The discussion of this paper commenced on October 3 with the welcome message
by session chair Andreas Behnsen, and ceased on October 27 when the last
contribution was recorded. Unfortunately, the lead author, Inge Lardinois,
was not available to react to the questions. Co-author Rogier Marchand did
his best to answer the queries, although in a few instances, he confessed to
a lack of intimacy with the data presented in the paper. Apart from the
co-author and the chair persons, seven people contributed questions and
comments to the discussion. At this point, I like to thank them for their
participation. They were Jacky Foo, Odin Olaya, Gisele Yasmeen, Christine
Furedy, Chris Zurbrugg, Roberto Raga and Robert Deutsch.

The following facts summarize the data presented in this paper.

MSW in Asian countries contains from 70 to 85 weight percent organics, dirt
and dust. Western composting technologies were unsuccessful in the Asian
countries studied. Medium size composting facilities integrated into waste
management sites were reported to be successful. Composting was presented as
an option to divert waste from landfills and to reuse natural materials. The
data came from three composting projects, namely KCDC at 27 t/d compost from
mixed MSW with a 3-4 weeks maturation period, Terra Firma at 9 t/d compost
from vegetable market refuse using verms with a 1.5 to 2 months maturation
period, and AWARE at 3 t/d compost from shredded separated organic waste
supplied by markets with a 30 days maturation period.

The confrontation of operating costs excluding collection with sales prices
asked for, was as follows with quotations in USD: KCDC 41.55 against 48.70,
Terra Firma 137.88 against 394.70, AWARE 108.71 against 118.30. All financial
data referred strictly to operating aspects of present facilities. No
opportunity costs were considered. The co-author was not always able to
supply precise information on data collection and on material balances
requested by debaters.

The ensuing discussion was very rich in terms of additional information
extrapolating the content of the paper. Personally, I enjoyed this discussion
more than any previous one I attended, because it evolved around general
management principles and aspects. It did not get stuck with strictly
technical details. I came away with the personal conclusion that we
desperately need appropriate accounting tools to correctly cope with the cost
of MSW management. The simple statement of investment and operating costs of
waste handling facilities is a reactive way of deriving sales prices and
decide on economic return. My own conviction that only proactive opportunity
cost accounting will lead us significantly beyond to-day, has been confirmed.
I am quite happy about this fact, as it will supply me with research topics
for many years to come.

Having the privilege of closing this event, I would like to recall the two
ideas brought out in the discussion that struck me most. They might provide
food for thought to all participants, such that this discussion will linger
on in our minds for some time.

The first idea refers to the financial viability of landfills, mentioned by
Rogier Marchand. I believe there is a tremendous misinterpretation of the
term financial viability. What are we referring to? I content that we may
call the private company who operates the landfill on behalf and on the
expense of the municipal administration, a financially viable enterprise. A
landfill itself can never be financially viable.

The second idea refers to wet-dry source separation of MSW, mentioned by
Christine Furedy. She stated that it failed in India because it has to be
done by domestic servants, and because more than 600 M people are difficult
to reeducate to put the idea into practice. Although both arguments are
strong and valid, this brings us to a point in the discussion where we leave
the technical aspects of composting in particular and of waste handling in
general, and enter the topic of sustainable life as such. 600 M people at
only 0,8 kg each, produce 480 kt/d of MSW, and this only in India. If nothing
has been done about it in the past 20 or 30 years, how can we expect to solve
the problem now in a few months with a few isolated projects? According to my
perspective, some time very soon we will have to choose between the financial
burden of educating or reeducating those 600 M people in India, and the other
5000 M in the rest of the world, and the social burden of having all arable
land occupied by landfills. Here lies the basic premises of opportunity cost accounting.

Personally, I am familiar with this line of reasoning, because I have lately
been involved in developing management models for drinking water in the Third
World. The prospect is exactly the same: or we are able to educate 6000 M
people to use the water efficiently, or else there will be no water to drink.

Sorry, I started out with closing a discussion on composting economics, and
ended up talking about sustainability and education. The terrible thing about
environmental management is that those topics are all interrelated. It is not
always possible to separate them. Thank you all for this extremely enjoyable
and thought provoking debate.

Manfred Fehr, Brazil,
fehrsilva@talk21.com, co-chairperson