenon known as “not in my backyard,” or NIMBY (the generalized opposition of neighboring populations and local governments to siting landfills [or other infrastructure] within their jurisdictions). Long-term, well-sequenced, and coherent engagement across the evaluation Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xiii pillars improves MSWM. Extended, well-sequenced, and coherent country engagement that includes support for key policy reforms and investment has been effective in helping countries build an integrated approach to MSWM incrementally. Thus, improved MSWM is more likely to be achieved when MSWM is at the core of a project rather than included as a small project component. The evaluation found few examples of country engagements with MSWM at the core, mainly in upper-middle-income countries. Governments’ inability to ensure sustainable financing is a constraint on providing adequate MSWM services. This inability can arise at any layer of government (national, provincial, or local), mainly because of lack of politi- cal commitment or competing demands for public financing. Several World Bank projects included components for ensuring the financial sustainability of MSWM services through arrangements for improved cost recovery via user fees or tariffs, sometimes supplemented by earmarked municipal revenues or budget transfers from provincial or central governments. In some cases, the expected results were not achieved at project completion. Even where favor- able results were achieved, the improvements were often not sustained. IFC’s assistance depends on various elements, such as maturity of markets, sound legal and regulatory frameworks, and the creditworthiness of clients (such as municipalities and private companies). All those are generally lacking in LICs, especially for MSWM, and their absence makes financially sustainable private sector solutions particularly difficult to implement. Local governments’ lack of accountability for providing adequate and sustain- able MSWM services is also a constraint on effectiveness. Accountability for adequate and affordable MSWM services can be undermined by lack of trans- parency and vested interests in existing arrangements for service provision of solid waste collection and transport. Improved monitoring of MSWM services, including through internet and cell phone–based systems (that are becoming more readily available and affordable), and the involvement of beneficiaries and civil society can help put greater pressure on service providers and policy makers to improve service delivery and tackle wider constraints. Finally, the ability to acquire land for solid waste infrastructure is a system- atic constraint across the portfolio. The constraint is partially attributable to the not-in-my-backyard phenomenon. A lack of reliable land administration, inadequate urban planning, and poorly functioning land markets in rapidly urbanizing countries greatly complicate the consolidation of land parcels at Transitioning to a Circluar Economy  Overview a reasonable cost to enable siting large-scale public infrastructure such as landfills and transfer stations. Recommendations This evaluation identifies three areas in which the World Bank can enhance its relevance and effectiveness when supporting countries with MSWM. Recommendation 1. To achieve more sustainable and scalable outcomes in municipal waste management, Bank Group technical and financial support to clients should give clear priority to the adoption and imple- mentation of waste hierarchy practices, in line with client needs and xiv capabilities for MSWM. To achieve this, the Bank Group’s support could build on proven good practice from its own experience in addressing the en- tire waste value chain (collection, transport, recycling, recovery, and dispos- al) in an integrated, phased, and incremental manner tailored to client needs and capabilities. This would require greater collaboration among the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA in supporting governments with promoting financial sustainability and accountability in service provision, updating policies and regulations, incentivizing private sector participation, increasing awareness and behavioral change, and integrating waste pickers into MSWM processes. Recommendation 2. To support the LICs where municipal solid waste is growing most rapidly, the Bank Group should identify constraints on demand and investments and leverage external partnerships to imple- ment context-specific MSWM solutions. To achieve this, the Bank Group could increase its advisory services and analytics in LICs and foster external partnerships to find context-specific solutions appropriate to the prevailing policy and service delivery gaps. This would entail, for example, systemati- cally closing illegal dumps, ensuring that the regulatory framework is clear and predictable, and providing incentives to reduce the growth rate of waste generation and increase recycling, with a view to support LICs to “leapfrog” (move forward rapidly through the adoption of modern systems without going through intermediary steps) to the extent possible. Recommendation 3. To bring prominence to and spur action on the Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xv global municipal solid waste agenda, the Bank Group should take up a clear leadership position, collaborating and convening with devel- opmental partners. The Bank Group could leverage its leading role in financing and knowledge for MSWM by building on and scaling up current partnerships to improve municipal solid waste practices in the context of the climate change action plan and in specific areas, such as addressing riverine and marine plastic pollution through PROBLUE. Management Response Management of the World Bank Group welcomes the report by Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) entitled Transitioning to a Circular Economy: An Eval- uation of the World Bank Group’s Support for Municipal Solid Waste Manage- ment (2010–20). Lessons learned from this evaluation are relevant to current urban environmental challenges and will inform the Bank Group’s continuing support to client countries in the field of solid waste management and the circular economy. World Bank Management Response Overall Management welcomes IEG’s finding that the Bank Group is recognized as having the “largest reach, greatest experience, and most diversified sol- id waste management portfolio among any of the multilateral lending or developmental institutions” (29). Management appreciates the conclusion that World Bank–supported Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Management Response infrastructure and service delivery were broadly effective. Management will strengthen ongoing efforts more consistently to cover elements essential for moving toward integrated waste management, keeping a line of sight to long-term development outcomes, recognizing the opportunities for im- provement summarized in the recommendations in the report. Bank Group Management is committed to pursuing integrated waste man- agement and circular economy approaches to help countries and cities advance climate, development and broader sustainability goals, as stated in its Climate Change Action Plan for 2021 through 2025 and other Bank Group policy and technical reports. The MSWM sector has undergone dra- matic transformation since FY00, with the emergence of the circular econo- my concept in the mid-2010s and the much stronger emphasis on resource utilization under the waste hierarchy principle. Yet, as much as 40 percent of the portfolio evaluated by IEG in its report was conceptualized in the xvi early 2000s, with early MSWM projects designed with a strong emphasis on the quality of basic services and improved environmental conditions at the waste disposal stage. Current policy work, publications, sector analytics, and projects supported by the Bank Group are developed within the framework of the waste hierarchy. Outcome Orientation Management concurs with the observation that the most pressing needs in the sector are in low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), and stresses the importance of helping these countries build the necessary preconditions for long-term outcomes of effective waste management. LICs and LMICs face severe fiscal constraints, unlike upper-middle-income countries (UMICs). Given different socioeconomic conditions and budget envelopes, UMICs and LICs or LMICs have differing immediate priorities for the sector and have differing abilities to transition toward a circular economy. There are also important cost ramifications, giv- en the limited budget envelop in LICs and LMICs. The immediate issue faced by many LICs is the incomplete waste collection service. There is a need to first establish a municipal waste collection system. This needs prioritization, along with longer-term efforts to advance upward in the waste hierarchy toward the circular economy.1 Management will continue to address this comprehensive and sequential approach to long-term outcomes of MSWM in Systematic Country Diagnostics and Country Partnership Frameworks for Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xvii both LICs and LMICs. Following the findings of the report, management will ensure that long-term and well-sequenced engagements that include sup- port for key policy reforms continue to be the norm. Relevant experiences for further learning include World Bank engagements in Colombia, Liberia, Morocco, and West Bank and Gaza.2 Management agrees that the benefits of improved waste management need to be clearly flagged in project documents and analytics, whenever relevant, not only to demonstrate the high potential of the sector but also to strength- en outcome orientation. Benefits related to the global public good, notably reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, are already captured and reported through corporate GHG accounting and climate co-benefits ac- counting. Management now intends to articulate more clearly in World Bank documentation, as relevant, the benefits related to country-level high-level outcomes, such as local economic development, health, and social impact. Financial Sustainability Management notes that financial sustainability through user fees, where needed, in combination with subsidies and budget funding, has become an important area of focus for Bank Group–supported operations. Management will consider the findings regarding full-cost recovery in accordance with country circumstances. As part of efforts toward financial sustainability, World Bank operations also support the development of enabling conditions for public–private partnerships where relevant, whether it concerns management capacity, oversight mechanisms, or clarity of roles and pro- cedures. Full-cost recovery remains the exception globally. The more com- mon practice is to finance the sector through a combination of fees and the municipal budget. Full-cost recovery is, in fact, not fully achieved in many high-income countries. Although the World Bank aims for cost recovery and user fees, subsidies and budget funding are still widely used and remain very common in countries with well-performing MSWM systems. Although pub- lic–private partnerships could similarly lead to excellent benefits, the real challenge is to build management capacity among local governments, sus- Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Management Response tainable finances, and strong oversight mechanisms. These are key to both privately and publicly run operations. It is important to note that there are good examples of publicly run operations in high-income countries. Recommendations Management agrees with the first recommendation in the report to give clear priority to the adoption and implementation of waste hierarchy practices, in line with client needs and capabilities for MSWM. Management will ensure that prioritization of waste hierarchy continues to be integrated into project design, and advisory services and analytics supported by the Bank Group. Management emphasizes that since LICs, LMICs, and UMICs have different socioeconomic conditions, budgets, capacity constraints, and immediate and competing priorities, the transition and adoption of waste hierarchy practic- es will vary across countries, as recognized by the report. Tailored approach- xviii es will be required to ensure long-term consistency with the overall waste hierarchy framework and its principles. Management will work to ensure that this is acknowledged, as relevant, in individual country-level advisory services and analytics and project documents. Management agrees with the second recommendation to identify constraints on demand and investments in LICs and leverage external partnerships for context-specific MSWM solutions. Analytical work will be carried out to this end, which will also outline opportunities to increase the support for solid waste management in LICs. Although LICs and LMICs have multiple compet- ing development priorities, the Bank Group will endeavor, in collaboration with International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) as well as external partners, to promote support that spans analytics, policy action and investment. For example, the Bank Group has been increasing its support for MSWM in several countries, in- cluding Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Senegal, and the Philippines in the areas of policy and regulatory envi- ronment, private sector participation, increasing awareness and behavior change, support to primary collection, and the integration of waste pickers.3 Management broadly agrees with the third recommendation as well, pro- vided it is understood within current management efforts to strengthen the strategic selectivity of its convening efforts, in line with previous IEG recommendations. The World Bank already collaborates with development Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xix partners, international institutions, and research think tanks, including the International Solid Waste Association, the Covenant of Mayors and C40, bilateral aid agencies, the European Commission, and the Japan Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Management will continue to engage at the global level and provide leadership in this important sector through, for example, global analytics and technical deep dives and engagement in inter- national events and partnerships. It is important to recognize that the World Bank will need to balance the multiple mandates of climate, resilience, and marine pollution. This selectivity will be in line with previous IEG recom- mendations linked to the report by IEG The World’s Bank: An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Global Convening. International Finance Corporation Management Comments IFC management appreciates the evaluation work delivered by IEG. The topic is timely as the Corporation is focusing on supporting clients in the sustainability agenda where transition to circular waste management solu- tions is a critical component. A circular economy deep dive is currently being undertaken to identify ways by which available resources can be used more efficiently and support progress in the municipal waste management sector. IFC will incorporate the knowledge and lessons provided in the report in the design and implementation of its advisory and investment plans in the sector. Responses to Recommendations Recommendation 1: IFC management agrees with the recommendation. IFC client countries need support from the developmental community, including the Bank Group, in transitioning from their current MSWM situation to better align with waste hierarchy principles. It is important to highlight that the transition paths will vary across geographies; support from the Bank Group, while ensuring long-term consistency with waste hierarchy principles, will need to improve waste management systems in the local context of (i) will- Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Management Response ingness and ability to pay; (ii) institutional capacity; and (iii) fit within multi- ple urgent priorities of client governments. As the report highlights, progress in the above agenda will be dependent on political economy challenges. As noted in the report, IFC advisory engagement and support for private sector investment is more likely where the MSWM policy and regulatory en- vironment is adequately developed. Appendix B of the report highlights the advisory engagements in the sector aimed at supporting the development of an enabling framework for private participation through advisory services— successfully in the case of Belgrade but with mixed results in other cases. In addition, IFC has used direct relationships with cities as part of its Cities Business Model to support decision makers with advice related to the waste sector in Izmir, Bogota, and Buenos Aires. These facts highlight IFC’s keen interest and commitment to engage in the sector to help develop sustainable private sector participation. However, this is extremely resource intensive, xx and the probability of success is often uncertain because of changes in the political landscape. Furthermore, while collaboration among Bank Group institutions has been active, there have been few joint projects so far due to the reasons outlined as well as differing focus areas and opportunities of the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA. However, where the opportunity has presented itself, for example with respect to the Belgrade sanitary landfill and waste to energy project, IFC and MIGA have worked together to deliver private sector solutions to client governments. In addition, the report does recognize multiple instances of ongoing collaboration between the World Bank and IFC in the MSWM sector, which are expected to show results going forward. Recommendation 2: IFC management agrees with this recommendation. It is worth noting the observation made in the report regarding the need for elements like reasonable legal and regulatory frameworks, reasonable credit- worthiness of offtakers, and additional factors such as willingness and ability to pay for waste management services instead of other infrastructure services such as power, water and wastewater, and transport. Because these elements are less developed in LICs, IFC’s ability to engage is diminished. Although challenges in private participation in the solid waste sector remain high even in UMICs and LMICs, the enabling framework has im- proved gradually over the past decade, where the focus of IFC’s efforts has Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xxi been as a result. However, as past and ongoing efforts in Uganda, West Bank and Gaza, and Guinea demonstrate, IFC engages in LICs when strong polit- ical impetus provides an opportunity to do so. Under the IFC 3.0 strategy, mapping efforts to find opportunities for private sector engagement in the waste sector are underway in Sub-Saharan Africa and early engagement has been initiated in the Pacific Islands. IFC management recognizes the potential for using hybrid financing mod- els, such as the Clean Ganga Project of the World Bank, where public sec- tor funds are being leveraged to introduce a private sector–led sewerage treatment program in low-income areas of India. Such programs represent a potential opportunity to be explored in LICs where political interest in attracting private sector investment to address waste sector is a challenge. Recommendation 3: IFC management is broadly supportive of this recom- mendation. IFC has regular engagements with other development partners to exchange ideas, share market knowledge, and enable co-financing oppor- tunities to support clients. IFC management agrees with the observation that most development partners look to IFC to bring opportunities and ideas. The report indicates that the Bank Group has yet to sufficiently integrate waste hierarchy and circular economy principles into its support to clients. It is critical to recognize that removing some key constraints to reaching a circular economy in developing countries often necessitates time and multi- ple interventions. Although sound policies tailored to the local context are important, the right mind-set and buy-in from constituents is also critical for developing a functioning circular economy. As evidenced in some developed countries, this takes time, even with significant resources deployed. IFC’s investment portfolios may not explicitly focus on waste hierarchy and circu- lar economy principles in initial interventions, because certain foundations, which require time, including behavioral change and adequate capacity development, need to be established to enable this transition. Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Management Comments Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Management Response MIGA welcomes IEG’s report Transitioning to a Circular Economy: An Evalua- tion of the World Bank Group’s Support for Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM). Recommendation 1: MIGA agrees with this recommendation for further collaboration across the Bank Group. MIGA notes IEG’s assessment that MSWM is a very challenging sector for MIGA, even with proactive efforts to originate projects in partnership with international sponsors. We also appre- ciate IEG’s recognition of the Belgrade sanitary landfill and waste-to-energy project as an example of a successful IFC and MIGA collaboration. MIGA understands that this project exemplifies the tenacity of IFC and MIGA in a very difficult sector for multilateral private sector operations. We are also keen to work closely with the World Bank and IFC to support the upstream work to help governments remove constraints for further MSWM operations. xxii Recommendation 2: MIGA also agrees with this recommendation, and we consider that additional support secured to help unlock the development of bankable projects for MSWM solutions in low-income countries is highly desirable, although the persistence of other barriers (for example, the regula- tory context) could continue to make such engagements challenging. Recommendation 3: MIGA broadly agrees with this recommendation. The evaluation report notes MIGA’s engagement in MSWM is constrained by a lack of bankable projects seeking guarantees. The leadership of the World Bank and IFC could help ease some of the challenges over time, including the capacity limitations of municipalities as counterparts. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xxiii 1  “[The waste hierarchy]…by focusing on environmental benefit and not costs or social, economic and institutional requirements, represents a simplified framework…[and increases the financial cost of the sector]. The two most immediate and important issues faced by many low-income countries are incomplete waste collection service and the proliferation of uncon- trolled dumping. Establishing waste collection services to protect public health and improving waste treatment and disposal services to protect the environment should therefore be the first objectives of the waste management strategy or plan. Policy aspirations supporting a transi- tion to sustainable resource management should also be set out, but with the caveat that, in practical terms, climbing further up the ‘hierarchy’ can only happen once effective collection and disposal systems have been put in place” (World Bank 2021f, 40). 2  Dedicated projects are preceded by large technical assistance, as is the case with the Indone- sia National Solid Waste Project, which is aided by comprehensive analytic work funded by bi- lateral donors, Kerala Waste Management Project and facilitated by an in-depth review of the plastic market in India, or the China Plastic Waste Projects 1 and 2 that have been supported by comprehensive and multisectoral advisory services and analytics spanning plastics, waste, water and sanitation, and the agricultural sectors. 3  Examples include the Indonesia National Solid Waste Management Project (fiscal year [FY]20), the Senegal Municipal Solid Waste Management Project (FY20), Kerala Solid Waste Management Project (FY21), Cambodia Solid Waste and Plastic Project (FY22), Philippines Sustainable Inclusive and Resilient Tourism Project (FY22), and Lao Environmental and Waste Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Management Response Management Project (FY23). xxiv Report to the Board from the Committee on Development Effectiveness The Committee on Development Effectiveness met to consider the re- port by the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) entitled Transitioning to a Circular Economy: An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support for Municipal Solid Waste Management (2010–20) and the World Bank Group management response. The committee welcomed the evaluation, acknowledging that this first ma- jor assessment by IEG on the subject provides a rich and thorough analysis. They also noted the timeliness of the subject, which is critical to achieving the twin goals and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are linked to the Climate Change Action Plan and Paris Alignment commitments. Members acknowledged municipal solid waste management’s (MSWM) health, environmental, social, and economic implications and encouraged the World Bank Group to exercise its convening and leadership role to address this global challenge. Although the members were pleased to learn about IEG’s finding that the Bank Group is by far the leader with the largest reach, greatest experience, and most diversified solid waste management Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xxv portfolio among multilateral development institutions, members high- lighted the evaluation’s remarks that more could be done to address the growing waste management problem, particularly in low-income countries and lower-middle-income countries. Members appreciated management’s agreement with the report’s recom- mendations. They agreed that a sequential approach, awareness-raising, and a focus on consumer behavior and enforceable rules and regulations were key, and they commended management’s commitment to such an approach to long-term outcomes of MSWM in Systematic Country Diagnostics and Country Partnership Frameworks for low-income countries and lower-mid- dle-income countries. Although acknowledging management’s explanations on the constraints on MSWM demand, members asked management and IEG to elaborate on the reasons behind limited lending to MSWM. They called for reinforced collaboration among the three Bank Group institutions, stressing the need to leverage private sector participation. Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Report to the Board xxvi 1 | Background and Context Highlights This evaluation assesses how well the World Bank Group has sup- ported client countries with managing municipal solid waste to ad- vance their development and sustainability goals. The evaluation covers World Bank, International Finance Corporation, and Multilat- eral Investment Guarantee Agency activities that supported munic- ipal solid waste management (MSWM) in fiscal years 2010–20. Municipal solid waste—waste generated from residential and com- mercial sources and managed mainly by local governments—is projected to triple in volume in low-income countries (and nearly double in lower-middle-income countries and upper-middle- income countries) by 2050. Most of the waste in low-income coun- tries and lower-middle-income countries is managed improperly, untreated, and disposed of in open dumps. The growing volume and changing composition of waste (including nonbiodegradable and plastic waste), if left unmanaged, will con- tinue to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and global and local land and water pollution that affect the health and welfare of impoverished people disproportionately. It is widely accepted that municipal solid waste should be man- aged through a waste hierarchy approach that seeks to reduce consumption and increase reuse to complement efforts focused on waste collection, recovery, and disposal. The waste hierarchy is complemented by a wider circular economy approach that advo- cates for designing products to reduce waste, using products and materials for as long as possible, and recycling end-of-life prod- ucts back into the economy. 1 The Bank Group delivers MSWM support to its clients across two pillars that are an organizing framework for this evaluation: policies and institutions, and infrastructure, access, and service delivery. This evaluation also considers how the Bank Group articulates and captures the environmental, social, health, and economic out- comes that are expected to come from improved MSWM. 2   Municipal solid waste is one of the most pressing challenges worldwide. Global municipal solid waste is increasing rapidly; currently, the world’s cities produce about 1.3 billion tons of waste annually, expected to rise to 2.2 billion tons annually by 2025 (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012). Histor- ically, the causes and effects of municipal solid waste were considered local or regional; however, with increasing volumes and changing waste compo- sitions, municipal solid waste has become a global challenge with growing public health, environmental, social, and economic costs. Definition and Dimensions Municipal solid waste is waste generated mainly from residential and com- mercial sources and managed mostly by local governments. Municipal solid waste is defined as waste collected and treated by or for municipalities. It covers waste from households, including bulky waste; similar waste from commerce and trade, office buildings, institutions, and small businesses; yard and garden waste; street sweepings; the contents of litter containers; and market waste if managed as household waste. The definition excludes waste from municipal sewerage networks and treatment, as well as waste from construction and demolition activities.1 Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) consists of six stages: genera- tion, primary collection, secondary collection, transfer station management, recycling and treatment, and disposal. Typically, waste generated by residen- tial and commercial entities undergoes primary collection at the source. It is Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    3 then conveyed through secondary collection to a transfer station, where it is segregated and composted, recycled, or treated before the remaining waste is disposed of in a controlled landfill. The treatment or recovery can be through converting waste to energy using biological or thermal treatment, including incinerators (figure 1.1).2 4 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 1 Figure 1.1. Municipal Solid Waste Management Process: Typical Stages Waste generation Primary collection Secondary Transfer station Recycling and Disposal Residential and Waste and tariff collection management treatment Dumping the commercial waste collection from Municipal Monitoring, Segregation, waste into the produced and lying primary producers collection from operations, and recycling, and landfill at waste producer’s (and related dumpsters and evaluation of treatment of waste site (before pickup) activities) depots to transfer transfer station processed at the station activities transfer station Source: Ahuja 2019. The volume of municipal solid waste is growing fastest in low-income coun- tries (LICs). As of 2020, high-income countries (HICs) and upper-middle- income countries (UMICs) together generate 71 percent of all municipal solid waste (Kaza, Shrikanth, and Chaudhary 2021). The average quantity of municipal solid waste generation per person per day is about 1.6 kilograms in HICs, 0.91 kilograms in UMICs, 0.47 kilograms in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), and less than 0.41 kilograms in LICs. Fast-growing large- and medium-size cities will nearly double the waste generation in LMICs and UMICs by 2050 (figure 1.2). LICs will see even faster growth, with annual waste generation tripling from 93 million tons to 283 million tons over the same period. By contrast, the corresponding growth will be less than 30 per- cent in HICs. Figure 1.2. Estimated Waste Generation by Country Income Classification 1,400 1,200 1,000 Waste (tons, millions) 800 600 400 200 0 Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    5 Low income Lower-middle Upper-middle High income income income 2016 2030 2050 Source: Adapted from Kaza et al. 2018. LICs and LMICs have greater challenges than UMICs and HICs in managing municipal solid waste. Collection rates correlate with country income. LICs collect only 39 percent (by weight) of the municipal waste they generate; LMICs collect 51 percent, UMICs collect 82 percent, and HICs collect 96 per- cent (figure 1.3, panel a). The use of proper disposal methods also varies by country income. The collected waste ends up predominantly in open dumps in LICs (93 percent) and LMICs (66 percent); this share is progressively less in UMICs (30 percent) and HICs (2 percent). LICs and LMICs have few sani- tary landfills or recycling facilities and no incineration facilities (Kaza et al. 2018; figure 1.3, panel b).  elect Municipal Solid Waste Parameters by Country Income Figure 1.3. S Category a. Collection rates HIC Country income level UMIC LMIC LIC 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Collection rate (%) b. Disposal methods share HIC Country income level UMIC LMIC LIC 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 1 Disposal methods share (%) Open dump Landfill Incineration Composting Other advanced methods Recycling Anaerobic digestion Source: Adapted from Kaza et al. 2018. Note: HIC = high-income country; LIC = low-income country; LMIC = lower-middle-income country; UMIC = upper-middle-income country. Several actors have roles to play in MSWM. Residential and commercial entities are the sources of municipal solid waste and the beneficiaries of municipal solid waste services. Local governments are the principal sources of municipal solid waste financing and service provision, but central and regional governments perform policy setting and regulatory functions and 6 provide supplementary financial support. Civil society and nongovernmental organizations raise awareness for MSWM, hold service providers account- able, and support the informal waste picker community, which plays an important role in collecting and reclaiming recyclable and reusable materi- al. The private sector is a potential source of investment, higher efficiency in service delivery, and improved practices, including extended producer responsibility, whereby manufacturers are physically and financially respon- sible for the disposal of their products. The informal sector (informal waste pickers) operates where formal services are inadequate. Inadequate MSWM causes harmful local and global impacts through air, land, and water contamination. At the local level, inadequate MSWM has a significant bearing on overall quality of life through environmental, social, and economic impacts that affect impoverished people disproportionately. Globally, it contributes to climate change and growing plastic pollution. » Weak MSWM at the local level affects health and quality of life adversely. Improper waste management and open dumping and burning of municipal solid waste—which are more common in LICs and LMICs—pollute soil, air, and water and attract disease vectors. Mismanaged waste can clog stormwa- ter drains, resulting in flooding that creates unsanitary and toxic conditions, disproportionately affecting impoverished people, who are likely to live near or work at waste disposal locations (Giusti 2009). When waste is burned, the resulting toxins and particulate matter in the air can cause respiratory and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    7 neurological diseases, among other health issues (Thompson 2014). » Weak MSWM also contributes to climate change. Landfills and open dumps contribute about 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, though waste can potentially be a resource and a net sink of greenhouse gas- es through recycling and reuse (Barrera and Hooda 2016). » Marine and riverine plastic pollution have particularly serious conse- quences for ecosystems and the health and livelihoods of people living near the water. Damage caused by plastics to the marine environment is estimated at $13 billion per year and upward of $75 billion when considering the total natural capital cost of plastics used in consumer goods (World Bank Group 2021). In a business-as-usual scenario, the global flow of plastics to the oceans will nearly double between 2015 and 2025. About 80 percent of ocean plastic originates from land, and 75 percent of that comes from poorly operating MSWM systems (Fletcher 2021). » The millions of informal waste pickers worldwide who make a living by collecting, recycling, and selling reusable waste face low social status, work and live in deplorable conditions, and get little support from local governments. An estimated 24 million waste pickers are in the informal sector worldwide, mostly in developing countries but also in richer countries (ILO 2013). Informal waste pickers provide widespread public benefits by recovering a greater proportion of recyclables than the formal sector in most LICs and LMICs, but they work under difficult conditions and with low re- turns. Women and children are significant participants in the informal sector and are especially vulnerable regarding their safety and welfare (Dias 2021). Multilateral development institutions and private investment pay substan- tially less attention to MSWM than to other urban services. An assessment by the International Solid Waste Association found that, between 2003 and 2012, the share of solid waste management in all official development fi- nance was only 0.32 percent (Lerpiniere et al. 2014). Recent donor assistance for MSWM (from the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank) varied between 0.5 and 6.1 percent of all urban sector commitments during 2010–20. The Public-Private Infrastruc- ture Advisory Facility database shows that in 2020, MSWM received $1 bil- lion in private investments, compared with $4 billion for water supply and Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 1 sanitation. All the private investment in MSWM was directed toward UMICs. The municipal solid waste sector lacks an international mechanism to pro- mote a coordinated approach. There is no global coordination mechanism devoted to solid waste management, unlike in other urban sectors (such as water supply, sanitation, transport, and energy). The only such mechanism focusing on waste management, the Global Partnership on Waste Manage- ment, was launched in 2010 but stopped functioning in 2019 without con- ducting any significant activities.3 8 Current and Emerging Approaches MSWM is at the core of (i) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 for sustainable cities and SDG 12 for reducing waste (and is relevant to issues addressed by other SDGs) and (ii) efforts to achieve green, resilient, and inclusive development. SDG 11 for sustainable cities addresses it directly by targeting service delivery for waste management, and SDG 12 for reducing waste generation addresses it through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse, which are essentially the elements of the waste hierarchy approach to MSWM described in the next paragraph. Other SDGs address means of con- verting selected waste to energy, the welfare of informal waste pickers, the role of MSWM in climate action, and marine plastic pollution (appendix A). The waste hierarchy is a widely accepted principle for managing waste efficiently and sustainably. The waste hierarchy is typically presented as an inverted pyramid that shows approaches to MSWM from most to least pre- ferred (figure 1.4, panel a). In this formulation, minimizing consumption and improving source reduction, along with increasing reuse, are preferable to recycling, which is preferred to recovery (for example, waste to energy, com- posting, and incineration) before disposing the remaining waste in an en- vironmentally responsible manner, typically in sanitary landfills. Countries vary widely in how much they have transitioned from less to more desirable approaches in the waste hierarchy. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    9 The broader circular economy approach is a sustainable alternative to the traditional linear (take-make-dispose) economic model. The circular econ- omy approach advocates for designing products to reduce waste, using products and materials for as long as possible, and recycling end-of-life products back into the economy (figure 1.4, panel b). In the transition to a circular economy, it is important for consumers to demand extended pro- ducer responsibility, whereby manufacturers are physically and financially responsible for the disposal of their products.4 According to the independent Circularity Gap Report 2021, the global economy is only 8.6 percent circular, wasting 91.4 percent of everything that is used (Circle Economy 2021). Ap- plication of the circular economy principle to MSWM is gaining traction in HICs, and awareness and interest is increasing in LICs, LMICs, and UMICs. 10 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 1 Figure 1.4. The Waste Hierarchy and the Circular Economy a. Waste management hierarchy b. Circular economy Most preferred Prevention Raw materials Design Reuse Production, remanufacturing Recycling Circular economy Recycling Residual Distribution Recovery waste Collection Consumption, use, reuse, repair Disposal Least preferred Sources: Panel a: UNEP 2011; panel b: European Parliament 2021. Evaluation Scope and Organizing Framework The evaluation covers World Bank, International Finance Corporation (IFC), and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) activities that sup- ported MSWM during fiscal years (FY)10–20. It covers World Bank projects and advisory services and analytics (ASA), IFC investments and advisory services, and MIGA guarantees. The World Bank Group delivers MSWM support to its clients across two pillars that are an organizing framework for this evaluation: policies and institutions, and infrastructure, access, and service delivery. The first pillar covers the interlinked areas of policies, institutions, capacity, and planning at the central, provincial, and local government levels. The second pillar cov- ers improved and sustainable access and service delivery through enhanced infrastructure and processes that promote accountability for service delivery, financial sustainability, and awareness and behavior change. Integrated support for the two pillars is expected to lead to improved, sus- tainable, and equitable MSWM that will result in positive local and global environmental, social, and economic impacts. Global environmental impacts include reduced greenhouse gas emissions and marine plastic pollution. Local environmental impacts include reduced soil and water contamination and improved air quality, which would also enhance health. Social impacts include improving the welfare and livelihood security of informal waste pick- ers. Economic impacts come from job creation in the sector and the second- ary effects that improved MSWM can have on land value and the expansion Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    11 of economic activity in general (for example, in tourism) (figure 1.5).  valuation Framework for Improved Municipal Solid Waste Figure 1.5. E Management Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Improved policies and institutions MSWM infrastructure, access, and service delivery accompanied by provision for: • Policies and regulations (including environmental and social aspects) a. Cost recovery and financial sustainability • Institutional and capacity development b. Private sector participation at all government levels c. Awareness and behavior change • Planning d. Integration of the informal sector, with gender considerations Improved, sustainable, and equitable MSWM Environmental impacts Social impacts Economic impacts Local: reduced water and • Improved health • Increased investment and soil pollution • Enriched quality of life private sector growth Global: reduced marine • Enhanced welfare of • Increased employment plastic pollution; reduced informal waste pickers • Increased land value GHG emissions Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: GHG = greenhouse gas; MSWM = municipal solid waste management. Evaluation Aim, Questions, and Methods This evaluation is the first major Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) study of the Bank Group’s support for MSWM. The evaluation builds on and contributes Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 1 to IEG’s work stream on climate change and environmental sustainability. This evaluation aims to assess how well the Bank Group has supported client countries to manage solid waste to advance goals related to development and sustainability, including climate-related goals. The three main evalua- tion questions are as follows: » How relevant is the Bank Group’s approach and engagement in meeting client country needs, considering the latest evidence and thinking on MSWM practices and country context and readiness? » How effective have Bank Group engagements been in delivering improved MSWM for clients? 12 » How coherent has Bank Group engagement been in collaboration among the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA, and collaboration and partnerships with other actors to support better outcomes for client needs in MSWM? The evaluation uses a mixed methods approach based on consultative the- ory- and case-based principles. The evaluation team consulted with staff across World Bank Global Practices and IFC industry departments and con- ducted a targeted literature review, a review of Bank Group country strate- gies, a Bank Group portfolio review, two project performance assessments, and seven country case studies. IEG conducted the case studies through virtual discussions with World Bank staff and stakeholders for six economies (Azerbaijan, Colombia, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, and West Bank and Gaza) and through desk-based research for Liberia. Coronavirus pandemic–related travel restrictions made virtual discussions necessary (appendix C). Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    13 1  As defined in https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/municipal-waste/indicator/en- glish_89d5679a-en 2  Waste to energy is a very broad term that encompasses several technology options, from low-temperature landfill gas recovery through medium-temperature anaerobic (bio) di- gestion, to high-temperature thermal treatment (incineration, gasification, pyrolysis). The application of high-temperature thermal treatment facilities in most client countries should be considered carefully in terms of costs of technology and operation, potential for envi- ronmental risks if not operated correctly, maintenance and repair, capability to operate, and public perception. 3  The Global Partnership on Waste Management was launched in 2010 to enhance interna- tional cooperation, outreach, advocacy, and knowledge management and sharing and to raise awareness and political will for waste management. It was a partnership of four international agencies, but multilateral development banks and international agencies covering urban is- sues were not represented. It was closed in December 2019, and there have been no activities since then. The partnership’s website has no mention of activities between 2010 and 2019. 4  For more information on extended producer responsibility, see https://www.oecd.org/env/ tools-evaluation/extendedproducerresponsibility.htm. Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 1 14 2 | Relevance and Coherence Highlights The World Bank Group has increasingly recognized and advocat- ed for waste hierarchy and circular economy approaches for mu- nicipal solid waste management (MSWM). The World Bank Group Climate Change Action Plan 2021–2025, for example, sets out a goal of pursuing integrated waste management and circular economy approaches to help countries and cities advance climate, develop- ment, and sustainability goals. Bank Group support does not consistently provide for some ele- ments essential to integrated waste management, including revis- ing policies, planning for cost recovery, involving the private sector, incorporating behavioral factors, and considering waste pickers. The Bank Group addresses the growing waste management prob- lem in low-income countries (LICs) infrequently. Less than half of Systematic Country Diagnostics in LICs diagnose MSWM issues, and there is no reference to MSWM in International Finance Corpo- ration (IFC) strategies or diagnostics in LICs, except for two cases. LICs received less than 2 percent of World Bank lending and no investments from IFC. The Bank Group has had limited collaboration in support of MSWM. References to the complementary roles that the World Bank and IFC can play in a coherent approach to improving MSWM are ab- sent from most Country Partnership Frameworks, Country Private Sector Diagnostics, and IFC country strategies. MSWM has been a very difficult sector for the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency to enter because of several constraints related mainly to a lack of bankable projects seeking guarantees and the capacity limitations of municipalities as counterparts. 15 This chapter assesses the relevance and coherence of the Bank Group’s approach to MSWM. Relevance was assessed by examining the Bank Group’s approach to supporting clients with MSWM in line with waste hi- erarchy and circular economy approaches, as appropriate to client needs and stage of sector development. Coherence was assessed by examining collaboration among the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA. Specific methods to as- sess the relevance of the Bank Group’s approach to MSWM included a target- ed literature review; interviews with Bank Group staff and key country-based stakeholders; a review of data and analysis from the World Bank’s flagship analytical products, including What a Waste 2.0; and reviews and analysis of Systematic Country Diagnostics (SCDs), Country Private Sector Diagnostics (CPSDs), Country Partnership Frameworks (CPFs), IFC country strategies, ASA, and lending. Portfolio This evaluation covers all World Bank, IFC, and MIGA support for MSWM during the period FY10–20. There were 117 World Bank investment and policy lending operations approved or ongoing during FY10–20, implement- ed in 55 countries (table 2.1). Of those operations, 82 were closed, and IEG evaluated 68. These operations individually supported some or all activities along the waste chain, which covers collection, transport, treatment, and disposal of municipal solid waste, in addition to policy and institutional development. IEG identified 122 World Bank analytical products covering 40 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 2 countries. There were 13 IFC investments in 7 countries, of which IEG evalu- ated 1. There were 26 IFC advisory services in 19 countries, of which 14 were closed, and IEG evaluated 9. IFC investments were mainly for waste-to- energy conversion from landfill gas recovery, except for one landfill invest- ment and three investments for e-waste recycling and composting. Most IFC advisory services were for public-private partnership (PPP) transactions that supported waste-to-energy facilities and sanitary landfills. The rest were a mix of concessions, acquisitions, and lines of credit for MSWM services as part of urban services. MIGA has one recent active guarantee for a new sani- tary landfill that was issued along with advisory services (table 2.1).    16  orld Bank Group Municipal Solid Waste Management Table 2.1. W Activities (Approved and Ongoing, FY10–20) Activity Countries Projects Commitments Projects Closed Category (no.) (no.) (US$, millions) and Evaluated (no.) World Bank 55 117 2,676 68 projects World Bank ASA 40 122 44 n.a.a IFC investments 7 13 398 1 IFC advisory 19 26 23 9 services MIGA guarantees 1 1 106 0 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: ASA = advisory services and analytics; FY = fiscal year; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; n.a. = not applicable. a World Bank ASA are not rated. Relevance The Bank Group has recently focused on the waste hierarchy and circular economy approaches. World Bank knowledge products before 2020, though important, did not explicitly adopt waste hierarchy and circular economy approaches.1 However, the Bank Group (2021) sets out a goal of pursuing integrated waste management and circular economy approaches to help countries and cities advance climate, development, and broader sustainabili- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    17 ty goals. According to the plan, the World Bank will support cities to promote these approaches, and IFC will help strengthen MSWM capacity for service delivery in areas where infrastructure is limited or relies heavily on the informal sector and will promote sustainable resource recovery solutions. The growing problem of marine plastic pollution—and the need to use waste hierarchy and circular economy approaches to address it—was discussed during the World Bank–IMF Spring Meetings (2018, 2019) and was the sub- ject of other events focused on the East Asia and Pacific Region involving environment ministers (of Cambodia, Indonesia, and Vietnam), a private sector leader in plastic production, and a leading plastic recycling entrepre- neur.2 The coronavirus pandemic has also highlighted the need to ensure the sound management and proper disposal of medical-related plastics and waste, including hospital waste, masks, and single-use containers. The Bank Group is playing a convening role in addressing marine plastic pollution through the PROBLUE initiative. PROBLUE is an umbrella trust– funded program that supports the sustainable and integrated development of marine and coastal resources in healthy oceans.3 It is currently supporting the Regional Marine Plastics Framework and Action Plan for East Asia and Pacific, the region with the largest incidence of marine plastic pollution. Linked to this initiative, the World Bank in June 2021 approved a $430 mil- lion China Plastic Waste Reduction Project that has learning potential for other countries. PROBLUE is pursuing analytical work, pilot activities, and public-private platforms in Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. Bank Group Diagnostics and Strategies across Country Income Groups The Bank Group’s country diagnostics, partnership frameworks, and strate- gies cover MSWM issues less in LICs than in other country income groups. Although SCDs often refer to MSWM as a development challenge for UMICs and HICs, such diagnoses occur far less for LICs. Less than half (42 percent) of SCDs in LICs diagnose MSWM issues (figure 2.1), even though most LICs face fast-growing municipal solid waste issues, as documented in the World Bank’s analytical products (for example, Kaza et al. 2018). By contrast, Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 2 75 percent and 79 percent of SCDs diagnose MSWM challenges in HICs and UMICs, respectively. More than half (54 percent, 20 of 37) of IFC’s country strategies and one-third (7 of 21) of its CPSDs (all of which had been devel- oped since 2018) refer to MSWM issues. Encouragingly, 80 percent of those relate to LMICs. Only 2 country strategies for LICs, Haiti and Rwanda, men- tion MSWM issues. However, the overall number of these IFC documents is low for LICs: 5 country strategies and 4 CPSDs. 18  unicipal Solid Waste Management in SCDs and CPFs by Figure 2.1. M Country Income Group (Approved and Ongoing, FY10–20) 120 103 100 65 (63%) Countries (no.) 80 50 (77%) 60 26 (79%) 23 (61%) 20 (77%) 19 (83%) 19 (38%) 38 40 33 10 (50%) 10 (42%) 24 6 (60%) 6 (75%) 5 (40%) 5 (26%) 2 (40%) 2 (33%) 20 8 0 HIC UMIC LMIC LIC Total Income group With SCDs With MSWM mentioned in SCD With follow-up CPF With MSWM work program Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: The percentages shown in the figure refer to the share of countries in one category that are also in the next. For example, of the 6 LICs with follow-up CPFs, 2 (33 percent) have MSWM work programs. CPF = Country Partnership Framework; FY = fiscal year; HIC = high-income country; LIC = low-income country; LMIC = lower-middle-income country; MSWM = municipal solid waste management; SCD = Systematic Country Diagnostic; UMIC = upper-middle-income country. IFC CPSDs do not cover the constraints that inadequate MSWM may be posing for wider private sector activity. High levels of mismanaged solid waste may pose sector-specific and economy-wide constraints that hold back private sector development (including for such sectors as retail, tourism, Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    19 housing development, and manufacturing). However, CPSDs rarely discuss these links between MSWM and private sector development. LICs receive a very small share of World Bank and IFC investments and ASA. Only 1.5 percent of World Bank lending for MSWM during 2010–20 was directed to LICs (to only two countries). IFC had no investments in the sector for LICs. Of the 122 World Bank analytical products, only 6 were directed exclusively toward LICs (table 2.2). 20 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 2  orld Bank Group Municipal Solid Waste Management Operations by Country Income Group (Approved Table 2.2. W and Ongoing, FY10–20) World Bank Lending IFC Investment IFC Advisory Countries Commitments Countries Commitments Countries Commitments Income (US$, (US$, (US$, Group (no.) millions) (%) (no.) millions) (%) (no.) millions) (%) HIC 1 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 UMIC 11 616 34 4 382 96 11 11.3 50 LMIC 21 1,145 63 3 16 4 5 9.2 40 LIC 4 28 1.5 0 0 0 2 2.4 10 Total 37 1,811 100 7 398 100 18 22.9 100 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: FY = fiscal year; HIC = high-income country; IFC = International Finance Corporation; LIC = low-income country; LMIC = lower-middle-income country; UMIC = upper-middle-income country. The low World Bank lending to LICs can be attributed mainly to their limited borrowing ability and competing priorities in these countries. Discussions with World Bank staff and country counterparts indicate that there is a limited political constituency in LICs for raising MSWM as an issue, despite their fast-growing municipal solid waste problem. Client governments lack awareness of waste issues, strategies for managing the sector, appropriate policies, relevant regulations, and institutional capacity (Guerrero, Maas, and Hogland 2013). Higher-income households make private provision for municipal solid waste services, whereas the majority of impoverished people are left to fend for themselves. Although these conditions foster an environ- ment for open dumping and low willingness to pay for services that limits the feasibility of financial support for MSWM initiatives, there may be un- explored opportunities (box 2.1). In any case, there is no clear reason for the low coverage of LICs in World Bank ASA. Box 2.1. Supporting Solid Waste Management in Sub-Saharan Africa Municipal solid waste management in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is home to the larg- est share of low-income countries, has received little attention, with minimal domestic and international investment. The result is that waste is managed poorly in most coun- tries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Uncontrolled dumping and open burning of waste are the dominant means of waste management. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    21 Given the limited resources available to most municipalities for managing municipal services, waste management is often given lower priority and budgets. However, there is scope for both the public and private sectors to bring waste under control and unlock the opportunities for using waste as a resource. Doing so requires investments in the waste management system, from basic city cleansing and improved waste col- lection to improved waste management at end of life. Immediate opportunities exist in the beneficiation (that is, the treatment of waste to im- prove its physical or chemical properties to use it as a raw material input into production processes and extract economic value) of organic waste to compost or biogas, paper and packaging, tires, and waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling. These activities could divert 70–80 percent of municipal solid waste away from disposal and help reduce waste leakage into the environment, including the marine environment. (continued)  upporting Solid Waste Management in Sub-Saharan Africa Box 2.1. S (cont.) Estimated investment needs for transforming the waste sector in Africa ranged from a cumulated $6 billion to $42 billion in 2015 (UNEP 2018). However, diverting waste away from dumpsites and landfills toward reuse, recycling, and recovery could inject an ad- ditional $8 billion every year into the African economy and create significant socioeco- nomic opportunities for the continent. Sources: Independent Evaluation Group interviews and case studies in Kenya, Liberia, and Nigeria; UNEP 2018. IFC’s investments in MSWM are subject to the same constraints as in most other sectors. IFC’s assistance depends on various elements, such as matu- rity of markets, sound legal and regulatory frameworks, and the creditwor- thiness of clients (such as municipalities and private companies). All those are generally lacking in LICs, especially for MSWM, and their absence makes private sector solutions particularly difficult to implement (box 2.2).  utstanding Issues to Enable Private Sector Participation in Box 2.2. O Municipal Solid Waste Management A study covering 20 private service providers in the Dar es Salaam municipalities of Kinondoni, Temeke, and Ilala, Tanzania, revealed that the private sector operates in Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 2 difficult conditions because of low cost recovery, the use of inferior waste collection and transportation equipment, limited scheduling, short contract durations, inefficient systems of refuse fee collection, an absence of planned waste recycling systems, in- accessible roads, and weak implementation of relevant municipal policies and bylaws. It was also noted that the system’s success would depend on increasing municipal authorities’ accountability, raising communities’ awareness, improving willingness to pay for refuse fees, discouraging illegal dumping, enforcing municipal bylaws, and planning and promoting environmentally friendly waste management practices. Source: Kirama and Mayo 2016. 22 Integration of Waste Hierarchy and Circular Economy Principles in Country Strategies and Operations The Bank Group has yet to sufficiently integrate waste hierarchy and cir- cular economy principles into its support to client countries. Thirty-eight percent of countries in the World Bank MSWM portfolio (21 of 55) artic- ulated waste hierarchy or circular economy aims in their SCDs or CPFs. However, only 20 percent of the countries (11 of 55) focused explicitly on waste hierarchy elements (reduction, reuse, recycling, and recovery) in their lending portfolios. The China Ningbo Municipal Solid Waste Minimization and Recycling Project (box 2.3) is a best practice example of operationaliz- ing waste hierarchy principles.  Best Practice Example of Operationalizing Waste Hierarchy Box 2.3. A Principles The China Ningbo Municipal Solid Waste Minimization and Recycling Project is an example of best practice in project design and implementation for operationalizing waste hierarchy principles. Key to this effort was supporting the city of Ningbo to achieve systematic separation of recyclables from organic wastes and ensure their sustainable disposal. The project was based on the premise that more efficient waste separation would make more recycling material readily available, with reduced quanti- ties ending up in the final disposal sites. The project activities included constructing a kitchen waste treatment facility; provid- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    23 ing residential municipal solid waste separation and collection equipment, transferring and sorting stations, and collection vehicles; implementing an incentive-based munic- ipal solid waste program for neighborhood resident committees to roll out increased public awareness programs regarding separation and recycling; conducting training programs on waste minimization for municipal solid waste management staff; devel- oping a solid waste management information system; and formulating municipal solid waste pricing and separation rules and policies. (continued)  Best Practice Example of Operationalizing Waste Hierarchy Box 2.3. A Principles (cont.) Project outcomes exceeded targets. The proportion of solid waste separated (paper, cardboard, plastic, metal, glass, textiles, and so on) at project closure was 17.5 percent, compared with a target of 15 percent. The total amount of separated kitchen waste collected and transferred to the kitchen waste treatment facility was 193,200 tons per year, compared with the target of 150,000 tons per year. The biogas produced is transported to the Yinzhou Landfill Gas Power Plant for use, yielding greenhouse gas emission reductions of about 50,000 tons per year. Before the project, municipal waste in Ningbo municipality either ended up in the landfill or was incinerated. Under the project, 71,600 tons per year of materials for recycling were separated at sorting cen- ters. For monitoring and ensuring accountability, the project established an internet- based smart technology sanitation information system that collects data related to waste collection, transfer vehicles, and transfer stations. The project also established an output-based incentive program targeted to neighborhoods, and it is operational. A client satisfaction survey in 2019 showed an increase in awareness of waste separation from 35 percent in 2015 to 94 percent. Source: World Bank 2020. Relevance of the Bank Group’s Support for Pillar 1 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 2 (Policies and Institutions) A majority of Bank Group CPFs highlight needs for support with policies, regulations, and institutions, but fewer countries received such support. To improve MSWM, it is often important to formulate policy, update regu- lations, and develop institutions along the entire waste value chain, from collection to disposal. Such activities may be necessary for addressing waste hierarchy elements; incentivizing behavior change among waste genera- tors, policy makers, and local government officials; and integrating informal waste pickers. These needs were highlighted in about 65 percent of the coun- tries with CPFs, but only 22–36 percent of those countries received relevant lending assistance. This gap may arise partially because client countries are 24 at different stages of readiness to absorb and implement new or enhanced policies and institutional development. Policies and institutional mecha- nisms from some countries may not be readily transferable to others without being substantially adapted to local contexts. There was a better balance between the extent to which planning issues were raised in countries with CPFs (42 percent), and the share of those countries with follow-up on plan- ning issues in their lending programs was larger (table 2.3).  unicipal Solid Waste Management Support Needs versus Table 2.3. M Relevant Support Provided, Policies and Institutions (percent) Share of Borrowing Coun- Share of Borrowing Countries Determinants of tries (n = 55) with Issues (n = 55) with Issues Covered in Effective MSWM Raised in CPF Lending Portfolio Policy and 65 22 regulations Institutional 64 24 development Capacity building 64 36 Planning 42 40 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: CPF = Country Partnership Framework; MSWM = municipal solid waste management. Relevance of the Bank Group’s Support for Pillar 2 Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    25 (Infrastructure, Access, and Service Delivery) Among MSWM issues, CPFs and lending support paid the most attention to infrastructure for access and service delivery. Improved MSWM infrastruc- ture needs were cited for two-thirds of countries with CPFs, and a similar proportion received lending support. Likewise, the need for enhanced ac- cess and service delivery was also cited for almost two-thirds of countries with CPFs and addressed in more than half of them. The most common infrastructure activities were closing informal dumpsites and rehabilitating sanitary landfills or building new ones. There was relatively less emphasis on infrastructure related to collection, separation, recycling, and recovery. Service delivery involved improved waste collection systems and expanding the reach of existing formal waste management systems to additional house- holds and commercial enterprises. However, support for infrastructure and service delivery was not sufficient- ly accompanied by provisions for financial sustainability. The issue of cost recovery was raised in only about one-third of countries with CPFs. Although more than half of the CPFs refer to the need for private sector participation, only 27 percent of World Bank projects included any efforts to incentivize private sector participation. Moreover, these were generally on a limited scale, relating mainly to earlier stages of the waste chain, especially waste collection and transport (table 2.4). Table 2.4.  Municipal Solid Waste Management Support Needs versus Relevant Support Provided, Infrastructure, Access, and Service Delivery Determinants of Share of Countries (n = 55) Share of Countries (n = 55) Effective MSWM with Issues Raised in CPF with MSWM Lending Infrastructure 64 65 development Enhanced access and 62 53 service delivery Cost recovery and 38 40 financial sustainability Private sector 58 27 participation Mechanisms for aware- 15 44 ness and behavior change at firm and household level Integration of informal 16 24 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 2 actors into MSWM Integration of gender 2 18 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: CPF = Country Partnership Framework; MSWM = municipal solid waste management. The World Bank’s ASA and CPFs addressed awareness and behavior change infrequently, but they received greater attention in its projects. Awareness and behavior change issues were raised for only 15 percent of countries with CPFs and in only 6 of 122 ASA products. However, these issues were ad- dressed in 44 percent of the countries in the World Bank’s lending portfolio. The efforts in the lending portfolio focused mainly on households and had 26 widely varying coverage. There have been relatively few efforts to address the informal sector’s role and gender considerations. These considerations do not feature prominent- ly in the World Bank’s ASA, CPFs, or country lending programs or as part of the design and implementation of relevant operations. In many developing countries, especially LICs, informal waste pickers may provide a large share of solid waste collection, contributing to public benefits and recycling rates. However, very few projects engage with informal waste pickers beyond com- plying with do-no-harm safeguard provisions. Gender-related issues specific to MSWM were addressed infrequently in MSWM operations. The inatten- tion to gender is particularly concerning because participation by women and children is high in the informal sector and requires focused attention to address specific challenges. Women’s participation in processing and in re- cycling factories is also often unregulated, posing health and safety issues. In addition to these occupational challenges, women in the waste sector must deal with competing demands from domestic and child rearing responsibili- ties, as in several other sectors. Coherence There has been limited Bank Group collaboration in support of MSWM, de- spite the need for it expressed in several IFC CPSDs and country strategies. IFC’s CPSDs and country strategies indicate that World Bank involvement is crucial to enhancing the enabling environment for MSWM development. One Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    27 role the World Bank can play is to support enhancing regulatory and legal aspects of the MSWM sector in client countries (and their enforcement). An- other is to develop revenue models for private sector participation during im- plementation of MSWM projects. Sovereign-guaranteed resources also need to be leveraged to promote private sector participation. In a couple of cases where this has occurred or is under way (the Arab Republic of Egypt and West Bank and Gaza), project teams’ initiative played a large role (see chapter 3). IFC investments are more likely where the MSWM policy and regulato- ry environment is mature and core infrastructure is in place. IFC looks to the World Bank to take the lead in supporting client countries to create an enabling environment for private sector investment in MSWM. The issue of landfills is an example. Constructing new landfills usually involves closing old dumpsites that can carry legacy contamination issues. Local govern- ments’ lack of commitment to dealing with these legacy issues can stall new landfill development, with little leverage for IFC in these matters. IFC’s engagement in MSWM is mostly in waste to energy. IFC’s investments and advisory services focus mostly on recovery, especially activities that seek to convert waste to energy. IFC has faced challenges in expanding its range of activities because of insufficient scale, unfavorable legal and regulatory frameworks for private participation in MSWM, uncertain contractual ar- rangements, and uncertainties in land acquisition. China is the only coun- try where IFC has financed activities in addition to waste to energy, such as treatment of restaurant and commercial waste, anaerobic digestion, and recycling. Even these have been on a modest scale. A lack of bankable projects seeking guarantees constrains MIGA’s participa- tion. MIGA can participate in the MSWM sector through two avenues. One is to participate in PPP transactions and provide political risk insurance. The other is to provide guarantees protecting commercial lenders from nonhon- oring of financial obligations by central governments and municipalities regarding their solid waste management projects. MIGA has been proactively trying to originate projects in the MSWM sector in partnership with interna- tional sponsors. However, MSWM has been a very difficult sector for MIGA to enter. One constraint is that municipalities typically borrow in local curren- cy, whereas MIGA can support transactions in local currency only when they meet certain criteria. Another is that many municipalities lack capacity to Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 2 design and implement MSWM projects, which often have complex revenue and fee structures, with multiple contracts and payment sources and with- out uniform tariff structures. Finally, less than 20 percent of the 500 largest municipalities in developing countries are deemed creditworthy in their local context, limiting MIGA’s potential to find suitable counterparts.4 The Belgrade Waste-to-Energy Project in Serbia, which was the result of long- term IFC upstream engagement with the city government, is an exception. It is groundbreaking because it addressed many of the typical constraints of MSWM projects, including the tariff and revenue structures, and the proj- ect’s bankability was enhanced to such a level that development finance institutions besides IFC and MIGA felt comfortable to provide financing. 28 The World Bank Group’s Role among Multilateral Development Banks and Private Investment The World Bank is by far the leading source of lending and knowledge on solid waste management. The Bank Group’s lending of about $3 billion for MSWM during FY10–20 far exceeds that of most other multilateral develop- ment banks, after accounting for geographical coverage. The Inter-American Development Bank is next with $708 million for 2005–20. An assessment of recent donor assistance (from the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- ment, and the Inter-American Development Bank) shows that their financing for MSWM activities varied between 0.5 and 6.1 percent of all urban sector commitments during 2010–20, compared with about 10 percent for the Bank Group (appendix F). Regarding knowledge, the Bank Group produced two flagship reports on the state of and approaches to MSWM worldwide—What a Waste and What a Waste 2.0—and has been conducting technical certifica- tion courses on MSWM for professionals and policy makers worldwide. Multilateral development banks are seeking to expand their support for MSWM, and sector experts see a convening role for the Bank Group. Discus- sions with staff of the Asian Development Bank suggest that they are looking for ways to raise the priority for MSWM within client countries and their own organizations. Both institutions are interested in observing the Bank Group’s Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    29 course toward MSWM. International MSWM experts see a convening role for the Bank Group, which has the largest reach, greatest experience, and most diversified solid waste management portfolio among any of the multilater- al lending or development institutions. Experts also point to the lack of an international coordination and advocacy mechanism for MSWM (unlike for energy, transport, and water supply and sanitation). An assessment of ma- rine plastic pollution—an important component of municipal solid waste— by a leading international expert finds that the absence of a unifying voice and leadership in this area is blocking coordinated action (Fletcher 2021). 1  The World Bank’s urban and local government strategy, Systems of Cities (World Bank 2009), covered municipal solid waste management issues widely under the theme of promoting a safe and sustainable urban environment. Its environmental strategy, Toward a Green, Clean, and Resilient World for All (World Bank Group 2012), and the strategic action plan of the Water Global Practice (World Bank Group 2019) together highlight the challenges of managing waste in fast-growing cities and specific environmental issues relating to soil and water pollution, urban flooding, and greenhouse gas emissions. 2  The event, Marine Plastics in East Asia and the Pacific: Crisis and Opportunity, was held on November 2, 2020. Another event on the subject was Measuring Plastic Pollution, held during the Asia-Pacific Workshop (March 30–31, 2021). 3  For more information about the PROBLUE initiative, see https://www.worldbank.org/en/pro- grams/problue. 4  For more information, see “City Creditworthiness Initiative: A Partnership to Deliver Munic- ipal Finance” at https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/brief/city-creditwor- thiness-initiative. Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 2 30 3 | Effectiveness Highlights There are few World Bank Group efforts to articulate specific links between policies and regulations enacted and overall improve- ments in municipal solid waste management (MSWM) systems. However, successful efforts to enact policy and regulations occur in countries that have undertaken activities geared toward inte- grated approaches. The International Finance Corporation does not play a strong role in MSWM policy and institutional development, but when it does, it can be effective in supporting improvements to the enabling frameworks for private investment in MSWM. World Bank support for basic municipal solid waste infrastructure and service delivery has been generally effective but is often un- dermined by insufficient attention to financial sustainability. Very few projects tracked the environmental, social, or economic outcomes of improving MSWM. Many that did either did not report on outcomes or reported that the intended outcomes were not achieved because of delays or implementation challenges. Local governments and regulatory agencies are ultimately responsible for measuring these impact areas, and this measurement may require more spe- cialized and expensive interventions than are provided currently. Articulating and capturing higher-order impacts shows that MSWM can make substantial contributions toward achieving country-level environmental, social, and economic goals. Good practice exam- ples show how MSWM can contribute to reducing global green- house gas emission (Bosnia and Herzegovina), abating local pollu- tion (especially in China), and creating jobs for low-income urban residents (the Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, and Liberia). 31 This chapter assesses the effectiveness of Bank Group support for MSWM in client countries. Effectiveness is assessed based on IEG’s evaluations of projects that were closed during 2010–20, which in- clude World Bank projects, IFC investments, and completed advisory services. The World Bank has 82 closed projects covering 55 countries, and project-level IEG Implementation Completion and Results Report Re- views covered 68 of those projects.1 Only one of IFC’s 13 investments in 7 countries was matured and evaluated through an Expanded Project Su- pervision Report review. Nine of 26 IFC advisory services in 19 countries were closed and evaluated through Project Completion Reports. For the World Bank’s evaluated projects, the evaluation rated the performance of each determinant of pillars 1 and 2 that the project addressed and each environment, social, and health determinant. Thus, if a completed World Bank project addressed infrastructure and planning, its performance against each of these elements was assessed on whether it was effective or not, based on key performance indicators and other information avail- able from the project evaluations. The following discussion for World Bank projects is based on this analysis. Pillar 1: Policies, Institutions, Capacity Building, and Planning A small proportion of World Bank projects addressed pillar 1, and al- Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 3 though most of them achieved the expected outputs, attribution of wider MSWM outcomes is less clear. Between 15 and 30 percent of the World Bank lending portfolio addressed policy, institutions, capacity building, and planning (table 3.1). The planned outputs were achieved in the majority of projects that were evaluated—between 69 and 81 per- cent. But attributing larger MSWM outcomes to these projects was not possible in some cases, especially for institutional development and capacity-building activities. 32  ffectiveness of Pillar 1 Determinants: Policies, Institutions, Table 3.1. E Capacity Building, and Planning Projects Projects Projects with Addressing Closed and Effective Determinant a Evaluated Performanceb Determinants (no.) (%) (no.) (no.) (%) Policies and 17 15 10 7 70 regulations Institutional 19 16 13 9 69 development Capacity building 35 30 21 17 81 Planning 28 24 14 10 71 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: a. Total portfolio is 117 projects. b. Performance is assessed based on an analysis of key performance indicators for a given determinant. World Bank projects that addressed policy and regulatory issues effectively were generally linked to positive overall MSWM outcomes. Most client countries have at least basic policy and regulatory elements in place, but these policies often need clarification, especially at local levels. There is a positive association between cases where the World Bank supported policy and regulatory reform effectively and those where the World Bank also achieved effective results across both evaluation pillars. In West Bank and Gaza, the Southern West Bank Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    33 Solid Waste Management Project helped update guidelines for PPPs, including specifications for solid waste equipment and facilities. This upstream assistance helped implement a PPP contract for managing a landfill and generated mo- mentum for wider solid waste management sector reform. In Bosnia and Her- zegovina, the World Bank’s solid waste management projects helped develop a legal framework for facilitating the development of intermunicipal boards that is underpinning improved performance in the MSWM sector. Policy actions in the Morocco development policy loan (DPL) series encompassed issues be- longing to several determinants of the evaluation framework’s two pillars—in- stitutional coordination, budgeting, sector industry standards, transparency, and cost-effectiveness—as part of the country’s National Solid Waste Program. These efforts helped increase waste collection in Morocco to near-universal coverage. Similarly, the Colombia DPL for Sustainable Development updated standards and regulations for sanitary landfills in line with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recommendations and applied waste hierarchy principles in promoting recycling and reuse. World Bank regulatory assistance helped improve the welfare of waste pickers and was instrumen- tal in increasing adequate disposal rates. However, policy dialogue for MSWM was stalled under Nigeria’s Lagos Metropolitan Development and Governance Project, partly because it was given less priority than other urban services the project covered, and no progress was made in improving the state of MSWM in the city. Institutional development and capacity-building activities were generally car- ried out as planned, but they often did not track their contributions to overall MSWM outcomes. Institutional development was mainly through developing dedicated municipal solid waste cells or units at the local government or other levels, implementing mechanisms for intermunicipal district coordination, and equipping training centers. Capacity building was carried out through training officials from local government and other levels using classroom training and study tours. Most of the outputs from these activities (for ex- ample, the number of training sessions and the number of persons trained) were reported but can be reasonably linked to overall MSWM outcomes in only a few cases. A positive experience from Mozambique’s Maputo Municipal Development Program I and II involved support for reorganization in the City Council of Maputo to focus on the core functions of policy development and planning of solid waste services while contracting out to private firms and Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 3 microenterprises the job of collecting and disposing of garbage. These actions can be linked to significant improvements in access and service delivery. Azer- baijan’s ARP II Integrated Solid Waste Management Project was instrumental in setting up Tamiz Shahar, a solid waste management company, with posi- tive results for MSWM in the Baku area. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s solid waste management projects helped establish 13 intermunicipal districts using a regional landfill and sharing operational and capital costs. By contrast, Brazil’s Ceara Regional Development, a regional consortium established for a landfill, did not materialize because of disagreement among members. In the Central African Republic’s Emergency Urban Infrastructure Emergency Recovery Loan, there is no clear evidence for strengthened capacity of stakeholders in MSWM after management training in this regard. The Maldives’ Ari Atoll Solid Waste 34 Management Project provided training to at least one community member in each participating island in solid waste management practices, but there is no clear evidence linking it to results. Tanzania’s Strategic Cities Project resulted in more efficient collection and disposal methods at project completion, but it is not clear whether this can be attributed to increased local government capacity that can sustain these results in the long term or whether the results were mainly attributable to external consulting services and additional spe- cialists employed during project implementation. World Bank project activities for MSWM planning were mostly completed as envisioned, but there is little evidence of follow-up. Support for planning was directed mainly toward preparing MSWM strategies and master plans (for capital cities or major cities), and these were completed with a few excep- tions. But there appears to have been little follow-up through investments, either through the borrower’s own funds or through projects funded by external sources. This also makes it likely that any capacity addition for local government or other bodies during the planning exercise may have dissipat- ed after project completion. For example, MSWM plans were developed for six provinces and six municipalities and regions in Argentina, in the Central African Republic for the cities of Bangui and Bimbo, and in Côte d’Ivoire for Abidjan without any indication of follow-up. In Nepal, on a smaller scale, four medium-size municipalities improved their solid waste management services, first by developing a solid waste management strategy and service implemen- tation plan and then by following the plans with grant subsidy support. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    35 IFC investments and advisory services improved the enabling framework for private investments in some cases. IFC advisory services helped improve PPP regulatory frameworks in Serbia that contributed to finalizing the Belgrade Waste-to-Energy Project. They also helped clarify the legal enabling en- vironment for private investment in MSWM in Maldives, setting the stage for private participation. In Albania, IFC’s support for formulating legal provisions for packaging and e-waste was not followed through because of political changes. Several advisory engagements captured in table B.3 reflect similar efforts with mixed results in Brazil, Egypt, Guinea, India, Kosovo, Lesotho, Montenegro, and West Bank and Gaza. Efforts are currently under way in Indonesia and Uganda. In addition, IFC has provided advisory services related to the waste sector in Buenos Aires, Argentina; Bogota, Colombia; and Izmir, Turkey (as part of the Cities Business Model). Pillar 2: Infrastructure, Access, and Service Delivery World Bank support for infrastructure development in the MSWM portfolio achieved its intended results in most projects where it was attempted. World Bank support for infrastructure and operations to collect, transfer, and dispose of solid waste covered 56 percent of the project portfolio and generally real- ized the intended outputs in 83 percent of the evaluated projects (table 3.2). In decreasing order of occurrences, the following are the types of infrastruc- ture that were supported: (i) disposal: closure of open dumps, rehabilitation of dumps and landfills, and opening of new sanitary landfills; (ii) collection, separation, sorting, transfer, transport: bins, trucks, and transfer stations; and (iii) sorting, recycling: material recovery facilities and recycling facilities. Under the evaluated portfolio, about 137 dumpsites closed, 40 sanitary landfills were built, and 112 transfer stations were built, with varying sizes and capacity.  ffectiveness of Pillar 2 Determinants: Infrastructure, Access, Table 3.2. E and Service Delivery Projects with Projects Projects Addressing Effective Closed and Determinant Performancea Evaluated Determinants (no.) (%) (no.) (no.) (%) Infrastructure 65 56 40 33 83 development Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 3 Access and service 44 38 26 24 92 delivery Solid waste 44 38 31 23 74 management operations Cost recovery and 37 32 25 14 56 financial sustainability Private sector 22 19 15 11 73 participation Awareness and behavior 35 30 23 20 87 change Integration of informal 21 18 11 9 82 waste pickers Gender considerations 12 10 5 5 100 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. 36 Note: a. Performance is assessed based on an analysis of key performance indicators for a given parameter. Efforts to improve access and service delivery—whether carried out by them- selves or in conjunction with new infrastructure—had favorable results in nearly all cases. World Bank projects addressed access to MSWM collection and service delivery in 38 percent of the project portfolio, and favorable re- sults were achieved in 92 percent of the evaluated cases. Access is measured by the number of waste generators (households and commercial enterprises) covered by MSWM services, mainly waste collection and transport. Service delivery is measured by the frequency and quality of MSWM services. In Côte d’Ivoire’s Emergency Urban Infrastructure Emergency Recovery Loan, the number of people in urban areas with access to regular solid waste collection increased from about 3 million to 4.5 million, surpassing the target of 4 mil- lion. In the surveyed municipalities, the majority of respondents agreed that household waste collection and frequency had improved. Under Bosnia and Herzegovina’s solid waste management projects, the percentage of house- holds in the project area that were serviced by a formal waste management system increased from 25 to 64 percent, marginally exceeding the target. Un- der the Central African Republic’s Emergency Urban Infrastructure Emergen- cy Recovery Loan, the number of people in urban areas provided with access to regular solid waste collection was only 183,600 against a target of 390,000. However, 72 percent of households that were provided access were satisfied with the regularity of collection. Infrastructure improvements covering landfills and equipment for collection Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    37 and transport increased the scale of solid waste management operations in most cases. Solid waste management operations are assessed on scale and frequency of transfer, transport, and disposal. These were addressed in 38 percent of the project portfolio, with favorable results in 74 percent of the evaluated cases. In Benin’s Decentralized City Management II Project, the share of municipal waste collected and transported out of the capital city of Porto-Novo (as a percentage of the total quantity) rose to 71 percent against a baseline of 25 percent and a target of 65 percent. In West Bank and Gaza’s Southern West Bank Solid Waste Management Project, there was a transfor- mational shift in solid waste management services in two governorates, from a widely criticized, primitive, local open dump to a modern, internationally comparable landfill and waste disposal operation with sound environmental processes and social acceptability. In Argentina’s National Urban Solid Waste Management Project, the targeted percentage of solid waste disposed of in the new sanitary landfills (as a proportion of the total estimated solid waste generated by the municipalities) was exceeded—98 percent achieved, com- pared with the goal of 85 percent. However, in Turkey’s Municipal Services Project, only 52 percent of the targeted waste disposal (in tons per year) was achieved at project completion. Cost Recovery and Private Sector Participation Attention to cost recovery and financial sustainability in World Bank projects lags significantly behind infrastructure provision, and results were favor- able in only about half of the evaluated cases. The World Bank addressed the issue of cost recovery and improved financial sustainability in 32 percent of the portfolio, and only 56 percent of the evaluated projects showed favor- able results. Mozambique, Vietnam, and West Bank and Gaza had positive experiences in which 70–90 percent or more of solid waste providers’ costs (including loan repayments in Vietnam) were recovered from user fees. In Morocco, the government allocated supplementary financial support to local governments on a regressive basis over three to four years for collection and cleaning and contributing to landfill construction. Several other countries had less success in meeting cost recovery targets, even at project completion. In Albania’s Coastal Zone Management Adaptable Program Loan 1 Project, there was a risk that the larger environmental infrastructure investments, such as the solid waste landfill site and the transfer station, would not be op- Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 3 erated fully or maintained properly because of inadequate allocations in lo- cal utility companies’ maintenance budgets. In the Kyrgyz Republic’s Bishkek and Osh Urban Infrastructure Project, despite improvements to the cities’ revenue collection, most utilities and towns do not have adequate financial resources, and sector financing remains low. A small proportion of World Bank projects addressed private participation in MSWM activities with generally limited scope and scale. Only 19 percent of World Bank projects had activities involving private sector involvement, and 73 percent of the evaluated cases had positive results. Under West Bank and Gaza’s Global Partnership on Results-Based Aid Solid Waste Manage- ment Project, a concession agreement with a private landfill operator was 38 implemented, although the contractor chose not to continue after the initial contract period because of unfavorable financial terms and difficult working conditions. Under Mozambique’s Maputo Municipal Development Program I and II, primary waste collection was initiated in 25 suburban neighborhoods, using microenterprises to provide collection services. In Bosnia and Herze- govina, recycling facilities were installed and made operational in four re- gions through contracts between utilities and private companies. Awareness Raising and Behavioral Change Activities for raising awareness and behavior change were limited, but posi- tive results were achieved in most evaluated cases. Awareness and behavior change activities were attempted in 30 percent of the project portfolio, and favorable results were obtained in 87 percent of the evaluated cases. The programs generally targeted waste generators (households and commercial enterprises). The activities included citizen engagement programs, public awareness campaigns, and complaint systems. Positive results were achieved in projects in Argentina, Benin, Egypt, and West Bank and Gaza, raising pub- lic awareness and demand for solid waste collection, encouraging residents to pay for collection, reducing the discharge of solid waste into open drains, and decreasing illegal dumping. In India, IFC advisory services work sup- ported a pan-India awareness campaign delivered through social media and radio, creating broader awareness across both consumers and local waste management companies about the hazards of e-waste. Integration of the Informal Sector Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    39 Relatively few MSWM projects addressed the issue of waste pickers (beyond compliance with social safeguards), though several show positive results. The World Bank addressed the issue of informal waste pickers in only 18 percent of its portfolio, with 82 percent of the evaluated cases showing favorable results. In Argentina’s National Urban Solid Waste Management Project, the targeted number of informal recyclers that were integrated into formal activ- ities of the municipalities’ sanitary landfills and separation plants was only partially achieved—275 were integrated compared with the target of 360. The Morocco DPL series supported pilots for inclusion of informal waste pickers by organizing cooperatives through partnerships with municipalities and private operators. IEG’s discussion with one well-functioning cooperative in Meknes municipality found that its success was due to the municipality and the private company’s willingness to support the informal waste pickers in organizing themselves as a cooperative to operate the sorting center. How- ever, these efforts need to be scaled up to have wider impact. In Colombia, the World Bank’s DPL series supported the government’s regulatory efforts by developing and implementing frameworks to formalize waste pickers and secure their livelihoods. Other efforts were less successful because subnation- al entities did not follow through on implementation of World Bank proposals on integrating waste pickers, even though national governments may have agreed with them. This was the case in Brazil’s Integrated Solid Waste Man- agement and Carbon Finance Project, in which waste pickers’ issues were incorporated in the design phase, but limited progress was made because of implementation and coordination challenges at the local government level, including disagreement over the amount of monetary compensation. Social safeguard requirements can be leveraged to create substantial social and economic benefits for waste pickers and other informal actors. This was demonstrated by the World Bank–supported MSWM projects in West Bank and Gaza relating to waste pickers who were at risk of losing their liveli- hoods when dumpsites closed. Through the Sustainable MSWM Project, a livelihood assessment was conducted instead of only offering compensa- tion for monetary loss, and a program was designed for waste pickers and implemented by specialized nongovernmental organizations. Underage pickers were allowed to attend vocational schools, and at least 80 percent Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 3 of households whose livelihood depended on waste picking were integrated into improved and commercially viable waste management plans or other income-generating plans that the project promoted. Only a few closed projects addressed gender considerations, but the active portfolio is promoting good practices. Only 10 percent of the project port- folio included gender considerations for informal waste pickers. They were mostly about counting female beneficiaries of MSWM access and services, and all five evaluated projects met their generally modest expectations. Mozambique’s Municipal Development Program solid waste microenter- prises generated 590 jobs for local residents, many of whom are women. More recently, some active projects are taking a more nuanced approach. In 40 Ghana, the Greater Accra Resilient and Integrated Development Project is conducting a gender-sensitive trash value-chain analysis (which includes recycling and processing handpicked trash) and is mapping the results to support women operating as trash pickers. This will include elements of cost analysis, access (both monetary and nonmonetary), and usage needed to make gender-informed decisions. In Pakistan’s Competitive and Livable City of Karachi Project, the World Bank is tracking the number of jobs and the working conditions of women employed in the solid waste management sector, both formally and informally and across the value chain. Environmental, Health, Social, and Economic Impacts Very few projects tracked the environmental, health, social, or economic im- pacts of improved MSWM activities. Only 9–21 percent of projects in the World Bank portfolio reported on some type of environmental, social, or economic impacts linked to MSWM activities (table 3.3). Of those projects, many either did not report any data on outcomes or reported that the intended impacts were not achieved because of delays or other challenges in implementing MSWM activities. Local governments and regulatory agencies are ultimately re- sponsible for measuring these impact areas, yet this measurement may require more specialized and expensive interventions than are provided currently. Measuring these impacts is essential because they provide the basis to make Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    41 the case for greater attention to and resource allocation for MSWM.  nvironmental, Social, and Economic Impacts of Improved Table 3.3. E Municipal Solid Waste Management Activities Projects Addressing Projects Closed Projects with Effective Determinant and Evaluated Performance Determinant (no.) (%) (no.) (no.) (%) Environment 25 21 20 13 65 Climate 12 10 7 5 71 change Social (focus 11 9 8 2 25 on health) Job creation 17 15 12 7 58 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Environment and Climate Change World Bank support for landfill gas collection and the conversion of gas to en- ergy has not yielded the expected returns in a majority of cases. Landfill gas is a natural by-product of the decomposition of organic material in landfills and is composed of about equal proportions of methane and carbon dioxide, together with a small quantity of nonmethane organic compounds. The World Bank supported landfill gas collection through six projects in six countries (Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Jordan, and Tunisia) during FY10–20, as detailed in box 3.1. The evaluation also took stock of the results of several carbon finance projects for landfill gas collection that were attached to parent projects that closed before 2010 (appendix E).  orld Bank Support for Landfill Gas Collection to Address Box 3.1. W Climate Change The World Bank supported 25 carbon offset projects dealing with recovery of gas from landfills. These projects were developed within the Kyoto framework, which has since been assessed as regulatorily complex, with stringent lengthy procedures and with high transaction costs. Of those projects, 21 were closed and 4 were active during 2010–20. The projects fell under the following categories: composting, landfill gas recovery, landfill gas with electricity generation, and landfill gas with electricity gen- eration and composting. Only 5 of the 21 closed projects met or exceeded targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Some examples are as follows: Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 3 » In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Solid Waste Management Project (2002–11) helped install gas control and prevention systems for three regional landfills, resulting in 100 percent prevented costs of air pollution and prevented costs of greenhouse gas (methane) emissions. » In Jordan, the Amman Solid Waste Management and Carbon Finance Proj- ect (2007–14) achieved good preliminary results of the pilot landfill gas flaring phase, but the target carbon dioxide reduction was not met because of delays in construction. (continued) 42  orld Bank Support for Landfill Gas Collection to Address Box 3.1. W Climate Change (cont.) » In Tunisia, the Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management Project helped the client equip seven landfills with landfill gas treatment systems, per the Clean Development Mechanism requirements. The project reports earning about $3.5 million from selling certified emission reductions at project closure, although the earnings were less than anticipated. Sources: United Nations Environment Programme–Denmark Technical University Partnership data- base (2017), http://www.cdmpipeline.org; World Bank 2014a, 2014c, 2018. Support for pollution monitoring was an essential mechanism for identify- ing and acting on MSWM-related pollution risks. MSWM activities in Chi- na show how the World Bank can help countries monitor and measurably achieve reduction in surface water, groundwater, and soil pollution from municipal solid waste sources. Within the MSWM portfolio, China was the country that articulated and measured MSWM water and soil pollution re- duction goals most frequently. For example, in the Liaoning Medium Cities Infrastructure Project, China established groundwater monitoring wells to prevent the spread of pollution from MSWM sources. The project provided new solid waste disposal capacity of about 2,000 tons per day, including the treatment of highly contaminating leachate at the landfill sites, and helped Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    43 close several uncontrolled dumpsites. Through the established monitoring, the project reported on reduced groundwater contamination via landfills. In the Zhejiang Qiantang River Basin Small Town Environment Project, the World Bank assisted China in reducing pollution of the surface water, groundwater, and soil. Three open dumps were closed to reduce contami- nation to groundwater. An external environmental agency monitored the groundwater quality at the closed sites regularly and ensured that the sites were appropriately closed. Health Impacts Almost no projects tracked the positive human health outcomes that are expected to follow from improved MSWM. Improved MSWM, including closing open dumpsites, can prevent disease in surrounding areas. In the World Bank’s MSWM portfolio, only 9 percent of the projects articulated links with human health. All five closed projects in this set claimed posi- tive health impacts that were explained by cause-and-effect assumptions, without any quantitative evidence. Economic and Social Impacts Some projects tracked economic impacts, mainly related to job creation in the MSWM sector, including in LICs and fragile contexts. Seventeen proj- ects could track economic impacts. Among those, 13 projects were closed and evaluated, and 7 of them reported positive results. The Integration of the Informal Sector section discusses some examples of job creation for informal workers. Among other examples of job creation in the mu- nicipal solid waste sector, Mozambique’s Maputo Municipal Development Program I and II resulted in employment for about 590 workers in 35 microenterprises that extended waste collection services to 43 suburban neighborhoods covering about 900,000 residents. In Côte d’Ivoire, 7,000 people were given permanent jobs as waste collectors through the Emer- gency Urban Infrastructure Emergency Recovery Loan (2008–14), greatly exceeding the target of 4,500. In Liberia, the Emergency Monrovia Urban Sanitation Project supported the local government authority in provid- ing employment to skip and tipper truck drivers; skip location, transfer station, and landfill operatives; site managers; and administration staff, Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 3 in addition to more than 400 street sweepers, of which 60 percent were women. The project also promoted primary waste collection services by community-based enterprises providing employment opportunities for in- formal waste pickers. However, in the Central African Republic, the Emer- gency Urban Infrastructure Emergency Recovery Loan could achieve only 15 percent of the targeted 350 jobs. A small number of projects linked improved MSWM with tourism develop- ment, but most either did not measure these effects or could not achieve the desired impacts. In China’s Gansu Cultural and Natural Heritage Protection and Development Project, the share of tourists who purchased private tourism services when visiting the project sites increased from 44 34 percent in 2007 to 64 percent in 2015, exceeding the project end target of 60 percent. This increase in purchases of tourism services was linked to visitor satisfaction with site management, including MSWM. Albania’s Coastal Zone Management Project aimed to support the city of Saranda’s tourism, partly through improvements in MSWM, but no impacts were measured. In the Montenegro Environmentally Sensitive Tourist Areas Project, there was no provision to measure tourism development out- comes resulting from improved MSWM. The increased value of reclaimed land is an important but often unrecog- nized outcome of MSWM activities. Land value can increase, for example, from closing illegal landfills and converting the land to other productive uses. There are opportunities to assess such increases in land value as economic impacts of MSWM activities through well-designed metrics. There were 18 projects in the World Bank portfolio that closed illegal dumps, but most did not have any explicit plans to create or define a more productive use for these open spaces or to capture the land value increase in and around the closed landfills. The results relating to the Balakhani landfill for the Greater Baku region under Azerbaijan’s ARP II Integrated Solid Waste Management Proj- ect are a leading example of the transformation of urban areas near closed or improved sites that had a transformative impact on the city. Effectiveness of Bank Group Collaboration Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    45 It is too soon to evaluate the effectiveness of most intra–Bank Group efforts to collaborate on MSWM. However, there are some instances of collaboration from the completed and ongoing initiatives. One such Bank Group collab- orative effort, a PPP transaction in support of landfill management under West Bank and Gaza’s Global Partnership on Results-Based Aid Solid Waste Management Project, was successful initially, but the contractor chose not to continue after the initial contract period because of unfavorable financial terms and difficult working conditions. In Egypt, a possible model for World Bank–IFC collaboration is under way in which policy aspects were addressed within the development policy operation framework, with commitment from senior management to enable IFC transactions. The Cities Initiative combines investment and advice for cities to address pressing urban needs with private sector participation.2 It is expected to provide opportunities for further collaboration. Recent IFC country strategies for the Dominican Re- public, El Salvador, and Pakistan propose World Bank and IFC collaboration for MSWM. Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 3 46 1  The remaining closed projects were not evaluated either because they had a project cost of less than $5 million (under the Independent Evaluation Group’s mandate, projects costing $5 million or more are evaluated) or had yet to complete their Implementation Completion and Results Reports. 2  For more information on the Cities Initiative, see https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/In- dustry_EXT_Content/IFC_External_Corporate_Site/Infrastructure/Priorities/Cities. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    47 4 | Factors of Effectiveness Highlights Four main categories of factors were found to have a strong, often limiting, influence on the effectiveness of the World Bank Group’s municipal solid waste management (MSWM) support. Nature of Bank Group engagement. Extended, well-sequenced, and coherent country engagement that includes support for key policy reforms and investment has been effective in helping coun- tries build an integrated approach to MSWM incrementally. For this reason, improved MSWM is more likely to be achieved when MSWM is the focus of a core project rather than when it is included as a smaller project component. However, the evaluation found few examples of such types of country engagements, mainly in upper-middle-income countries. Commitment and ability of governments to finance MSWM services sustainably. The inability of governments to ensure sustainable financing is a main constraint on providing adequate MSWM ser- vices. This inability can arise at any layer of government (national, provincial, or local), mainly because of lack of political commitment or competing demands for public financing. Accountability for providing adequate and sustainable services. A lack of transparency and vested interests lodged within ser- vice provision for collection and transport can constrain the Bank Group’s MSWM operations. Efforts to achieve accountability by ad- dressing political economy challenges, increasing awareness, and supporting behavior change among national governments, local governments, and waste generators can contribute to success. 48   Land availability. The ability to acquire land for solid waste infra- structure is a systematic constraint across the portfolio, reducing the World Bank’s ability to provide support to clients. The con- straint is partially attributable to the not-in-my-backyard phenom- enon—the generalized opposition of neighboring populations and local governments to siting landfills (or other infrastructure) within their jurisdictions. 49 This chapter focuses on four factors that have influenced the effective- ness of the Bank Group’s MSWM support. These factors are (i) the nature of World Bank support in terms of continuity, coverage, and coherence; (ii) government commitment to ensuring financial sustainability of MSWM; (iii) local governments’ accountability for providing adequate and sustainable MSWM services; and (iv) land availability and the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) phenomenon (the generalized opposition of neighboring popu- lations and local governments to siting landfills [or other infrastructure] within their jurisdictions). Nature of World Bank Engagement Long-term, well-sequenced, and coherent engagement across the evalua- tion pillars was linked to positive MSWM outcomes. The association shows that to achieve effective MSWM at scale, the Bank Group needs to take an integrated approach that ensures that all phases of the MSWM process are developed over time and strategically. Extended, well-sequenced, and co- herent country engagement that includes support for key policy reforms and investment has been effective in helping countries build an integrated approach to MSWM incrementally. These sequenced efforts are linked to wider scope and better performance in access, service delivery, and finan- cial sustainability. The World Bank provided this type of sustained support through a combination of analytics, DPLs, investments, and Program-for-Re- sults financing in five economies (Colombia, Liberia, Maldives, Morocco, and Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 4 West Bank and Gaza) for more than a decade. In these cases, MSWM out- comes were achieved eventually, partly because there was time to learn from and correct for technical and political challenges (see examples in box 4.1). These engagements show that longer-term engagement through DPLs and investments helps to cover a wider range of issues across the two pillars. The World Bank’s consistency and commitment has provided the time needed for institutions to adapt and for key reforms and behaviors to take hold. DPLs have proved important in this regard, but sustained engagement can also occur through a single well-considered long-term investment. 50  ositive Municipal Solid Waste Management Outcomes from Box 4.1. P Sustained Engagement The World Bank supported municipal solid waste management in Colombia (through three investment project financing projects and two programmatic series of develop- ment policy loans [DPLs] since 2005) and Morocco (through four DPLs during 2009–15) with a wide coverage of issues that have yielded several positive results and set the stage for continued transformation of the sector. In Colombia, the World Bank’s support since 2005 has contributed to the development of circular economy policies—the first of their kind in Latin America. The key areas of World Bank engagement have been disposal waste management, recycling, and social inclu- sion. In 2005, most of the waste generated in the country was disposed of in open dumps or uncontrolled landfills. The World Bank supported policy and regulatory measures, the implementation of integrated solid waste management plans mandated for municipalities, and the regionalization of disposal arrangements. The latest results show that 90 percent of all municipalities are disposing of solid waste adequately, compared with 60 percent in 2009. The second DPL series supports the country’s ambitious target of increasing recy- cling and reuse of waste materials from 8.7 percent in 2019 to 17.9 percent by 2030. The World Bank’s support was instrumental in formalizing the role of waste pickers. In Morocco, a World Bank–supported assessment of the costs of environmental degradation and the analytical basis for the Solid Waste Law set the stage for World Bank support through a series of programmatic DPLs. They contributed to the imple- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    51 mentation of the three-phase, 15-year National Solid Waste Program with measurable targets, helping to increase the waste collection rate to 96 percent by 2020. About 160 municipalities have delegated management of collection services to 18 private com- panies. A strong start was made in building new controlled landfills and rehabilitating illegal dumps, though current achievements are lagging targets: 26 controlled landfills of 80 planned for the end of 2022 and 60 illegal dumps rehabilitated against 300 tar- geted by the end of 2020. Citizen engagement reports are being implemented in cities through digital development platforms. Allocations from the central budget based on transparent and objective criteria were instrumental in improved municipal solid waste management performance. The municipalities’ financial and technical capacity issues that could not be addressed adequately under the DPL series are now supported through the ongoing Local Government Support Program-for-Results Project. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Even strategically important investments can be insufficient if limited to part of the MSWM value chain. The failure to address essential issues at any point along the waste value chain (from waste collection to transport to final disposal) undermines the entire chain’s effectiveness. Solutions to integrate the interrelated processes in the solid waste management chain are critical. Azerbaijan is the best example of the need to approach MSWM at the system level (box 4.2). Box 4.2. Developing Integrated Waste Value Chains: Azerbaijan The World Bank’s Integrated Solid Waste Management Project (2008–18) in Azerbaijan contributed to improved management of the municipal solid waste sector in Greater Baku and other parts of the country in the critical areas of collection, disposal, insti- tutional reform, policy and regulatory environment, financial sustainability, and social inclusion. The project helped transform the city dump into a well-managed sanitary landfill (Balakhani), closed informal dumpsites (totaling 143 hectares), and increased access to collection services to an additional 800,000 residents in the peri-urban ar- eas of Baku. The project also financed the feasibility studies and environmental impact assessments needed to introduce transfer stations to maintain an effective enhanced waste collection and disposal system. Nevertheless, illegal dumping in Baku—which continues unabated—is undermining the efficiency with which a large share of the waste can be processed, treated, or recycled, and continues to pose environmental and health risks. Despite the project’s Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 4 achievements, nearly 50 percent of the waste collected in Greater Baku fails to reach the authorized treatment and disposal facilities, and a significant proportion of the collected waste is dumped informally. This undermines capacity use at treatment and disposal facilities, reducing their efficiency and entailing high capital and operating costs. This situation is largely attributable to the nonavailability of waste transfer facil- ities in Greater Baku, a lack of financial incentives for operators to deliver waste to the new treatment and disposal facilities, and a lack of effective control mechanisms and enforcement. This experience underlines the criticality of integrating the interrelated processes in the solid waste management chain. Source: World Bank 2021a. 52 Planned outcomes are likely to be better achieved in dedicated projects than in part-MSWM projects. There were 25 dedicated MSWM projects in the World Bank portfolio (projects having nearly 100 percent of proj- ect commitments dedicated to MSWM objectives), with $611 million in commitments. By contrast, there were 68 part-MSWM projects (proj- ects with only one or two generally small MSWM components), with net MSWM commitments of $1.83 billion, or three times that of the dedi- cated projects. Dedicated projects mostly had wider scope in objectives and geographical coverage than part-MSWM projects. Among closed and evaluated projects, the percentage of dedicated projects that had moder- ately satisfactory or better outcomes (73 percent) was significantly higher than the performance of MSWM components of the part-MSWM projects (62 percent; table 4.1).  utcome Achievement in Core MSWM Projects versus Part- Table 4.1. O MSWM Projects Closed and Projects with MS+ Solid Waste All World Bank Evaluated Outcome Ratinga Management Projects Commitment Projects Content (no.) (US$, millions) (no.) (no.) (%) Dedicated 25 611 15 11 73 MSWM projectsb Part-MSWM 68 1,834 37 23 62 projectsc Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    53 Otherd 23 181 16 8 50 Total 116 2,626 67 42 63 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: MS+ = moderately satisfactory or better; MSWM = municipal solid waste management. a. Ratings were derived by analyzing key performance indicators at the project level for dedicated proj- ects and at the component level for part-MSWM projects. b. A dedicated MSWM project has nearly 100 percent of project commitment for MSWM objectives. c. A part-MSWM project has MSWM as one of several sector components and commitment ranges between 5 and 50 percent of project commitment. d. Hazardous, health, and industrial waste projects. Part-MSWM projects perform especially poorly when they have small, stand-alone components. The likelihood is high that these components will be stalled, only partially completed, or dropped. For instance, in Egypt’s Integrated Irrigation Improvement and Management Project, the planned piloting of collection and disposal of solid wastes in two command ar- eas did not make progress, though the overall project outcome rating was moderately satisfactory. In Peru’s Cusco Regional Development Project and Vilcanota Valley Rehabilitation and Management Project, there was no prog- ress in MSWM components that were expected to contribute to MSWM and tourism development. In Brazil’s São Luís Municipal Adaptable Program Loan 4 Project, two components covering construction of a hydraulic landfill were dropped, along with other MSWM activities related to rehabilitating areas of environmental value to improve the quality of water flowing to Bacanga Lake. In Côte d’Ivoire’s Emergency Urban Infrastructure Emergency Recovery Loan Project, none of the planned 25 transfer stations were pursued. However, part-MSWM projects can have a crucial role in jumpstarting en- gagement with a borrower. This was the intention in Nigeria’s Lagos Metro- politan Development and Governance Project that contained a component for policy dialogue on waste management. However, the waste management component did not make progress because of reduced government com- mitment during implementation. Under Egypt’s Enhanced Water Resources Management Project, there was consensus that brought MSWM and indus- trial wastewater management to the forefront of integrated water resources management, together with improved irrigation and drainage—an innova- tive combination for the country. Support to solid waste management through components in the context Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 4 of flood prevention is strategically important. As outlined in IEG’s urban resilience evaluation (World Bank 2019), targeted support to reduce clogging of waterways and pumping stations to enable proper drainage is an integral part of broader support to flood protection projects. Examples include the support to reduce solid waste around flood pumping stations in the Met- ro Manila Flood Management Project and the Greater Accra Resilient and Integrated Development Project, in which components target, among other items, solid waste management in low-income or informal communities of the Odaw Basin that contribute the highest share of solid waste in the pri- mary Odaw Channel. 54 Commitment and Ability of Governments to Ensure Financial Sustainability The lack of government commitment to ensure sustainable financing is one of the main constraints on providing adequate MSWM services. The inability to ensure sustainable financing can arise at any layer of government (na- tional, provincial, or local) and may be an inability to commit to sustainable financing or to follow through on such a commitment through electoral cycles. Several World Bank projects included components for ensuring finan- cial sustainability of MSWM services through arrangements for improved cost recovery via user fees or tariffs, sometimes supplemented by earmarked mu- nicipal revenues or budget transfers from provincial or central governments. In some cases, the expected results were not achieved at project completion, and even where favorable results were achieved, the improvements were of- ten not sustained. For instance, data and feedback from officials through case study discussions for Azerbaijan, Morocco, and West Bank and Gaza suggest that cost recovery has declined since project completion. This trend, along with the reduction or discontinuation of budget transfers to compensate for the shortfall, has implications for solid waste management services and outcomes. In Morocco and West Bank and Gaza, reduced resources for upkeep and expansion of sanitary landfills are resulting in increasing problems of leachate contaminating soil and water. In other cases, such as in Azerbaijan, Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    55 declining cost recovery affects waste collection and transport, leading to a relapse into the practice of disposing of waste in open dumps. Accountability for Providing Adequate and Sustainable Services Successful Bank Group MSWM operations often try to address political econ- omy challenges. Political economy challenges in the MSWM sector often include a lack of transparency and vested interests that are lodged within service provision for collection and transport. The case studies revealed that the World Bank often works through informal policy dialogue to address political economy challenges that impede MSWM progress. In Morocco, the World Bank initiated a dialogue in 2009 on the issues of political economy surrounding the MSWM sector by highlighting the negative impacts from inadequate waste management and the feasible solutions. This helped get the government’s buy-in for a DPL series that addressed the range of MSWM issues with multiple national, provincial, and local actors. In West Bank and Gaza, the World Bank tackled a complex geopolitical context and conflict sit- uation by having all parties focus on the positive environmental and health impacts that would be obtained from closing open dumpsites and building a sanitary landfill serviced by improved waste collection and transport. Box 4.3 describes contrasting experiences in two conflict-affected econo- mies: Liberia and West Bank and Gaza.  unicipal Solid Waste Management in Conflict-Affected Box 4.3. M Economies: Lessons from World Bank Engagements in Liberia and West Bank and Gaza Conflict-affected economies face severe constraints caused by fragile institutions and recurring conflicts that create uncertainty and disruptions in normal economic activ- ities. However, solid waste generation continues unabated. An implication is that the larger the urban populations in these economies, the greater the visibility of littering and chronic land and water pollution attributable to inadequate solid waste manage- ment. The Independent Evaluation Group reviewed the experiences of Liberia and West Bank and Gaza as a part of this evaluation, and the following is a summary of some key lessons. Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 4 The constraints faced by the two economies are a study in contrasts. Liberia, which was ravaged by decades-long conflicts, faces a trifecta of extreme poverty, lack of institutional capacity, and inadequate financial resources. In West Bank and Gaza, re- current armed conflicts destroy infrastructure and create long-term uncertainty about how to manage solid waste sustainably. In both situations, the role of donor agencies led by the World Bank Group has been critical, not only through long-term commit- ment of project investments and technical assistance but through the signaling to local stakeholders of the international community’s sustained commitment. (continued) 56  unicipal Solid Waste Management in Conflict-Affected Box 4.3. M Economies: Lessons from World Bank Engagements in Liberia and West Bank and Gaza (cont.) In Monrovia, World Bank–led donor support institutionalized primary garbage col- lection as a business through community-based enterprises (small businesses with fixed concession areas), with basic training on collecting domestic waste as a ser- vice for fees. In the West Bank, Joint Service Councils pooled the risks of small, local governments to achieve an overall collection rate of 83 percent in the communities. In addition, the Bank Group provided technical assistance through World Bank and International Finance Corporation advisory services and analytics, which developed a public-private partnership framework, drafted contractual documents, and financed a solid waste management output-based aid pilot in the West Bank to support landfill and waste management services. The resulting investments in the Hebron sanitary landfill attracted private sector participation, despite the fragility of the policy envi- ronment. Through proven professional management, the services even generated a peace dividend by receiving waste from Israeli settler communities in exchange for tipping fees. Sources: World Bank 2021c, 2021e. Accountability for service delivery is associated with positive MSWM out- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    57 comes. Addressing political economy issues in the MSWM sector requires paying attention to aspects of monitoring for enhanced accountability across value chain actors. In most client countries, the ability to monitor MSWM service delivery and thus achieve accountability among actors along the MSWM value chain is weak. There are good practice examples in World Bank–supported projects in China, Indonesia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Pakistan, and Tunisia, where the projects financed innovative technological applica- tions to support more effective monitoring to achieve greater accountabil- ity. These include support for GPS trackers for trucks, cell phone apps, and internet-based applications for monitoring service delivery and receiving cit- izen feedback. In Pakistan, this support for enhanced monitoring—through a complaint tracking system—facilitated the systematic organization and standardization of complaint information, which led to increased redress of complaints for more effective service delivery. But too often, insufficient arrangements for monitoring and evaluation of service delivery and impacts from MSWM make it difficult to assign accountability and close the feedback loop for incentivizing improved performance. Many political economy challenges have inhibited success in the IFC advi- sory services portfolio. These include a lack of government commitment or effective collaboration across different levels of government (for example, with local entities) and the difficulty of sustaining commitment across ad- ministrations or in the absence of champions. For example, in Samoa, after the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environ- ment died, there was lack of consensus in the government on how to move forward with the project, partly because of the opposition expressed by local waste collection contractors. In Kosovo, a change of key ministers and a loss of political champions on municipal waste disposal issues caused IFC to exit the project. In Albania, the project was put on hold partly because of par- liamentary elections but also because the responsibility for waste disposal infrastructure was transferred to the Ministry of Environment, which wanted to promote incineration as the main waste treatment solution. IFC did not agree, and the project did not move forward. The key challenges limiting the support in LICs include client governments’ lack of awareness of waste issues; lack of strategies for the sector; and lack of appropriate policies, regulations, and institutional capacity (Guerrero, Maas, and Hogland 2013). These conditions foster an environment for open dumping and low will- Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 4 ingness to pay for services that limits the feasibility of financial support for MSWM initiatives. Increased awareness and efforts to support behavior change among nation- al governments, local governments, and waste generators (households and enterprises) help MSWM projects succeed. The World Bank’s attention to mechanisms for awareness raising and a recognition that reforms require behavioral change across actors within the MSWM value chain are central to the achievement of MSWM interim outcomes in a few economies (such as Argentina, Benin, Egypt, and West Bank and Gaza). In those cases, the World Bank achieved positive MSWM results by increasing public awareness about the negative effects of open dumping. Awareness-raising campaigns helped 58 prompt public demand for better solid waste collection. Thus, with better collection, residents were willing to pay. Additionally, as shown in chapter 3, IFC advisory services work supporting a pan-India awareness campaign that was delivered through social media and radio created broader awareness across both consumers and local companies about the hazards of e-waste. In several countries where waste generators’ behavior was not addressed (for example, Azerbaijan, Maldives, and Morocco), there was a relapse into old ways of open dumping that undermined progress in the sector. Land Availability Inability to acquire land for solid waste infrastructure has limited the World Bank’s support to clients. Establishing sustainable solid waste management requires a sustained effort to address complexities related to interjurisdic- tional governance, the NIMBY phenomenon, integration of the informal sector, and low willingness to pay, among other factors. Most projects iden- tify land acquisition as a constraint in siting infrastructure. In Tunisia’s Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management Project, construction was stopped after the 2011 revolution because of strong opposition from nearby communities. Most case studies conducted for this evaluation point to chal- lenges in acquiring land for landfills and other infrastructure. The NIMBY phenomenon was clearly articulated with respect to Mitubiri under Kenya’s Nairobi Metropolitan Services Improvement Project. Political rivals used the opportunity to fan residents’ discontent, requiring a minister to intervene Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    59 to temporarily stop the works. Complexities in land acquisition were experi- enced in World Bank support to Azerbaijan, Colombia, and Morocco, where finalizing land acquisition for transfer stations and landfills contributed to project implementation delays. A positive example is Bosnia and Herzegov- ina’s Solid Waste Management II Project, under which there was increased support to regional sanitary landfills as evidenced by the percentage of the local population agreeing to the location of landfill sites. As pointed out in the World Bank report (2021d), unreliable land administration, inadequate urban planning, and poorly functioning land markets in rapidly urbanizing countries greatly complicate the consolidation of land parcels at a reason- able cost to enable siting large-scale public infrastructure such as landfills and transfer stations. 5 | Conclusions and Recommendations Municipal solid waste is projected to triple in volume in LICs by 2050 (and nearly double in LMICs and UMICs). Most of the waste in LICs and LMICs is managed improperly, untreated, and disposed of in open dumps. Left unmanaged, the growing volume and changing composition of waste—in- cluding nonbiodegradable and plastic waste—will continue to contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and global and local land and water pollution, which affect the health and welfare of impoverished people dispro- portionately. Municipal solid waste should be managed through a waste hierarchy ap- proach that puts efforts to reduce consumption and increase reuse ahead of efforts focused on waste collection, recovery, and disposal. The waste man- agement hierarchy complements circular economy thinking, which promotes efforts to recycle end-of-life products back into the economy, in addition to promoting waste reduction and reuse. The Bank Group has increasingly recognized and advocated for waste hierar- chy and circular economy approaches to MSWM. World Bank Group (2021), for example, sets out a goal of pursuing integrated waste management and circular economy approaches to help countries and cities advance climate, development, and broader sustainability goals. However, waste hierarchy and circular economy principles are yet to be mainstreamed into many country strategies and operations. Just over one- third of the 55 countries in which the World Bank has supported MSWM activities include references to the waste hierarchy or circular economy aims in their SCDs or CPFs, and only 11 countries with MSWM portfolios included activities geared toward achieving an integrated approach. Bank Group support does not consistently provide for some elements essen- tial to integrated waste management, including revising policies, planning 60   for cost recovery, involving the private sector, incorporating behavioral factors, and considering waste pickers. The Bank Group often supports the provision of infrastructure and services that are expected to increase MSWM coverage and improve service delivery. However, to achieve an integrated approach, the Bank Group needs to simultaneously address more of the de- terminants of MSWM in more of its activities. The Bank Group infrequently diagnoses and addresses municipal solid waste issues in LICs, where they are most urgent. Less than half of SCDs in LICs— where waste generation and associated negative effects are mounting—diag- nose MSWM issues, compared with almost all SCDs in UMICs and HICs, and only two LICs received funding for MSWM. Relatedly, LICs received 1.5 per- cent of all Bank Group MSWM spending. There has been limited Bank Group collaboration in support of MSWM. References to the complementary roles that the World Bank and IFC can play in a coherent approach for improved MSWM are absent from most CPFs, CPSDs, and IFC country strategies. MSWM has been a very difficult sector for MIGA to enter because of several constraints related mainly to the lack of bankable projects that would seek guarantees and the capacity limitations of municipalities as counterparts. The World Bank is helping clients achieve its policy, capacity development, and planning goals, but the links between these goals and MSWM outcomes are not articulated. IFC does not play a strong role in MSWM policy and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    61 institutional development. However, in the few instances when it did provide that support through its advisory services, it showed that it can be effective in improving enabling frameworks for private investment in MSWM. Efforts to identify and clarify MSWM policy and regulatory issues tend to take place in countries where the Bank Group has supported a more integrat- ed approach. The specific link between policies and regulations enacted and overall improvements in MSWM systems are often not articulated. However, successful efforts to enact policy and regulations are found in countries that have undertaken activities geared toward achieving integrated approaches. World Bank support for basic municipal solid waste infrastructure and ser- vice delivery has been generally effective. Infrastructure and service provi- sion are the leading activities in the World Bank’s MSWM lending support, and they were carried out as planned in most MSWM-related projects. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for improving the MSWM value chain, though. The effectiveness of infrastructure and service activities is undermined by challenges in achieving financial sustainability. The World Bank addressed the issue of cost recovery and improved financial sustainability in about 40 percent of closed projects, which yielded positive results in just over half of the cases. Lessons can be learned from some lower-middle-income econ- omies (Mozambique, Vietnam, and West Bank and Gaza) where most of the solid waste providers’ costs were recovered from user fees. However, several other countries had less success in meeting cost recovery targets, even at project completion. Very few projects tracked the environmental, social, or economic outcomes of improved MSWM activities. Of the projects that did, many either did not report on outcomes or reported that the intended outcomes were not achieved because of delays or implementation challenges with the MSWM activities. Local governments and regulatory agencies are ultimately respon- sible for measuring these impact areas, and this measurement may require more specialized and expensive interventions than are provided currently. Capturing higher-order impacts shows the substantial contributions that MSWM can make toward countries’ environmental, social, and economic goals. Good practice examples show how investments in MSWM can con- Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 5 tribute to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions (in Bosnia and Herze- govina) and local pollution (especially in China). Other examples show how focused attention on job creation can enhance the economic security and working conditions for lower-income urban populations, including youth and women, and for those living in fragile and conflict-affected situations, as in the Central African Republic and Côte d’Ivoire. Four factors have a strong, often limiting, influence on the effectiveness of the Bank Group’s MSWM support. These factors are (i) the nature of World Bank support in terms of continuity, coverage, and coherence; (ii) govern- ment commitment to ensuring the financial sustainability of MSWM; (iii) local governments’ accountability for providing adequate and sustainable 62 MSWM services; and (iv) land availability and the NIMBY phenomenon. Long-term, well-sequenced, and coherent engagement across the evaluation pillars was linked to achieving improved MSWM. Extended, well-sequenced, and coherent country engagement that includes support for key policy reforms and investment has been effective in helping countries build an integrated approach to MSWM incrementally. For this reason, improved MSWM is more likely to be achieved when MSWM is the focus of a core project rather than when it is included as a smaller project component. The evaluation highlights examples of such country engagements, mainly in LMICs and UMICs. The inability of governments to ensure sustainable financing is a second factor affecting the provision of adequate MSWM services. This inability can arise at any layer of government (national, provincial, or local), mainly because of lack of political commitment or competing demands for public financing. Several World Bank projects included components for ensuring the financial sustainability of MSWM services through arrangements for improved cost recovery via user fees or tariffs, sometimes supplemented by earmarked municipal revenues or budget transfers from provincial or cen- tral governments. In some cases, the expected results were not achieved at project completion, and even where favorable results were achieved, the improvements attributable to the projects were often not sustained. The third factor limiting effectiveness is local governments’ accountability for providing adequate and sustainable MSWM services. Accountability for adequate and affordable MSWM services can be undermined by lack of trans- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    63 parency and vested interests in existing arrangements for service provision for solid waste collection and transport. Addressing these political econo- my issues can be facilitated by improved arrangements for monitoring of MSWM services, for which internet and cell phone–based systems are readily available and affordable. Improved monitoring needs to be combined with increased awareness and behavior change on the part of all stakeholders, including waste generators (households and enterprises), local and national governments, and service providers. The fourth factor limiting the World Bank’s ability to provide support to clients is the inability to acquire land for solid waste infrastructure. The con- straint is partially attributable to the NIMBY phenomenon. The Bank Group is by far the leading source of lending and knowledge on solid waste management. The Bank Group’s lending of about $3 billion for MSWM during FY10–20 far exceeds that of other multilateral development banks. Regarding knowledge, the Bank Group produced two flagship reports on the state of and approaches to MSWM worldwide—What a Waste and What a Waste 2.0—and has been conducting technical certification courses on MSWM for professionals and policy makers worldwide. Without an in- ternational coordination mechanism for MSWM, leading sector experts see scope for a global convening role on MSWM for the Bank Group that goes beyond and builds on current efforts on marine plastic pollution through PROBLUE and advocacy for circular economy approaches for MSWM under the climate change action plan. Recommendations The evaluation identifies three areas where the Bank Group can enhance its relevance and effectiveness when supporting countries with MSWM. Recommendation 1. To achieve more sustainable and scalable outcomes in municipal waste management, Bank Group technical and financial support to clients should give clear priority to the adoption and imple- mentation of waste hierarchy practices, in line with client needs and capabilities for MSWM. To achieve this, the Bank Group’s support could build on proven good practice from its own experience in addressing the en- Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Chapter 5 tire waste value chain (collection, transport, recycling, recovery, and dispos- al) in an integrated, phased, and incremental manner tailored to client needs and capabilities. This would require greater collaboration among the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA in supporting governments with promoting financial sustainability and accountability in service provision, updating policies and regulations, incentivizing private sector participation, increasing awareness and behavioral change, and integrating waste pickers into MSWM processes. Recommendation 2. To support the LICs where municipal solid waste is growing most rapidly, the Bank Group should identify constraints on demand and investments and leverage external partnerships to implement context-specific MSWM solutions. To achieve this, the Bank 64 Group could increase its ASA in LICs and foster external partnerships to find context-specific solutions appropriate to the prevailing policy and service delivery gaps. This would entail, for example, systematically closing illegal dumps, ensuring that the regulatory framework is clear and predictable, and providing incentives to reduce the rate of growth of waste generation and increase recycling, with a view to support LICs to “leapfrog” (move forward rapidly through the adoption of modern systems without going through intermediary steps) to the extent possible. Recommendation 3. To bring prominence to and spur action on the global municipal solid waste agenda, the Bank Group should take up a clear leadership position, collaborating and convening with devel- opmental partners. The Bank Group could leverage its leading role in financing and knowledge for MSWM by building on and scaling up current partnerships to improve municipal solid waste practices in the context of the climate change action plan and in specific areas, such as addressing riverine and marine plastic pollution through PROBLUE. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    65 Bibliography Ahuja, Tanuj. 2019. “Trash Behavior Nudge.” Tanuj Ahuja (blog), June 11, 2019. https://medium.com/@ta364/trash-behavior-nudge-34f9dee202f8. Barrera, Belen, and Peter Hooda. 2016. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Waste Man- agement Processes and Options: A Case Study.” Waste Management and Re- search 34 (7): 658–65. Bogner, Jean, Mohammed Abdelrafie Ahmed, Cristobal Diaz, Andre Faaij, Qingxian Gao, Seiji Hashimoto, Katarina Mareckova, Riitta Pipatti, and Tianzhu Zhang. 2007. “Waste Management.” In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Peter Bosch, Rutu Dave, and Leo Meyer, 585–618. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press. Chávez, Abel, Chris Kennedy, Bin Chen, Marian Chertow, Tim Baynes, Shaoqing Chen, and Xuemei Bai. 2018. “Understanding, Implementing, and Tracking Urban Metabolism Is Key to Urban Futures.” In Urban Planet: Knowledge towards Sustainable Cities, edited by Thomas Elmqvist, Xuemei Bai, Niki Frantzeska- ki, Corrie Griffith, David Maddox, Timon McPhearson, Susan Parnell, Patricia Romero-Lankao, David Simon, and Mark Watkins, 68–91. Cambridge, UK: Cam- Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Bibliography bridge University Press. Circle Economy. 2021. Circularity Gap Report 2021. The Hague, the Netherlands: Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy. Dias, Sonia. 2021. “Informal Waste Pickers: A Global Overview.” Background Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. Eggleston, Simon, Leandro Buendia, Kyoko Miwa, Todd Ngara, and Kiyoto Tanabe, eds. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Haya- ma, Japan: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. European Commission. 2019. “Report from the Commission to the European Parlia- ment, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 66 Committee of the Regions on the Implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan.” Brussels: European Commission. European Parliament. 2021. “Circular Economy: Definition, Importance and Ben- efits.” News. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition- importance-and-benefits. Ferronato, Navarro, and Vincenzo Torretta. 2019. “Waste Mismanagement in Devel- oping Countries: A Review of Global Issues.” International Journal of Environ- mental Research and Public Health 16 (6): 1060. Fletcher, Steve. 2021. “Plastics and Solid Waste Management.” Background Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. Giusti, L. 2009. “A Review of Waste Management Practices and Their Impact on Hu- man Health.” Waste Management 29 (8): 2227–39. GIZ (German Agency for International Cooperation). 2015. Economic Instruments in Solid Waste Management: Applying Economic Instruments for Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Bonn: GIZ. Guerrero, Lilliana Abarca, Ger Maas, and William Hogland. 2013. “Solid Waste Man- agement Challenges for Cities in Developing Countries.” Waste Management 33 (1): 220–32. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    67 Hoornweg, Daniel, and Perinaz Bhada-Tata. 2012. “What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management.” Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers 15, World Bank, Washington, DC. Hundertmark, Thomas, Mirjam Mayer, Chris McNally, Theo Jan Simons, and Christof Witte. 2018. “How Plastics Waste Recycling Could Transform the Chemical In- dustry.” McKinsey & Company, December 12, 2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/ industries/chemicals/our-insights/how-plastics-waste-recycling-could- transform-the-chemical-industry. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2013. Women and Men in the Informal Econ- omy: A Statistical Picture, 2nd edition. Geneva: ILO. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón Pichs-Madruga, Youba Sokona, Jan C. Minx, Ellie Farahani, Susanne Kadner, Kristin Seyboth, et al. New York: IPCC. Kaza, Silpa, and Perinaz Bhada-Tata. 2017. Decision Maker’s Guides for Solid Waste Management Technologies. Washington, DC: World Bank. Kaza, Silpa, Lisa Yao, Perinaz Bhada-Tata, and Frank Van Woerden. 2018. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Washington, DC: World Bank. Kaza, Silpa, Siddarth Shrikanth, and Sarur Chaudhary. 2021. More Growth, Less Gar- bage. Urban Development Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35998. Kirama, Aminatha, and Aloyce W. Mayo. 2016. “Challenges and Prospects of Private Sector Participation in Solid Waste Management in Dar es Salaam City, Tanza- nia.” Habitat International 53 (April): 195–205. Lerpiniere, David, David C. Wilson, Costas Velis, Barbara Evans, Hinrich Voss, and Kris Moodley. 2014. “A Review of International Development Co-operation in Solid Waste Management.” International Solid Waste Association, Vienna. Levine, Daniel. 2018. Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Roadmap for Reform for Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Bibliography Policy Makers. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Liu, Chunchao, Huijuan Dong, Yang Cao, Yong Geng, Haifeng Li, Chenyi Zhang, and Shijiang Xiao. 2021. “Environmental Damage Cost Assessment from Municipal Solid Waste Treatment Based on LIME3 Model.” Waste Management 125 (April): 249–56. Markgraf, Claire, and Silpa Kaza. 2016. “Financing Landfill Gas Projects in Develop- ing Countries.” Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers 23, World Bank, Washington, DC. McKinsey & Company and Ocean Conservancy. 2015. Stemming the Tide: Land-Based Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean. New York: McKinsey & Company; Washing- ton, DC: Ocean Conservancy. 68 Messenger, Ben. 2020. “UNEP Adds to Calls for Governments to Consider Waste Management an Essential Service.” Waste Management World Newsletter (March 26). https://waste-management-world.com/a/unep-adds-to-calls-for- governments-to-consider-waste-management-an-essential-service. Peltola, T., L. Aarikka-Stenroos, E. Viana, and S. J. Mäkinen. 2016. “Value Capture in Business Ecosystems for Municipal Solid Waste Management: Comparison be- tween Two Local Environments.” Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (November): 1270–79. Powell, Jon T., José C. Pons, and Marian Chertow. 2016. “Waste Informatics: Estab- lishing Characteristics of Contemporary US Landfill Quantities and Practices.” Environmental Science and Technology 50 (20): 10877–84. Powell, Jon T., Marian Chertow, and Daniel C. Esty. 2018. “Where Is Global Waste Management Heading? An Analysis of Solid Waste Sector Commitments from Nationally-Determined Contributions.” Waste Management 80 (October): 137–43. Rodić-Wiersma, Ljiljana, and David C. Wilson. 2017. “Resolving Governance Issues to Achieve Priority Sustainable Development Goals Related to Solid Waste Man- agement in Developing Countries.” Sustainability 9 (3): 404. Rosenzweig, Cynthia, William D. Solecki, Patricia Romero-Lankao, Shagun Mehro- tra, Shobhakar Dhakal, and Somayya Ali Ibrahim, eds. 2018. Climate Change and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    69 Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rubel, Holger, Clint Follette, Alexander Meyer zum Felde, Santosh Appathurai, Miri- am Benedi Díaz, and Udo Jung. 2019. “A Circular Solution to Plastic Waste.” Bos- ton Consulting Group (blog), July 15, 2019. https://www.bcg.com/publications/ 2019/plastic-waste-circular-solution. SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme). n.d. “Factsheet 3: Climate Change and Waste.” SPREP, Apia, Samoa. Thompson, Andrea. 2014. “Burning Trash Bad for Humans and Global Warming.” Scientific American, September 2, 2014. https://www.scientificamerican.com/ article/burning-trash-bad-for-humans-and-global-warming. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2018. “Circular Economy: The New Normal?” Policy Brief 61, UNCTAD, Geneva. UNEA (United Nations Environment Assembly). 2017. “Environmentally Sound Tech- nology and Waste.” UNEA, Nairobi. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2011. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. Nairobi: UNEP. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2015. Global Waste Management Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2018. Africa Waste Management Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP. UN-Habitat (United Nations Human Settlements Programme). 2010. Collection of Municipal Solid Waste in Developing Countries. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat (United Nations Human Settlements Programme). 2010. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities: Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities 2010. London: UN-Habitat. USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2012. “Solid Waste Management: Addressing Climate Change Impacts on Infrastructure: Preparing for Change.” Fact Sheet (November 2012), USAID, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2009. Systems of Cities: Harnessing Urbanization for Growth and Poverty Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Bibliography Alleviation. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2014a. “Jordan—Amman Solid Waste Management and Carbon Fi- nance.” Implementation Completion and Results Report ICR3267, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2014b. “Results-Based Financing for Municipal Solid Waste.” Urban Development Series Knowledge Paper 20, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2014c. “Tunisia—Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management Project.” Implementation Completion and Results Report ICR3271, World Bank, Washington, DC. 70 World Bank. 2016. A Thirst for Change: The World Bank Group’s Support for Water Supply and Sanitation Services, with Focus on the Poor. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/ default/files/Data/Evaluation/files/watersupplyandsanitation.pdf. World Bank. 2017. Toward a Clean World for All: An IEG Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support to Pollution Management. Independent Evaluation Group. Wash- ington, DC: World Bank. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/ Data/Evaluation/files/pollutionmanagement.pdf. World Bank. 2018. “Bosnia and Herzegovina—Second Solid Waste Management Project.” Implementation Completion and Results Report ICR4181, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2019. Building Urban Resilience: An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Evolving Experience (2007–17). Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/urban-resilience. World Bank. 2020. “China—Ningbo Municipal Solid Waste Minimization and Recy- cling Project.” Implementation Completion and Results Report ICR5320, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2021a. “Azerbaijan—ARP II Integrated Solid Waste Management Proj- ect.” Project Performance Assessment Report 162952, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington, DC. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/ Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    71 default/files/Data/reports/ppar_azerbaijanarp2.pdf. World Bank. 2021b. “Croatia: Circular Economy Approaches in Solid Waste Man- agement.” Where We Work Brief, World Bank, March 25, 2021. https://www. worldbank.org/en/country/croatia/brief/croatia-circular-economy-approaches- in-solid-waste-management. World Bank. 2021c. “Liberia.” Background Case Study for MSWM Evaluation. Inde- pendent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2021d. Managing Urban Spatial Growth: World Bank Support to Land Ad- ministration, Planning, and Development. Independent Evaluation Group. Wash- ington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2021e. “West Bank and Gaza.” Background Case Study for MSWM Evalu- ation. Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2021f. Bridging the Gap in Solid Waste Management: Governance Re- quirements for Results. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/35703/Bridging-the-Gap-in-Solid- Waste-Management-Governance-Requirements-for-Results.pdf?sequence= 5&isAllowed=y World Bank Group. 2012. Toward a Green, Clean, and Resilient World for All: A World Bank Group Environment Strategy 2012–2022. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. World Bank Group. 2019. Working Together for a Water-Secure World. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. World Bank Group. 2021. World Bank Group Climate Change Action Plan 2021–2025: Supporting Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Development. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Zhu, Junming, and Marian R. Chertow. 2016. “Greening Industrial Production through Waste Recovery: ‘Comprehensive Utilization of Resources’ in China.” Environmental Science and Technology 50 (5): 2175–82. Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Bibliography 72 APPENDIXES Independent Evaluation Group Transitioning to a Circular Economy Appendix A. Sustainable Development Goals Table A.1.  Sustainable Development Goals with Drivers and Solid Waste Management Issues Specific Local/Global Driver SDG Target SWM Issue Issue Public health SDG 11: 11.1 Ensure Uncollected Sustainable access for all to waste dumped cities adequate, safe, in waterways or and affordable burned in the basic services; open air causes upgrading pollution and slums contamination SDG 3: Good 3.2 End and clogs the health and preventable drains, causing well-being deaths of flooding and children under stagnant water, five years which 3.3 End malaria contributes to and combat waterborne waterborne diseases and diseases malaria (affects children the Local 3.9 Reduce illnesses from most) hazardous Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix A chemicals and air, water and soil pollution, and contami- nation SDG 11: 11.6 Reduce Sustainable the adverse cities environmental impact of cities; special attention to waste management (continued) 76 Specific Local/Global Driver SDG Target SWM Issue Issue Environment SDG 12: 12.4 Environ- Underlines en- Responsible mentally sound vironmentally consumption management sound man- and production of chemicals agement of all and all wastes wastes, particu- to minimize larly hazardous their adverse wastes (either impacts on chemical or human health biological haz- and the ardous wastes) environment SDG 6: Clean 6.3 Improve water and water quality by sanitation reducing pollution, eliminating dumping, and minimizing re- lease of hazard- ous materials SDG 15: Life on 15.1 Ensure the land conservation of terrestrial and inland fresh- water ecosys- tems and their services SDG 7: Clean 7.2 Increase Renewable Global Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    77 energy share of renew- energy from able energy (organic) waste in the global energy mix SDG 13: Climate SDG 13: Take Adequate SWM action urgent action to practices can combat climate reduce emis- change and its sions of GHGs impacts SDG 14: Life 14.1 Prevent Prevent waste below water marine pollu- (especially tion of all kinds, plastics) end- in particular ing up in the from land- oceans based activi- ties, including marine debris (continued) Specific Local/Global Driver SDG Target SWM Issue Issue Resource value SDG 12: Re- 12.5 Reduce Waste preven- sponsible con- waste through tion on top of sumption and prevention, SWM hierar- production reduction, recy- chy of reduce, cling, reuse reuse, recycle 12.3 Halve glob- and dispose al food waste and reduce food losses along produc- tion and supply Global (cont.) chains Inclusivity SDG 8: Decent SDG 8: Promote SWM services work and inclusive and in developing economic sustainable countries often growth economic provided by growth, em- individuals and ployment, and small and mi- decent work croenterprises for all Source: Adapted from Rodić-Wiersma and Wilson 2017. Note: GHG = greenhouse gas; SDG = Sustainable Development Goal; SWM = solid waste management. Reference Rodić-Wiersma, Ljiljana, and David C. Wilson. 2017. “Resolving Governance Issues to Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix A Achieve Priority Sustainable Development Goals Related to Solid Waste Man- agement in Developing Countries.” Sustainability 9 (3): 404. 78 Operations, Fiscal Years 2010–20 Appendix B. World Bank Group Table B.1. World Bank Projects SWM Project Country or Approval Exit Commitment ID Project Name Economy Region GP FY FY (US$, millions) P057950 Solid Waste Mgmt. Bosnia and ECA ENB 2006 2011 2.1 Herzegovina P059803 Nura River Clean-Up Kazakhstan ECA ENB 2003 2011 6.5 P066488 Municipal Program Kenya AFR URL 2010 2017 50.0 P071340 Lagos Metropolitan Dev. Nigeria AFR URL 2007 2014 112.0 and Governance P073977 Integrated Irrigation Impr. Egypt, Arab Rep. MENA WAT 2005 2016 1.2 and Mgmt. P075728 Guangdong/Prd Ur. Envmt. China EAP WAT 2004 2012 9.0 P075732 Shanghai Urban APL2 China EAP URL 2006 2015 18.0 P075776 3A-W Africa Stockpiles 1 Africa AFR ENB 2006 2012 7.2 GEF P076658 Health Sec. Reform Phase Lesotho AFR HNP 2006 2010 0.7 2 APL P077752 Shandong Envmt. 2 China EAP WAT 2007 2014 13.2 P078342 Ust-Kamenogorsk Env. Kazakhstan ECA ENB 2011 2018 22.0 Remed. P078382 Kampala Inst. and Infrast. Uganda AFR URL 2008 2014 13.1 Dev. Prj. P079027 Municipal Infrastructure Tajikistan ECA URL 2006 2016 5.3 Development (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    79 80 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix B SWM Project Country or Approval Exit Commitment ID Project Name Economy Region GP FY FY (US$, millions) P079116 Solid Waste (Mestap) Montenegro ECA WAT 2004 2012 6.7 P081880 Municipal Services Turkey ECA URL       P082295 Coastal Cities Envmt. Sanit. Vietnam EAP WAT 2007 2015 31.2 P082625 Vilcanota Valley Rehab. and Peru LAC URL 2005 2011 1.6 Mgmt. Project P082725 Decentral City Mgmt. 2 Benin AFR URL 2006 2012 5.3 P082993 GEF-PCB Mgmt. and Dis- China EAP ENB 2009 2015 2.1 posal P083929 Punjab Municipal Services Pakistan SAR URL 2006 2014 10.0 Improvement P086807 Coastal Zone Mgmt. (APL1) Albania ECA ENB 2013 2017 2.4 P087224 Han River Urban Environ- China EAP WAT 2008 2015 31.1 ment P089926 Solid Waste Management Argentina LAC URL 2006 2015 33.2 Project P090037 POPs Stockpiles Mgmt. and Moldova ECA ENB 2016 n.a.  19.5 Destruction P091949 Gansu Cultural and Natural China EAP URL 2008 2015 5.0 Heritage P092618 Liaoning Med. Cities Infras. 2 China EAP WAT 2007 2015 36.3 P094315 Municipal APL4: São Luís Brazil LAC WAT 2009 2016 23.9 P095012 Sustainable Municipal Solid Tunisia MENA URL 2007 2014 17.2 Waste Mgmt. (continued) SWM Project Country or Approval Exit Commitment ID Project Name Economy Region GP FY FY (US$, millions) P096332 Maputo Municipal Develop- Mozambique AFR URL 2007 2012 3.6 ment Program P096812 Yunnan Urban Env. China EAP WAT 2009 2017 57.6 P097985 Integrated Coastal Zone India SAR ENB 2016 2017 231.0 Mgmt. Project P099369 Ceara Regional Develop- Brazil LAC URL 2009 2017 6.9 ment P099460 GEF-PCB Management Vietnam EAP ENB 2010 2010 0.1 Project P099809 TF Emergency Environment Iraq MENA ENB 2015  n.a. 68.9 Management P100383 Istanbul Municipal Infra- Turkey ECA URL  n.a.  n.a.  n.a. structure Proj. P100478 GEF Managing Healthcare Tunisia MENA ENB 2010 2010 0.1 Waste and PCB P100935 Avian Flu Afghanistan SAR URL 2007 2010 0.2 P101279 Solid Waste Management Colombia LAC URL 2010 2016 20.0 Program Project P101474 Urban Local Govt. Develop- Ethiopia AFR URL 2008 2015 30.0 ment P103189 3A-Africa Stockpiles 1 MMT Africa AFR ENB 2006 2013 4.4 GEF P104595 Emergency Urban Infra- Central African Re- AFR URL 2007 2017 5.4 struct. ERL public (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    81 82 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix B SWM Project Country or Approval Exit Commitment ID Project Name Economy Region GP FY FY (US$, millions) P104937 Solid Waste Sector DPL Morocco MENA URL 2009 2010 132.7 P104960 Amman Solid Waste Man- Jordan MENA URL 2009 2014 25.0 agement P104994 Bishkek and Osh Urban Kyrgyz Republic ECA URL 2008 2016 0.4 Infrastructure P105404 Southern West Bank Solid West Bank and Gaza MENA URL 2009 2016 11.0 Waste Management P105711 Africa—Ethiopia Stockpiles Africa AFR ENB 2007 2013 0.9 1 GEF P106622 Second HIV/AIDS Project Jamaica LAC HNP 2008 2013 1.9 P106885 GEF Integrated POPs Man- Philippines EAP ENB 2012 2016 2.9 agement Project P107314 Nairobi Metropolitan Ser- Kenya AFR URL 2012 n.a. 120.0 vices Improvement P107998 Solid Waste Management 2 Bosnia and Herze- ECA URL 2009 2018 40.0 govina P108078 Environmental Management Maldives SAR ENB 2007 2017 20.6 Project P110020 Emergency Urban Infrast. Côte d’Ivoire AFR URL 2008 2014 14.1 ERL P110679 ARP II-Integrat’d Solid Azerbaijan ECA URL 2008 2019 76.6 Waste Management P111153 Strategic Cities Project Tanzania AFR URL 2010 n.a. 24.5 (continued) SWM Project Country or Approval Exit Commitment ID Project Name Economy Region GP FY FY (US$, millions) P111155 Zanzibar Urban Services Tanzania AFR URL 2011 n.a. 23.2 Project P112073 Federal Integrated Water Brazil LAC WAT 2012 2019 59.0 Sector P112074 Sergipe Water Brazil LAC WAT 2012 2021 16.9 P113145 Emergency Urban Env. Benin AFR ENB 2010 2018 5.6 Project P114515 Intg. Solid Waste Mgmt. Belarus ECA URL 2010 2017 42.5 P115664 Emergency Monrovia Urban Liberia AFR URL 2010 2017 0.0 Sanitation P116656 Zhejiang Qiantang River China EAP URL 2011 2017 10.0 Basin Small Town P117318 Cusco Regional Develop- Peru LAC URL 2014 2019 15.1 ment P118090 Enhanced Water Resources Egypt, Arab Rep. MENA WAT 2013 2017 4.9 Management P118405 Reg. Dev. Moldova ECA WAT 2009 2013 3.8 P119063 Gama Sanitation and Water Ghana AFR WAT 2013 n.a. 33.0 Project P119085 National Ganga River Basin India SAR WAT 2011 n.a. 510.0 Project P119090 Hospital Waste Manage- Vietnam EAP HNP 2011 2020 15.0 ment Support (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    83 84 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix B SWM Project Country or Approval Exit Commitment ID Project Name Economy Region GP FY FY (US$, millions) P119421 Preparing for New POPs China EAP ENB 2017 n.a. 17.5 Chemicals P119902 Reg./Inst. Framework and China EAP ENB 2008 2016 6.6 Remediation POP P121648 Gaza Solid Waste Manage- West Bank and Gaza MENA URL 2014 n.a. 6.2 ment P121848 Beitbridge Emergency Wa- Zimbabwe AFR WAT 2011 2013 0.8 ter Supply and Sanitation P121881 Waste Picker Social Inclu- Brazil LAC URL 2010 2014 2.7 sion P122139 Industrial Waste Manage- Montenegro ECA ENB 2018 n.a. 10.0 ment P123323 Ningbo Municipal Solid China EAP URL 2013 n.a. 68.0 Waste Recycling P126832 GEF Municipal Solid Waste China EAP ENB 2006 2013 6.1 Management P127955 Solid Waste Sector DPL3 Morocco MENA URL 2013 2013 97.5 P130163 Ari Atoll Solid Waste Man- Maldives SAR ENB 2017 n.a. 3.9 agement Project P130444 Social Inclusion and Alter- Philippines EAP ENB 2007 2012 1.5 native P130461 OBA for Municipal Solid Nepal SAR URL 2013 2017 4.6 Waste Management P130637 Urban Dev. and Local Gov- Tunisia MENA URL 2015 n.a. 150.0 ernance (continued) SWM Project Country or Approval Exit Commitment ID Project Name Economy Region GP FY FY (US$, millions) P131864 Kabul Urban Transport Effi- Afghanistan SAR TRA 2014 n.a. 5.4 ciency Improvement P132268 GPOBA Solid Waste Mgt. West Bank and Gaza MENA URL 2013 2018 6.4 West Bank P132386 Second Urban Infrastructure Ukraine ECA WAT 2014 n.a. 78.0 Project (UIP2) P143921 Adriatic Sea Env. Pollution Western Balkans ECA WAT 2014 2019 6.6 Control (I) P144438 DTF: Local Government Morocco MENA URL 2014 2019 0.7 Support Program P147381 Zhuzhou Brownfield Reme- China EAP ENB 2015 n.a. 12.0 diation Project P149724 Municipal Services Emer- Lebanon MENA URL 2014 2018 4.0 gency Project P150374 Somali Urban Investment Somalia AFR URL 2016 n.a. 1.2 Planning P150395 Sustainable Urban Develop- India SAR URL 2015 n.a. 40.0 ment Program P150475 DPL for Sustainable Devel- Colombia LAC ENB 2002 2010 17.5 opment P151416 Urban Development Project Kyrgyz Republic ECA URL 2016 n.a. 2.2 P153604 Poyang Lake Water Environ- China EAP WAT 2017 n.a. 33.0 ment Management (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    85 86 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix B SWM Project Country or Approval Exit Commitment ID Project Name Economy Region GP FY FY (US$, millions) P153814 Metro Manila Flood Man- Philippines EAP WAT 2018 n.a. 114.2 agement Project P154683 Environment and Mining Zambia AFR ENB n.a.  n.a.  n.a. Project P154782 Nat’l Slum Upgrading Indonesia EAP URL 2017 n.a. 43.3 Project P154947 Regional Infrastructure De- Indonesia EAP URL 2017 n.a. 20.0 velopment Fund P154978 Replication and Main- Indonesia EAP URL 2016 2018 0.3 streaming of Rekompak P155963 Punjab Jobs and Competi- Pakistan SAR FCI 2016 n.a. 15.0 tiveness P4R P156239 Pazcifico: WSBS Infrastruc- Colombia LAC WAT 2017 n.a. 49.4 ture Project P158124 Green Urban Financing and China EAP URL 2019 n.a. 56.0 Innovation P158502 Jharkhand Municipal Devel- India SAR URL 2019 n.a. 35.3 opment Project P159961 Cheesemanburg Landfill Liberia AFR URL 2017 n.a. 10.5 and Urban Sanitation P160739 Clean Environment Project Maldives SAR ENB 2017 n.a. 122.1 P161320 Cause (REP II) Solomon Islands, the EAP SSI 2018 n.a. 3.3 P161402 Competitive and Livable Pakistan SAR URL 2019 n.a. 4.6 City of Karachi (continued) SWM Project Country or Approval Exit Commitment ID Project Name Economy Region GP FY FY (US$, millions) P16144 Municipal Solid Waste Man- Senegal AFR URL 2020 n.a. 125.0 agement P164260 Utility Efficiency and Quality Belarus ECA WAT 2019 n.a. 28.3 Improvement P164310 Integrated Solid Waste Brazil LAC ENB 2010 2015 50.0 Management and Carbon Finance Project P164330 Accra Resilient and Integrat- Ghana AFR URL 2019 n.a. 134.0 ed Development P165388 Punjab Green Development Pakistan SAR ENB 2013 2015 1.3 Program P166075 Freetown Emergency Re- Sierra Leone AFR URL 2018 n.a. 3.5 covery Project P167347 Emergency Debris Manage- Sint Maarten LAC URL 2019 n.a. 25.0 ment P167359 Stormwater Management Benin AFR URL 2019 n.a. 85.0 and Urban Resilience Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AFR = Africa; DPL = development policy loan; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; ENB = Environment, Natural Re- sources, and Blue Economy; FCI = Finance, Competitiveness, and Innovation; FY = fiscal year; GP = Global Practice; GPOBA = Global Partnership on Results-Based Aid; HNP = Health, Nutrition, and Population; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; n.a. = not applicable; SAR = South Asia; SSI = Social Sustainability and Inclusion; SWM = solid waste management; TRA = Transport; URL = Urban, Disaster Risk Management Resilience, and Land; WAT = Water. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    87 88 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix B Table B.2. International Finance Corporation Investments 2010–20 IFC Project Approval Financing ID Year Country Category Category Project Name Status (US$, thousands) 35271 2020 Brazil UMIC WTE Foxx-Barueri WTE Active 24,000 26512 2009 Brazil UMIC SWM Estre Ambiental Closed 24,433 35160 2014 China UMIC SWM ESIP Aihuishou Active 5,000 40570 2018 China UMIC WTE Canvest Loan Active 49,946 41819 2019 China UMIC WTE BGE Green Bond Active 59,570 29846 2012 China UMIC WTE C&G WTE Closed 5,000 36962 2016 China UMIC WTE Canvest WTE Closed 59,994 29690 2011 India LMIC E-waste recycling Attero Recycling Active 5,000 33184 2013 Pakistan LMIC WTE InfraV-KOEL Closed 2,500 37838 2019 Serbia UMIC WTE Belgrade WTE Active 84,000 40216 2018 Sri Lanka LMIC WTE Fairway WTE Dropped 6,700 31944 2012 Sri Lanka LMIC WTE RenewGen Dropped 2,200 34552 2015 Turkey UMIC OMF, compost, WTE HKA Closed 70,000 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: IFC = International Finance Corporation; LMIC = lower-middle-income country; OMF = organo-mineral fertilizer; SWM = solid waste management; UMIC = upper-middle-income country; WTE = waste to energy. Table B.3. International Finance Corporation Advisory Services 2010–20 Country, SWM/Urban/SWM Project Economy, or App. with Urban Amount ID Region Cat. Year Name Status AS for Infrastructure (US$) Integrated Solid Waste 564807 Albania UMIC 2009 Management Closed PPP SWM 483,353 599053 Albania UMIC 2013 Solid Waste Closed Concession SWM 1,009,189 601694 Brazil UMIC 2017 Waste Mgmt. Active Acquisition SWM 81,092 601792 Brazil UMIC 2017 Barueri Active Advisory WTE 1,463,700 600354 Brazil UMIC 2015 Curitiba Waste Closed PPP SWM 987,195 602916 Egypt, Arab Rep. LMIC 2019 Alternative Fuels for Cement Active Investment 1,151,606 599055 Egypt, Arab Rep. LMIC 2013 PPP Program—Extension of Closed PPP WTE 59,317 MoU 603648 Guinea LIC 2020 Guinea Solid Waste Active PPP Landfill 2,121,866 582307 India LMIC 2013 e-waste Advisory Project Active PPP SWM/e-waste 157,394 601307 India LMIC 2016 Infrastructure Advisory to Cities Active Investment SWM with others 604,133 27812 India LMIC 2009 APUFIDC Urban Sector—PPP Closed PPP SWM/WTE 145,500 587127 India LMIC 2012 Orissa SWM PPP—Berhampur Closed PPP SWM 1,238,996 03875 Indonesia LMIC 2020 Legok Nangka Waste to Ener- Active PPP WTE 1,975,635 gy PPP 602772 Jordan UMIC 2020 Swaqa Hazardous Waste Active PPP Landfill 43,106 Landfill 29108 Kosovo UMIC 2010 Solid Waste Closed PPP SWM 673,270 604022 LAC UMIC 2019 LAC Cities Platform Active Investment Urban 1,382,610 590467 Lesotho LMIC 2012 Health Waste Closed PPP Health waste 2,928,126 (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    89 90 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix B Country, SWM/Urban/SWM Project Economy, or App. with Urban Amount ID Region Cat. Year Name Status AS for Infrastructure (US$) 28082 Maldives UMIC 2010 PPP—Solid Waste Manage- Closed PPP SWM 1,119,660 ment 29603 Montenegro UMIC 2010 Berane Solid Waste Closed PPP SWM/landfill 530,444 593767 Russian Feder- UMIC 2013 Resource Efficiency Program Closed Investments Resource efficiency 678,908 ation 599200 Samoa UMIC 2013 SWM PPP Closed PPP SWM/landfill 588,125 600610 Serbia UMIC 2015 Belgrade WTE PPP Active PPP WTE 1,622,882 603163 South Africa UMIC 2019 Africa Cities Platform Active Investments Urban 249,460 601115 Turkey UMIC 2016 ECA Cities Platform IP Active PPP SWM with urban infra. 409,500 603138 Ukraine LMIC 2019 ECA Cities Platform II Active Investments Urban 940,000 588148 West Bank and LIC 2012 Solid Waste Management Closed PPP SWM/landfill 255,156 Gaza Project Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: App. = approval; AS = advisory services; Cat. = category; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; LIC = low-income country; LMIC = lower-middle-income country; MoU = memorandum of understanding; PPP = public-private partnership; SWM = solid waste management; UMIC = upper-middle- income country; WTE = waste to energy. Appendix C. Evaluation Methodology Evaluation Questions The evaluation aimed to assess how well the World Bank Group has support- ed client countries to manage municipal solid waste to advance goals related to development and sustainability, including climate goals. The main lines of inquiry that guided the evaluation were as follows: » How relevant is the Bank Group’s approach and engagement in meeting client country needs in terms of the latest evidence and thinking on municipal solid waste management (MSWM) practices and country context and readiness? » How effective have Bank Group engagements been in delivering improved MSWM for clients? » How coherent has Bank Group engagement been in collaboration among the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and collaboration and partnerships with other actors to support better outcomes for client needs in MSWM? Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    91 Overarching Principles The evaluation design employed the following participatory, theory-based, and case-based approaches. These approaches, combined with a range of methods for data collection and analysis, allowed for triangulation of find- ings to ensure their robustness. » Participatory approach. The evaluation team consulted from the outset with technical staff across the World Bank’s Global Practices, IFC, and MIGA working on MSWM to identify key areas in which the evaluation can add value and con- tribute to learning. Feedback from these respondents helped the team frame the evaluation questions and design. This engagement continued throughout the evaluation to ensure comprehensive data coverage and compilation, to learn from operations experience, and to resolve ambiguities in findings and analysis. » Theory-based approach. The evaluation proposed a theory of change that traced Bank Group support to outcomes across relevant sectors. The knowl- edge gained from the country-level case studies and other components of the evaluation was used to refine and simplify the framework to two pillars that formed the basis for the evaluation (table C.1). » Case-based approach. The evaluation included a case-based analysis of the Bank Group portfolio in seven countries and economies. Because of corona- virus pandemic–related travel restrictions, the team gathered information for these country case studies through web-based meetings with government and implementing agency officials and other stakeholders, in addition to Bank Group staff, rather than conducting site visits.  valuation Framework for Improved Municipal Solid Waste Table C.1. E Management Pillar 1 Pillar 2 MSWM infrastructure, access, and Improved policies and institutions service delivery » Policies and regulation (including E&S) » Infrastructure provision (landfills, » Institutional development equipment) » Capacity building at local and other » Access to MSW services and service government levels delivery » Planning » MSWM operations Accompanied by » Financial sustainability Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix C » Awareness and behavior change » Private sector participation » Integration of the informal sector Improved, sustainable, and equitable municipal solid waste management Environmental impacts Social impacts Economic impacts Local: reduced water » Improved health » Employment and soil pollution » Improved » Increased land value Global: reduced quality of life » Increased investment and private sector marine plastic pol- » Improved wel- growth lution; reduced GHG fare of informal emissions waste pickers 92 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: E&S = environmental and social; GHG = greenhouse gas; MSW = municipal solid waste; MSWM = municipal solid waste management. Evaluation Components The evaluation components are grouped into portfolio-level and country-level modules and stakeholder interviews, as shown in figure C.1. The components combine quantitative and qualitative evaluative evidence to address the evalu- ation questions. Figure C.1. Evaluation Design PORTFOLIO-LEVEL MODULE COUNTRY-LEVEL MODULE » Literature review » World Bank Group country » Portfolio review partnership strategy and » Key performance diagnostics analysis indicator analysis » Country-level case studies (7) » Project Performance Assessment Reports (2) » Background papers: (i) marine plastic pollution; (ii) informal waste pickers STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK MODULE » Interviews with World Bank Group staff and management » Discussions with country-based stakeholders » Discussions with other developmental institutions Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Portfolio-Level Modules Targeted literature review. This exercise involved a targeted coverage of Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    93 wider research, publications, and analytical news features from prominent sources on MSWM, and from the Bank Group’s research papers, reports, publications, and other sector analytical work. The review covered products from fiscal years (FY)10–20 but reached back to previous years as needed to support individual country case studies. Portfolio review analysis. The portfolio analysis covered the identified cohort of Bank Group projects, investments, advisory services and analytics, and guarantees approved, closed, or matured during FY10–20 (listed in ap- pendix B). Targeted data and information were extracted from project docu- ments, including Project Appraisal Documents, Implementation Completion and Results Reports, and Implementation Status and Results Reports; Inde- pendent Evaluation Group (IEG) Implementation Completion and Results Report Reviews and Project Performance Assessment Reports for World Bank projects; and evaluations of Expanded Project Supervision Reports for IFC investments and Project Completion Reports for IFC advisory services. Key performance indicator analysis. This analysis was carried out for all closed and evaluated World Bank projects. The exercise involved mapping project key performance indicators and available evidence to elements of pillars 1 and 2 and impacts in the evaluation framework (table C.1) and rating their performance on a binary scale as effective or not effective. The basis for judging effectiveness was moderately satisfactory or better performance against targets, in line with standard IEG methodology. These ratings were aggregated for each element to get a picture of relative performance across elements. This in turn allowed for a nuanced analysis of how the elements interacted with one another in producing overall MSWM outcomes at the project and country levels. Country-Level Modules Country strategy analysis. For the World Bank, Country Partnership Strate- gies, Country Partnership Frameworks, and Systematic Country Diagnostics covering the period 2010–20 were analyzed in terms of MSWM issues raised in the documents (classified by the elements of the evaluation framework pillars and impacts), strategies proposed, and specific proposals for a work program. In all, 180 Country Partnership Frameworks for 113 countries and 105 Systematic Country Diagnostics for 95 countries were analyzed. For IFC, IEG analyzed 21 Country Private Sector Diagnostics for 21 countries and 37 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix C country strategies for 37 countries. The findings from this analysis formed an important basis for judging the relevance of Bank Group support for MSWM. Country-level case studies. The evaluation team prepared case studies for sev- en countries and economies. The countries and economies were chosen to have a balanced coverage of regions; income categories; fragile country and econo- my contexts; spread of municipal solid waste issues; and investment, technical assistance, and development policy loans. The list of case study countries and economies and their salient characteristics is presented in table C.2. A standard- ized questionnaire structured along the lines of the evaluation questions and the evaluation framework elements was used for discussions with Bank Group and country- and economy-based respondents. The standardized questionnaire 94 allowed for a comparative analysis across the country and economy experiences. Table C.2. Case Study Countries and Economies—Salient Characteristics World Bank Country Group Original MSW Country or Income Projects Commitment Economy Region Category (no.) (US$, millions) Focus Issues Azerbaijan ECA UMIC 2 110 Infrastructure; institutional development; financial sustainability; access and service delivery Colombia LAC UMIC 3 289 Accountability; informal worker integration; financial sustainability Liberia AFR LIC 1 15 FCS context; infrastructure; local government capacity; access Morocco MENA LMIC 4 464 Development policy loan instrument; policy; institutions; infrastructure; financial sustainability; access and service delivery Nigeria AFR LMIC 1 74 Planning; policy; infrastructure; financial sustainability; access and service delivery Kenya AFR LMIC 2 75 Infrastructure; informal sector; local government capacity West Bank MENA LMIC 3 24 FCS context; infrastructure; local government capacity; access; financial and Gaza sustainability; waste pickers; ICT for citizen engagement and education Sources: World Bank Business Warehouse; International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency databases. Note: AFR = Africa; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; ICT = information and communication technology; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; LIC = low-income country; LMIC = lower-middle-income country; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; MSW = municipal solid waste; UMIC = upper-middle-income country. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    95 Project Performance Assessment Reports. Two Project Performance Assess- ment Reports were prepared: one for an investment project in Azerbaijan and the other for a four-part development policy loan series in Morocco, which together covered the full range of pillar 1 and pillar 2 elements and impacts. Because of pandemic-related travel restrictions, the team conduct- ed these assessments with the support of local consultants and institutions and through web-based video or audio meetings with stakeholders. Background papers. The evaluation commissioned two background studies: one on marine plastic pollution and the other on informal waste pickers. Leading international experts in these fields conducted the two studies. The motivation for commissioning these papers was the importance of both the topics and the focus the Bank Group’s Board of Executive Di- rectors and senior management place on them, together with the limited portfolio on marine plastic pollution and relatively less attention to the important issue of informal waste pickers in World Bank analytical work. The paper on marine pollution took stock of current thinking and strategic approaches in this area and made forward-looking proposals for address- ing marine plastic pollution. The paper on informal waste pickers provided a comprehensive literature review and instructive examples of work in integrating informal waste pickers with formal MSWM processes in several countries. Selected content from these papers, backed by evidence, helped give a larger context to and supplemented the portfolio review on these two topics. Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix C Stakeholder Feedback The team conducted stakeholder interviews through web-based videoconfer- encing or by telephone because of pandemic-related travel restrictions. Interviews with Bank Group Staff and Management The evaluation team met with most World Bank, IFC, and MIGA staff and managers who work on the municipal solid waste sector. The interviews used semistructured formats in two parts: one covering MSWM issues generally and the other focusing on operations in which the staff or man- 96 agers have worked. Within the World Bank, the staff and managers were drawn from the Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience, and Land; Water; and Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy practices, which share most of the World Bank’s MSWM portfolio. For IFC, the re- spondents were from the investment area and infrastructure department. The purpose of the interviews was to verify the tone and direction of the findings and conclusions from the portfolio and country modules and to gather additional insights from individual experiences. The interviews covered issues of internal coherence and collaboration among the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA. Discussions with Country-Based Stakeholders Discussions with country-based stakeholders were held in the context of country case studies and project performance assessments. The re- spondents were officials from ministries covering urban, environment, and water portfolios; implementing agencies for World Bank projects; nongovernmental organizations; and academics. A structured question- naire was used for these discussions that was organized in two parts. The first part was organized in line with the evaluation questions and the evaluation framework pillar elements. The second part was specific to the project experience in the country. The team also held discussions with the World Bank country director and managers and country-based World Bank staff. These discussions were directed toward the World Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    97 Bank’s perspective of issues, opportunities, and constraints in expand- ing MSWM activities in the country and triangulating feedback from the country-based stakeholders. Discussions with Other Developmental Institutions The evaluation team held discussions with staff of the Asian Develop- ment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Japan International Cooperation Agency. The team also correspond- ed with staff of the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. A co-task team leader also held discussions with a range of international experts on MSWM in 2019 at the International Solid Waste Association’s annual conference in Bilbao, Spain, the theme of which was circular economy and waste management. The purpose of the meetings with other developmental institutions was to understand the scale and coverage of their involvement in the MSWM sector and the constraints they face in raising the sector’s profile among other urban services. Interviews with experts from the International Solid Waste Association were valuable in understanding the current thinking and directions in the sector, especially on the practical challenges of adopt- ing circular economy principles and extended producer responsibility, the lack of attention to MSWM in low-income countries, and barriers to private sector involvement. Evaluation Coverage This evaluation covers all World Bank, IFC, and MIGA support for MSWM during the period FY10–20. There were 117 World Bank investment and policy lending operations approved or ongoing in FY10–20, implement- ed in 55 countries (table C.3). Of those operations, 82 were closed, and IEG evaluated 68 of them. Together, these operations aimed to support improvements along the entire waste chain, covering collection, trans- port, treatment, and disposal of municipal solid waste. The study took stock of the World Bank’s 122 analytical products for 40 countries during FY10–20 and reviewed selected publications and reports. There were 13 IFC investments in 7 countries, of which IEG validated 1. There were 26 IFC advisory services that covered MSWM issues in 19 countries, of Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix C which 14 were closed, and IEG validated 9. IFC investments were main- ly for waste-to-energy conversion from landfill gas recovery, except for one landfill investment and three investments for e-waste recycling and composting. Most IFC advisory services were for public-private partner- ship transactions that supported waste-to-energy facilities and sanitary landfills. The rest were a mix of concessions, acquisitions, and lines of credit for MSWM services as part of urban services. MIGA has one active recent guarantee for a new sanitary landfill that was issued along with advisory. The evaluation drew on evidence and ratings from products that IEG evaluated and validated. 98 Table C.3. World Bank Group Municipal Solid Waste Management Activi- ties (Approved and Ongoing, FY10–20) Closed/ Matured and Projects Evaluated and Commitments Projects/ Activity Countries Activities (US$, Activities Category (no.) (no.) millions) (no.) World Bank 55 116 2,626 68 projects World Bank 40 156 44 n.a.a ASA IFC investments 7 13 398 1 IFC advisory 19 26 23 9 services MIGA 1 1 106 0 guarantees Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: ASA = advisory services and analytics; FY = fiscal year; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; n.a. = not applicable. a. World Bank ASA are not rated. Ensuring the Validity of Findings IEG took several steps to ensure a consistent approach across evaluation Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    99 team members for the country strategy analysis, portfolio review, key perfor- mance indicator analysis, and country case studies. The team prepared clear protocols for search, identification, and recording of evidence. For clarity and consistency, these protocols were based on the evaluation framework elements, and this approach was applied across all exercises. To ensure in- terrater reliability, each team member carried out pilot tasks using identical subject matter, and the results were compared with narrow differences in in- terpretation and alignment approaches across individuals. The team applied triangulation across evaluation components, cross-validating findings from case studies with findings from the portfolio review and literature review. Four peer reviewers at the Approach Paper stage and three peer reviewers at the report stage provided feedback, and the team consulted an adviser throughout the study to verify that the evaluation was using the available evidence and to confirm the validity of analysis and conclusions from the wider sector perspective. Triangulation The evaluation triangulated evidence from three modules and across ele- ments within the modules. The team updated and validated findings from the literature review through discussions with external sector experts. Findings from the portfolio review were confirmed in depth for subsets of projects through country case studies and project performance assess- ments. Broader findings and conclusions were subject to a reality check and cross-validated through discussions with country-based respondents, Bank Group staff, and external experts. Study Limitations The evaluation faced limitations arising from low data availability on envi- ronmental, social, and economic impacts of MSWM activities and from travel restrictions because of the coronavirus pandemic. The evaluation design had anticipated the low availability of data on impacts and had planned for targeted studies in two to three cities to assess impacts from Bank Group support for MSWM. The evaluation had also intended to conduct interview or focus group sessions with informal waste pickers and nongovernmental orga- Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix D nizations working with them to expand the low level of evidence available in this area. Another area for site-based inquiry was good practices in using cell phone and internet technology for raising awareness on MSWM issues and for holding service providers accountable for their performance, especially in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Verifying the balanced provision of services along the waste value chain in Bank Group–supported situations was another area for examination. Without the ability to travel, the evaluation had to depend on secondary sources, stylized facts, and anecdot- al evidence to compile data and information on these topics. The study also commissioned a background paper on informal waste pickers by a leading in- ternational expert to raise the breadth and quality of evidence on this subject. 100 Appendix D. Plastics: Background Paper Solid Waste Management and Plastics This background paper is for the Independent Evaluation Group’s evalu- ation Transitioning to a Circular Economy: An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support for Municipal Solid Waste Management (2010–20). It was pre- pared by Professor Steve Fletcher, professor of Ocean Policy and Economy and director of Revolution Plastics, University of Portsmouth, United King- dom, and member, United Nations Environment Programme International Resource Panel. Key Messages » Mismanaged plastic waste is a global crisis affecting people, nature, and the economy. Plastic waste that leaks from the plastics life cycle into nature threatens the functionality of important ecosystems, impinges on the health of individuals, and creates massive financial losses from the plastics econo- my. Plastic production and consumption is also a significant contributor to climate change through its reliance on oil-based materials. » Plastics are particularly challenging to manage within a solid waste man- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    101 agement process because they are frequently embedded within a range of other materials and objects, which makes them difficult to separate into a specific waste flow for appropriate treatment. Tackling the negative effects of plastics in waste flows is not an isolated problem that can be tackled by better solid waste management. » The plastics economy is highly linear, with very low recycling rates. In 2018, 35.7 million tons of municipal solid waste plastic was generated in the United States, of which 8 percent was recycled, 16 percent was incinerated for energy recovery, and the remaining 76 percent was landfilled. This pattern is replicated (and is frequently much worse) globally. » Plastic pollution in the ocean is primarily a land-based problem, and it is getting worse. Many plastics in the environment originate from land- based activities and sources, particularly from urban areas and agricultural practices. Without meaningful action, it is predicted that the annual flow of plastics entering the ocean will rise from 11 million metric tons to 29 million metric tons. » Rivers are a critical transport pathway of plastics through the environment and to the ocean. Although estimates vary, at present, 67–95 percent of all plastics entering the ocean are discharged from up to 30 rivers, mostly locat- ed in China and Southeast Asia. » Mismanaged plastic waste arises disproportionately in cities in Asia. Therefore, reliable municipal solid waste management (MSWM) systems in cities in Asia that keep plastics out of rivers are critical. » African and South American cities are emerging sources of plastic pol- lution. It is critical to learn the lessons of how to combat plastic pollution in Southeast Asia and share those lessons in Africa and South America. Fo- cusing on solid waste management in urban areas will be important, as will preventing plastics from reaching rivers. » Isolated interventions to reduce mismanaged plastic waste, including improved MSWM, are unlikely to be successful. An isolated intervention to reduce mismanaged plastic waste risks failing because a complete circular Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix D or end-to-end solution is absent. Isolated interventions can move a problem rather than solve it. » Focusing long-term investment on a combination of upstream and down- stream policies is much more likely to generate effective results than isolated interventions. Coordinated actions across the plastics life cycle to reduce the volume of plastics in the economy (upstream interventions) and better handle the treatment of the plastics within the economy (downstream interventions) generate systemic action. » Systemic and coordinated action is required to tackle the global plastics crisis. Adopting systems thinking is critical to developing effective interven- tions to address mismanaged plastic waste and design a system of interven- 102 tions that together tackle the plastics crisis substantively. » The plastics partnership and advocacy landscape is very crowded, com- plex, and fragmented and lacks a clear voice and leadership. This can confuse key messages and obscure the evidence base by presenting many different interpretations. Occasionally, by adopting extremely challenging positions, some groups can block rather than support action to tackle mis- managed plastic waste. » Citizen behavior change campaigns can reduce the demand for plastics and underpin improved plastic waste management. Citizens play a critical linking role between plastics demand and disposal, largely through house- hold purchasing preferences and disposal practices. A targeted campaign for householders to buy only plastics that are known to be properly collected and managed has the potential to reduce mismanaged plastic waste significantly. » Planning how to achieve systemic change is critical. The transition to a more sustainable plastics economy is more likely to happen with a focused plan that has a rigorous monitoring and evaluation framework to determine progress. » Reducing the amount of plastic entering the economy is the most effec- tive way of reducing mismanaged plastic waste. Focusing on upstream interventions, such as removing or replacing plastics in products, will reduce the plastics entering the economy and plastics cycle and reduce the volume of plastic available to leak into nature. » MSWM is extremely useful where there is an absence of effective up- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    103 stream interventions. MSWM interventions are most useful where upstream interventions are ineffective (or absent) and mismanaged plastic waste is commonly generated through waste processing activity. » Economic (dis)incentives work. There is growing evidence that economic (dis)incentives (such as the introduction of charges for carrier bags) to shift relatively minor consumer behaviors are effective, as are more substantial taxes to alter commercial behavior, as evidenced by the greater reduction in waste sent to landfills where taxes are higher. » Bio-based and biodegradable plastics have a role to play in shifting away from oil-based plastics, but they currently lack standards, and material de- velopment is in its infancy. Options for sustained interventions by the World Bank Group to tackle mis- managed plastic waste and pollution include the following: » Focus on upstream interventions to reduce the volume of plastics in the economy. Embedding design-for-circularity principles into plastic and plastic-containing product design is a priority. » Focus interventions on preventing plastics entering rivers (and restoring highly plastic-polluted rivers), particularly the main plastic-carrying rivers in Southeast Asia. » Focus on coastal cities in Southeast Asia as key sources of mismanaged plastic waste. Solid waste management is likely to have a disproportionately positive effect on a city scale in this region. » Anticipate and prepare for African and South American cities to become globally significant sources of plastic pollution and take preemptive action. » Focus on interventions that support systemic change in the plastic econo- my by making sure interventions are coordinated and work in concert. » Focus on citizen behavior change interventions only where the waste infra- structure system means the behavior of citizens can make a difference. » Consider adopting a global advocacy leadership role to push for a global sustainable plastics economy. Currently, the absence of a unifying voice and leadership is blocking coordinated action. Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix D 104 Appendix E. Carbon Offset Projects Carbon offset programs allow individuals and companies to invest in envi- ronmental projects around the world to balance out their own carbon foot- prints. The projects are usually based in developing countries and are most commonly designed to reduce future emissions. The World Bank’s municipal solid waste management portfolio includes 25 carbon offset projects that were approved or completed during 2010–20, with a total outlay of $196 million (table E.1; table E.2). These projects are attached to parent investment projects and in most cases have longer project durations than the parent projects. The carbon offset projects fall under the following categories: » Composting; » Landfill gas recovery; » Landfill gas recovery and electricity generation; » Landfill gas recovery and electricity generation and composting. The largest number of projects is in the Latin America and the Caribbean Re- gion (9 of 25), but the largest share of commitments went to the Middle East Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    105 and North Africa Region (45 percent: $89 million of $196 million). There was only 1 project in the South Asia Region drawing 3 percent of total commit- ments (US$5.5 million of $196 million). There were no projects in the Europe and Central Asia Region. Twenty-one of the 25 carbon offset projects are closed, and 4 are active. Only 5 of the 21 closed projects have met or exceeded targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 106 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix E Table E.1. Carbon Offset Projects in Solid Waste Management Portfolio Sum of World Bank Share of Total GHG Emission Reduction Projects Lending Commitments Target Achievement Achievement Region (no.) (US$, millions) (%) (tons, millions) (tons, millions) (%) AFR 4 19.7 10 0.65 0.02 3 EAP 5 18.3 9 1.21 0.24 20 LAC 9 63.3 32 2.34 1.89 81 MENA 6 89 45 2.63 0.78 29 SAR 1 5.5 3 0.15 0.15 100 Total 25 195.8 100 6.99 3.08 44 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AFR = Africa; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; GHG = greenhouse gas; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SAR = South Asia. Table E.2. Municipal Solid Waste Management: Carbon Offset Projects (Approved or Ongoing during 2010–20) Global World Practice Bank or Lending Project Project Approval Exit Practice (US$, ID Project Name Country Region Status FY FY Group millions) Activity Target Achieved P079182 BR Nova Gerar Brazil LAC Closed 2006 2017 EAE 8.5 LFG 543,324 544,670 Landfill Rio de recovery; Janeiro electricity genera- tion; com- posting P086035 CN-CF-Tianjin China EAP Closed 2007 2015 URL 0.6 LFG 605,534 236,999 Landfill Gas Re- recovery; covery electricity genera- tion P088546 Mx: Waste Man- Mexico LAC Closed 2005 2017 EAE 0.9 LFG 1,022,598 1,022,598 agement and recovery; Carbon Offset electricity genera- tion P088934 AR Olavarria Argen- LAC Closed 2005 2015 URL 0.5 LFG re- 9,000 0 Methane Capture tina covery Project P093856 UG-CF Sustain- Uganda AFR Closed 2010 2016 ENB 8.4 Com- 196,949 16,549 able Envir. SIL posting (FY06) (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    107 108 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix E Global World Practice Bank or Lending Project Project Approval Exit Practice (US$, ID Project Name Country Region Status FY FY Group millions) Activity Target Achieved P094495 UY Montevideo Uruguay LAC Closed 2007 2012 ENB 7.0 LFG re- 201,923 0 Landfill Gas covery Capture P094739 PE Huaycoloro Peru LAC Closed 2006 2014 EAE 3.7 LFG 500,000 327,352 Landfill Gas Re- recovery; covery electricity genera- tion P098012 UG-CF Kampala Uganda AFR Closed 2010 2015 URL 2.1 LFG re- 74,144 0 Solid Waste ERPA covery (FY10) P098638 NG-Lagos Land- Nigeria AFR Closed 2008 2014 URL 2.1 LFG 141,676 0 fill Gas and Com- recovery; posting (FY06) electricity genera- tion; com- posting P098737 EG-ONYX Solid Egypt, MENA Closed 2006 2016 ENB 0.0 LFG re- 1,100,000 354,595 Waste Alexan- Arab covery dria-Carbon Rep. P099670 TN-Jebel Chekir Tunisia MENA Closed 2006 2019 URL 0.0 LFG re- 454,543 301,327 Solid Waste covery Carbon P099672 Tunisia–Nine Tunisia MENA Closed 2006 2019 URL 0.0 LFG re- 547,097 119,414 landfills Carbon covery Finance (continued) Global World Practice Bank or Lending Project Project Approval Exit Practice (US$, ID Project Name Country Region Status FY FY Group millions) Activity Target Achieved P101253 AR SALTA Argen- LAC Closed 2008 2016 URL 0.7 LFG re- 9,000 0 LANDFILL GAS tina covery CAPTURE PR P104482 ILKD D-CF-Ponti- Indone- EAP Closed 2007 2014 ENB 0.0 LFG re- 200,000 0 anak Landfill Gas sia covery P105389 LKD BR Nova Brazil LAC Closed 2009 2015 URL 10.0 LFG 54,000 0 Gerar CDM SWM recovery; Project 2 electricity genera- tion P106652 PK: Lahore Com- Pakistan SAR Closed 2009 2017 CCG 5.5 Com- 151,092 151,092 posting Project posting P107410 JO-Amman Jordan MENA Closed 2009 2015 URL 15.0 LFG 320,000 0 Landfill Gas Re- recovery; covery electricity genera- tion P110935 EG-CAIRO Egypt, MENA Closed 2008 2014 ENB 4.0 Com- 100,000 0 SOUTHERN Arab posting ZONE COM- Rep. POSTING P127455 UY-Montevideo Uruguay LAC Closed 2012 2018 URL 2.0 LFG — — LFG Capture and Flaring (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    109 110 Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix E Global World Practice Bank or Lending Project Project Approval Exit Practice (US$, ID Project Name Country Region Status FY FY Group millions) Activity Target Achieved P112329 NG: Lagos Earth- Nigeria AFR Active 2010 — CCG 7.1 Com- 236,646 0 care Compost posting Project P115080 PH-CF-Methane Philip- EAP Active 2010 — CCG 10.0 LFG re- 12,000 5,849 Recovery from pines covery Waste Program P121917 MA-CN Munici- Morocco MENA Active 2014 — URL 70.0 LFG 112,000 0 pal Solid Waste recovery; Carbon Financing electricity Program genera- tion P124663 BR Caixa Solid Brazil LAC Active 2012 — URL 30.0 LFG — — Waste Mgt recovery; electricity genera- tion P099679 ID-CF-Landfill Indone- EAP Closed 2008 2015 URL 0.0 LFG re- 195,000 126.363 Bekasi landfill sia covery Gas Flaring P104022 ID-CF-Makas- Indone- EAP Closed 2009 2015 ENB 7.7 LFG re- 200,000 0 sar Landfill Gas sia covery Flaring Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AFR = Africa; CCG = Climate Change Group; EAE = Energy and Extractives; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ENB= Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy; FY = fiscal year; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; LFG = landfill gas; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SAR = South Asia; SWM = solid waste management; URL = Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience, and Land; — = not available. Appendix F. Role of Donors and Development Partners Official development finance to solid waste management (SWM) has more than doubled since 2003 and reached $510 million in 2012 (fig- ure F.1). East Asia and Pacific is the major recipient of development finance with a 40 percent share in 2012. This Region is followed by Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, Europe and Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia. Over 2003–12, China received the most loans and grants for SWM. Azerbaijan, India, Morocco, República Bolivar- iana de Venezuela, Turkey, and Vietnam are the other major recipients of development finance for SWM. The share of SWM in all official development finance has increased; however, support for SWM is still a very small propor- tion of total development finance (0.32 percent). Compared with $15 billion in development finance supporting the water supply and sanitation sector, only $0.5 billion in development finance was provided to SWM (figure F.2). Thirty-four donors provided financial support to SWM-related activities in 2012. Eight of these were multilateral institutions, and the rest were bilateral donors. Germany was the largest donor in 2012 with $126 million, followed by the Asian Development Bank (US$125 million), Japan (US$110 million), the Inter-American Development Bank (US$43 million), the Internation- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    111 al Development Association (US$23 million), and the European Union (US$20 million; figure F.3). These donors provided almost 90 percent of SWM-focused official development finance in 2012 (Lerpiniere et al. 2014).  fficial Development Finance for Solid Waste Management Figure F.1. O by Recipient Region Sub-Saharan Africa South Asia 1,000 Middle East & North Africa 0.35 Latin America & Caribbean 900 Europe & Central Asia 0.30 Proportion of all official development finance East Asia & Pacific 800 Official development finance ($ million) Unspecified Total SWM ODF (3-year average) 0.25 700 SWM as a proportion of all ODF (3-year average) 600 0.20 500 0.15 400 300 0.10 200 0.05 100 0.00 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Source: Lerpiniere et al. 2014. Note: ODF = official development finance; SWM = solid waste management. Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix F  evelopment Finance in Social Infrastructure and Services Figure F.2. D 2012 Other Social Infrastructure & Services 81 Water Supply & Sanitation 15 Solid Waste Management 0.5 Development finance (US$, billions) Source: Lerpiniere et al. 2014. 112  ajor Donors in Solid Waste Management Development Figure F.3. M Finance Germany ADB Japan IDB IDA EU Institutions EBRD Donor GEF Australia Korea Norway Spain Canada Belgium Sweden Netherlands United States 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Official Development Finance ($ million, 2012) Grants Concessionary loans Nonconcessionary loans Source: Lerpiniere et al. 2014. Note: ADB = Asian Development Bank; EBRD = European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; EU = European Union; GEF = Global Environment Facility; IDA = International Development Association; IDB = Inter-American Development Bank. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    113  uropean Bank for Reconstruction and Development Lending Figure F.4. E for Solid Waste Management, 2012–18 100 80 60 Percent 40 20 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year Solid waste management Urban transport District heating and cooling Water and wastewater Energy efficiency and street lighting Facilities management Source: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 2019.  sian Development Bank Urban Sector Solid Waste Figure F.5. A Management Projects: Annual Commitments Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix F 300 $273.48 (12.5%) 250 $212.45 US$, millions (7.1%) 200 $161.18 (8.7%) 150 $94.20 $98.39 100 (5.6%) (6.1%) $63.65 $56.35 (3.7%) (3.6%) 50 $30.95 $34.87 $23.39 $23.05 (2.8%) (3.6%) $7.77 (1.9%) (3,2%) (0.5%) 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year 114 Source: Asian Development Bank. African Development Bank Among the water supply and sanitation portfolio, only one project is appar- ently dedicated to municipal SWM.1 The extent of municipal SWM coverage under water supply and sanitation projects is not clear. Inter-American Development Bank In the past 15 years (2005–19), the Inter-American Development Bank’s Wa- ter and Sanitation Division has approved 27 dedicated investment programs, with $708 million associated with municipal SWM sector activities, within a framework of operations totaling $1,724 million.2 Although the Water and Sanitation Division’s portfolio has traditionally been focused on the drinking water, sewerage, and wastewater treatment subsector, there has been great- er development of other subsectors in recent years, such as waste, which in 2014 represented 13 percent of the division’s total portfolio. The waste management and management project portfolio in this period was varied and included programs for the integral management of solid waste in urban areas, the environmental recovery of bodies of water, or the institutional and regulatory strengthening of the subsector and the reform of policies. Likewise, between 2005 and 2019, the division approved 50 nonreimbursable technical cooperations in the waste subsector, totaling $22.1 million. These Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    115 technical cooperations have financed studies associated with investment loans (because of the lack of information that would allow progress in the preparation and approval of investment loans) and comprehensive waste management plans, with special attention to intervention models that incor- porate informal recyclers in waste management in large cities. Global Partnership on Waste Management The Global Partnership on Waste Management (which stopped functioning in 2019) was an open-ended partnership for international organizations, governments, businesses, academia, local authorities, and nongovernmental organizations.3 According to the organization’s website (published June 26, 2016), it was launched in November 2010 to enhance international cooper- ation among stakeholders; identify and fill information gaps; share infor- mation; and strengthen awareness, political will, and capacity to promote resource conservation and resource efficiency. The partnership’s objectives were to enhance international cooperation, outreach, advocacy, and knowl- edge management and sharing; to identify and fill information gaps in waste management to protect human health and environment; and to tackle adverse impacts of unsound waste management. It also sought to raise awareness, political will, and capacity to promote resource conservation and resource efficiency through waste prevention and by recovering valuable material and energy from waste. Implementation Methodologies Expected outcomes. The Global Partnership on Waste Management pro- moted a holistic approach to waste management. The level of waste man- agement activities is increased through enhanced international cooperation, advocacy, awareness, political will, and outreach. Information that is already available is shared, and additional information is created to fill the gaps. Better coordination among member institutions allows them to benefit from one another’s actions. Efficient and synergized activities avoid duplication and promote efficiency of efforts. A wider range of partners and stakeholders are approached for enhanced and coordinated activities. Coordination Mechanisms and Governance Structure Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix F The steering committee was the organization’s governing body, reviewing and providing guidance on the partnership’s overall workplan and the prog- ress made. The steering committee met at least once a year, in person or through electronic means. Partners The organization’s partners were the United Nations Environment Pro- gramme, the International Solid Waste Association, the International Tele- communication Union, and the Basel Convention Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific. 116 Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility The World Bank–administered Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facil- ity helps governments in developing countries to strengthen policies, regu- lations, and institutions that enable sustainable infrastructure with private sector participation. In 2020, $984 million was invested across 19 projects in municipal solid waste, compared with $4.3 billion across 57 projects in 2019 and the five-year average of $4.5 billion across 52 projects. Most in- vestment commitments (US$767 million) were channeled to treatment and disposal projects. Among treatment and disposal projects, incineration and waste-to-energy (landfill gas recovery) technology were the most popu- lar modes, at $730 million. The investment commitments in 2020 will add capacity of 733,000 tons of solid waste processing in developing countries. Investment commitments in municipal solid waste occurred in three coun- tries: Bulgaria, China, and Serbia. The energy sector outpaced the transport sector, attracting $29.8 billion across 145 projects. This accounted for 65 percent of 2020 global Private Participation in Infrastructure investments. The transport sector received only $10.5 billion across 41 projects, accounting for 23 percent of investment commitments in 2020. Municipal solid waste received $1 billion across 19 projects, the water sector attracted $4 billion over 46 projects, and informa- tion and communication technology received $446 million for 1 project. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    117 Other External Partnerships Other World Bank external partnerships are with the Solid Waste Association of North America and the Collaborative Working Group on Solid Waste Man- agement in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. References EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development). 2019. “Municipal and Environmental Infrastructure Sector Strategy, April 2019.” EBRD, London. Lerpiniere, David, David C. Wilson, Costas Velis, Barbara Evans, Hinrich Voss, and Kris Moodley. 2014. “A Review of International Development Co-operation in Solid Waste Management.” International Solid Waste Association, Vienna. Transitioning to a Circular Economy  Appendix F 118 1  For more information, see https://operationsdatabase.opendataforafrica.org/oyilyhd/ adb-projects. 2  For more information, see https://www.iadb.org/en/projects. 3  For more information, see https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=7462. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    119 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433