IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON

MSc EXAMINATION 20XX

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

This paper also forms part of the relevant examination for the
Diploma of Imperial College

CIVE70050 – Environmental Management in Developing Countries

SOLUTIONS

Day: May 20XX Duration: l h

Answer TWO questions

All questions carry equal marks

Please answer each question in a SEPARATE answer book

© 20XX Imperial College London

CIVE70050 – EE Page 1 of 12
 Q1
a)
Steps to take:

- Consider the source water available and determine if it: (5 marks)

i. is adequate (quantity) water supply for whole community
ii. provides a reliable source of water
iii. is suitable quality
iv. is suitably located
v. has potential to be protected
- Consider the recommended level of treatment for the type of water source (at
least 2 examples from ground and/or surface water) (5 marks)

Type of water source Recommended level of treatment

Groundwater
1) Protected, deep wells; essentially free of faecal Disinfection (if monitoring shows presence of E. coli or
contamination faecal coliforms)
2) Unprotected, shallow wells; faecal contamination Filtration and disinfection

Surface water

1) Protected, impounded upland water; essentially free Disinfection

of faecal contamination
2) Unprotected impounded water or upland river;
faecal contamination
3) Unprotected lowland rivers; faecal contamination
4) Unprotected watershed; heavy faecal contamination
Filtration and disinfection
Pre-disinfection or storage, sedimentation, filtration,
disinfection
Pre-disinfection or storage, sedimentation, filtration,
additional treatment and disinfection

b) The student should mention: (10 marks)

- Community-led solutions
- Affordability
- Maintainability / Sustainability
- Equity
- Cultural preferences / anal cleansing methods
- Latrine emptying and faecal sludge management
- Onsite versus offsite – availability of sewers, cost, ground type, water availability
- Toilet selection – mention the sanitation ladder

CIVE70050 – EE Page 2 of 12
Q2
a) (2 marks per skill/experience including reason – 10 marks total)
Skill Experience Reason
Counselling, negotiating and Working with community groups, To foster behavioural change and
sales skills individuals and/or families to to obtain buy in to required
understand cultures and religion, change as a result of
educational needs and implementing improved
social/economic requirements infrastructure
Teaching skills Helping families and communities To aid the understanding of why
to better understand personal and change is desirable and the
community health skills. Addressing benefits it can bring
open defecation.
Technology: ability to devise Delivery of water supply networks Ensuring the appropriate local
and implement appropriate and sanitation systems, e.g. latrines infrastructure is developed that
technology at a local scale at a local scale. Recognising the support local society and
making maximum use of local need for gender separation. economy
resources and to support the
local economy
Technology: Ability to devise Experience of delivery a local water Ensuring that the wider
and implement appropriate distribution systems and regional environmental impacts are
water resource strategies and waste water treatment and disposal properly addressed
waste water collection and facilities
disposal in an environmentally
sustainable way
Finance: Understanding Experience of the development of Ensuring appropriate finances are
financial and business models financial proposals for acquiring available to implement
for investment and operation of external investment and robust infrastructure and sustain it in the
water and waste water systems local pay by use systems long term
at scale
Governance: removing Experience of advising Removing inappropriate barriers
regulatory barriers and national/regional governments on to development. Ensuring proper
implementing incentive implementing infrastructure governance of the process to
schemes avoid corruption and exploitation
Note that skills and experience do not have to be separated in any particular way in the
answer.
b)
Physical facilities (5 marks)
1. Demarked area for open defecation away from shelters and food facilities
2. Pit latrines associated with groups of tent accommodation, separate facilities for
men and women.
3. Areas demarked for moving pit latrines when full and infilling to protect health. Note
that emptying of pit latrines and disposal off site is not an option (no offsite disposal
facilities available). On site disposal may be a possibility but would need adequate
separation from the rest of the camp and provision for protecting public health.
4. Washing facilities associated with tent accommodation, to consist of standpipe and
drain to ground
5. Washing facilities associated with food facilities, to consist of standpipe and drain to
ground
6. Wastewater collection from food preparation if required, drained to ground
CIVE70050 – EE Page 3 of 12
Other requirements (5 marks)
1. Education programme for aid agency staff on site so each person understands how the
different facilities are to work
2. Education for refugees on use of facilities especially to ensure the proper boundaries
of open defecation and assured and to allow for effective gender segregation in using
facilities
3. Education programme to encourage use of put latrines rather than open defecation.
4. Collection and disposal of solid waste from food production if required (Optional
additional mark for this)

CIVE70050 – EE Page 4 of 12
Q3

a) (10 marks in total – 1 mark for each main point listed below)
I am asking for five to encourage them to think and to display their understanding, rather than
simply to copy parts of the presentations – answers are spread out over most of the two
lectures so will be easy if they have recently revised, trickier if they are relying more on
copying out an answer. There are at least ten recommendations that would be defensible –
the most important thing is that they can provide one or two sentences to explain/ justify
each one. Having said that, I would hope that most students would include the first three
points on improving the ‘physical’ waste management system (I summarized this as the three
components of ‘what needs to be done’) plus at least one of the ‘governance’ points (‘how to
do it’); if more than one of those four points are missing, you may wish to mark them down.
As to the top priority, for me it would be extend collection to all, but any of the top four would
be fine if cogently justified.
1. Extend collection to all. The key issue is likely that of public health and waste
collection - extending collection coverage to all areas of the city (including unplanned
/ illegal settlements) and preventing littering, illegal dumping and open burning, which
cause childhood illness (both twofold increase in diarrhoea and a sixfold increase in
acute respiratory infections from open burning), blocked drains, infectious diseases
and flooding - as well as accounting for a sizeable proportion of total plastic wastes
entering the ocean. This is Global waste target 1, and the first part of SDG indicator
11.6.1.
In Part B, I explored solutions. So, some may pick that up and provide
recommendations on how to extend collection. Points might include saving money by
making the current service to 50% of the city more efficient, by eliminating multiple
manual handling of the waste, ensuring low loading heights on vehicles and keeping
vehicles on the road through good maintenance; and extending services to hard to
reach slums/ shanty towns / peri-urban areas by working with local communities and
the informal sector to establish primary collection services using small vehicles’ that
can access narrow unmade lanes (e.g. using hand-, bicycle- or animal carts or
wheelbarrows).
2. Controlled disposal. Also important is improving the environmental quality of disposal
– eliminating uncontrolled disposal (dumping) and open burning (which is emerging
as a global issue alongside marine plastics – a neglected source of global heating (via
black carbon emissions). A key priority will be to close (or upgrade) the two existing
large open dumps, replacing them with controlled disposal facilities. This is Global
waste target 2, and the second part of SDG indicator 11.6.1.
Again, in Part B, I explored solutions. So, some may pick that up and provide
recommendations on how to upgrade sites, or the basic principles of operational
control for a ‘controlled disposal’ site. I quote the ‘3Cs’ – contain the freshly deposited
waste within a small, defined area; compact to reduce void space and cover regularly,
which together should eliminate fires, flies and rats and minimize odour, windborne
litter and birds. A parallel measure is to reduce slope gradients to eliminate the risk of
fatal landslips.
3. Build on existing informal recycling systems. The city already has an active informal
collection and recycling sector, which is likely achieving respectable recycling rates (in
CIVE70050 – EE Page 5 of 12
 range 10-30%) at no cost to the city. By working with them to integrate better with
the city services, and to improve their access to clean source separated wastes (some
itinerant waste buyers already collect door-to-door), microfinance, schooling for their
kids and health insurance, the city can increase recycling rates further, reduce their
own costs and help the informal sector to improve both their livelihoods and their
living conditions. If people can make a livelihood from separating and recycling plastic
wastes, that provides a strong ‘pull factor’ to keep it out of the oceans.
Again, I introduce a framework for designing a balanced intervention for inclusion/
integration of the informal sector. Some interventions are required form each of four
categories: measures on organization and empowerment, and the three interfaces
between the informal recycling sector and the formal SWM system, the materials and
value chain into which they sell their products, and society as a whole. Key
interventions which fall within all of the interfaces include easy access to the waste,
and to source-separated waste.

Governance. A sustainable solution will require attention to all of the ‘governance’

aspects. Technical solutions on their own generally fail. Three main ‘governance factors’
(‘how to do it’) are introduced in the lectures: These include (each one would count as a
separate point or recommendation).
4. Financial sustainability is particularly important and is likely to work strongly against
most imported (particularly the more ‘high-tech’) technologies. Per capita budgets for
waste management are low and inadequate for modern Western SWM systems – of
the order of 1-4$ per capita per year in low-income and $10 in lower-middle-income
countries (like this one), compared to $75-100 in high income countries – but often
represent a higher % of net income than in the West. Cost recovery and affordability
is important - everyone will pay something when they can see the benefits, which in
practice means primary waste collection to keep the area around their homes clean
and their kids healthy. Another key constraint is access to capital for investment.
5. Involving all the stakeholders. In particular:
➢ user inclusivity, involving the users as the clients for the SWM service -
what sort of a system do they want and are prepared to pay for? I
highlighted the behavior change required to make system improvements,
including public education & awareness (does it happen?) and its
effectiveness in achieving the desired behavior change. Also, the level of
public involvement, e.g. in siting new facilities and in SWM planning;
particular mention was given to citizens committees and participatory
planning.
➢ Provider inclusivity. Involving both public sector and formal and informal
private sector service providers in service planning and delivery. The keys to
making public-private partnerships work are competition, transparency
(level playing field - lack of corruption) and a balanced partnership
(reasonable terms of performance, adequate contract duration, regular and
punctual payments). Need to build capacity in the local microenterprise
sector(including NGOs, CBOs and the informal sector)
6. Sound institutions and pro-active policies. For waste management to work well, the
city also needs to address underlying issues relating to management structures,
CIVE70050 – EE Page 6 of 12
 contracting procedures, labour practices, accounting, cost recovery and corruption.
Clear budgets and lines of accountability are essential.
➢ I divide this into two parts, the first being the adequacy of the national
framework for SWM. Criteria here are legislation and regulations; strategy/
policy; guidelines and implementation procedures; national level policy
institution; regulatory control; and extended producer responsibility (EPR).
➢ Of these, introducing EPR and placing (some of) the responsibility and the
financial costs back on the producers, particularly the large multinationals
responsible for much of the plastic packaging that is leaking into the ocean,
could be justified as a priority.
➢ The second is the degree of local institutional coherence at the city level.
Criteria here are: organizational structure; institutional capacity; city-wide
SWM strategy and plan; availability and quality of SWM data; management
control and supervision of service delivery; and inter-municipal (or regional)
co-operation.
➢ Of these better data could easily be elevated to a key issue in its own right.
If you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it. It is important to understand
the existing system - to have good data on waste generation and
composition, collection coverage, leakages from the system, controlled
disposal, on the existing recycling system and on costs.
➢ Ditto, the need to build the capacity of the institutions and of the people
involved.
7. Waste quantities in the city are likely to be increasing quickly, and budgets already
stretched to the limit. So, reducing the growth in waste quantities, and increasing the
quantities recycled, are key issues so as to free up funds for extending collection and
eliminating uncontrolled dumping.
8. An early step is to prepare a strategic plan for improving SWM in an integrated and
sustainable way, focusing on both the physical (collection, disposal and recycling) and
the governance aspects. Participative planning is important, working closely with all
the stakeholder groups, including households, businesses and both formal and
informal sector service providers and recyclers.
9. An important technology to consider at some point is composting (or anaerobic
digestion), taking advantage of the fact that local municipal solid waste (when they
get around to measuring the composition) is likely to contain ~60% by weight of
organic (i.e putrescible food or garden) waste. If separated at source, small or medium
scale community composting can be relatively low cost and produce a good-quality
compost for use as a soil conditioned by local people and by farmers. Separating ‘dirty’
organics from ‘clean’ dry recyclables also makes dry recycling easier and the materials
better quality, thus helping informal recyclers to work in cleaner condition, earn more
money and educate their kids.
Note: One of the global waste targets I showed is to move beyond controlled disposal to
fully controlled, environmentally sound management (ESM) facilities that meet modern
Western environmental standards. For a city with 50% collection coverage, disposal at
uncontrolled sites (with one permanently on fire) and weak governance structures, this is
a longer term target. If it is highlighted in that context, then it gets a ‘tick’. If however it is

CIVE70050 – EE Page 7 of 12
 presented as a short term priority, to the exclusion of the points above, then it may
suggest a lack of understanding.

b) (10 marks in total – 1 mark for each main point listed below)

This is a more discrete question, corresponding both to an explicit learning objective and
to a set of four slides in my second lecture. I have pasted these at the end for your easy
reference. Both the 12 GIZ assessment criteria and the IGES necessary pre-conditions to
be met prior to considering such a project use a traffic light coding system – any red light
indicates the answer ‘No’ (i.e. work to ensure that this criterion is met before beginning
to consider the project further). For the IGES matrix, I marked four key criteria with an
asterisk – I have included both my slide and an original paste from the source document
below – the former indicates the asterisked criteria, the latter is readable so that you can
see all of the red-highlighted criteria which the students may copy out. Again, there are
at least ten criteria that could be highlighted – the most important thing is that they can
provide one or two sentences to explain/ justify each one they select; and that they do
not pick out all the positive criteria and ignore the ‘red flags’. Personally, my
recommendation to the Mayor would be tell vendors ‘Thanks, but no thanks’. But a
recommendation to the Mayor to ask the vendors to come back later, or to help in
ensuring that some of the pre-conditions are met, could show both good understanding
and political nous ….

Key criteria (pre-conditions to be met, red flags) which would indicate to me that
incineration is not currently appropriate or sustainable include:

1. Is there a basic solid waste management system in place and working? Are waste
collected from 100% of the population and are all wastes managed in controlled
recovery or disposal facilities? This means meeting SDG indicators 11.6.1. For this
city, with 50% collection and two uncontrolled disposal sites, one on fire, the
answer is clearly ‘No’.
2. Will the waste burn unsupported? No specific information in my background
(they don’t have the data), but for a low-middle income city in the tropics, 60% of
waste is likely to be organic (i.e putrescible food or garden waste), making the
moisture content high (even more so in the wet season) and the calorific value
low. So energy efficiency is likely to be low; supplementary fuel may even be
needed. Answer – iffy at best.
3. Will it compete with existing recycling systems? IGES specify that residents must
separate their wastes at source, with all recyclable materials going to recycling
(arguably including organics to composting or AD), and only residual wastes to
incineration. A further concern is that the relatively low CV (above) may incentise
the operator to target higher CV paper and plastics, thus actively competing with
the informal recyclers (and by burning plastics, increase the fossil component of
the electricity generated). Answer to the IGES question is a clear ‘No’.
4. Is it affordable? Both capital and operating costs are high. 50% of each should be
down to the high spec emission controls required to meet modern standards – air
CIVE70050 – EE Page 8 of 12
 pollution from incineration has been a problem in the past, but the problem has
been solved by technology – at a cost. Even a grant funded high-tech system is
likely not to work if the city cannot afford to pay for operating and maintenance
costs. In this city we are told the budget is tight even for the current inadequate
system, and we would expect affordability to be a significant constraint in a in a
low-middle income country. So again, a clear ‘No’.
5. Is the legal framework in place? Another IGES red flag, another pre-condition not
met.
6. Is the system for environmental regulation up to the job of ensuring that the
process is operated cleanly and safely? Given the financial benefits to the operator
of skimping on emission control costs, either by not installing the right equipment,
or saving money by only switching it on when they have prior information that the
inspector is due to visit, this to me is one of the key issues. Sort of in the published
criteria, but not very explicit – UN and government organisations are nervous to
use the ‘corruption’ word …. We are told that the national regulatory agency is
not yet fully in place, so again the answer is ‘No’.
7. Is WtE part of a high-level strategic plan? Linked to the other questions, does this
this fit into the long term vision for hos the SWM system is going to evolve over
the next 10-20 years? Again, the national strategy is not yet in place, and no
mention of one at the local level. So ‘No’.
8. Is the local institutional capacity in place? Not very explicit in the decision guides
(IGES does have local procurement procedures open to possibility of WtE). The
city needs to have a strong SWM department, led by experienced SWM
professionals, who can engage consultants to prepare a detailed feasibility study,
prepare tenders documents and oversee a transparent bidding process. For this
city, the one professional has recently left, so again this is a clear ‘No’.
9. Will the local public accept an incinerator? IGES has two pre-conditions, that local
residents understand incineration and the air pollution issues, and that political
leaders are supportive. Given global anti-incineration networks, local opposition
is inevitable. No specific local information given on this but could be an issue.
___________________________________________________________________________

CIVE70050 – EE Page 9 of 12
CIVE70050 – EE Page 10 of 12
CIVE70050 – EE Page 11 of 12
CIVE70050 – EE Page 12 of 12