Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158

Municipal solid waste recycling in the Gulf

Co-operation Council states
Jasem M. Alhumoud ∗
Civil Engineering Department, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 5969, Safat 13060, Kuwait

Received 3 November 2003; received in revised form 28 October 2004; accepted 15 January 2005

Abstract

Solid waste recycling should be integrated with other solid waste management options to abate
degradation in urban environment. This can be accomplished through promotion of economically effi-
cient and environmentally sound practices in managing municipal waste. Recycling can be promoted
by encouraging separation at the source. Separation at the source can be achieved through financial
incentives stimulation, legislation and raising of environmental awareness. Even some of the Gulf Co-
operation Council (GCC) member states have placed recycling at the top of their waste management
priorities, the low cost of landfill and the availability of land make recycling programmes infeasible,
uneconomical and unachievable. The only comprehensive form of recycling available within the GCC
states is recycling of paper and cartons. The majority of the GCC states never set national or regional
recycling targets. The cost of recycling in the GCC states region could be moderate to high according
to the collection system selected for the recycling programme. Government policies on the environ-
ment exist but are poorly implemented. Public enlightenment programs lacked the needed coverage,
intensity and continuity to correct the apathetic public attitude towards the environment. This paper
provides strategies for developing the most effective recycling marketing programme considerations
and regional co-ordination options.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: GCC states; Recycling; Solid waste; Waste management

∗ Tel.: +965 967 4825; fax: +965 481 7524.

E-mail address: jasem@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw.

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.01.010
 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158 143

1. Introduction

Until recently, environment was not considered as an important issue in the third world
countries such as Kuwait, and solid waste management was definitely not the prime concern
of environmentalists and the governmental agencies. Only recently, when certain environ-
mental groups started working and highlighting the issue of municipal waste services in the
country that the responsible authority in Kuwait realized the importance of this particular
aspect of environmental management.
One of the major problems facing a nation is the need for the proper disposal of the
voluminous solid waste generated every year. In the industrialized nations, usually the
quantity of waste and lack of disposal sites have been the causes of concern (Podar, 1993).
In non-industrialized nations, on the other hand, the public’s general lack of environmental
knowledge and awareness, and the constant enlargement of areas of landfill disposal sites
constitute major issues (Koushki and Alhumoud, 2002). In the Gulf Co-operation Council
(GCC) states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates) the
delicate balance of the desert regions’ eco-system may also, in the long run, be adversely
affected by the magnitude of landfill disposal of solid waste.
In the GCC states, the discovery of oil in the early sixties, has resulted in the fast devel-
opment of the cultural, construction, and industrial aspects of the nations. Also, due to the
discovery of oil, there was an increase in immigration to the region. A unique characteristic
of the countries of the GCC is the constant change in the expatriate population from year
to year. Each year, a significant percentage of the expatriate population in the region leaves
the countries upon the termination of their contracts. These individuals are replaced by
another group of expatriate workers mostly from the Philippines, India, Bangladesh, and
Sri Lanka. The generation and the mix of urban solid waste are therefore in a process of
constant change. The solid waste information of only a few years back may no longer be
valid to represent the picture of household solid waste at the present time. Table 1 shows
the solid waste generation rate in different states of GCC (Alhumoud, 2002; Koushki and
Alhumoud, 2002). The GCC member states do not experience increased population den-
sity or land scarcity as greatly as the industrialised developed states in Europe, and Japan
do. Consequently, landfill, a waste management alternative, is considered the most appro-
priate waste disposal technique. Landfill is dominantly used by all of the GCC member
states, and all landfill sites in the GCC region are government owned. Although some of the
GCC member states have placed recycling at the top of their waste management priorities,
the low cost of landfill and the availability of land, usually old quarries make recycling

Table 1
Municipal solid waste generation rate in the GCC states
Country Population (million) Generation rate (kg/person/day)
Kuwait 2.23 1.4
Saudi Arabia 20.1 1.25
Bahrain 0.35 1.26
Qatar 0.44 1.3
United Arab Emirates 2 1.18
Oman 2 0.73
144 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158

programmes infeasible, uneconomical and unachievable. The only comprehensive form of

recycling available within the GCC member states is the recycling of paper and cartons.
The majority of the GCC states unlike the European Union, which has planned to meet a
15% recycling target for packaging sector and that amount to 1.7 million tonnes/year, never
set national or regional recycling target (Shea, 1992).
There is also no recycling program in the region. Only a limited amount of recyclable
such as cans, metals and cardboards are collected by scavengers from garbage containers in
front of the houses. The activities of scavengers can have a great impact on the economy and
waste management (Agunwamba et al., 1996; Zhang, 1996) if the scavengers are properly
organized, enlightened, and provided with the necessary economic and institutional support.
At present, however, their contributions are limited by the absence of government policies to
encourage reuse and recycling. With the proper education and campaign programs, recycling
could be started in the country. According to Ebreo and Vining (2000), recyclers who are
motivated by economic and nuisance concerns and household factors (e.g., too busy, too
much preparation, lack of information, no one to pick up recyclables) would likely recycle
more if they were paid to do so. In addition, recyclers who are motivated by household
factors are likely to recycle more if curbside programs existed and if recycling required
less preparation of the materials. They also stated that non-recyclers who are motivated by
household factors would recycle for payment. Also, they mention that both recyclers and
non-recyclers are most in favour of increased educational programming and least in favour
of having drop-off sites relocated closer to their place of residence.
GCC municipalities concentrated in the last 20 years on composting as an alternative
for MSW treatment, despite the unfortunate failure of a large number of composting plants
in the region. The experience of composting facilities within each GCC state has been
disappointing. The main problems with most of composting facilities within the GCC states
are, poor performance, high operating and maintenance costs, lack of technical support and
inefficient management. The GCC states combined produce about 3 million tonnes/year
of MSW of which on average 47% by weight are compostable materials and potential
feedstock for the GCC’s several composting facilities. About 1.4 million tonnes/year of
such materials would be potentially available for composting plants, which have operating
capacities ranging from 500 to 700 tonnes/day. Therefore, it may be feasible to establish a
regional composting plant.
However, millions of tons of MSW are generated in the GCC states, and the municipalities
in this region have not made plans for the recycling of plastics. For example, it was estimated
that plastic constitutes about 12% of the total MSW in Saudi Arabian cities (Kdo, 1997;
Khan and Burnet, 1989). Therefore, plastics and other components of the waste stream
were not of equal importance when compared with food waste and other organic materials,
which contribute more to the production of compost.
Plastics processors in the GCC states have not adopted recycling as a mean to correct the
plastics waste disposal problem. Those processors may produce products based on recy-
cled plastics if the municipalities enact regulations, which would enforce plastics recycling.
Currently plastics waste materials of all types are being collected and exported to other
Arab countries such as Lebanon, and Egypt for further processing. In contrast, other devel-
oping nations such as Bangladesh and India make more use of their recovered plastics. In
Bangladesh out of 95% of any batch of plastic wastes recovered/recycled, 40% recovery is
 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158 145

achieved for recycling in the first year and about 55% is recovered in the second year. About
5% of the same batch is lost in the system or is not recyclable and ends up in landfill. In
the case of India, 75% of plastic wastes are recovered/recycled in 2 successive years. Thirty
and forty-five percent in the first and second year, respectively, along with the remaining
25% for landfill and others (Haque et al., 2000).
The cost of recycling in the GCC region could be moderate to high according to the
collection system selected for the recycling programme. Almost all of the cities within the
GCC member states use mechanised systems for the daily collection of MSW. Therefore,
the same daily collection system used for MSW might well be used for the collection of
recyclable materials, both on the same day and at the same time, or according to a different
timetable.
Collection of recyclable materials may take different forms. It is possible to use a trailer
(for recyclable materials) attached at the rear of a regular collection vehicle. Another form
may be that of a collection vehicle consisting of three or four compartments that accom-
modate various types of wastes such as paper, plastic, aluminium and glass. Several studies
in the USA have indicated that same-day collection programmes for recyclable materials
are more favourable to the public since they do not need to learn new collection schedules
(WHO, 1995; Environmental Protection Agency, 1989). Public interest and attitude is a
key element in the success of any recycling programme, and within the GCC’s member
states, the municipalities have shown, so far, no organisation or strategic planning for the
start of a recycling programme. The GCC municipalities will need to offer their citizens a
mechanism for sorting and recycling by implementing collection or bring systems. What
are obvious in this region are the lack of knowledge on the public’s side and the lack of
action by municipalities for implementing MSW recycling (Ebreo and Vining, 2000).
The GCC’s member states have distinctive cultural traditions and habits that differ greatly
from those of the Europeans and the Americans, and which consequently affect the waste
generation rate, buying attitudes and the degree of participation in community programmes.
An example of such traditions and habits is the large amount of food that is discarded after
each wedding ceremony during which a large meal is served to the guests. The guest list
is usually quite large, and the hosts provide excess food to avoid the social and cultural
embarrassment of running short. As a result, wedding ceremonies, which have become
occasions for showing off and competing among the families of this region, are strong signs
of the throwaway society.

2. Waste management planning

Management can be defined as the judicious use of a means to achieve an end. “An end”
is the removal of the rejected material from the material flow pattern. It is no longer of use
to the population and it has low intrinsic value to the society. It is therefore discarded, and
if not disposed properly, will be a source of potential problems to the population. For the
best results, a recycling philosophy needs to be built into the overall integrated plan for the
urban development and its waste disposal. A detailed study of the requirements of industry,
with an assessment of those needs that could well be satisfied by recycled materials will
stimulate recycling. The entire process of a product, from beginning to end, needs to be
146 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158

assessed from a cost point of view—and by ‘end’ we mean when it is discarded and has
to be disposed of. If that involves cost to the community then it is, in fact, part of the cost
of the product. Another aspect, which fails to encourage recycling, is that in most cases,
raw materials, energy and other inputs to production are rarely costly. So a really radical
approach to the subject of cost is required, with products and packaging designed to use
energy efficiently and minimize waste.
The main philosophy is applying the waste management hierarchy in order of impor-
tance: (1) reduce (source reduction, using recycled products and controlling the material
to reduce final waste), (2) re-use, (3) recycle, (4) incineration (energy recovery), and (5)
safe disposal. There are certain principles of general applications, which are basic to proper
waste management:

• Waste reduction and recovery should be pursued to the maximum extent possible, pri-
marily through process optimisation, redesign, material management, economic recovery
of residues for feedstock, or for energy production. The exchange of technical and eco-
nomic information, either directly or through technical or trade associations, should be
encouraged.
• Waste management should be complete. That is, even if a contractor is employed, it is
the responsibility of the creator of the waste to ensure that the contractor is competent
to deal with and dispose of the waste safely, will comply with the relevant regulations,
and handles the waste in accordance with agreed techniques and procedures. All major
participants in the construction industry, i.e., owners, designers, contractors, construction
managers, material dealers, etc., should consider waste management as a profit centre so
it has the same importance as safety, quality, schedule and cost.
• Before deciding on an appropriate method of disposal, it is essential to know the com-
position and the characteristics of the waste being handled.
• All relevant local authorities should be kept fully informed of possible hazards and the
corresponding precautions. Customers or processors using the products being manufac-
tured should also be made fully aware of any potential hazard, or risks involved in using
the products.
• There should be a well-defined procedure for the management of specific waste streams,
each having been properly identified and documented. A ‘waste manifesto’ should be
drawn up for each waste stream right from the time it is first generated to the time it is
finally disposed of.
• Disposal plans must be reviewed periodically in the light of changing conditions, chang-
ing processes and technology. A method of disposal once considered appropriate, safe
and economical may no longer be so.
• Site contingency plans should be available, designed to cope with emergencies and acci-
dents and these should also be reviewed in the light of any changes made in the handling
of waste and the appropriate authorities advised.

2.1. Benefits and needs of recycling to the GCC states

It is important to view the benefits of recycling as a driving force for regional co-operation
in utilising MSW effectively. Therefore, it is essential to present the major benefits of
 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158 147

Table 2
Benefits of recycling in the GCC states (land saving value)
GCC state Solid waste Land requirements for disposal (m2 )a Saving in land volume
(tonnes/year) ($/year)b
No recycling Recycling
Bahrain 155,000 31,000 24,800 2,170,000
Kuwait 675,648 135,129.60 108,103.7 94,59,072
Qatar 187,975 37,595 30,076 2,631,650
Saudi Arabia 1,413,950 2,82,790 2,26,232 19,795,300
UAE 527,668 105,533.6 84,426.88 7,387,352
a Land requirements calculations is based on a density of 0.5 tonnes for MSW.
b Saving in land value is determined with an assumption of US$ 350 per m2 . Kuwait Municipality Planning
Department (1998).

recycling and make use of these benefits as a means of promoting co-operation among the
GCC states. The three main benefits are:
1. Prolonging the life of the local landfill sites due to reduction of waste amounts arriving
at the landfills.
2. Encouraging expansion and development in the waste utilization industries, which will
consequently affect the economy of such industries positively.
3. Minimizing the use of virgin materials that are usually imported, which would help to
protect and save the international environment and its resources, and reduce the exchange
of hard currency.
Based on these benefits, a simple estimation of savings in land value in some of the GCC
states is presented in Table 2, which shows the land requirements for MSW disposal in each
of the GCC states based on two alternatives. The first alternative assumed a complete absence
of recycling, and the second alternative assumed different levels of participation in recycling.
In the second alternative, a 20% recycling rate was considered. As a result, the savings in
land value was estimated based on an assumed price of US$ 350 per m2 of land, which is the
average price of land in Kuwait. The estimated total savings in the value of land were over
US$ 40 million annually. These savings could be used for the development of a regional
co-operation fund to provide financial support for recycling and other environmental issues
in this region. The other benefit of recycling is the development of the national economy
through the encouragement of private sector participation. The GCC states’ municipalities
may play the role of the co-ordinator or even mediator between the government and private
sector industries. According to several companies that are currently involved in recycling
paper and glass, the major issue they face is the absence of governmental support. Whether
the government’s support is tangible or intangible, the need for appropriate support for
industries that help save the environment and resources should be given the highest priority
(Anwari, 1997; Final Report Municipality of Dhofar, 1994).
There are a few cases of success in the field of recycling performed by private indus-
trial companies within the GCC region; however, strong and continuous support and
co-ordination by the governments are obviously absent. In the UAE, a paper trading com-
pany, Zenith Paper Traders, exported around 40,000 tonnes of waste paper from the Gulf
region to India during 1997. The total value of the waste paper exported in that year amounted
148 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158

to US$ 6.5 million (Al-Hasawi, 1999). In addition, in 1997 the Union Paper Mills based
in Dubai, UAE, produced about 108,000 tonnes of recycled paper and cardboard prod-
ucts for use in the packaging industry. This production level was four times that of 1993.
The company exports about 50% of its production to other GCC states: Iran, Pakistan,
India and Sri-Lanka. The remaining 50% are marketed to packaging companies within
the UAE (Al-Hasawi, 1999). In Saudi Arabia, Saady Surfactant Industries of Al Khobar,
which manufactures a range of cleansing chemicals, recycles a significant proportion of
the plastic recovered from the MSW stream into new bottles using their own bottle bank.
According to the company’s officials, the recycling of the plastic waste, in general, from
household waste is a difficult task for the municipalities since it is economically not viable
(Alam, 1997). Collection, separation, and cleansing of those products are difficult and
expensive. Moreover both single resins and mixtures of plastics can be recycled, but the
end products from a mixture often have inferior physical properties and are lower in value
than those from just one type of plastic. As a result, the success of plastics recycling in the
GCC may depend on the adaptation of available technologies to separate mixed plastics
into single resins, and on increasing the markets for products of mixed plastic recycling.
The GCC member states should investigate establishing an association that is aimed at
starting recycling programmes in each state. The association’s main strategic objectives
should include the following:
• To create a regional, co-operative marketing programme for recyclable materials.
• To encourage economic growth related to recycling projects.
• To enhance feasible policies for converting recycled materials into commercial products.
• To provide technical assistance and training for members of the association.
• To strengthen recycling infrastructures in the GCC region.

Fig. 1. The strategic purposes of the proposed GCC states recycling associations.
 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158 149

The establishment of such an association would enable the GCC member states to nego-
tiate contracts with end-users of recyclable materials through a co-operative marketing
programme, and thus to obtain the best prices by capitalising on the leverage of large vol-
umes of recyclable materials. Furthermore, industries based on or associated with recyclable
materials would receive greater encouragement to develop and expand in the region, where
the GCC member states, through their municipalities, would provide recyclable procure-
ment policies. As a result, the strategic plan for regional recycling would be enhanced.
Fig. 1 shows a block diagram of the strategic purposes of the proposed GCC recycling
association.

3. Regional approach

3.1. Centralised collection, processing and marketing

The regional approach proposed for recycling in the GCC area is based on the present sta-
tus of waste management in each of the GCC states. Therefore, it is aimed at the economies
of scale for collection, processing and marketing of recyclable materials generated by the
GCC states.
Investment in transportation equipment and employment of labour to collect and trans-
port recyclable materials from various centres in each of the GCC states should be handled
through the establishment of a regional co-operative council. The regional material recov-
ery facility (MRF), to be located at the best possible site close to the major markets, would
receive such recyclable materials. The municipalities in each of the GCC states may only
have responsibility for the design, purchase, operation and maintenance of the collection
centres, also known as drop-off centres, within their own jurisdictions. The collection
of the recyclable materials from the several drop-off centres is to be the responsibility
of the regional co-operative council, provided that the drop-off centres are equipped to
handle at least 45-m3 trailers (the most commonly used size) and to function as transfer
stations. The most important objectives of the regional recycling approach are: (a) the cre-
ation of sufficient amounts of recyclable materials to attract serious buyers of recyclable
materials with the best prices, and (b) the construction of economies of scale through
the reduction of the costs associated with the running of several independent recycling
programmes.
The future creation of a regional co-operative association would put the responsibility
of constructing a strong recycling industry in this region in the hands of the combined
governments of the GCC states. In the proposed scheme, which is presented in Fig. 2, the
regional co-operative association would be responsible for the collection and transportation
of the recyclable materials collected from each of the GCC capital cities to the regional
MRF in the industrial city of Jubail in Saudi Arabia. Jubail, which is located in the eastern
province of Saudi Arabia, is a modern, well-designed, industrial city. Jubail is close to
Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, and relatively close to the UAE and Oman (see Fig. 3). The
financial facilities that are provided by the Saudi government to project developers in Jubail
are encouraging. Also the existing industries in Jubail would benefit from the proposed
MRF. The regional co-operative association would also invest in transportation equipment,
150 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158

Fig. 2. GCC regional co-operative association scheme.

Fig. 3. Location of the Jubail site with respect to the Gulf Co-operation Council states.
 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158 151

labour and associated costs required for the recyclable materials to reach the MRF and be
marketed within the region and internationally. The municipalities in each of the GCC states
would bear the responsibility for the design, purchase, operation, and maintenance of the
drop-off centres and transfer stations.

3.2. Marketing recycled products

The cost of recycling is a combination of the costs of the collection of recyclable mate-
rials, of the related pre-treatment operations, and of the recycling operation itself. Without
economic incentives, promoting recycling behaviour will not be easy. As long as cheap
disposal of waste is available, there is very little economic incentive to recycle or find alter-
native uses or even to reduce waste. It is difficult to get contractors, builders and demolition
people to avoid waste when it is so inexpensive to dispose of it. Therefore, in dealing with
recycling and waste management, applying the concept of the polluter pays principle is
essential. This concept provides a legal basis for attributing the financial responsibility for
pollution. The strategy provides an incentive for manufacturers to reduce the environmental
impacts of their products and promotes the introduction of the new concept of design for
recycling. Hence, it is obvious that the marketing of products from recycling facilities rep-
resents the weakest link in the raw materials cycle. The public sector is seldom in a position
to professionally market a product. The marketing of recyclables can be promoted by man-
ufacturing industries, the retails sector, consumers and the public sector. The manufacturing
industry needs to expand existing manufacturing operations of recycled products as well
as to continue development of recycling technologies. The retail sector should favour pric-
ing for recycled products, especially during introductory phases. The consumer’s increased
demand for goods and merchandise that are obviously made of recycled-content is essen-
tial for the marketing and selling of these products. Consumer associations can also play a
critical role in promoting and supporting these kinds of purchases. The public sector can
help with a wide range of options such as encouraging research and development ventures,
providing tax incentives, changing national quality standards and requirements and creating
a demand to use these products or conducting greater public relations outreach efforts to
use and market these secondary products (Bilitewski et al., 1994).
Consideration should be given to the market for recyclable materials, future market
trends, and market specifications when planning for the construction and operation of a
successful recycling programme. One of the major steps in a market study is to investi-
gate the current market prices, in this case of recyclable materials that have an economic
value.
The control of the flow of recyclable materials is an issue facing many private sector
enterprises and cities around the world. Therefore, the operators of recycling facilities should
take protective measures since there is a possibility that insufficient quantities of recyclable
materials will be delivered to their facilities. For example, under Florida law, the power
over flow has been granted to local governments to direct the flow of solid waste to resource
recovery facilities and to ensure that these facilities receive an adequate quantity of solid
waste. That law has encountered opposition from the private waste recycling industry and
waste transport companies (Rogoff and Williams, 1999). A similar law, however, seems to
be an adequate solution to the issue of waste flow in this region.
152 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158

4. Cost considerations

The economics of recycling has to be viewed in relation to the cost of alternative waste
management options such as landfilling and incineration. The high relative costs of the
alternatives clearly help recycling. The costs of virgin raw materials, which can be seen
from the perspective of recycling as perfect substitutes for the secondary raw materials is
another important factor for the economic attractiveness of recycling.
In a market economy, the choice between recycled and natural materials depends upon
costs and quality. Many standards and guidelines regard recycled materials as inferior in
quality when compared to virgin materials (Lave et al., 1994) and therefore, purchase of
products made from recycled materials would be considered an investment for the environ-
ment.
In order to gain acceptability for recycled materials in the GCC market, its cost should
be significantly less than the price of the local or the imported materials. Meanwhile, the
cost of such recycled materials should be high enough to make such a business profitable;
therefore, its proposed cost is around half the price of the local or the imported materials.
Actual market values of different materials available in the GCC market are shown in Table 3.
The table shows market prices of different recyclable materials quoted by local buyers.

4.1. Business plan for the Jubail material recovery facility (JMRF)

It is envisioned that the Jubail Material Recovery Facility (JMRF) would be established
by the GCC governments with a main objective being to develop industries to use recycled
materials as their feedstock for the production of various products. The GCC’s govern-
ments should provide the capital investment for the JMRF on an equal basis. Therefore, the
potential profit should be equally distributed among the GCC states. The JMRF will play
the role of a holding company that provides both the required amounts of MSW according
to specifications and standards based on the demand of the recycling industries, and a per-
centage of the required capital investment for developing recycling industries. The JMRF
may invest funds with other companies, such as investment companies or industrial com-
panies, to set up recycling industries in the Jubail industrial area. The GCC’s governments
are expected to play an essential role in the development of policies to facilitate the flow
of recyclable materials from their cities to the JMRF. Moreover, the GCC states may offer
concessions to industries using recyclable materials as the raw material in their production
as an encouragement of and protection for business.

4.2. Spreadsheet model of the recycling plan’s financial projection

Through the use of a spreadsheet model, a financial projection for the recycling plan
was developed, for the GCC’s regional MRF. Table 3 shows the first year financials of
the GCC proposed Regional MRF in Jubail. The spreadsheet (Table 4) helps to clarify the
financial feasibility of regional co-operation in MSW recovery and processing. All of the
GCC’s member states are included in the plan. The spreadsheet presents data on popula-
tion, amounts of MSW generated, prices of recycled materials, transportation, collection
and processing costs, public education programme costs, and revenues from the selling of
 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158
Table 3
Market study for recyclable within the GCC states
Recyclable 1998 price range Offeror 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
($/tonne)
Glass 35–40 Gulf Glass Manufact., Kuwait 35 36 36 38 40 40 42
Aluminium 1000–1200 Saudi Iron Co., Metal recycling 1130 1130 1135 1135 1140 1150 1155
Paper
Corrugated 50–60 Gulf Glass Manufact., Kuwait 55 55 55 50 50 50 55
Newspaper 15–20 AlArfaj Recycling Plant, Kuwait 18 18 18 16 16 16 16
High grade 220–260 Zenath Paper Traders, Dubai 220 230 230 240 250 250 255
Mixeda 65–90 Union Paper Mills, Dubai 65 70 75 75 75 80 85
Plastic
PET 130–150 Alzamel Plastic Co. 130 135 140 140 140 140 145
HOPE 200–220 Saudi & AlArfaj Recycling Plant, Kuwait 200 210 210 215 215 220 220
Mixedb 120–140 Emirate National Plastic, Abu-Dhabi 120 125 125 130 135 135 140
a Mixed paper may contain all the various types of wastepaper mentioned in the table.
b Mixed plastic contains both PET and HOPE.

153
154 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158

Table 4
First year financials of the GCC proposed regional material recovery facility in Jubail
Remarks
Total population @ 3.3% 21,313,483 3.3% annual growth rate
MSW (TPY) @ 3.7% 9,202,788 3.7% annual increase
TPY per capita 0.424495
kg PY per capita 424.495

Assumed percentage of MSW

Average estimated future recyclable (TPY)
Glass 3 232,982 Conservative
Aluminium 2 155,321 assumption of MSW
Paper (mixed) 15 1,164,910 generated amounts by
Plastic (mixed) 7 543,625 GCC states. These
percentages are below
Total 27 2,096,838 the average amounts
generated by the GCC
Annual expected recycled quantities 104,842 states

Average price Achievable price

Average estimated future recyclable (TPY)
Glass 37 40 Provided by
Aluminium 1036 1,000 recyclable materials
Paper (mixed) 60 50 buyers within GCC
Plastic (mixed) 118 100 states

Revenues from recyclable sales ($/year) 10,396,821

Expenses
Transportation/collection 6,821,363
Processing 1,496,306
Administration 12,250,000
Sensitivity analysis
Revenues 25% 28,253,656
Expenses 22,056,268
Sensitivity analysis
IRR 25.28%
NPV 20,148,305
Discount rate 15%

the recycled materials. In this model, some assumptions were made and held constant to
facilitate the calculations. The assumptions are listed below (Table 5).
• Financing: Capital costs were assumed to be interest-free since the governments of the
GCC states were assumed to fund the required capital and share the revenues according
to their contribution of waste to the regional MRF. Therefore, this project is considered
a service provided to the GCC communities rather than an investment based on a set
number of years in which to accomplish a full return of the initial capital expenditures.
Such a return is only valid in the case of the capital spent on the truck-trailers. The rest
 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158
Table 5
Financial model for GCC States MRF in Jubail (sensitivity analysis)
Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Remarks
Revenue
Total revenue ($/year) 28,253,656 27,872,116 28,880,850 29,972,810 31,364,512 49,805,214 62,256,517 Total revenue decreased
by 25%; transportation
increased by 25%
Expenses
Transportation 20,450,548 21,207,218 21,991,885 22,805,585 23,649,391 36,786,628 45,983,285 Initial total capital 12,250,000
Processing 1,507,728 1,510,082 1,512,459 1,514,860 1,517,284 1,519,733 1,522,182 IRR 25.28%
Administration 97,992 100,162 102,397 104,699 107,071 109,513 111,955 NPU 20,148,305
Total expenses 22,056,268 22,817,462 23,606,741 24,425,144 25,273,747 38,415,875 47,617,422 Discount rate 15%
Net income 6,197,388 5,054,654 5,274,109 5,547,666 6,090,766 11,389,339 14,639,095 Initial net income (−13,475,000)
(1) Mixed paper may contain all the various types of wastepaper mentioned in the table. (2) Mixed plastic contains both PET and HOPE.

155
156 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158

Table 6
Average distances between some of GCC cities and the proposed MRF in Jubail
City Distance (km)
Dubai 2000
Doha 2200
Manama 1000
Kuwait 500

of the expenditures were assume to be financed using a conventional 7% discount rate

over 15 years for the processing equipment, office buildings and storage construction.
• Offsets: Offsets, such as the landfill savings to each GCC state, were not recommended
for use in this analysis because of the inaccuracies that might occur when constructing the
determination of the true waste-per-tonnes cost of landfill at each of the GCC’s landfills.
• Collection: Bimonthly pickups from all the proposed drop-off centres within the GCC
(mainly within the city limits of the capitals of each of the GCC states) to the regional
MRF in Jubail, Saudi Arabia was assumed. The average estimated distance between
the capital cities of the GCC states and the proposed MRF in Jubail, Saudi Arabia, is
1500 km. Table 6 shows the estimated distances between some major GCC cities and
Jubail, Saudi Arabia.
• Transportation: Transportation costs were based on the best quotes provided by local
trucking companies operating in Kuwait. The quotes were compatible with those from
other GCC states obtained in a later stage of the analysis through personal and phone
contacts. The cost of transporting a tonnes of recyclable materials from within the city
limits of each of the GCC states to the proposed MRF in Jubail, Saudi Arabia, is on
average US$ 30.45 per tonne.
• Processing: Processing costs for the GCC’s regional MRF were based on the cost of
equipment. In this case, it is the cost of balers since the MRF will perform the required
separation and classification of the waste according to the buyers’ specifications. The
basic assumption in this case is that several balers will be needed to process the recy-
clable materials into 1-m3 bundles to be picked up by interested buyers. Moreover, it
was assumed that the cost of the required conveyors and forklifts for the processing are
included in the cost of the balers. The numbers, types and capacities of the balers and
conveyor belts will be determined by the operating team, which will process recyclable
materials for a test period and monitor the processing to determine whether or not suf-
ficient recyclables can actually be collected through the various drop-off centres within
the GCC states.
• Maintenance: Maintenance is assumed to be 20% of the total cost of ownership, in the
case of the truck-trailer and is based on the total cost of the trucks available for service
per year. This percentage also covers the spare parts required for the fleet per year. The
maintenance cost for the equipment in the processing unit was based on 4% of the baler’s
annualised cost.
If we consider year 2004 as a typical example, the proceeding computations coupled of
Table 7 show that the total revenue is US$ 62,256,517, while the total expenditure adds
up to US$ 47,617,422, including transportation costs of US$ 45,983,285, processing costs
 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158 157

of US$ 1,522,182, and administration costs of US$ 111,955. Thus, the net profit would be
US$ 14,639,095. Moreover, the share of the profit (if divide evenly) of each state within
the GCC would be more than 2.4 million US dollars. Table 7 also shows that the profit
typically increases from 1 year to the next. In review of such significant amounts involved,
cost analyses needs to be done with some care. Ultimately, the GCC states should consider
developing and implementing a solid waste material recovery facility as soon as possible.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The study of regional approach concluded that there is sufficient evidence, both practical
and financial, to indicate that a co-operative regional program is feasible for the GCC states.
A regional recycling program would minimise costs while providing a foundation of support
to the states’ objective for meeting future recycling goals. The advantages of recycling are
extensive:

• Conservation/preservation of precious land areas, which soon will be in demand for city
expansion;
• Cost effectiveness of using recycled products;
• Savings in transportation of both building waste and raw materials;
• Improving the general environmental status.

However, certain issues should be dealt with in order to succeed:

• Clear regulations and rules should be set from each GCC Municipality to allow and
persuade industries on using such recycled products;
• Public awareness for product applications through seminars and programs presented by
expert speakers;
• Recycling programs should be commercially promoted by private and public authorities;
• Research institutions should contribute in developing the field of waste recycling;
• Location of the recycling plant should take into consideration environment, pollution and
safety factors;
• Extensive testing should be implemented to ensure structural stability and safety for use
of recycled products;
• Recycled product prices should be low compared to newly imported/produced material
to encourage the construction industry in applying recycled products.

Considering both economical and environmental factors, it should be possible to reuse

and recycle approximately 90% of the waste material. However, at present only a small
part is being reused in the GCC. All public and private agencies should take appropriate
measures to encourage:

• Prevention and reduction of waste production, particularly by the development of cleaner

technologies and reuse of waste;
• Establishment of disposal and recycling facilities;
• Management and planning of waste handling.
158 J.M. Alhumoud / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank the Municipalities of the GCC for their co-operation and
support and the insightful reviewers of the paper.

References

Agunwamba JCDK, Ukpai, Onyebuenyi IC. Solid waste management in Onitsha, Nigeria. Waste Manage Res
1996;16:23–31.
Alam I. Waste management and recycle in the city of Jeddah. Vice Mayor for Services. Saudi Arabia: Jeddah
Municipality, Ministry of Municipal & Rural Affairs; 1997.
Al-Hasawi H. Investigation of municipal solid waste management in GCC states. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Striling, UK; 1999.
Alhumoud JM. Solid waste management in Kuwait. J Solid Waste Technol Manage 2002;28(2):47–55.
Anwari MAG. Domestic solid waste management in the state of Qatar. Workshop on Solid Waste Management;
1997.
Bilitewski B, Hardtle G, Marek K. Waste management. Berlin: Springer; 1994.
Ebreo A, Vining J. Motives as predictors of the public’s attitudes toward solid waste issues. Environ Manage
2000;25(2):153–68.
Environmental Protection Agency. Solid waste document (89-072)—decision maker’s guide to solid waste man-
agement. Washington, DC, USA; 1989.
Final Report Municipality of Dhofar, Oman. Best alternatives available for municipal solid waste disposal. Munic-
ipality of Dhofar, Dhofar, Sultanate of Oman; 1994.
Haque A, Mujtaba IM, Bell JNB. A simple model for complex waste recycling scenarios in developing economies.
Waste Manage 2000;20:625–31.
Kdo M. The economic effects of paper waste—a proposal for considering paper waste recycling a national objective.
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Middle East Centre for Consultancy; 1997.
Khan MZA, Burnet FA. Forecasting solid waste composition—an important consideration in resource recovery
and recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 1989;3:1–17.
Koushki PA, Alhumoud JM. Evaluation of reported and measured compositions of household solid waste in
Kuwait. Practical periodical of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste management. ASCE 2002;6(3):204–8.
Podar M. New opportunities for re-use/recycling of wastes—the Yorktown refinery experience. In: Proceedings
of Symposium on Environmental Planning and Development; 1993. p. 264–71.
Rogoff M, Williams J. The waste hurdles. American City & County; 1999 January. p. 46–52.
Shea CP. Getting serious in Germany. EPA J 1992;18(3).
WHO. Solid waste management in some countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Amman, Jordan: World
Health Organisation, Centre for Environmental Health Activities (CEHA); 1995 [Special Studies Report SS-4].
Zhang JG. Present situation and future reduction strategy of municipal refuse in China. Res Environ Sci
1996;7(6):42–5.

Further reading

Final Reports Environmental Health Department of the Central Municipal Council of Bahrain. Physical compo-
sition and characteristics of municipal solid waste in Bahrain. Central Municipal Council; 1987 and 1989
[internal reports].
Steiner M, Partl H. MSW composting in the Arabian region. BioCycle 1997:53–4.